DOCSLIB.ORG

Misconduct in Public Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Misconduct in Public Office Misconduct in public office Standard Note: SN/PC/04909 Last updated: 21 October 2009 Author: Lucinda Maer Section Parliament and Constitution Centre This Note briefly sets out the history of the common law offence of ‘misconduct in public office’. It looks at recent use of the offence in prosecutions and considers proposals to place the offence on a statutory footing. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Contents 1 Misconduct in public office - historical background 3 2 The offence today 3 3 Proposals for a statutory offence 5 4 Recent use 7 4.1 Introduction 7 4.2 Statistics on use of the offence 8 4.3 The arrests of Damian Green and Christopher Galley and the subsequent decision not to prosecute 12 2 1 Misconduct in public office - historical background Misconduct in public office is a common law offence. The offence is said to date back to the case of R v Bembridge in 1783. The defendant in this case was an accountant in the office of the Receiver and Paymaster General of the Forces. He was accused of corruptly concealing from his superior his knowledge that certain sums of money had been omitted in the final accounts. The judge in the case, Lord Mansfield QC, stated: The duty of the defendant is obvious; he was a trustee of the public and the Paymaster, for making every charge and every allowance he knew of… if the defendant knew of the omission… and if he concealed it, his motive must have been corrupt. That he did know was fully proved, and he was guilty, therefore, not of an omission or neglect, but of a gross deceit. The object could only have been to defraud the public of the whole, or part of the interest…a man accepting an office of trust, concerning the public, especially if attended which profit, is answerable criminally to the King for misbehaviour in his office; this is true by whomever and in whatever way the officer is appointed. However, as pointed out in the book Corruption and Misuse of Public Office: …even before Bembridge, the common law sought to criminalize the public officer who had the benefit of the privileged position of occupying a public office, but who failed to discharge his duties truly competently and for the public good. Thus, a constable who failed to act in accordance with his duty as an officer of the Crown was criminally liable in Makally’s Case (1611) whilst in Crouther’s Case (1600) a constable was prosecuted having refused to make a ‘hue and cry’ after being informed of a burglary.1 2 The offence today Details of the offence are set out in November 2007 guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): Principles The elements of misconduct in public office are: a) A public officer acting as such. b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself. c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder. d) Without reasonable excuse or justification. Who is a Public Officer? In Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA 868, it was put to the Court of Appeal, but not argued as part of the substantive appeal, that public functions are now frequently carried out by employees in private employment, e.g. security at courts and transport of prisoners, and that it was unfair and illogical if those holding public office, such as police officers, were to be liable to conviction of an offence not applicable to private employees doing similar work. Having not heard argument on the point, this may present problems of definition", which they declined to elaborate upon. 1 Colin Nicholls QC et al, Corruption and Misuse of Public Office, 2006, p66 3 the Court stated as follows (Para 62): "This potential unfairness adds weight, in our view, to the conclusion that the offence should be strictly confined but we do not propose to develop the point or to consider further the question of what, for present purposes, constitutes a public office." So who holds a public office and as a result can be guilty of this offence? According to the Court of Appeal, which quoted from the earlier authorities, it requires that the defendant "must be a public officer acting as such .... There must be a breach of duty by the officer, [which is wilful and which is such that the conduct is] an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder" (Para 56). And later, quoting from the case of Bembridge [(1783) 3 Doug KB 32], "those who hold public office carry out their duties for the benefit of the public as a whole and, if they abuse their office, there is a breach of the public's trust" (Para 57). Charging Practice Like perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office covers a wide range of conduct. It should always be remembered that it is a very serious, indictable only offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A charge of misconduct in public office should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or deliberate failure to perform a duty which is likely to injure the public interest. Before deciding to proceed with a charge of misconduct in public office you should consider whether the acts complained of can properly be dealt with by any available statutory offence. If the seriousness of the offence can properly be reflected in any other charge, which would provide the court with adequate sentencing powers, and permit a proper presentation of the case as a whole, that other charge should be used