R v Pratten (No 26) - [2016] NSWSC 935

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 26) [2016] NSWSC 935
Hearing dates: 29 April 2016
Date of orders: 29 April 2016
Decision date: 29 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
The adjournment is refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PRACTICE – application for adjournment of sentencing – constitutional issue raised and application for vacation of sentencing hearing – no arguable point – matter previously unsuccessfully raised, appeal lodged and withdrawn – adjournment refused.
Legislation Cited: Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Pratten v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] NSWSC 594
Re Coldham; Ex Parte Municipal Officers Association of Australia (also cited as Re Architects of Australia Association; Ex Parte Municipal Officers’ Association) [1989] HCA 13; (1989) 63 ALJR 298
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323
United Voice v Restaurant and Catering Association of Victoria [2014] FCAFC 121; (2014) 226 FCR 255
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Timothy Charles Pratten (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Moorhouse (Crown)
B Dean (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
O’Brien & Hudson Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/315475

ex tempore Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Before the Court is a motion filed in Court and dealt with instanter seeking that the Court adjourn and stand adjourned until the final disposition of, or remitter of, proceedings that have been or are about to be commenced in the High Court. As an alternative to that proposition and for the purposes of today, what is sought is an adjournment for approximately two weeks.
I understand that in this motion Mr Pratten has been unrepresented and I understand, therefore, the difficulty that may be associated with the issues that have been raised. The motion depends upon, and by affidavit annexes, two documents: One of which is an application for removal under s 40 of the Judiciary Act1903 (Cth), removing the whole of the cause now pending in the Supreme Court, which is the trial and sentencing matter. That was filed on 27 April 2016. It is now 29 April 2016. Further, on 26 April 2016, a writ of summons was filed in the High Court by Mr Pratten against the Commonwealth of Australia as defendant.
The summons says it concerns the interpretation of the Constitution, raises the limitations of a Commonwealth judicial power exercised by State Supreme Courts under Chapter III of the Constitution and refers to the “admix” of Commonwealth judicial powers and administrative functions of the Executive. It does not state with great clarity, what is said to be the administrative functions of the Executive.
Nevertheless, the summons refers to the fact that the Court was looking at or deciding “financial advantage”, in the context of the understatement of income tax and it is said, pursuant to the Income Tax Assessment Act1936 (Cth) and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), that the task of determining assessable income is a…

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 26) 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 935
Decision Date: 29 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pratten (No 26), the defendant sought an adjournment of his sentencing hearing on the basis of a constitutional issue. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which will not be named in this summary. The defendant, who had previously unsuccessfully raised a constitutional challenge, sought to vacate the sentencing hearing, arguing that the hearing was unconstitutional and required further consideration.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's constitutional argument was arguable and warranted an adjournment. The court had to assess whether the matter had been previously decided, and whether the defendant's appeal had been properly lodged and subsequently withdrawn. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an adjournment was warranted based on the defendant's constitutional argument and any other relevant factors.

The court found that the defendant's constitutional argument was not arguable, as the matter had already been decided and an appeal had been lodged and subsequently withdrawn. The court held that the defendant had not demonstrated any new evidence or legal arguments that would warrant an adjournment. The court also found that the defendant's constitutional argument was not a sufficient ground for vacating the sentencing hearing. As such, the court refused the defendant's application for an adjournment and for the vacation of the sentencing hearing.

The court's decision was based on its assessment of the defendant's arguments and the relevant legal principles. The court held that the defendant's constitutional argument was not arguable and that the matter had already been decided. The court also found that the defendant had not demonstrated any new evidence or legal arguments that would warrant an adjournment. As such, the court refused the defendant's application for an adjournment and for the vacation of the sentencing hearing. The final orders of the court were that the defendant's application for an adjournment and for the vacation of the sentencing hearing be refused.

Orders