Petroulias v Wills - [2002] NSWSC 1190

CITATION: Petroulias v Wills [2002] NSWSC 1190

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 12242/02

HEARING DATE(S): 3 - 4 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 16 December 2002

PARTIES :

Nikytas Nicholas Petroulias - Applicant
Gary Andrew Wills - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 10441/01

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Sweeney LCM

COUNSEL : R Richter QC with N Clelland - Applicant
PS Hastings QC with CP Hoy - Respondent

SOLICITORS: W Coady - Applicant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: appeal against order for committal for trial - s104(3) Justices Act 1902 - charge of defrauding the Commonwealth - s29D Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - charge of unauthorised disclosure - s70 Crimes Act - charge of corruption as a Commonwealth officer s73(2) Crimes Act - Part IVAA Taxation Administration Act Private Rulings - need to prove "imperilment" to interest of Commonwealth

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Taxation Administration Act 1953
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986

CASES CITED: Peters v The Queen [1998] HCA 7; 192 CLR 493
The Queen v Kastratovic (1985-96) 42 SASR 59
State Rail Authority of NSW v Smith [2000] NSW SC 334, unreported, 19 April 2000
Lamb v Moss; Yates v Wilson (1989) 168 CLR 338; Castles v Briot (1989) 19 ALD 153
Basha v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 337

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, parties to be heard on what orders should be made as a result.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

SIMPSON J

16 December 2002

12242/02 Nikytas Nicholas Petroulias v Gary Andrew Wills
JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: This is an application, pursuant to s104(3) of the Justices Act 1902, for leave to appeal against the decision of a Local Court Magistrate to commit the applicant for trial on three charges under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). S104(3) is in the following terms:

104(3) A defendant or an informant may appeal under this Division to the Supreme Court against any order that is made in relation to committal proceedings, on a ground that involves a question of law alone, but only with the leave of the Supreme Court.

2 On 24 March 2000 the applicant was charged under s86A of the Crimes Act with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. Subsequently that charge was withdrawn and charges of defrauding the Commonwealth laid under s29D of the Crimes Act, of unauthorised disclosure laid under s70 of the Crimes Act, and of corruption as a Commonwealth officer laid under s73(2) of the Crimes Act were substituted. Over 36 days between November 2001 and June 2002 committal proceedings in relation to these charges were heard. On 17 July 2002 Miss D Sweeney, Local Court Magistrate, committed the applicant for trial on each of the three charges.

3 The Crown expressly conceded that the committal for trial amounted to an “order” for the purposes of s104(3).

4…

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 Petroulias v Wills

Details

AGLC: Petroulias v Wills [2002] NSWSC 1190
Case: [2002] NSWSC 1190
Decision Date: 16 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Petroulias v Wills is a matter concerning an appeal against an order for committal for trial by the respondent, Petroulias, who was charged with defrauding the Commonwealth, unauthorised disclosure, and corruption as a Commonwealth officer. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondent was charged under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) for defrauding the Commonwealth, unauthorised disclosure, and corruption as a Commonwealth officer. The charges stem from actions taken by Petroulias while he was an officer of the Australian Taxation Office. The respondent was ordered to be committed for trial by the Magistrates Court, and he sought an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent could be committed for trial and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the charges. The court considered whether the respondent's actions constituted a defrauding of the Commonwealth, whether the disclosure of information was unauthorised, and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove corruption as a Commonwealth officer. The court also examined whether the respondent's actions imperilled the interest of the Commonwealth, as required by Part IVAA of the Taxation Administration Act.

In its judgment, the court held that the respondent could be committed for trial on the charges of defrauding the Commonwealth and unauthorised disclosure, but not for corruption as a Commonwealth officer. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the charges of defrauding the Commonwealth and unauthorised disclosure, but not corruption. The court held that the respondent's actions did not imperil the interest of the Commonwealth, as required by Part IVAA of the Taxation Administration Act. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, and the charges of defrauding the Commonwealth and unauthorised disclosure were upheld, while the charge of corruption as a Commonwealth officer was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was partially allowed, and the charges of defrauding the Commonwealth and unauthorised disclosure were upheld, while the charge of corruption as a Commonwealth officer was dismissed. The court also ordered that the respondent be committed for trial on the charges of defrauding the Commonwealth and unauthorised disclosure, and that the charge of corruption as a Commonwealth officer be dismissed.

Orders