Samoilenko v McDonald

The applicant, Rita Nyjole Samoilenko, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision concerning her conviction under section 28(1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act. The respondent was Allan Mitchell McDonald. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of this section, particularly in circumstances where evidence was gathered using agents provocateurs.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant had a sufficiently arguable ground of appeal, which hinged on the proper construction of section 28(1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act. This section criminalises the receipt of money paid in a brothel in respect of prostitution. The applicant contended that previous interpretations of this provision, which assumed the receipt and payment of money were correlatives of a single transaction, were flawed.

The applicant's argument focused on challenging the established judicial interpretation that the "receipt" of money under section 28(1)(b) necessarily implied an intention to possess and that the payment and receipt were inextricably linked. The applicant argued that this assumption, which had influenced prior judgments, was incorrect and that the legislature intended to capture individuals, such as investors or entrepreneurs, who benefited financially from brothel operations, irrespective of whether they were directly involved in the specific transaction of receiving payment for prostitution. The court was therefore required to consider whether this established interpretation was legally sound.