R v Host

Case [2015] WASCA 23


R -v- HOST [2015] WASCA 23



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2015] WASCA 23
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACR:94/20148 OCTOBER 2014
Coram:McLURE P
BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
5/02/15
47Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Leave to appeal granted on ground 1
Appeal allowed
Respondent resentenced
A
PDF Version
Parties:THE QUEEN
CRAIG HOST

Catchwords:

Criminal law
Crown appeal against sentence
Taxation fraud
Forty nine counts committed over four years
Respondent obtained a total of $332,646
Use of forged documents
Late pleas of guilty
Late restitution
Total effective sentence of 2 years' imprisonment
Pre-release period of 8 months
Manifest inadequacy
Totality principle
Criminal law
Pecuniary penalty order
Section 16A(2)(f) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Section 320 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
Interaction between s 16A(2)(f) and s 320

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 17A, s 19(2), s 19AB, s 19AC, 19AF, s 20
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31(4), s 40(1)(e), 41(3)(c), s 41(3)(d)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 134.2(1), s 145.1(1)
Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth), (repealed)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), s 17, s 116, s 131, s 140, s 320, s 338

Case References:

Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; (2014) 88 ALJR 372
Bertilone v The Queen [2009] WASCA 149; (2009) 231 FLR 383
Bransby v The Queen [2010] WASCA 165; (2010) 78 ATR 163
Bugmy v The Queen [1990] HCA 18; (1990) 169 CLR 525
Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2012] HCA 1; (2012) 244 CLR 638
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 719
De Faria v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 116
De Hollander v The Queen [2012] WASCA 127
Deakin v The Queen [1984] HCA 31; (1984) 58 ALJR 367
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Rowson [2007] VSCA 176
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ka-Hung-Ip [2005] ACTCA 24
Dragojlovic v The Queen [2013] VSCA 151; (2013) 230 A Crim R 226
Dwayhi v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 67; (2011) 205 A Crim R 274
Edwards v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 54
El Rakhawy v The Queen [2011] WASCA 209
Giglia v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 9
Gok v The Queen [2010] WASCA 185
Graziosi v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] VSCA 418
Hennessy v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 241
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Horne v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 225
Hughes v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 226
Jod v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 205
Keefe v The Queen [2014] VSCA 201
L Vogel & Son Pty Ltd v Anderson (1967) 120 CLR 157
Lam v The Queen [2014] WASCA 114
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Ly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 28
Magar v The State of Western Australia…

Continue reading R v Host

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Host [2015] WASCA 23
Case
[2015] WASCA 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, in this case, was found guilty of forty-nine counts of tax fraud over a four-year period, involving the use of forged documents, and was sentenced to a total effective imprisonment term of two years, with an additional eight-month pre-release period. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate, and also sought clarification on the interaction between the pecuniary penalty order under section 16A(2)(f) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and the provisions of section 320 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, considering the totality of the offending and the principles of sentencing. Additionally, the court had to determine the proper interaction between the pecuniary penalty order under section 16A(2)(f) and the confiscation provisions of section 320 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The court had to weigh the principles of the totality approach against the respondent's late pleas of guilty and late restitution.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the totality of the offending. The court emphasised that the seriousness of the tax fraud, involving the use of forged documents and the significant amount obtained by the respondent, warranted a more substantial sentence. The court resentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment that better reflected the gravity of the offending. Regarding the interaction between sections 16A(2)(f) and 320, the court concluded that these provisions could operate concurrently and did not preclude the imposition of a pecuniary penalty order where appropriate. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was resentenced accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted on ground 1

Appeal allowed

Respondent resentenced

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.