Legal Research
Cases
Issakidis v The Queen

Issakidis v The Queen

Case [2019] NSWCCA 302 20 December 2019

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Constitutional Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Issakidis v R [2019] NSWCCA 302
Hearing dates: 2 September 2019
Date of orders: 20 December 2019
Decision date: 20 December 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ; Hoeben CJ at CL; Gleeson JA at [1]
Decision:
(1)   Grant the applicant leave to appeal on ground 1 of the notice of appeal.
(2)   Refuse the applicant leave to appeal on ground 2.
(3)   Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Federal Offences – Conspiracy – Dishonestly cause a loss or risk of loss to the Commonwealth – s 135.4(5) Criminal Code - False depreciation claims in company tax returns – Loss to Commonwealth in excess of $100 million

CRIME – Federal Offences – Conspiracy – Dealing with property of a value of $1 million or more believing it to be the proceeds of crime – ss 11.5(1) and 400.3(1) Criminal Code.

CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Whether trial judge improperly applied pressure to jury interfering with free deliberation – s 80 Commonwealth Constitution – Jury notes – Trial judge refused request to adjourn for juror to attend job interview – Trial judge refused request to provide a second letter to juror’s employer.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Commonwealth Constitution – s 80 – Trial by jury – Constitutional contention - Whether trial judge breached s 80 by interfering with jury.
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Admissibility of evidence - Whether evidence of Amended Tax Assessments irrelevant and inadmissible as disclosed opinion of Commissioner of Taxation.
Legislation Cited: Constitution
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Black v R (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017 [2019] HCA 9; (2019) 93 ALJR 424
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
Phan v R [2018] NSWCCA 225
Pratten v R [2014] NSWCCA 117
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No 12) [2014] NSWSC 1595
R v Issakidis [2016] NSWSC 1102
R v Issakidis [2018] NSWSC 378
R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161
R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545
Roach v R [2019] NSWCCA 160
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael John Issakidis (applicant)
The Crown (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lowe (applicant)
M McHugh SC with A McGrath (respondent)
Solicitors:
McGirr Lawyers (applicant)
Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/128506
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Citation:

[2018] NSWSC 378

Date of Decision:

29 March 2018

Before:

Harrison J

File Number(s):

2012/128506

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Michael John Issakidis (the applicant) has appealed against his conviction for…

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 Issakidis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Issakidis v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 302
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 302
Decision Date: 20 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Issakidis v The Queen, the appellant was convicted in the Federal Court of Australia for his involvement in a conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss to the Commonwealth in excess of $100 million through the submission of false depreciation claims in company tax returns. The appellant appealed against his conviction on several grounds, including the contention that the trial judge improperly influenced the jury, thereby interfering with their constitutional right to deliberate freely. The appellant also argued that certain evidence, specifically the Amended Tax Assessments, was irrelevant and inadmissible as it contained the opinion of the Commissioner of Taxation.

The legal issues in the appeal revolved around whether the trial judge's conduct constituted an interference with the jury's right to deliberate freely, as guaranteed under section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Additionally, the court had to determine the admissibility of the Amended Tax Assessments and whether they disclosed the opinion of the Commissioner of Taxation, which would render them inadmissible. The appellant's final contention was regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt.

The High Court of Australia found that the trial judge did not improperly interfere with the jury's deliberations. The judge's refusal to adjourn the trial for a juror to attend a job interview and to provide a second letter to the juror's employer did not amount to an infringement of the jury's right to deliberate freely. The court held that the judge's actions were within the bounds of reasonable conduct and did not breach section 80 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court found that the Amended Tax Assessments were admissible as they did not disclose the opinion of the Commissioner but were based on factual findings. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to uphold the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant was upheld. The court's decision confirmed the trial judge's actions did not infringe upon the jury's constitutional rights, and the evidence was admissible and sufficient to support the conviction.

Orders