Tasmania v Green, Nicholson and White - [2007] TASSC 54

[2007] TASSC 54

CITATION: Tasmania v Green, Nicholson and White [2007] TASSC 54

PARTIES:  TASMANIA (STATE OF)
  v
  GREEN, Bryan Alexander
  NICHOLSON, Guy Ronald Leonard
  WHITE, John Charles

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL
FILE NO/S:  12/2007
DELIVERED ON:  18 July 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 June 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Miscellaneous offences and matters – Bribery and corruption – Doing an act intended to interfere with the free exercise of a Minister's duty and authority – Interference not necessarily improper or wrongful.

Criminal Code (Tas), s69.
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Costello (1984) 3 NSWLR 201; Meissner v R (1995) 184 CLR 132, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [411]

Statutes – Acts of Parliament – Rules of construction – Supplying, omitting and substituting words – Doing an act intended to interfere with the free exercise of a Minister's duty – No basis to import words to qualify interference.

Criminal Code (Tas), s69.
Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas), s8A.
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297; CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Limited (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408; Brennan v R (1936) 55 CLR 253; Network Ten Pty Limited v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (2004) 218 CLR 273, applied.
Thompson v Goold & Co [1910] AC 409, followed.
Aust Dig Statutes [29]

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction practice and procedure – Information, indictment or presentment – Joinder – Joint or separate trials – Effect of embarrassment or prejudice – Joinder of conspiracy count with substantive count.

Criminal Code (Tas), ss69, 297 and 326(3).
R v Moore [1988] 1 Qd R 252; R v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32; R v Pollitt [1991] 1 VR 299, discussed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [726]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  T J Ellis SC and J E Williams
             Bryan Alexander Green:  M Daly
             Guy Ronald Leonard Nicholson:    A G Melick SC
             John Charles White:  D J Porter QC
Solicitors:
             Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Bryan Alexander Green:  Rae and Partners
             Guy Ronald Leonard Nicholson:    FitzGerald & Browne
             John Charles White:  Page Seager

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 54
Number of paragraphs: 67

Serial No 54/2007
File No 12/2007

TASMANIA v BRYAN ALEXANDER GREEN, GUY RONALD LEONARD NICHOLSON and JOHN CHARLES WHITE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD CJ

18 July 2007

The indictment

Each of the three accused was arraigned on an indictment that charged them with one count of interfering with an executive officer, contrary to the Code, s69, and one count of conspiracy to commit the crime of interfering with an executive officer contrary to the Criminal Code, s297. The particulars to the former charge allege that:

"… on or about the 15^th and 16^th day of February 2006 [each of the three accused] did an act, namely entering into a written agreement…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tasmania v Green, Nicholson and White and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] TASSC 54
Decision Date: 18 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tasmania v Green, Nicholson and White, the Tasmanian government sought to prosecute three individuals for engaging in activities that allegedly interfered with the exercise of a Minister's duties and authorities. The defendants were accused of attempting to influence the Minister for State Development through bribes, in an effort to secure a benefit for a company in which one of the defendants held a significant interest. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendants' actions, which involved attempts to interfere with the Minister's functions, constituted the offence of bribery and corruption as outlined in the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the interference had to be improper or wrongful for it to be considered an offence, or if any interference with a Minister's duties sufficed to establish the offence.

The court found that interference with a Minister's duties and authorities, without more, does not necessarily constitute an offence. For bribery and corruption to be established, the interference must be wrongful or improper. The court reasoned that mere attempts to influence a Minister, without any evidence of wrongful conduct or an actual bribe, do not satisfy the elements of the offence. Consequently, the court dismissed the charges against the defendants, concluding that the prosecution had not proven that the defendants' actions were wrongful or improper. The court's decision underscored the necessity of wrongful or improper conduct to establish a bribery and corruption offence under the Tasmanian legislation.

Orders