Crough v The King - [2025] VSCA 165

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0051

BLAKE CROUGH	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT	3 July 2025
DATE OF REASONS:	8 July 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 165
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	CDPP v Crough [2023] VCC 2439 (Judge Dalziel)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Charges of attempting to obtain and obtaining a financial advantage from Commonwealth entity – Whether sentencing error caused by imposition of complete cumulation between two individual sentences – Error conceded – Appeal allowed – Applicant resentenced.

---

Counsel
Applicant:	Ms F Fox
Respondent:	Ms S Clancy
Solicitors
Applicant:	James Dowsley & Associates
Respondent:	Mr M de Crespigny, Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BOYCE JA:

Introduction

The applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (‘Criminal Code’).[1] The applicant also pleaded guilty to two charges of attempting dishonestly to obtain a financial advantage by deception contrary to ss 11.1(1) and 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code.[2] The applicant was sentenced as follows:
[1]Charge 2 on the indictment.
[2]Charges 1 and 3 on the indictment.

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Attempt to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity	10 years	2 years and 6 months	Commencing 21 December 2024
2	Dishonestly obtain a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity	10 years	12 months	Commencing 21 December 2023
3	Attempt to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity	10 years	1 year and 3 months	Commencing 21 June 2024
Total Effective Sentence:		3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		2 years and 3 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		8 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		5 years’ imprisonment and a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Reparation in the sum of $34,988.95 to be paid to the Registrar of the County Court.

The applicant has two proposed grounds of appeal. Those proposed grounds are in the following terms:
Ground 1: The learned sentencing judge erred in imposing a sentence on charge 1 which involved no concurrency with the sentence on charge 2, thus offending the principle of totality.
Ground 2: The individual sentences, orders for cumulation, total effective sentence and non-parole period are manifestly excessive.
The respondent concedes that proposed ground 1 has been made out and material error established. According to the respondent this Court must exercise the sentencing discretion afresh. For reasons that appear below, we accept this concession. It will be unnecessary for us to consider proposed ground 2.

The offending

The offending covered by charges 1 and 2 related to the applicant’s lodgement, or amendment after lodgement, of 17 individual income tax returns with the Australian Taxation Office (‘ATO’). These returns covered various financial periods between 2005 and 2018 (inclusive).…

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 Crough v The King

Details

AGLC: Crough v The King [2025] VSCA 165
Case: [2025] VSCA 165
Decision Date: 3 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Crough v The King, the applicant appealed against his sentence for charges of attempting to obtain and obtaining a financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity. The dispute centred around the sentencing process, specifically the imposition of a sentence that was deemed to have been incorrectly calculated by the trial judge. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had erred in law by imposing a complete cumulation between the two sentences for the separate charges. The applicant argued that the trial judge should have applied concurrent sentencing rather than cumulative sentencing. The court was required to determine whether this error was a significant one that warranted the appeal being allowed.

The court found that the error in the sentencing was significant and that the imposition of complete cumulation between the two sentences was indeed a legal error. The trial judge had failed to consider the appropriate principles of concurrent sentencing, and this resulted in an excessive sentence being imposed on the applicant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the applicant was resentenced by the court. The new sentences were to run concurrently, reflecting a more appropriate application of the sentencing principles.

The final orders of the court involved the resentencing of the applicant, with the new sentences for the charges of attempting to obtain and obtaining a financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity to run concurrently. The court's decision provided clarity on the appropriate application of sentencing principles in cases involving multiple charges and highlighted the importance of correctly calculating sentences to avoid legal errors.

Orders