R v Nuttall

[2010] QCA 64

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Particular grounds of appeal
4. › Improper admission or rejection of evidence
5. › Evidence of acts of co-participant in common purpose
6. › Whether evidence of payer's false accounting admissible to prove recipient's corrupt intent
7. › Whether reasonable grounds for inferring common purpose established
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Particular grounds of appeal
4. › Misdirection and non-direction
5. › Failure to read evidence to jury as requested by defence
6. › Whether failure resulted in miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Particular grounds of appeal
4. › Misdirection and non-direction
5. › Consideration of summing-up as a whole
6. › Whether inaccuracies in schedule provided to jury produced miscarriage of justice
7. › Whether complexity of summing-up produced miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Offences against public justice
3. › Secret commissions
4. › Receipt of secret commission by agent
5. › Meaning of 'corruptly'
6. › Whether recipient believed payer intended payment to influence agent
7. › Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss 442A, 442B, 442M(2)

Quick Take

Evidence of a co-participant's acts in furtherance of a common unlawful purpose (such as false accounting by the payer) is admissible against the recipient of a secret commission to prove corrupt intent, once reasonable grounds for inferring the common purpose are established. The two paths to conviction under ss 442B and 442M(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld) are distinct and both may be left to the jury. A Minister of the Crown who corruptly receives payments over a sustained period commits one of the gravest examples of the offence of receiving secret commissions, justifying the maximum penalty.