14 Nov 2017
The Court held that s105(2) is satisfied by proof that the accused corruptly gave benefits with intent to influence acts or omissions in the official's capacity; no additional element that the accused intended the official to act improperly is required. On the facts the corrupt payments and sham arrangements established intent to influence and convictions and sentences were upheld.
1 Sept 2016
Starting point set at three years and nine months imprisonment based on prolonged seven-year offending, sums received ($103,580), senior public position and potential systemic harm; reduced by 11 months for significant assistance, seven months for guilty pleas, and a further six months for good character and remorse to an effective one year nine months, which the Court converted to home detention; final orders imposed ten months home detention on each representative charge with standard s80C conditions.
27 Oct 2011
Section 103(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 encompasses the corrupt acceptance of substantial benefits whether provided before or after the relevant official acts so long as the recipient accepted them 'corruptly' (i.e. knowingly in connection with the official acts); token, de minimis gifts are excluded; the trial Judge's directions were correct and the convictions stand.
6 Jul 2007
Leave under s103(3) requires the High Court to perform a non‑trivial screening exercise: the applicant must present evidence showing the prosecution is proper and in good faith and there are no obvious legal or evidential defects or improper motives; this standard is higher than mere reasonable suspicion but lower than the committal requirement of evidence sufficient to put the defendant on trial.