R v Maudsley

Case [2021] QCA 268

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Maudsley [2021] QCA 268

PARTIES:

R
v
MAUDSLEY, Craig Kelvin
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 207 of 2021
DC No 558 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction: 30 July 2021 (Lynch QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 November 2021

JUDGES:

McMurdo JA and Daubney and Boddice JJ

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal be allowed.

2.   The conviction be quashed.

3.   There be a new trial.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – DUTIES AND OFFENCES IN RELATION TO OFFICE – OFFENCES – MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE – where the prosecution’s case was that the appellant had acted with intent to dishonestly gain a benefit for another person or to dishonestly cause a detriment to another person – where the appellant argued that the proper construction of s 92A of the Queensland Criminal Code requires the prosecution prove that, absent the relevant improper purpose or intention, the officer would not have acted as they did – where the trial judge ruled that there was no such requirement – whether s 92A imports a requirement of causation, whereby an offence is only committed if the officer would not have acted a certain way, but for, an improper purpose or intent

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the trial judge directed the jury that the appellant’s guilt could be established if they found that the appellant held a dishonest intent at the time of his acts – whether the judge properly directed the jury

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellant was an employee of a local council – where the appellant was in a senior position – where the appellant oversaw the restoration of land – where the council entered into an agreement with a private company such that the private company was to source and manage the emplacement of fill at a disused mine site – where the appellant facilitated the dumping of fill by another company – where that company represented, on the appellant’s instruction, that the fill was coming from a council job – where the cost of that fill was charged to the council and at reduced rate – where there was evidence that the appellant was anxious to expedite the restoration of the land – whether a properly instructed jury could have, beyond reasonable doubt, excluded the possibility that the appellant would have acted the same way without an improper purpose

Criminal Code (Qld), s 1, s 92A

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
Maitland v R; Macdonald v R (2019) 99 NSWLR 376; [2019] NSWCCA 32, considered
Question of Law Reserved (No 2 of 1996) (1996) 67 SASR…

Continue reading R v Maudsley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Maudsley [2021] QCA 268
Case
[2021] QCA 268
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, an employee of a local council, was charged under section 92A of the Queensland Criminal Code for misconduct in public office. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had facilitated the dumping of fill by another company, representing that the fill was from a council job, and that this was done with intent to dishonestly gain a benefit for another person or to cause a detriment to another person. The appellant contested the charge, arguing that the section requires the prosecution to prove that, absent the improper purpose or intention, the officer would not have acted as they did.

The primary legal issue in the appeal was whether section 92A of the Queensland Criminal Code requires the prosecution to prove a causal link between the improper purpose or intent and the officer's actions, such that an offence is only committed if the officer would not have acted in a certain way but for the improper purpose or intent. The appellant contended that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by not requiring such causation to be proven. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge's direction to the jury, that the appellant's guilt could be established if they found that the appellant held a dishonest intent at the time of his acts, was correct.

The court held that the trial judge had erred in not requiring the prosecution to prove causation as part of the offence under section 92A. The court found that the proper construction of the statute does necessitate such a causal link. Consequently, the jury's direction was misaligned with the legal requirements of the statute. Moreover, the court found that the jury, properly directed, could not have reasonably concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant would not have acted in the same way without an improper purpose, given the evidence of the appellant's anxiety to expedite the restoration of the land.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and a new trial be held. The reasoning was that the trial judge's misdirection on the legal requirements of section 92A and the potential reasonable doubt regarding causation amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The case was remitted for a new trial to ensure that the jury is properly instructed on the elements of the offence and the requirement for causation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The conviction be quashed.

3. There be a new trial.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.