The Queen v Olbrich

The Queen prosecuted Mr Olbrich, who was charged with two counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception contrary to s 170 of the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic). The dispute concerned whether Mr Olbrich had acted dishonestly in obtaining financial advantages from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia on appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the proper interpretation of the word "dishonestly" in the context of the offence of obtaining financial advantage by deception. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the jury had been correctly directed on the meaning of dishonesty, and whether the trial judge’s directions had adequately conveyed the relevant legal standard to the jury.

Gaudron and Hayne JJ, in a joint judgment, held that the jury had been misdirected. They explained that the test for dishonesty in this context was an objective one, requiring the jury to consider whether the accused's conduct was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people. This objective standard was to be applied to the facts as the jury found them to be. Their Honours referred to the established common law principles concerning dishonesty, which require an assessment of the accused's knowledge and intention, but ultimately focus on whether their actions would be regarded as dishonest by ordinary members of the community. The jury’s verdict was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.