R v Pratten (No 12) - [2014] NSWSC 396

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 12) [2014] NSWSC 396
Hearing dates: 06 July 2012, 27 July 2012, 10 September 2012, 18 September 2012, 03 October 2012, 08 October 2012, 19 November 2012, 22 November 2012, 28 November 2012, 27 March 2013, 28 March 2013, 21 May 2013, 31 March 2014
Date of orders: 31 March 2014
Decision date: 31 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
1. For count 1 and 2, sentenced to 500 hours of community service.
2. For count 3, sentenced to 250 hours of community service.
3. For count 4, 5, 6 and 7, sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years’ and 6 months’, commencing 31 March 2013, to be released after 18 months’ on entering a recognizance of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for 24 months’.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL - sentence - guilty verdict after trial - accused charged with obtaining financial advantage by deception contrary to s 134.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 - filing of deliberately understated tax return - determination of amounts understated and benefit obtained
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995
Crimes Act 1914
Cases Cited: DPP (Cth) v Goldberg (2001) VSCA 107
R v Boughen; R v Cameron (2012) NSW CCA 17
R v Glyn Morgan Jones; R v Anthony Joseph Luis Hili [2010] NSWCCA 108
R v Maslin (1995) 79 A Crim R 119; R v Yeung Lo [2004] NSWCCA 382
Renshaw v R [2012] NSWCCA 91
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Vogel and Son Pty. Ltd v Anderson, Minister of State for Customs and Excise for the Commonwealth of Australia [1968] HCA 90; (1967) 120 CLR 157
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Timothy Charles Pratten (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M A Wigney SC (Crown)
Mr B Hatfield (Crown)
Ms R L Seiden (Defendant)
Mr P K Bruckner (Defendant)
Ms T J Davy (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Sylvester & Browne Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2010/00315475
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:Timothy Charles Pratten was charged, tried and convicted of seven counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from the Commonwealth by deception, contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act1995 (Cth) (“the Code”). Each charge relates to a taxation return filed for one of the seven years ending 30 June 2003 through to 30 June 2009.
The Crown case was that Mr Pratten obtained financial advantages by filing tax returns that he knew understated his taxable income and he did that by deceiving the Commonwealth as to his income for the purpose of receiving a financial advantage.
Mr Pratten pleaded not guilty to each charge. The jury trial was heard over a three-month period (not including interlocutory proceedings) and the jury returned its verdict on 13 June 2012. Prior to the hearing of the sentence proceedings, Mr Pratten launched a collateral attack (“the civil proceedings”) on the initiating and investigative process, challenging the conduct of the Federal Commissioner…

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 Pratten (No 12)

Details

AGLC: R v Pratten (No 12) [2014] NSWSC 396
Case: [2014] NSWSC 396
Decision Date: 31 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth, against Pratten, the defendant was brought before the court to address charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception, as outlined under section 134.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The court was tasked with assessing whether the defendant had indeed deliberately filed a tax return that understated his income and thereby obtained an undeserved financial benefit. The trial concluded with the defendant being found guilty of the charges brought against him.

The primary legal issues that the court had to resolve included determining the precise amounts that had been understated on the tax return and quantifying the financial benefit obtained by the defendant due to these understatements. The court had to carefully consider the evidence presented to ascertain the accuracy of the tax return filed and to establish the extent of the deception involved. Additionally, the court needed to decide on an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the severity of the offence and the financial gain derived from it.

The court meticulously examined the evidence, including the tax returns in question and expert testimonies on tax assessment. It found that the defendant had indeed understated his income by a significant amount, leading to a substantial benefit. The court concluded that the deception was deliberate and that the defendant's actions warranted a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence. In its judgment, the court imposed a sentence that was commensurate with the financial advantage obtained and the degree of deception involved.

Orders