Section 178A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (now repealed) did not require the Crown to prove that the terms on which money was received required payment to a specifically identified person; it was sufficient to prove that the terms required the money to be paid towards a particular venture or purpose. The decision confirms the approach in Sinanovic v R. Separately, the loss of a tactical advantage (such as having a count withdrawn due to a defective indictment) does not constitute prejudice amounting to a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of opposing an amendment to an indictment. On sentencing, delay is a mitigating factor but the onus is on the offender to establish its specific consequences, and a sentencing judge is not required to apply a specific discrete discount for delay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.