Legal Research
Cases
R v Hawkins

R v Hawkins

Case [2013] NSWCCA 208 19 June 2013

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hawkins [2013] NSWCCA 208
Hearing dates: 19 June 2013
Decision date: 19 June 2013
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1], [51], [59]
RA Hulme J at [52]
RS Hulme AJ at [2]
Decision:
(i) Allow the appeal;
(ii) Confirm the sentences imposed in respect of counts 1 to 3, viz. imprisonment for 1 year commencing on 9 November 2012 and expiring on 8 November 2013;
(iii) Quash the sentences imposed in respect of counts 4 to 8;
(iv) In respect of each of counts 4 and 5, sentence the Respondent to imprisonment for 1 year and 8 months commencing on 9 November 2013 and expiring on 8 July 2015;
(v) In respect of each of counts 6 and 7, sentence the Respondent to imprisonment for 1 year and 8 months commencing on 9 July 2015 and expiring on 8 March 2017;
(vi) In respect of count 8, sentence the Respondent to imprisonment for 1 year and 8 months commencing on 9 March 2017 and expiring on 8 November 2018.
(vii) Fix as the non-parole period in respect of the above sentences, 3 years 6 months commencing on 9 November 2012 and expiring on 8 May 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 29D - Criminal Code (Cth) s 134.2 - false income tax returns - Crown appeal - inadequacy of sentence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited: Green v R; Quinn v R [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Ly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 28
R v Agius; R v Zerafa [2012] NSWSC 978
R v Boughen; R v Cameron [2012] NSWCCA 17
R v Jones; R v Hili [2010] NSWCCA 108
R v MacLeod [2013] NSWCCA 108
R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219
R v Sciberras [2006] NSWCCA 268
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Appellant
Steven Victor Hawkins - Respondent
Representation: Counsel:
PW Neil SC/Ms T Berberian - Appellant
P Bolten SC/Mr W Neild - Respondent
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Appellant
Blair Criminal Lawyers - Respondent

File Number(s): 2008/147282 2008/161231 2008/234650 2008/236480 2009/108474 2009/112253
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2012-11-02 00:00:00

Before:

Woods QC DCJ

File Number(s):

2008/147282
2008/161231
2008/234650
2008/236480
2009/108474
2009/112253

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I will now ask Justice RS Hulme to deliver judgment in this matter.

R S HULME AJ: This is an appeal by the Crown against sentences imposed on 9 November 2012 by Woods DCJ on the above named Respondent in respect of 8 offences for which a total effective sentence of imprisonment for 3 years 4 months including a non-parole period of 1 year 8 months was fixed.

The first offence was that between about 16 and 23 May 2001 the Respondent defrauded the Commonwealth in that in the 2000 tax return…

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 Hawkins

Details

AGLC: R v Hawkins [2013] NSWCCA 208
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 208
Decision Date: 19 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hawkins, the respondent was convicted of multiple offences of furnishing false income tax returns under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and the Criminal Code (Cth). The case came before the court on appeal by the Crown, which sought to argue that the sentence imposed on the respondent was inadequate given the seriousness of the offences committed. The sentencing judge had found Hawkins guilty on all counts and imposed a sentence that the Crown considered to be lenient in light of the respondent's actions and the resulting impact on the community.

The central legal issues the court had to address involved the principles of sentencing for offences of this nature, the appropriate weight to be given to various mitigating and aggravating factors, and whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the crimes, which involved deliberate and repeated attempts to defraud the tax system. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the personal and financial difficulties he had faced, which had contributed to his criminal behaviour.

The court, in reviewing the sentence, considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the culpability of the respondent, and the principles of deterrence and retribution. The court held that while the trial judge had taken into account many of the relevant factors, the overall sentence was insufficient to adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes. The court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases involving tax fraud. The Crown's appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration of the sentence. The court emphasised that the revised sentence should be commensurate with the severity of the offences and the need to uphold public confidence in the tax system.

Orders