R v Macdonald; R v Maitland (No 8) [2022] NSWSC 1421

R v Macdonald; R v Maitland (No 8) [2022] NSWSC 1421

The element of misconduct in the offences alleged against Mr Macdonald requires more than bare but-for causation. The Crown must prove that the improper purpose was the driving force behind the decision, such that the decision would not have been made but for that improper purpose. The same formulation applies to the elements of the offences alleged against Mr Maitland that depend on proof of misconduct by Mr Macdonald.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal; Wilful Misconduct in Public Office and Accessory Before the Fact / Procedural Ruling in a Judge Alone Retrial on Directions as to the Elements of the Offences
Outcome
Procedural ruling made on the appropriate directions for the element of misconduct.
Legal Topics
['wilful Misconduct in Public Office' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'judge Alone Trial Directions' 'improper Purpose' 'causation' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['wilful Misconduct in Public Office' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'judge Alone Trial Directions' 'improper Purpose' 'causation' 'circumstantial Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Common Law Criminal; Wilful Misconduct in Public Office and Accessory Before the Fact / Procedural Ruling in a Judge Alone Retrial on Directions as to the Elements of the Offences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown can prove the element of misconduct by establishing only that the decision would not have been made but for the improper purpose.' 'Whether the improper purpose must be the driving force, moving cause or real reason for the decision.' "Whether the judge should direct himself to exclude a reasonable hypothesis that Mr Macdonald's decision was made for a permissible purpose of furthering the interests of the State of New South Wales." 'How the element of misconduct should be formulated for the accessory charges against Mr Maitland.']

Ratio Decidendi

The element of misconduct in the offences alleged against Mr Macdonald requires more than bare but-for causation. The Crown must prove that the improper purpose was the driving force behind the decision, such that the decision would not have been made but for that improper purpose. The same formulation applies to the elements of the offences alleged against Mr Maitland that depend on proof of misconduct by Mr Macdonald.

Court Disposition

Procedural ruling made on the appropriate directions for the element of misconduct.

Orders

  • ['For counts 1 and 3 against Mr Macdonald, the judge will direct himself that the Crown must prove that the improper purpose was the driving force behind the decision such that the decision would not have been made but for that improper purpose.' 'That formulation is also appropriate for the offences alleged against...