Bahntoff v The Queen

[1999] HCATrans 275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M55 of 1998

B e t w e e n -

JULIAN MARK BAHNTOFF

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 1999, AT 12.15 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   This matter is to be determined without oral argument and the Court is now in a position to give judgment on the application.

The only ground of appeal raised in the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence of the applicant was manifestly excessive.  The applicant pleaded guilty to counts of defrauding the Commonwealth involving $322,945 and of attempting to defraud the Commonwealth of amounts involving $400,596.  He also pleaded guilty to breaches of orders made pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act (1987) and to an offence against the Financial Transaction Reports Act (1988).  The many offences committed by the applicant were the product of much ingenuity and planning.  In addition, the offences against the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Financial Transaction Reports Act were committed while on bail for the earlier offences.  A total of 49 offences was involved.

The criminal enterprise commenced within days of the applicant being released from gaol for other crimes of dishonesty.  The scale of the fraud increased with the success of the enterprise, and the applicant had 35 previous convictions before embarking on the criminality for which he was sentenced.  The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to sentences in other cases but the Court of Appeal pointed out that the facts of the case are “fortunately very different from those that more commonly come before the courts”. 

Having regard to the criminality involved and the applicant’s history, we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal.  None of the other matters raised by the applicant warrant the grant of leave.  The application is dismissed.

AT 12.17 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED