Pride v The Queen [2010] NSWDC 191

Pride v The Queen [2010] NSWDC 191

Section 135.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) does not create a relevant obligation, and the Court Attendance Notices disclosed no offences known to law. The appellant could not be convicted by omission where no statutory or common law duty exists.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Local Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside.
Legal Topics
['fraudulently Obtaining Financial Advantage From Centrelink' 'omission to Report Changed Circumstances' 'interpretation of S 135.2 Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth)' 'doctrine of Precedent']
['criminal Law'] ['fraudulently Obtaining Financial Advantage From Centrelink' 'omission to Report Changed Circumstances' 'interpretation of S 135.2 Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth)' 'doctrine of Precedent']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Local Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 135.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) creates an offence by omission' 'Whether conviction for failing to report changed financial circumstances is known to law without legal duty imposed by statute']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 135.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) does not create a relevant obligation, and the Court Attendance Notices disclosed no offences known to law. The appellant could not be convicted by omission where no statutory or common law duty exists.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Conviction and sentence set aside.']