standards of ordinary people (see R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 at 1064; R v Love (1989) 17 NSWLR 608 at 614; and Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493; [1998] HCA 7 at [9]–[14] (Toohey and Gaudron JJ)).
307 There is no reason for construing "dishonest" in the Act other than in its ordinary sense, which is "dishonest according to ordinary notions" rather than "dishonest in some special sense" (Peters at [15], [18] (Toohey and Gaudron JJ)). That is a question of fact such that in a criminal trial it is for the jury to determine whether the conduct of the accused was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary, decent people (Peters at [18] (Toohey and Gaudron JJ), [86] (McHugh J, Gummow J agreeing)).
308 The Commission's finding of "dishonesty" was made on the basis that, for the purposes of's 8(1)(b), for conduct to be "dishonest", it was necessary that the public official's conduct answered that description according to the standards of ordinary, decent people ([13.371], citing Peters at [18]). It was uncontroversial that by those standards it was not necessary that the person accused of dishonesty appreciate his or her act or omission to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people ([13.371], citing Farah Constructions Pty Limited v Say-Dee Pty Limited (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22 at [173], which in turn cites Macleod v The Queen (2003) 214 CLR 230; [2003] HCA 24 at [36]–[37]). The Commission did not err in proceeding on that basis.
309 Accordingly, this ground of review fails.
Conclusion
310 In the result, each ground of review has been rejected. Ms Berejiklian's application to quash the Commission's findings of "serious corrupt conduct" or to have those findings declared as made without or in excess of jurisdiction should be dismissed, with costs.
311 WARD P: I have had the opportunity to consider the reasons of the majority (Bell CJ and Meagher JA) in draft. As their Honours have made clear, the proceedings before this Court (being an application for judicial review) do not permit a "merits" review of the findings of the respondent (the Commission). Rather, what is contended is that the Commission's findings that the applicant had engaged in serious corrupt conduct were affected by jurisdictional error and errors of law on the face of the record. The applicant seeks an order quashing those findings or declaring that they were affected by jurisdictional error or otherwise not made in accordance with law.
312 For the reasons that follow I have reached a different view as to Ground 1 from that reached by the majority.
313 The background to the matter has been comprehensively set out in the majority judgment as have the relevant statutory provisions.
314 As to Ground 1, I did not understand Senior Counsel for the applicant to be abandoning the written submissions provided before the hearing. Rather, I understood the oral submissions to be emphasising a particular aspect of the applicant's argument that the report entitled "Investigation into the conduct of the then member of Parliament for Wagga Wagga and then Premier and others (Operation Keppel)" (Report) was
