Where an accused is charged with fraud under both s 176A and s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) on identical underlying conduct, acquittals on s 176A counts are not necessarily inconsistent with convictions on s 192E(1)(b) counts, because the different mental and physical elements of each offence may rationally explain the different verdicts. In particular, a jury may entertain a doubt about whether the accused knew the company's interests were imperilled (s 176A) while being satisfied that the accused obtained a financial advantage by deception (s 192E(1)(b)).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.