Kasprzyck v Chief of Army [2001] ADFDAT 5
The convictions were quashed because the appellant had parted with possession of the property before any investigation, there was no basis for a reasonable suspicion of dishonest appropriation (as required for 'unlawfully obtained'), and in the absence of dishonesty, the behaviour was not likely to prejudice the discipline of the Defence Force under s 60.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 10 September 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; convictions quashed and penalties set aside.
- Legal Topics
- ['property Offences' 'possession of Unlawfully Obtained Property' 'military Discipline' 'prejudicial Behaviour']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether s 46(1) of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 requires possession at the time of suspicion, investigation or charge' "Whether 'unlawfully obtained' in s 46(1) includes only dishonest conduct analogous to theft" 'What constitutes behaviour likely to prejudice the discipline of the Defence Force under s 60']
Ratio Decidendi
The convictions were quashed because the appellant had parted with possession of the property before any investigation, there was no basis for a reasonable suspicion of dishonest appropriation (as required for 'unlawfully obtained'), and in the absence of dishonesty, the behaviour was not likely to prejudice the discipline of the Defence Force under s 60.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed and penalties set aside.
Orders
- ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The convictions are quashed and the penalties set aside.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment