R v Hart; ex parte

A tax accountant was convicted by a jury of 10 counts of fraud related to lodging tax returns for clients which claimed deductions for "Employee Retention Plans". The clients had agreed to purchase lump sum insurance bonds financed by the Chase AMP Bank, but the loan approvals were not given prior to the end of the financial year in which the deductions were claimed. The appellant set up a different company to provide finance, but the Crown alleged that no insurance bonds were in fact purchased before the end of the financial year. The defence case was that even if no actual expenditure occurred, the clients were "definitively committed" to the scheme prior to the end of that financial year.

The court had to determine whether the guilty verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, whether the inaccuracy in the indictment caused a miscarriage of justice, whether the jury were entitled to find that Mevton had knowledge of the appellant's dishonesty, whether the misdirection caused a miscarriage of justice, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or it is appropriate to take account of previous wrongful imprisonment when determining the non-parole period. The court found that the evidence supported the guilty verdicts and that there was no miscarriage of justice or misdirection. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that it was appropriate to take account of previous wrongful imprisonment when determining the non-parole period.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' appeal against the non-parole period of two years and nine months was allowed and remitted to the original sentencing judge for re-sentencing. The appellant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment on each count with parole after two years and nine months, but the non-parole period was reduced to two years.