Macdonald v R [2024] NSWCCA 198

Macdonald v R [2024] NSWCCA 198

The Court found that the test applied by the trial judge regarding 'driving force' was more favourable to Mr Macdonald than the test now advocated, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred. There was no substantive distinction between 'motivation' and 'purpose' in the context of the offence. The findings of guilt were supported by the evidence, including the applicant's disregard of departmental advice, the benefit to DCM and Mr Maitland, the lack of a competitive process, and the significant value of the resource. The sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the conduct and the nature of the office held.

Parties
Appellant: Ian Michael Macdonald; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted on grounds 3-7 (refused on grounds 1 and 2); appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Wilful Misconduct in Public Office, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Judicial Directions, Purpose Vs Motivation, Ministerial Discretion
Criminal Law Wilful Misconduct in Public Office Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Judicial Directions Purpose Vs Motivation Ministerial Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Michael Macdonald

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in directing himself on the test for wilful misconduct in public office (ground 1)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge conflated 'purpose' and 'motivation' (ground 2)
  3. 3 Whether factual findings regarding failure to seek advice and options for tender were erroneous (grounds 3 and 4)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the test applied by the trial judge regarding 'driving force' was more favourable to Mr Macdonald than the test now advocated, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred. There was no substantive distinction between 'motivation' and 'purpose' in the context of the offence. The findings of guilt were supported by the evidence, including the applicant's disregard of departmental advice, the benefit to DCM and Mr Maitland, the lack of a competitive process, and the significant value of the resource. The sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the conduct and the nature of the office held.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted on grounds 3-7 (refused on grounds 1 and 2); appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal, confined to grounds 3-7, and refuse leave to appeal in respect of grounds 1 and 2.
  • Appeal dismissed.