Legal Research
Cases
R v Liles

R v Liles

Case [2012] NSWSC 1249 18 October 2012

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Liles [2012] NSWSC 1249
Hearing dates: 30 August 2012
Decision date: 18 October 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
1. In respect of Count 1 the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 6 months commencing on 18 October 2012 and expiring on 17 April 2015.
2. In respect of Count 2 the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 6 months commencing on 18 April 2015 and expiring on 17 October 2017.
3. In respect of Count 3 the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 2 months, 2 weeks commencing on 21 October 2015 and expiring on 3 January 2016.
4. In respect of Count 4 the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years, 2 weeks commencing on 4 January 2016 and expiring on 17 January 2021.
5. The offender is to be released on 17 September 2017, upon entering a recognisance to be of good behaviour during the balance of her term, without lodging cash security.
6. The offender is to be fingerprinted in accordance with s 3ZL of the Crimes Act (Cth).

Catchwords: SENTENCE - dishonesty offences - conspire to defraud Commonwealth - s 29D and s 86 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - s 135.4(3) of Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) - tax - tax avoidance scheme - guilty plea - nature and seriousness of offences - offender's position - overall operation of the tax avoidance scheme - three conspiracies - consequences of offending - term of imprisonment warranted for these offences - personal circumstances - character evidence - deterrence - other comparable offenders - whether delay was relevant - whether discount to be given for plea and assistance - concurrency and accumulation - special circumstances - sentence imposed - recognisance release order
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995(Cth)
Cases Cited: Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57
R v Agius; R V Zerafa [2012] NSWSC 94
R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA (1999) 106 A Crim R 303
R v Boughen; R v Cameron [2012] NSWCCA 17
R v Hinton [2002] NSWCCA 405; 143 A Crim R 286
R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522
R v Ronen [2006] NSWCCA 123; (2006) 161 A Crim R 307
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Lynette Kathleen Liles (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr P Neil QC (Crown)
Mr D Price (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
McLachlan Thorpe Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/16234 2008/54698
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Over a number of years Lynette Kathleen Liles was involved in a significant international tax avoidance scheme. She is now being sentenced in respect of four charges in relation to two conspiracies to defraud the Commonwealth, which arose out of her involvement in that scheme, having pleaded guilty to those charges earlier this year. Ms Liles was also involved in a third conspiracy which was the…

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 Liles

Details

AGLC: R v Liles [2012] NSWSC 1249
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1249
Decision Date: 18 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Liles involved the appellant who was convicted of conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth by means of a tax avoidance scheme. The appellant entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to imprisonment by the Federal Court of Australia. The appeal was against the sentence imposed, arguing that it was excessive. The appeal focused on the principles of sentencing for dishonesty offences and the application of various statutory provisions, including sections 29D and 86 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and section 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

The legal issues before the court encompassed the nature and seriousness of the offences, the appellant's position within the scheme, the operation of the tax avoidance scheme, and the consequences of the offending. Additionally, the court considered the appellant's personal circumstances, the deterrence value of the sentence, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court also examined whether a discount should be applied for the guilty plea and the assistance provided, as well as the issues of concurrency, accumulation, and special circumstances.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court first assessed the nature and seriousness of the offences, which involved significant dishonesty and the exploitation of the tax system. The court highlighted the appellant's role in orchestrating the tax avoidance scheme and the substantial financial loss to the Commonwealth. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including character evidence, and weighed these against the need for deterrence and the protection of the community. After evaluating the various factors, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence and the recognisance release order.

Orders