Macleod v the Queen

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGLEESON CJ,McHUGH, GUMMOW, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJROBERT JAMES MACLEOD  APPELLANTANDTHE QUEEN RESPONDENTMacleod v The Queen [2003] HCA 247 May 2003S86/2002ORDERAppeal dismissed.On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South WalesRepresentation:P L G Brereton SC with J C Papayanni for the appellant (instructed by Jeffreys & Associates)T A Game SC with D Jordan for the respondent (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSMacleod v The QueenCriminal law – Property offence – Fraudulent application of company property by director or officer – Accused also sole beneficial shareholder of company – Whether consent of accused, as sole shareholder, cures what would otherwise be a breach by accused, as director or officer, of s 173, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).Criminal law – Property offence – Fraudulent application of company property by director or officer – Directions – Whether trial judge misdirected jury in failing to identify the use of dishonest means as an essential element of s 173, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – Whether trial judge erred in failing to direct that it was necessary for accused to have realised that his impugned conduct was dishonest by the current standards of ordinary, decent people.Words and phrases – "fraudulently", "claim of right".Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4(1), 173.GLEESON CJ, GUMMOW AND HAYNE JJ.   This appeal from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal[1] concerns an offence created by State law which...