The elements of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office do not require: (a) agreement as to specific unlawful acts to be undertaken; (b) each conspirator to agree to perform an unlawful overt act; (c) proof that the public officer would not have acted 'but for' the improper purpose; or (d) agreement that the conduct was serious and meriting criminal punishment. The creation of a conflict between self-interest and public duty constitutes the element of misconduct, and causation in the 'but for' sense is not an element. In unreasonable verdict challenges in judge-alone trials, where specific factual errors are alleged but not made out, there is no obligation on the appeal court to review the whole judgment to determine whether it entertains a reasonable doubt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.