R v Maudsley

[2021] QCA 268

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Offences
3. › Public Service
4. › Misconduct in public office
5. › Elements of offence under s 92A Criminal Code (Qld)
6. › Whether improper purpose must be causative of the officer's conduct
7. › Whether 'but for' test applies
8. › Criminal Code (Qld), s 92A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Miscarriage of Justice
4. › Misdirection
5. › Direction on elements of misconduct in public office
6. › Whether jury properly directed on causation requirement under s 92A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Verdict Unreasonable or Insupportable Having Regard to Evidence
4. › Whether properly instructed jury could have excluded possibility that officer would have acted same way without improper purpose

Quick Take

Section 92A of the Criminal Code (Qld) requires the prosecution to prove that, but for the officer's improper purpose (intent to dishonestly gain a benefit or cause a detriment), the officer would not have acted as they did. It is not sufficient to prove merely that the officer held a dishonest intent at the time of the acts; the improper purpose must have been causative of the conduct. Where a public officer acts with both a proper purpose and an improper purpose, the offence is only committed if the officer would not have engaged in the same conduct absent the improper purpose.