R v Craig - [2016] ACTSC 26

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Craig
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 26
Hearing Date(s):	25 January 2016
DecisionDate:	8 February 2016
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [37]-[38]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – particular offences – dishonesty offences – false income tax return – intention to cause a loss to the Commonwealth – dealing with property that was proceeds of crime – property less than $100,000 – significant criminal history – crimes committed while incarcerated – early guilty plea – prospects of rehabilitation – specific and general deterrence – delay in authorities laying charges – sentence imposed.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 135.1(1), s 400.9(1A)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) James Craig (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms G Nott (Crown) Mr D Perkins (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 210 of 2015

BURNS J:

James Craig, on 24 September 2015 in the ACT Magistrates Court you pleaded guilty to seven offences of causing a false income tax return to be lodged with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to another person, namely the Commonwealth, contrary to s 135.1(3) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (the Commonwealth Criminal Code).

At that time you also pleaded guilty to one offence of dealing with property, it being reasonable to suspect that such property was proceeds of crime and at the time of dealing the value of the property was less than $100,000, contrary to s 400.9(1A) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

You were subsequently committed to this Court for sentence and you have maintained your pleas of guilty to these charges. The maximum penalty for an offence against s 135.1(3) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code is five years' imprisonment, a fine of $33,000.00 or both. The maximum penalty for the offence against s 400.9(1A) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code is two years' imprisonment, a fine of $13,200.00 or both.

For convenience, I will refer to the charges by reference to the Magistrates Court charge numbers.

The charges

Charge 41269 of 2015

On 28 November 2008, a paper income tax return for the 2008 financial year was received by the Australian Taxation Office, which, for convenience, I will refer to as the ATO, in your name.

A second 2008 income tax return was lodged electronically before the paper return was processed and was treated as an amendment. The address provided on the income tax return belonged to the Junee Correctional Centre. At that time you were an inmate at that facility.

The income tax return stated an Australian Business Number (ABN) for your employer and that you had earned $24,200.00 from that employment of which $7,560.00 had been withheld as tax and paid to the ATO. The listed occupation was baggage handler. The ABN on the income tax return belonged to Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd. You were not an employee of that company during the 2008 financial year and…

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 Craig

Details

AGLC: R v Craig [2016] ACTSC 26
Case: [2016] ACTSC 26
Decision Date: 8 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Craig, was convicted of multiple offences, including lodging a false income tax return with intent to cause a loss to the Commonwealth, dealing with property that was proceeds of crime, and committing crimes while incarcerated. The case was heard by the court of appeal, which was required to assess the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal focused on whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the specific and general deterrence principles, the delay in charges being laid, and the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account the appellant's criminal history, the delay in the authorities laying charges, and the principles of specific and general deterrence. The court also considered whether the lower court had adequately balanced the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation against the need to deter the appellant and others from committing similar offences. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the delay in charges, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the appellant's extensive criminal history and the need for deterrence.

The court of appeal determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. It found that the lower court had appropriately considered the appellant's criminal history, the delay in charges, and the principles of specific and general deterrence. The court held that the delay in charges did not warrant a reduction in sentence, as the appellant had not demonstrated how the delay had prejudiced his case. The court also found that the lower court had adequately balanced the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation against the need for deterrence. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was affirmed.

The court of appeal upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, finding that it was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stands. The court emphasised that the lower court had appropriately considered the relevant factors, including the appellant's criminal history, the delay in charges, and the principles of specific and general deterrence. The court also found that the lower court had adequately balanced the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation against the need for deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [37]-[38]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.