unless: • the facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers would be inadequate; or • it would ensure the better presentation of the case as a whole; for example, a co-defendant has been charged with an indictable offence and the statutory offence is summary only. In R v Sookoo (2002) TLR 10/4/02 the Court cautioned against adding a count of perverting the course of justice when the conduct could properly be treated as an aggravating feature of a statutory offence. Similar reasoning should be applied to the charging of misconduct in public office. So for example, an assault by a police officer committed while on duty could also arguably be misconduct in public office, but the appropriate assault charge would provide the court with adequate sentencing powers and the ability to take into account the breach of trust by the officer as an aggravating factor [see R v. Dunn [2003] 2 Cr.App.R.(S)].2 There is also a tort of misfeasance in public office, which is a civil wrong. This has been defined in the leading case of Three Rivers D.C. v Bank of England (no 3).3 Lord Steyn explained that there were two different forms of the tort: First there is the case of targeted malice by a public officer i.e. conduct specifically intended to injure a person or persons. This type of case involves bad faith in the sense of the exercise of public power for an improper or ulterior motive. The second form is where a public officer acts knowing that he has no power to do the act 2 http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/index.html 3 [2000 ] 2 W.L.R. 1220 4 complained of and that the act will probably injure the plaintiff. It involves bad faith inasmuch as the public officer does not have an honest belief that his act is lawful.4 In such a civil case, a person injured by the action would need to begin proceedings. Archbold 2008 notes the Attorney General case of 2004 where it was held that the tort is committed by a public officer acting as such who wilfully neglects to perform his duty or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse in the public’s trust in the office holder. However, the court noted that the threshold was high.5 3 Proposals for a statutory offence In 1997 the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended a statutory offence be created, partially to replace the proposed abolition of surcharge in local government: 15. A common law offence of 'misconduct in a public office' exists at present, and prosecutions are still undertaken from time to time. We believe that the new statutory offence should be developed from the common law offence. 16. Discussing the common law offence in its consultation paper on corruption, the Law Commission described it as 'wide-ranging and ill-defined'. It appears to be treated as a general description of a series of reprehensible acts or omissions by those exercising authority.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Year of Criminal Appellate Decisions
    A Year of Criminal Appellate Decisions The Honourable Justice R A Hulme 14 August 2019 CONTENTS SCOPE OF PAPER .................................................................................................................................................. 6 APPEALS ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Tendency evidence – determination of whether there is significant probative value is a matter for the appellate court ................................................................................................................................................ 6 The Court of Criminal Appeal does not have jurisdiction under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to entertain an appeal against a judge’s refusal to disqualify him/herself ......................................................... 6 Overcoming the principle of double jeopardy by overturning an acquittal ................................................... 6 “Conviction” in s 5(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 includes where a guilty verdict has been returned but no formal conviction has been entered ............................................................................................................... 7 A principal protected confider has standing to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in relation to the sexual assault communications privilege ........................................................................................................ 8
    [Show full text]
  • Pearson Edexcel International Advanced Level Law YLA1 Paper 2 the Law in Action Question 1 Exemplar Scripts with Examiner Commentaries
    Pearson Edexcel International Advanced Level Law YLA1 Paper 2 The Law in Action Question 1 Exemplar scripts with examiner commentaries Issue 1. June 2017 examination series Introduction This set of exemplar responses with examiner commentaries for IAL Law, Paper 2, The Law in Action, has been produced as additional guide to support teachers delivering and students studying the International Advanced Level Law specification. The scripts selected exemplify performances in this paper in the June 2017 examination series and indicate standards expected to achieve the different levels of award. Paper 2 assesses Law in action in the A Level Law specification and is split into five questions. Questions can cover a diverse range of issues. Except for questions 1 and 5-part (a) and (b) questions test students’ knowledge, understanding