For a charge of defrauding the Commonwealth under s 29D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the element of deprivation can be satisfied by establishing that a genuine dispute or bona fide claim was resolved by the accused's dishonest conduct, without the prosecution needing to prove that the position adopted (e.g., in a private binding ruling) was arguably incorrect. The 'genuine dispute' test from Kastratovic and Peters applies: it is sufficient that the Commissioner was genuinely asserting a contrary position. Where a committal is found to involve an error of law, s 110(1) of the Justices Act 1902 prevents quashing the committal if sufficient grounds existed before the magistrate to authorise the order free from error.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.