R v Pratten (No 9) - [2012] NSWSC 1672

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 1672
Hearing dates: 12 March 2012, 14 March 2012, 19 March 2012-23 March 2012, 26 March 2012 -29 March 2012, 02 April 2012, 04 April 2012 -05 April 2012, 11 April 2012, 14 April 2012 -30 April 2012, 01 May 2012 -02 May 2012, 04 May 2012, 07 May 2012, 09 May 2012-28 May 2012
Decision date: 28 May 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
1. Application for a directed verdict is rejected.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL - Interlocutory proceedings - accused charged with obtaining
financial advantage by deception contrary to
s 134.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) -directed verdict application - tax payable on objectively ascertained income - dishonest return claimed not to be capable of giving rise to offence - application refused
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207
Matthews v Fountain [1982] VR 1045
R v Haas (1986) 22 A Crim R 299
R v Philip Wan Por Leung (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 450
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
Re Mendonca; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 15 FLR 256
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Timothy Charles Pratten (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr K Chapple SC with
Mr B Hatfield (Crown)
Mr M Leighton-Daly (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2010/315475

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The application before the Court is an application for a directed verdict on the charges that are currently before the Court. The substantive charges allege various counts of a contravention of s 134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (hereinafter "the Code"), which makes it an offence for a person by deception to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage from another person, where the other person is the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity.
In this case it is said that the accused, Mr Pratten, by deception dishonestly obtained a financial advantage from the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity, by filing a tax return, which was knowingly false, in that it did not declare all the income, earned by the accused during the years in question.
It is unnecessary at this stage to drill down to any further detail in relation to the allegations. It is sufficient for me to state that this is not a case in which it is alleged there are false invoices, or claims for false or unexpended deductions. It is a case in which it is said by the Crown that moneys paid to the benefit of Mr Pratten was his income in the ordinary sense, and it was known to Mr Pratten at the time that the income tax returns relating to the years in question were lodged, that said income should have been declared and it was not. If all of that is accepted by the jury,…

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 9) 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: [2012] NSWSC 1672
Decision Date: 28 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Pratten (No 9), the accused was charged with obtaining a financial advantage by deception under section 134.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The dispute arose from allegations that the accused had dishonestly claimed a tax return that did not accurately reflect his objectively ascertainable income. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the accused applied for a directed verdict, arguing that the claimed tax return could not give rise to the offence.

The court was required to determine whether the offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception could be established based on the accused's alleged dishonest tax return. This involved examining the elements of the offence, including whether the accused had obtained a financial advantage by deception and whether the return claimed was dishonest and capable of giving rise to the offence. The court needed to consider whether the return claimed was objectively ascertainable and whether the accused's conduct could be characterised as dishonest.

In assessing the application, the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the elements of the offence. The court held that the offence could be established if it was proven that the accused had obtained a financial advantage by deception and that the return claimed was dishonest and not capable of being objectively ascertained. The court rejected the accused's argument that the claimed tax return could not give rise to the offence and refused the application for a directed verdict. The court determined that the matter should proceed to trial for the jury to consider the evidence and determine the accused's guilt.

The court's decision concluded that the application for a directed verdict was refused, and the matter would proceed to trial. The accused's argument that the claimed tax return could not give rise to the offence was not accepted by the court, which found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of the offence. The court's refusal of the directed verdict application meant that the case would continue to trial for the jury to consider the evidence and determine the accused's guilt.

Orders