R v Tkacz

Case [2001] WASCA 391

R -v- TKACZ [2001] WASCA 391



(2001) 25 WAR 77
SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2001] WASCA 391
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:105/200119 OCTOBER 2001
Coram:MALCOLM CJ
ANDERSON J
EINFELD AJ		6/12/01
29Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed, order quashing indictment set aside and case remitted to District Court for trial
A
PDF Version
Parties:THE QUEEN
MICHAEL TKACZ

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Miscellaneous offences and matters
Whether respondent a "public officer" as defined in s 1(1)(d) of the Criminal Code (WA)
Respondent an employee of University established as a body corporate by statute
Whether respondent an employee of a "corporation ... established under a written law"
Respondent employed as Telecommunications Manager inter alia to purchase mobile telephones and make them available to certain employees of the University
Indictment alleged that respondent being a public officer without lawful authority or excuse acted corruptly in his office or employment so as to gain a benefit

Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA) s 1(1), s 83, s 614
Curtin University of Technology Act 1966 (WA) s 1, s 5, s 7

Case References:
Cohns Industries Pty Ltd v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 24 ALR 658
Corporation of Hyde v Bank of England (1882) 21 Ch D 176
Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99
Evans v Friemann (1981) 53 FLR 228
Ex parte Zietsch; Re Craig (1944) 44 SR (NSW) 360
Hepples v Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 22 FCR 1
R v McCann [1998] 2 Qd R 56
YZ Finance Company Pty Ltd v Cummings (1963) 109 CLR 395
Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- TKACZ [2001] WASCA 391 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
    ANDERSON J
    EINFELD AJ
HEARD : 19 OCTOBER 2001 DELIVERED : 6 DECEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 105 of 2001 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
    Appellant

    AND

    MICHAEL TKACZ
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law - Miscellaneous offences and matters - Whether respondent a "public officer" as defined in s 1(1)(d) of the Criminal Code (WA) - Respondent an employee of University established as a body corporate by statute - Whether respondent an employee of a "corporation ... established under a written law" - Respondent employed as Telecommunications Manager inter alia to purchase mobile telephones and make them available to certain employees of the University - Indictment alleged that respondent being a public officer without lawful authority or excuse acted corruptly in his office or employment so as to gain a benefit



(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA) s 1(1), s 83, s 614


Curtin University of Technology Act 1966 (WA) s 1, s 5, s 7


Result:

Appeal allowed, order quashing indictment set aside and case remitted to District Court for trial




Category: A


Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr R E Cock QC
    Respondent : In person


Solicitors:

    Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
    Respondent :…

Continue reading R v Tkacz

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tkacz [2001] WASCA 391
Case
[2001] WASCA 391
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, an employee of a university established as a body corporate by statute, was charged with a corruption offence under section 1(1)(d) of the Criminal Code (WA). The charge arose from the respondent's actions in purchasing and making available mobile telephones to certain employees of the university, without lawful authority or excuse. The respondent contended that he was not a "public officer" as defined in the Code, arguing that he was an employee of a corporation established under a written law, rather than a public officer. The court was required to determine whether the respondent was a public officer for the purposes of the criminal offence.

The court considered whether the respondent, as an employee of a university established as a body corporate by statute, was a public officer within the meaning of section 1(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. The court examined the definition of "public officer" and whether it included an employee of a corporation established under a written law. The court also considered the nature of the respondent's employment and the duties he performed, including his role in purchasing mobile telephones and making them available to certain employees of the university. The court found that the respondent was not a public officer for the purposes of the criminal offence.

The court held that the respondent was not a public officer as defined in section 1(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. The court found that the respondent was an employee of a corporation established under a written law, rather than a public officer. The court also found that the respondent's employment did not include the exercise of public functions or duties that would make him a public officer. The court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the order quashing the indictment and remitted the case to the District Court for trial.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the order quashing the indictment be set aside and the case be remitted to the District Court for trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed, order quashing indictment set aside and case remitted to District Court for 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.