Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Determined (QCA)

R v Maudsley[2021] QCA 268

Reported at (2021) 9 QR 587
CITATION: R v Maudsley [2021] QCA 268
JUDGE(S): McMurdo JA, Daubney J, Boddice J
DELIVERED ON: 07 December 2021
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    R v Maudsley

  • Shortened Case Name:

    R v Maudsley

  • Reported Citation:

    (2021) 9 QR 587

  • MNC:

    [2021] QCA 268

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    McMurdo JA, Daubney J, Boddice J

  • Date:

    07 Dec 2021

  • Selected for Reporting:

    Editor's Note

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary JudgmentDC558/19 (No citation)30 Jul 2021Date of conviction of misconduct in relation to public office; tried by Lynch QC DCJ and jury; council employee misrepresented that fill delivered by friend’s company delivered on council’s behalf, attracting reduced rate; trial judge ruled that existence of dishonest intent sufficed regardless of whether accused would have engaged in conduct anyway; Crown case that accused motivated in part to assist friend’s company; defence case that accused acted only to expedite restoration of council land.
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2021] QCA 268 (2021) 9 QR 587; (2021) 293 A Crim R 29007 Dec 2021Appeal against conviction allowed, conviction quashed, retrial ordered; per curiam, that jury should have been directed that accused’s dishonest intent must have been causative in the sense that, but for it, the ‘authority of office’ would not have been exercised as it was; per Daubney and Boddice JJ, McMurdo JA contra, that a properly-instructed jury could conclude that accused would not have facilitated dumping of fill on preferential terms but for his dishonest intent.

Appeal Status

Appeal Determined (QCA)

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.