and application of the law. All other questions require students to analyses and often evaluate a problem using their knowledge and understanding of appropriate legal principles. The exam duration is 3 hours. The paper is marked out of 100 and is worth 50% of the qualification. The command words used are defined in the Getting Started Guide and the Sample assessment materials. They will remain the same for the lifetime of the specification. Questions will only ever use a single command word and command words are used consistently across question types and mark tariffs. This document should be used alongside other IAL Law teaching and learning materials available on the website here. The IAL Law Mark Scheme for the June 2017 examination series is here on the website for reference. IAL Law Paper 2 - The Law in Action (YLA1/02) Exemplar 1 – Question 1(a) 1(a) Failure to provide a breath sample to the police is a crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law
    Questions & Answers CRIMINAL LAW Ninth edition Mike Molan Professor of Legal Education and Executive Dean, Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences, London South Bank University http://www.pbookshop.com 2014 and 2015 1 000-Molan-FM.indd0-Molan-FM.indd iiiiii 112/2/132/2/13 111:041:04 AAMM 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Mike Molan 2014 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Sixth edition 2008 Seventh edition 2010 Eighth edition 2012 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Public sector information reproduced under Open Government Licence v1.0 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm) Crown Copyright material reproduced
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION of HUMAN RIGHTS Application No
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 23452/94 Mulkiye Osman and Ahmed Osman against the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 1 July 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-19) . 1 A. The application (paras. 2-4) . 1 B. The proceedings (paras. 5-14). 1 C. The present Report (paras. 15-19) . 2 II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 20-80). 3 A. Particular circumstances of the case (paras. 20-71) . 3 B. Relevant domestic law and practice (paras. 72-80) . .10 III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 81-140) . .13 A. Complaints declared admissible (para. 81) . .13 B. Points at issue (para. 82) . .13 C. As regards Article 2 of the Convention (paras. 83-103). .13 CONCLUSION (para. 104). .21 D. As regards Article 8 of the Convention (paras. 105-108) . .21 CONCLUSION (para. 109). .22 E. As regards Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 110-130) . .22 CONCLUSION (para. 131). .28 TABLE OF CONTENTS page F. As regards Article 13 of the Convention (paras. 132-135) . .28 CONCLUSION (para. 136). .28 G. Recapitulation (paras. 137-140) . .29 PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. S. TRECHSEL, JOINED BY MM. E. BUSUTTIL, A. WEITZEL, J.-C. GEUS, I. CABRAL BARRETO AND I. BÉKÉS... .30 PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. L. LOUCAIDES . .33 PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. N. BRATZA, JOINED BY MRS. G.H. THUNE, MRS. J. LIDDY, MM. P. LORENZEN AND K. HERNDL . .35 APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . 39 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptualizing Inchoate Complicity: the Normative and Doctrinal Case for Lesser Offenses As an Alternative to Complicity Liability
    Document1 (Do Not Delete) 5/10/2016 8:15 PM CONCEPTUALIZING INCHOATE COMPLICITY: THE NORMATIVE AND DOCTRINAL CASE FOR LESSER OFFENSES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMPLICITY LIABILITY DENNIS J. BAKER* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 504 II. HISTORY AND DOCTRINE .............................................................. 509 III. THE LETTER OF THE LAW UNDER THE SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2007 .......................................................................................................... 514 IV. RECKLESSLY ENCOURAGING AND ASSISTING SEVERAL AND ALTERNATIVE CRIMES ........................................................................ 532 V. ENCOURAGING AND ASSISTING AN INNOCENT AGENT .................................................................................................................. 537 VI. CAUSATION, ACT CAPABLENESS, AND IMPOSSIBILITY ....... 540 VII. IMPOSSIBILITY AND CAPABILITY ............................................ 552 VIII. WHEN IS TRIVIAL ENCOURAGEMENT CAPABLE OF ENCOURAGING? ................................................................................... 557 IX. ATTEMPTS TO ATTEMPT AND THE SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2007 .................................................................................................................. 566 X. REMOTE ENCOURAGEMENT ........................................................ 575 XI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 586 * (M.Phil., Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecuting Serious Misconduct in Tasmania: the Missing Link
    PROSECUTING SERIOUS MISCONDUCT IN TASMANIA: THE MISSING LINK October 2014 Interjurisdictional review of the offence of ‘misconduct in public office’ The objectives of the Integrity Commission are to – • improve the standard of conduct, propriety and ethics in public authorities in Tasmania; • enhance public confidence that misconduct by public officers will be appropriately investigated and dealt with; and • enhance the quality of, and commitment to, ethical conduct by adopting a strong, educative, preventative and advisory role. © Integrity Commission 2014 www.integrity.tas.gov.au GPO Box 822, Hobart Tasmania 7001 Phone: 1300 720 289 Email: [email protected] Prosecuting serious misconduct in Tasmania: the missing link Interjurisdictional review of the offence of ‘misconduct in public office’ October 2014 Contents Executive summary ......................................................................................... 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4 The elements of the offence ......................................................................... 10 1. A public officer/official ........................................................................................ 12 2. In the course of their public office role ............................................................... 19 3. Acting willfully and intentionally ......................................................................... 22 4. Commits misconduct ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mens Rea - Intention
    Actus reus The actus reus in criminal law consists of all elements of a crime other than the state of mind of the defendant. In particular, actus reus may consist of: conduct, result, a state of affairsor an omission. Conduct - the conduct itself might be criminal. Eg. the conduct of lying under oath represents the actus reus of perjury. It does not matter that whether the lie is believed or if had any effect on the outcome of the case, the actus reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct. Examples of conduct crimes: Perjury Theft Making off without payment Rape Possession of drugs or a firearm Result - The actus reus may relate to the result of the act or omission of the defendant. The conduct itself may not be criminal, but the result of the conduct may be. Eg it is not a crime to throw a stone, but if it hits a person or smashes a window it could amount to a crime.Causation must be established in all result crimes. Examples of result crimes: Assault Battery ABH Wounding and GBH Murder & Manslaughter Criminal damage State of affairs - For state of affairs crimes the actus reus consists of 'being' rather than 'doing'. Eg 'being' drunk in charge of a vehicle (Duck v Peacock [1949] 1 All ER 318 Case summary) or 'being' an illegal alien (R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74 case summary). Omission - Occassionally an omission can amount to the actus reus of a crime. The general rule regarding omissions is that there is no liability for a failure to act.
    [Show full text]
  • Misconduct in Public Office
    Misconduct in public office HC 1027 Law Com No 397 LC 397 Misconduct in public office Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 3 December 2020 HC 1027 © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] ISBN 978-1-5286-2279-0 CCS1120583574 12/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office I The Law Commission The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Green, Chairman Professor Sarah Green Professor Nicholas Hopkins Professor Penney Lewis Nicholas Paines QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Phil Golding. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AG. The terms of this Report were agreed on 6 November 2020. The text of this Report is available on the Law Commission's website at http://www.lawcom.gov.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Gross Negligence Manslaughter by Omission: the Emergence of a Good Samaritan Law? Dr Cath Crosby*
    Gross Negligence Manslaughter by Omission: the emergence of a Good Samaritan law? Dr Cath Crosby* Abstract: There has been much academic debate concerning criminal liability for omissions and the extent to which such liability should be extended. The focus here concerns a recent, unreported, conviction for gross negligence manslaughter which raises the question of how far the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service are willing to blur existing boundaries of omissions liability and the established principles of causation. By scrutinising the current legal duties to act required for such liability to arise in the context of R v Bowditch, it will be demonstrated that we are moving incrementally towards a Good Samaritan law but with an absence of fair warning to guide citizens. Further, it is apparent from this conviction that the restricted principles of causation that apply to actions are not as restrictive when applied to omissions. It is clearly timely for the Law Commission to act to determine appropriate boundaries so that omissions liability complies with the rule of law. Keywords: Gross negligence manslaughter, liability for omission, Good Samaritan law, causation. Introduction. This article aims to examine a recent conviction1 for gross negligence manslaughter which raises issues of legal and moral culpability. Although the conviction received some media coverage, at the time of writing it has not received attention in academic literature. The case highlights a difficulty with the gross negligence manslaughter offence in the context of omissions liability: where did the legal duty to act arise to substantiate a conviction? This analysis will further question the established principles of criminal omissions liability and causation, or lack thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernising the Common Law Offence of Misconduct in a Public Or Judicial Office
