R v Tkacz

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.