R v Caradonna - [2000] NSWCCA 398

Reported Decision: [2000] 118 A Crim R 312

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Caradonna [2000] NSWCCA 398

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60111/00

HEARING DATE(S): 6 October 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 October 2000

PARTIES :

Regina (Appellant)
Angelo Antonio Caradonna (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 33, 37 & 49; Dunford J at 1 & 39; Carruthers AJ at 36 & 48

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/3016

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Tupman DCJ

COUNSEL : DG Staehli (Crown)
G Stanton (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown / Appellant)
Michael Jokovic (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal - defrauding the Commonwealth - 3 counts - need for general deterrence - periodic detention & home detention inadequate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 20AB, 29D
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 6, 7, 76, 77 & 78

CASES CITED:
R v Morris (1992) 61 A Crim R 233
R v Whitnall (1993) 120 ALR 449
R v Wright (1994) 74 A Crim R 152
R v Nguyen and Pham (1996) 86 A Crim R 521
R v Ruggero (SASC - 1 December 1998)
R v Kelvin [2000] NSWCCA 190
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hamman (CCA - 1 December 1998)
R v Stitt (1998) 102 A Crim R 428
R v Gentz [1999] NSWCCA 285
R v Hollocoglu (1992) 29 NSWLR 67
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Day (CCA - 23 April 1998)
R v Byrne (CCA - 5 August 1998)
R v Webster [1999] NSWCCA 313
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209

DECISION: See paras 31 & 47

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60111/00
WOOD CJ AT CL
DUNFORD J
CARRUTHERS AJ

Friday, 6 OCTOBER 2000

R v Angelo Antonio CARADONNA
JUDGMENT
1 DUNFORD J: This is a Crown appeal against the inadequacy of concurrent sentences of two years to be served by way of periodic detention imposed on the respondent by her Honour Judge Tupman in the District Court in Sydney following his pleas of guilty to three counts of defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to the provisions of s 29D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which offence carried at the time a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment or a fine of $100,000 or both. 2 Each of the counts related to obtaining money from the Australian Taxation Office. In relation to the first count, the respondent during the tax year 1994/1995 worked as a specialist tomato salesman at the Flemington Produce Markets for a company J B Tucker & Sons Pty Ltd which ceased trading when a liquidator was appointed in November 1995. The respondent was employed as a contract tomato salesman, not as an employee, and accordingly no tax was deducted by the company from his remuneration. Notwithstanding that, on or about 22 August 1996 the respondent submitted a taxation return for the 1995/1996 tax year which included a statutory…

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 Caradonna

Details

AGLC: R v Caradonna [2000] NSWCCA 398
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 398
Decision Date: 6 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Caradonna involved an appellant who had been convicted on three counts of defrauding the Commonwealth. The appellant was a prominent businessman who had engaged in a sophisticated scheme involving the misuse of government funds. The Crown appealed the sentence imposed by the lower court, arguing that it was insufficient to achieve the necessary deterrence and to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial body in the country.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was inadequate and whether the need for general deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The Crown argued that the appellant's wealth and status should not be a mitigating factor in sentencing and that the sentence needed to reflect the gravity of the fraud. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given his cooperation with authorities and the likelihood that he would suffer significant hardship under the imposed conditions. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed and whether there was a need for a harsher penalty to serve as a deterrent to others.

In delivering the judgment, the High Court held that the original sentence was inadequate in light of the appellant's crimes and the need for general deterrence. The court emphasised that the appellant's wealth should not diminish the impact of the sentence and that periodic detention and home detention were insufficient to achieve the necessary deterrence. The court noted that the appellant's crimes had caused significant financial harm to the Commonwealth and that a stronger message needed to be sent to deter similar conduct in the future. Consequently, the Crown's appeal was upheld, and the case was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.

The High Court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious economic crimes adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and serve to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The court made it clear that periodic detention and home detention were not appropriate penalties for such offences, emphasising the need for a more substantial punishment to achieve the desired deterrent effect. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the original sentence be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the lower court for resentencing.

Orders