    Journal of Politics and Law; Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 ISSN 1913-9047 E-ISSN 1913-9055 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Modernising the Common Law Offence of Misconduct in a Public or Judicial Office Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: September 18, 2014 Accepted: October 18, 2014 Online Published: November 5, 2014 doi:10.5539/jpl.v7n4p46 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v7n4p46 1. Introduction As noted in a number of previous articles,1 much of our criminal law is very antiquated. In part, this is due to many obsolete pieces of criminal legislation - often of great age. Also, there still exist a number of common law offences. These should be modernised and placed in statutory form. In respect of one of these common law offences, this article looks at the offence of misconduct in a judicial - or a public - office. In analysing this offence, regard may be had to the following legal texts: E Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England (1628-41);2 W Hawkins, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (1716-1824);3 M Hale, The History of the Pleas of the Crown (published 1736, written 1640’s);4 W Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-9);5 WO Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors (1819-1964);6 W Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (1822-2014);7 Halsbury, Laws of England.8 It may be noted, in respect of this offence, that - apart from Archbold, Halsbury and Blackstone’s Criminal Procedure9 - modern criminal texts contain no (or very little) analysis of this offence.10 Reference may also be 1 A series of articles by the author has reviewed outdated criminal legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law
    Criminal Law CONTENTS PAGES CHAPTER 1 OUTCOMES 2 INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LAW 3-7 ACTUS REUS 8-16 MENS REA 17-31 STRICT LIABILITY 32-35 INCHOATE OFFENCES 36-45 CHAPTER 2 OUTCOMES 46 NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON 47-57 FATAL OFFENCES 58-68 PROPERTY OFFENCES 69-80 CHAPTER 3 OUTCOMES 81 GENERAL DEFENCES 82-94 OVERVIEW OF POLICE POWERS 95-105 2 Chapter 1 Learning outcomes After studying this chapter you should understand the following main points: þ the principles of criminal liability; þ the general rule in relation to actus reus; þ the rules on causation; þ the different levels of mens rea; and þ what is meant by an incomplete offence and the justification for punishing those that do not complete and offence. 1.1 Introduction to Criminal Law 1. Introduction The criminal law is not just a set of rules; it is underpinned by ethical and political principles created to ensure justice for the individual and protection to the community. If the application of a particular rule to a case results in the acquittal of a dangerous person, or convicts someone that is not dangerous or blameworthy according to ordinary standards, something has gone wrong. Crimes are distinguished from other acts or omissions which may give rise to legal proceedings by the prospect of punishment. It is this prospect which separates the criminal law from the law of contract and tort and other aspects of the civil law. The threshold at which the criminal law intervenes is when the conduct in question has a sufficiently serious social impact to justify the state, rather than (in the case of breach of contract or trespass) the individual affected, taking on the case of the injured party.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Review
    CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW A paper for the District Court of New South Wales Annual Conference 18 April 2017 Justice Peter Johnson 1 This paper is intended to provide an overview of a number of recent decisions of the High Court of Australia, the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the area of criminal law. Decisions of the High Court of Australia Presumption of Doli Incapax 2 Section 5 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 provides for an irebuttable presumption that a child under the age of 10 years cannot be guilty of an offence. For children aged between 10 and 14 years, there is a rebuttable presumption that a child cannot possess the necessary knowledge to have mens rea (doli incapax). Although doli incapax has been the subject of a number of decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal in recent times, it had not been the subject of any recent High Court decision until RP v R [2016] HCA 53; 91 ALJR 248. That case involved alleged offences by a child (aged between 11 and 12 years) against his younger brother (aged six to seven years) being two offences of having sexual intercourse with a child aged under 10 years contrary to s.66A(1) Crimes Act 1900 and one offence of aggravated indecent assault under s.61M(2). 3 At a judge alone trial which was confined to the doli incapax issue, the trial judge found the appellant guilty of these three offences. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court (by majority) quashed the conviction with respect to the s.61M(2) charge but dismissed the appeal against conviction on the s.66A(1) matters: RP v R [2015] NSWCCA 215; 90 NSWLR 234.
    [Show full text]