Putland v The Queen

The appellant, Putland, appealed against his sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The dispute concerned the sentencing of Putland for offences related to the failure to remit taxation instalment deductions and Prescribed Payment System payments, and for lodging a dishonest Statement of Affairs upon his bankruptcy.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had erred in principle by failing to adequately take into account the appellant's bankruptcy and the subsequent actions of Ms Roberts in continuing the business. The court also considered whether the decision in *Jackson* was plainly wrong in relation to the principles of sentencing in such circumstances.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that the appellant had continued to operate his transport business in substance, despite his bankruptcy and the nominal transfer of a business name to Ms Roberts. The court found that Ms Roberts was effectively operating the business as a trustee for the appellant, and that the appellant had not established that the majority decision in *Jackson* was plainly wrong. Therefore, the court followed the precedent set in *Jackson*, which held that a bankrupt continuing to trade could be sentenced as if they were still trading. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had not erred in principle and that the sentence imposed was appropriate.