Legal Research
Cases
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18)

R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18)

Link copied

Case Copied 20 March 2015 69 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
Hearing dates: 4 to 6 August 2014, 11 to 13 August 2014, 19, 21 & 22 August 2014, 25 to 29 August 2014, 1 to 5 September 2014, 8 to 12 September 2014, 15 to 19 September 2014, 22 to 26 September 2014, 29 & 30 September 2014, 1 to 3 October 2014, 7 to 10 October 2014, 13 to 17 October 2014, 20 to 24 October 2014, 27 to 31 October 2014, 3 to 7 November 2014, 10 to 14 November 2014, 17 to 21 November 2014, 24 to 28 November 2014, 1 to 5 December 2014, 8 to 12 December 2014, 15 to 19 December 2014, 22 December 2014, 5, 6 and 11 February 2015.
Date of orders: 20 March 2015
Decision date: 20 March 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
1.In respect of count 1 on the indictment, being an offence contrary to s 135.4(5) of the Criminal Code, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and six months commencing 22 December 2014 and expiring on 21 June 2022.
2.In respect of count 6 on the indictment, being an offence contrary to s 11.5(1) of the Criminal Code, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for nine years commencing 22 December 2016 and expiring on 21 December 2025.
3.Pursuant to s 19AB(1) of the Crimes Act, the Court fixes a single non-parole period of seven years expiring 21 December 2021.
Catchwords: SENTENCING – conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss or risk of loss to the Commonwealth – Criminal Code Act 1995 – s 135.4(5) – conspiracy to deal with property of a value of $1 million or more believing it to be the proceeds of crime – s 11.5 and s 400.3(1) – sentence after long trial – agreement to make false depreciation claims in company tax returns – sham agreements to acquire medical technology as basis for depreciation claims – depreciation claims intended to be used to offset amounts deemed to be received by company as unit holder of various trusts – submission of false material to Australian Tax Office to support claims – extent of loss or risk of loss intended by offence quantified at $135 million – actual loss from commission of offence is delay in obtaining tax assessment- agreement to deal with funds received as unit holder by transfer out of Australia and repatriation – proceeds of crime – personal benefit – sentencing factors – tax fraud in worst category of offence – conspiracy to deal with proceeds of crime very serious example of the offence – strong need for personal deterrence – cumulation and totality – substantial custodial sentences imposed.
Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – s 16A, s 17A
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – s 11.5(1), s 135.4(5), s 400.3(1)
- Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – s16F,
s 19AB, s 177F(3), s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWSC 268
Decision Date: 20 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18), the defendant was sentenced following a lengthy trial for his involvement in a conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss or risk of loss to the Commonwealth. The conspiracy involved the submission of false material to the Australian Tax Office to support false depreciation claims in company tax returns. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Dickson's role in this sophisticated tax fraud scheme.

The legal issues before the court included the quantification of the loss or risk of loss intended by the offence, which was assessed at $135 million, as well as the actual loss, which was limited to a delay in obtaining a tax assessment. The court also needed to consider the conspiracy to deal with the proceeds of crime and the extent to which these proceeds were for the personal benefit of the defendant. Sentencing factors included the seriousness of the tax fraud, which was categorised as one of the worst, and the need for personal deterrence given the gravity of the offence.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the severe nature of the conspiracy to deal with the proceeds of crime, which was a particularly egregious example of the offence. The court highlighted the importance of cumulation and totality in sentencing, considering the combined effect of all the offences committed by Dickson. As a result, substantial custodial sentences were imposed to ensure effective personal deterrence and to reflect the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court ordered that Anthony James Dickson be sentenced to imprisonment, reflecting the serious nature of the conspiracy and the need for personal deterrence. The specifics of the sentence, including the length of imprisonment, were determined based on the factors outlined in the judgment, with a focus on the significant loss or risk of loss intended and the personal benefit derived from the criminal activities.

Orders