Legal Research
Cases
R v Sakovits; R v Sakovits

R v Sakovits; R v Sakovits

Case [2013] NSWSC 464 26 April 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SAKOVITS; R v SAKOVITS [2013] NSWSC 464
Hearing dates: 28 March 2013
Decision date: 26 April 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hall J
Decision:
Jane Maria Sakovits
(1) In respect of Count 1 on the indictment, sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 6 months commencing 26 April 2013 and expiring on 25 October 2013.
(2) In respect of the Count 2 on the indictment sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 5 years commencing on 26 April 2013 and expiring on 25 April 2018.
The sentence imposed with respect to Count 1 is to operate concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of Count 2.
In respect of the sentence on Count 2 on the expiration of 2 years and 6 months, namely 25 October 2015, order that Jane Maria Sakovits be released upon giving security in the amount of $200, without surety by recognisance, to the satisfaction of the Court, and that she complies with the conditions specified in s 20(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914.
Ronald Rudolph Sakovits
(1) In respect of Count 1 on the indictment, sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 6 months commencing 26 April 2013 and expiring on 25 October 2013.
(2) In respect of Count 2 on the indictment sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years commencing on 26 April 2013 and expiring on 25 April 2018.
The sentence imposed with respect to Court 1 is to operate concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of Count 2.
On the expiration of a period of 2 years and 6 months, namely 25 October 2015, order that Ronald Rudolph Sakovits be released upon giving security in the amount of $200, without surety, by recognisance to the satisfaction of the Court, that he complies with the conditions specified in s 20(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - guilty verdict by jury - dishonesty offences - s 29D and s 86 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - s 135.4(3) of Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) - conspire to defraud the Commonwealth - tax avoidance scheme -- nature and seriousness of offences - personal circumstances - hardship faced by offender's mother's circumstances did not constitute "exceptional circumstances" - tax scheme proposed by offenders' accountant but unlawful conduct continued - significance of delay - evidence of good character - Importance of general deterrance - where convicted of two charges but involved single conspiracy - other comparable offenders - sentence imposed - recognisance release order
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code 1995
Cases Cited: Agius v R [2011] NSWCCA 119
Cheung v R [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1
Hilli v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45
R v Agius [2012] NSWSC 978
R v Boughen; R v Cameron [2012] NSWCCA 17
R v Bragias (1997) 92 A Crim R 330
R v Gallagher (1991) 53 A Crim R 248
R v Gregory [2011] VSCA 145
R v…

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 Sakovits; R v Sakovits

Details

AGLC: R v Sakovits; R v Sakovits [2013] NSWSC 464
Case: [2013] NSWSC 464
Decision Date: 26 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Two defendants, Sakovits, were convicted by a jury on two charges of conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendants in light of the nature and seriousness of the offences, the personal circumstances of the defendants, and the need for general deterrence. The primary legal issue was the assessment of the appropriate sentence taking into account the various statutory provisions and the sentencing principles relevant to the case.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, which involved a tax avoidance scheme that was proposed by the defendants' accountant but continued in an unlawful manner. The court also examined the personal circumstances of the defendants, including the hardship faced by the mother of one of the defendants, but found that these circumstances did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a lesser sentence. The court further considered the delay in the proceedings and the evidence of good character presented on behalf of the defendants. Ultimately, the court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in sentencing and compared the present case with other comparable offenders. The court imposed a sentence on each defendant, and ordered that they be released on recognisance pending any appeal.

Orders