R v Pratten (No 25) - [2016] NSWSC 539

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 25) [2016] NSWSC 539
Hearing dates: 27 October 2015
Date of orders: 29 April 2016
Decision date: 29 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) Conviction recorded for each count;

(2) For each of Counts 1, 2 and 3 sentence imposed of three (3) years’ imprisonment, commencing 20 January 2016 and concluding 19 January 2019;

(3) For each of Counts 4, 5, 6 and 7, sentence imposed of four (4) years’ imprisonment commencing 20 January 2017 and concluding 19 January 2021.
(4) Aggregate sentence of five (5) years imprisonment concluding 19 January 2021 with a non-parole period of two (2) years concluding 19 January 2018.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – guilty verdict after trial – accused charged with seven counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – filing of deliberately understated tax returns – determination of amounts understated and benefit obtained – sentence imposed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1998) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: M McHugh SC/T Berberian (Crown)
S Grant/ B Dean (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
M McHugh SC/T Berberian (Crown)
S Grant/ B Dean (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
O’Brien & Hudson Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/315475

remarks on sentence

HIS HONOUR: On 9 September 2015, the offender, Timothy Charles Pratten, was found guilty of seven offences of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Code”). Each offence relates to the understating of income each financial year from 2003 to 2009 (being the year ending 30 June in each such year).
The Jury verdict of 9 September 2015 was the result of a retrial in circumstances where the offender had been convicted in a first trial of each of the seven counts, which first conviction occurred on 13 June 2012. The sentence in relation to those proceedings was delayed by a collateral attack on the jurisdiction of the Court arising from alleged invalid acts of various Commonwealth officers, being those concerned with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Federal Police and an allegation as to a constitutional prohibition on the Court dealing with financial advantage resulting from the understating of income tax.
As a result of that collateral attack and an appeal therefrom, the first sentencing was delayed. The appeal was withdrawn by the offender in mid-December 2013, but the Court, as presently constituted, was not informed of that withdrawal. After making its own inquiries, the Court ascertained that the appeal had been withdrawn and sentence was passed on 31 March 2014.
The first convictions and the sentences were the subject of appeals. Those appeals were successful and the retrial eventuated. Following the retrial and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Pratten (No 25) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWSC 539
Decision Date: 29 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Pratten (No 25), the accused was convicted on seven counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception, pursuant to section 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The dispute involved the accused's deliberate understatement of income on tax returns, leading to a financial benefit. The case was heard in a higher court where the focus was on determining the appropriate sentence following the guilty verdict.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the calculation of the amounts understated in the tax returns and the subsequent financial benefit obtained by the accused. The court was required to consider various factors, including the severity of the deception, the impact on the taxation system, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the accused's conduct, background, and potential for rehabilitation when determining the appropriate sentence.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, focusing on the specifics of each tax return and the extent of the understatements. It considered the accused's previous conduct, the impact of the deception on the public, and the principles of sentencing. Ultimately, the court concluded that the deception was significant and warranted a custodial sentence to serve as a deterrent and to uphold the integrity of the taxation system. The sentence imposed reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the public.

Following the court's reasoning and decision, the accused was sentenced to a period of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the duration and conditions of the sentence provided in the judgment. The court's decision underscores the importance of upholding the law and ensuring that those who engage in deliberate tax deception face appropriate consequences.

Orders