HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

                                                  The Queen

                                                      Vs.

                                              Barbara Beckett

                                               [2015] HCA 38

                                                (Sweeney CJ)

                                                 23.10.2015

                                               JUDGEMENT

Sweeney CJ

1. Today the High Court unanimously allowed an appeal against orders of the Court of
Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales ("the CCA") that permanently
stayed the prosecution of the respondent for an offence under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900
(NSW) ("the Act"). The High Court set aside the orders of the CCA, enabling the prosecution
of the respondent to proceed.

2. The respondent is a solicitor who was approved by the Chief Commissioner of State
Revenue to electronically lodge certain tax returns and payments, including stamp duty. She
was authorised to stamp transfers of real property using accountable stamps on the condition
that the duty payable in respect of a transfer was available to her prior to processing the
relevant transaction online. On 11 June 2010, the respondent stamped a transfer and
completed an online assessment of duty payable for the conveyance of a unit. The duty was
not paid to the Office of State Revenue ("OSR"), to which it was payable.

3. As part of the OSR's investigation into the outstanding duty, the respondent attended a
compelled interview conducted by investigators from the OSR. It is alleged that, during the
interview, the respondent produced photocopies of two forged bank cheques and made false
statements to the investigators, with a view to concealing the true facts and thereby
preventing her prosecution for one or more offences under taxation law.

4. Section 319 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to do any act, or make any
omission, intending in any way to pervert the course of justice. The respondent was arraigned
in the District Court of New South Wales on an indictment which charged her with an
offence under s 319. By notice of motion dated 4 December 2013, the respondent sought to
quash the indictment or to stay the proceedings against her permanently. The respondent
contended that there was no "course of justice" in existence at the time of the impugned
conduct, that is, during the interview. Sweeney DCJ dismissed the respondent's motion. Her
Honor held that a prosecution for an offence under s 319 could be maintained
notwithstanding that no judicial proceedings had been commenced at the time of the
impugned conduct. The respondent appealed to the CCA on numerous grounds. The CCA
determined that Sweeney DCJ was wrong to conclude that the s 319 prosecution could
proceed. Their Honours held that the impugned conduct occurred before the jurisdiction of a
court or competent judicial tribunal was invoked and was, therefore, incapable of constituting
an offence under s 319. The prosecution for the s 319 offence was permanently stayed and
the respondent's other grounds of appeal were dismissed. By grant of special leave, the
appellant appealed to the High Court. The Court unanimously allowed the appeal, holding
that an act done before the commencement of judicial proceedings may constitute an offence
contrary to s 319 where it is done with intent to frustrate or deflect the course of judicial
proceedings that the accused contemplates may possibly be instituted. Liability for the
offence hinges on the intention to pervert the course of justice and not upon the perversion of
a course of justice already in existence.

5. This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be
used in any later consideration of the Court's reasons.