Where dishonesty is charged under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the jury must be directed in accordance with the two-limb test in s 130.3, requiring proof both that the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people and that the defendant knew it to be so. The formulation 'did not believe she was entitled' is not equivalent to 'knew she was not entitled' and intermingling the two on a central issue constitutes a miscarriage of justice. The meaning of 'in respect of' in the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) bulk billing provisions remains contested, with the three judges reaching different conclusions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.