Beacham v Christiansen - [2016] WASC 346

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: BEACHAM -v- CHRISTIANSEN [2016] WASC 346

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 21 OCTOBER 2016

DELIVERED : 31 OCTOBER 2016

FILE NO/S: SJA 1034 of 2016

BETWEEN: DAVID ARTHUR TERENCE BEACHAM
Appellant
AND
PAUL CHRISTIANSEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE A J MAUGHAN
File No  :PE 7688 - 7696 of 2016, PE 7726 - 7758 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Failing to give a document to Commissioner of Taxation - 42 offences - Fines totalling $30,000 - Whether manifestly excessive - Whether magistrate erred in taking into account general deterrence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), s 8C

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr L Glenn

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Budget Nursery Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1989) 42 A Crim R 81
McMillan v Bierwirth (1987) 49 SASR 403
Vlahov v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1993) 26 ATR 49
Weng Keong Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
BEECH J:

Introduction

On 1 April 2016 Mr Beacham pleaded guilty to 42 charges of failing to give a document to the Commissioner of Taxation when and as required pursuant to a taxation law. Nine of those charges related to Mr Beacham's failure to provide personal income tax returns for the nine financial years ending 30 June 2006 to 30 June 2014 (inclusive). For those offences, the magistrate imposed a global fine of $7,500. The other 33 charges related to Mr Beacham's failure to lodge quarterly business activity statements for 33 quarterly periods. The magistrate imposed a global fine of $22,500 in relation to those offences.
Mr Beacham appeals against the fines on the grounds that they were excessive and that the magistrate erred in saying the fine needed to be a deterrent to others. For the reasons that follow, I would not grant leave to appeal, and would dismiss the appeal.

The charges and the facts

The charges alleged offences under s 8C(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (the Administration Act). That section provides that a person who refuses or fails, when and as required under or pursuant to a taxation law to do so, to give any information or document to the Commissioner commits an offence.
As at June 2015, Mr Beacham had not lodged personal income tax returns for the 15 financial years ending 30 June 2000 to 30 June 2014. By notice dated 5 June 2015 issued under s 162 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (the Assessment Act), the Commissioner required Mr Beacham to lodge the income tax returns on or before 17 July 2015.
Charges PE 7688 ‑ 7696 of 2016 related to Mr Beacham's non‑compliance with that notice by failing to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beacham v Christiansen

Details

AGLC: Beacham v Christiansen [2016] WASC 346
Case: [2016] WASC 346
Decision Date: 31 OCTOBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Beacham v Christiansen involved the appellant, Beacham, who was found guilty of 42 offences related to failing to provide a document to the Commissioner of Taxation. The appellant was sentenced to fines totalling $30,000. Beacham appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate had erred in considering general deterrence when determining the penalty. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate and whether the magistrate had applied the correct legal principles in sentencing.

The court considered the severity of the offences, the appellant's culpability, and the need for general deterrence. The court also examined whether the magistrate had appropriately exercised discretion in imposing the sentence. The court noted that the offences were serious, involving a significant failure to comply with tax obligations. However, the court also recognised that the appellant had shown remorse and had made efforts to rectify the situation. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the magistrate had appropriately considered the need for general deterrence when imposing the penalty.

The court found that the magistrate had exercised their discretion appropriately and had not erred in their consideration of general deterrence. The court emphasised that the imposition of a penalty that serves as a general deterrent is a legitimate consideration in sentencing. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's culpability. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence imposed by the magistrate.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of fines totalling $30,000 was upheld. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the penalty.

Orders