Oldfield, M. & Ors v Cahill, J. [1987] FCA 76

Oldfield, M. & Ors v Cahill, J. [1987] FCA 76

There is no evidence that any suggestion of loss or disadvantage by the defendant was in consideration of or because of the prosecutors' support for Mr. McCarney or opposition to Mr. Croan. The evidence supports allegations of suggested loss or disadvantage to induce support, not on account of support or opposition as laid in the charges. Accordingly, the elements of s. 171(2)(a)(iii) are not made out on the present evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Close of Prosecution Case; Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Further hearing adjourned to allow parties to make submissions on amendment of informations under s. 21A of the Crimes Act 1914.
Legal Topics
['registered Organisations' 'union Elections' 'election Offences' "interpretation of 'on Account Of'" 'mens Rea Requirement']
['industrial Law' 'criminal Law'] ['registered Organisations' 'union Elections' 'election Offences' "interpretation of 'on Account Of'" 'mens Rea Requirement']

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

Criminal / Close of Prosecution Case; Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether 'on account of' in s. 171(2)(a)(iii) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 refers to intended consequences tied to support or opposition of a candidate" 'Whether proof of mens rea is required for offences under s. 171(2)' 'Whether inconsistencies in witness accounts warrant a finding of no case to answer' "Whether loss or disadvantage must be actionable or related to the accused's powers" 'Whether refusal to support is equivalent to opposition for purposes of the provision']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence that any suggestion of loss or disadvantage by the defendant was in consideration of or because of the prosecutors' support for Mr. McCarney or opposition to Mr. Croan. The evidence supports allegations of suggested loss or disadvantage to induce support, not on account of support or opposition as laid in the charges. Accordingly, the elements of s. 171(2)(a)(iii) are not made out on the present evidence.

Court Disposition

Further hearing adjourned to allow parties to make submissions on amendment of informations under s. 21A of the Crimes Act 1914.

Orders

  • ['The further hearing of the matters is adjourned until 10.15am on Monday 23rd February 1987 at Sydney.']