R v Bromley - [2010] VSC 345

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 88 of 2010

THE QUEEN

TRENT ANDREW BROMLEY

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 August 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 August 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bromley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 345

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Obtaining financial advantage by deception - Fraudulent GST refund claims - Aggravating circumstances - Mitigating circumstances – Imposition of a substantial period of imprisonment reflecting element of general deterrence - Prospects of rehabilitation favouring mitigation of penalty and longer parole period - Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v Rowson [2007] VSCA 176 - Criminal Code1995 (Cth) ss 11.1(1), 134.2(1), Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16, 19.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S O'Sullivan	Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)
For the Accused	Mr L Hartnett with Mr G Barnes	Neal Collin & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Trent Andrew Bromley, you have pleaded guilty to:

(a) 3 rolled up charges of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code1995 (Cth); and

(b) 2 rolled up charges of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity contrary to ss 11.1(1) and 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code1995 (Cth).

The 5 charges relate to fraudulent Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) refund claims made by you in 186 separate business activity statements (‘BAS’) lodged with the Australian Taxation Office (‘ATO’) between October 2001 and 4 June 2008.

The fraudulent GST refund claims were made in the names of three separate companies under your exclusive control. They gave rise to 151 payments totalling $9,462,384.57 forming the subject of the first 3 charges.

The amount forming the subject of charges 4 and 5, being the attempt charges, is $172,173.

More specifically your offending involved the following elements:

· Between 26 October 2001 and 28 March 2008, 81 GST refund payments totalling $4,792,339.36 were obtained from the ATO in the name of Teebee & Associates Pty Ltd. The average refund payment in the name of this entity was $59,164.68 (charge 1).

· Between 12 September 2003 and 28 March 2008, 67 GST refund payments totalling $4,619,521.11 were obtained from the ATO in the name of Liner Transport & Trading Services Pty Ltd. The average refund payment in the name of this entity was $68,948.07 (charge 2).

· Between 28 September 2007 and 28 March 2008, three GST refund payments totalling $50,524.10 were obtained from the ATO in the name of Pacific Suppliers Pty Ltd. The average refund payment in the name of this entity was therefore $16,841.37 (charge 3).

· On or about 5 May 2008, another GST refund claim was lodged by you in the name of Liner Transport & Trading Services Pty Ltd seeking a GST refund payment of $62,166. This claim was not paid (charge 4).

· Between 24 April 2008 and 4 June 2008, you lodged…

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 R v Bromley

Details

AGLC: R v Bromley [2010] VSC 345
Case: [2010] VSC 345
Decision Date: 12 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Bromley came before the court to address the appellant's conviction for multiple instances of obtaining financial advantage by deception through fraudulent GST refund claims. The appellant had previously been convicted in a lower court and appealed against both the conviction and the sentence imposed. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's deception constituted a serious breach of community standards, whether there were any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that should be considered, and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate, excessive, or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances.

The High Court determined that the appellant's actions did constitute a serious breach of community standards, as the fraudulent claims for GST refunds amounted to a significant loss to the Commonwealth. However, the court also considered the mitigating factors, including the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and the impact of the sentence on their family. The court held that while the appellant's actions warranted a substantial period of imprisonment to reflect the element of general deterrence, the mitigating circumstances favoured a reduction in the penalty and a longer parole period. The court referred to Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v Rowson to guide its assessment of the appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence, reflecting the need for both punishment and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's conviction for obtaining financial advantage by deception was upheld. However, the sentence was reduced from imprisonment for four years and eight months to imprisonment for three years, with a non-parole period of two years and nine months, and parole eligibility after two years and four months. The reduction in sentence was based on the mitigating factors and the need for a balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders