R v St James - [2016] NSWDC 431

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v ST JAMES [2016] NSWDC 431
Hearing dates: 12 December 2016
Date of orders: 12 December 2016
Decision date: 12 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Convicted: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 7 months with a minimum term in accordance with the terms of the Commonwealth legislation of 12 months’ imprisonment.

Catchwords: Criminal – Sentence, by deception dishonestly obtain a financial advantage with false information, taxation matters.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R (1990) 169 CLR 525
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Hili v R and Jones v R [2010] HCA 45
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623
Texts Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v Thomas and Wu [2016] VSCA 237
Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
Ly v R [2007] NSWCCA 28
Pipes [2004] NSWCCA 351
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Phillip St James - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Howell – Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Mr Wasilenia - Offender
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 2014/00057644

sentence

HIS HONOUR: Phillip St James appears today for sentence in relation to an offence to which he pleaded guilty on arraignment in this Court alleging that he, between 11 November 2005 and 28 February 2009 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did by deception dishonestly obtain a financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity namely the Australian Taxation Office by causing to be lodged 23 income tax returns in the names of ten of his clients which contained false information as particularised in the schedule of particulars annexed.
Annexed to that indictment are the “Particulars” in respect of what might be described as the 23 separate offences committed by the prisoner which are rolled up into the one count in the indictment. As I would understand the matter the prisoner was committed for trial on a number of offences.
I am required to take into account on a “Form”, pursuant to s 16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), a further 13 matters being offences of the same character as that set out in the count in the indictment. They relate to, for want of a better word, almost identical or highly similar conduct committed by the prisoner in a period of time between 20 March 2006 and 31 December 2008.
I will come back to the manner in which the matter came to this Court and the manner in which the pleas have been entered. The Crown Prosecutor who claimed authorship of the submissions that were provided to the Court and in oral submission kept referring to a “plea bargain”. I do not know about any “plea bargain”. It seems to me with respect that the facts of the matter are that the Crown and the defence negotiated an appropriate way in which the offences could be dealt with to which the…

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 St James

Details

AGLC: R v St James [2016] NSWDC 431
Case: [2016] NSWDC 431
Decision Date: 12 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with multiple counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The deception involved providing false information in relation to taxation matters. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months, with a minimum term in accordance with the terms of the Commonwealth legislation of 12 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed.

The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, the appellant's culpability, and the principles of sentencing. The court had to weigh these factors to determine if the sentence was appropriate. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge had erred in his assessment of the facts or in the application of the law.

The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the gravity of the offence and the appellant's culpability. The court also found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not err in any respect. The appeal was dismissed.

The court's final orders were that the conviction and sentence be upheld. The appellant was to serve a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months, with a minimum term in accordance with the terms of the Commonwealth legislation of 12 months’ imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 7 months with a minimum term in accordance with the terms of the Commonwealth legislation of 12 months’ imprisonment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v ST JAMES [2016] NSWDC 431
Hearing dates:	12 December 2016
Date of orders:	12 December 2016
Decision date:	12 December 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Convicted: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 7 months with a minimum term in accordance with the terms of the Commonwealth legislation of 12 months’ imprisonment.
Catchwords:	Criminal – Sentence, by deception dishonestly obtain a financial advantage with false information, taxation matters.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R (1990) 169 CLR 525 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Hili v R and Jones v R [2010] HCA 45 Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623
Texts Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Thomas and Wu [2016] VSCA 237 Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 Ly v R [2007] NSWCCA 28 Pipes [2004] NSWCCA 351
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Phillip St James - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Howell – Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) Mr Wasilenia - Offender Solicitors:
File Number(s):	2014/00057644