Legal Research
Cases
Pratten v R

Pratten v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 117 1 July 2014

Appeal

Breach of Contract

Compensatory Damages

Unconscionable Conduct

Negligence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pratten v R [2014] NSWCCA 117
Hearing dates: 5, 6, 11 June 2014
Decision date: 01 July 2014
Before: Meagher JA;
Fullerton J;
Hamill J
Decision:
(1)   Appeal against conviction is allowed.

(2)   The appellant’s convictions are quashed.
(3)   There be a new trial of the appellant.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - seven counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception by lodging tax returns which did not disclose all assessable income - where Crown relied on the non declaration of a number of payments said to be income, whether trial judge erred in not directing jury that must be unanimous with respect to payments not disclosed which resulted in financial advantage - whether lodging of a tax return understating taxable income capable of constituting the obtaining of a financial advantage - whether trial miscarried because amended notices of assessment in respect of payments said to be income admitted in evidence - whether trial judge erred in not directing jury that to find financial advantage had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were not deductible expenses associated with amounts of income not disclosed - whether verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence - whether there was a miscarriage of justice because Crown did not call witness who audited financial statements tendered in the appellant’s case
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1), 6(1)
Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 134.2
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55(1), 136, 190
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 204(1)
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), Schedule 1, s 255-5
Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; 232 CLR 438
Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen [2012] HCA 14; 246 CLR 92
BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; 88 ALJR 101
Cesan v The Queen [2008] HCA 52; 236 CLR 358
Chapman v R [2013] NSWCCA 91
Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1
Cramp v The Queen (1999) 110 A Crim R 198
Fermanis v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 84; 33 WAR 434
Gassy v The Queen [2008] HCA 18; 236 CLR 293
Handlen v The Queen [2011] HCA 51; 245 CLR 282
Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 373
KBT v The Queen [1997] HCA 54; 191 CLR 417
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
Mraz v The Queen (No 1) [1955] HCA 59; 93 CLR 493
Pratten v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] NSWSC 594
R v Apostilides [1984] HCA 38; 154 CLR 363
R v Beach (1994) 75 A Crim R 447
R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115
R v Clarke and Johnstone (1986) 21 A Crim R…

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 Pratten v R

Details

AGLC: Pratten v R [2014] NSWCCA 117
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 117
Decision Date: 01 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Pratten, the appellant, appealing against his conviction on seven counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception. This occurred through the submission of tax returns that failed to declare all assessable income. The Crown argued that several payments, which it claimed were income, were not reported in Pratten's tax returns. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge made errors in not instructing the jury that they must be unanimous regarding the payments not disclosed that resulted in a financial advantage. Additionally, the court examined whether the act of lodging a tax return that understated taxable income could be considered as obtaining a financial advantage. Another key issue was whether the trial was compromised because amended notices of assessment, concerning the payments said to be income, were admitted as evidence. The appellant also argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury that to find a financial advantage, they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were no deductible expenses related to the undisclosed income amounts. Furthermore, it was contended that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, and that there was a miscarriage of justice because the Crown did not call the witness who audited the financial statements presented in Pratten's case.

The court considered the trial judge's instructions to the jury and concluded that there was no error in not requiring unanimity on each specific payment not disclosed. The court held that the act of lodging a tax return that understated taxable income could indeed constitute obtaining a financial advantage. It found that the admission of the amended notices of assessment did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as they were relevant to the issue of understatement of income. The court also determined that the trial judge was not required to direct the jury to consider deductible expenses associated with the undisclosed income amounts, as it was sufficient for the jury to find that the understatement of income itself constituted a financial advantage. Finally, the court found that the verdicts were not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and that there was no miscarriage of justice due to the Crown's failure to call the witness who audited the financial statements, as the statements were not central to the determination of the charges. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders