Legal Research
Cases
R v Thorn

R v Thorn

Case [2016] ACTSC 217 13 July 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Thorn
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 217
Hearing Date:	6 July 2016
DecisionDate:	13 July 2016
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false income tax return on 15 November 2010, intending to cause a loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41260). 2. James Thorn be sentenced to 15 months imprisonment to commence on 9 December 2015. 3. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false income tax return on 21 January 2011, intending to cause a loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41261). 4. James Thorn be sentenced to 15 months imprisonment to commence on 9 March 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the first sentence. 5. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false income tax return on 16 March 2011, intending to cause a loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41262). 6. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 September 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the second sentence. 7. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 10 May 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41263). 8. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 November 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 2 months on the third sentence. 9. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 7 June 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41264). 10. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 January 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 2 months on the fourth sentence. 11. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 15 July 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41265). 12. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 April 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the fifth sentence. 13. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 15 July 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41266). 14. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 July 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the sixth sentence. 15. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 24 August 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41268). 16. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 October 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the seventh sentence. 17. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 25 August 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41267). 18. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 December 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 2 months on the eighth sentence. 19. On 12 July 2017 James David Thorn be…

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 Thorn

Details

AGLC: R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217
Case: [2016] ACTSC 217
Decision Date: 13 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, James David Thorn, was convicted and sentenced for submitting multiple false income tax returns between November 2010 and August 2011, with the intention of causing a loss to the Commonwealth. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which was required to determine both the appropriate sentence for the offences committed and the application of section 19 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to ensure there was no break between sentences imposed by different jurisdictions.

The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the appellant's personal circumstances, including a history of traumatic childhood experiences, physical and sexual abuse, substance abuse, and mental health issues. Thorn's legal team argued for a psychiatric treatment order and highlighted his compliance with medication as a factor in favour of rehabilitation. The Crown's submission emphasised the deliberate and premeditated nature of the offences, the loss caused to the Commonwealth, and the need for a sentence that would act as a deterrent.

The court determined that the offences were serious and required a sentence that reflected their gravity, while also considering Thorn's personal circumstances. The court held that the sentence should not only be punitive but also rehabilitative, taking into account Thorn's compliance with treatment and his potential for rehabilitation. The court imposed cumulative sentences that began immediately after the non-parole periods, in accordance with section 19 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), to ensure there was no break between the sentences.

The court ordered that James David Thorn be released on 12 July 2017, subject to conditions including providing security, being of good behaviour, and complying with supervision and treatment directives. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation, reflecting the complex considerations involved in sentencing individuals with significant personal challenges.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false income tax return on 15 November 2010, intending to cause a loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41260).

2. James Thorn be sentenced to 15 months imprisonment to commence on 9 December 2015.

3. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false income tax return on 21 January 2011, intending to cause a loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41261).

4. James Thorn be sentenced to 15 months imprisonment to commence on 9 March 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the first sentence.

5. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false income tax return on 16 March 2011, intending to cause a loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41262).

6. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 September 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the second sentence.

7. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 10 May 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41263).

8. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 November 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 2 months on the third sentence.

9. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 7 June 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41264).

10. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 January 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 2 months on the fourth sentence.

11. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 15 July 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41265).

12. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 April 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the fifth sentence.

13. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 15 July 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41266).

14. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 July 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the sixth sentence.

15. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 24 August 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41268).

16. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 October 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 3 months on the seventh sentence.

17. James Thorn be convicted of submitting a false tax return on 25 August 2011, intending to cause loss to the Commonwealth (CC 15/41267).

18. James Thorn be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on 9 December 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 2 months on the eighth sentence.

19. On 12 July 2017 James David Thorn be released upon giving security in the sum of $100 to be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years and that he be subject to supervision by the Director-General of the Directorate of Justice and Community Safety or her delegate for the period of 3 years or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of that person as to treatment or counselling for alcohol and drug use and mental impairment.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217

Most Recent Citation

R v Millard [2016] ACTSC 305

Cases citing this decision · 8 of 8 shown

R v Pearson
[2020] ACTSC 375 Para 1

…I do not, however, see it as a course of conduct which makes each succeeding offence more serious as a result, as described in R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217 at [51]-[54]. It is also relevant that the offences did not seem to be the result of any particular planning or premeditation, which puts the offending at a lower…
R v Thorn
[2020] ACTSC 363

…R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217…
R v Bessant
[2020] ACTSC 365

…] ACTSC 333 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 R v Lockwood [2018] ACTSC 288 R v McMahon [2014] ACTSC 280 R v Thorne [2016] ACTSC 217 Saga v Reid and Collett [2010] ACTSC 59…
Ngata v The Queen
[2020] ACTCA 18 Para 1

…ding ( Director of Public Prosecutions v O’Neill [2015] VSCA 325; 47 VR 395 ( O’Neill ) at [74]; Ibrahim v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 6; R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217). It may be made out by evidence which establishes that the offender’s mental impairment affected his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct…
R v DL
[2018] ACTSC 142 Para 1

…ause the course of conduct occurred over a substantial period, I have treated later offending as being more serious than earlier offending: R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217 at [53], [88]. However, considerations of totality mean that a substantial degree of concurrency must operate between the various sentences. I have s…
R v Curtis (No 3)
[2017] ACTSC 101 Para 1

…ete the sentence without some breach or failure of compliance: further offences may be committed even while an offender is in custody (e.g. R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217) or the obligations under a conditional release order may be breached (e.g. Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59).…
Amos v McCarron (No 2)
[2017] ACTSC 46

…(1998) 70 SASR 488; 100 A Crim R 66 R v MWH [2001] VSCA 196 R v M, WJ [2005] SASC 272; 92 SASR 371 R v PLV [2001] NSWCCA 282; 51 NSWLR 736 R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 R v Whyte [2004] VSCA 5; 7 VR 397 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Scook v The Queen [2008] WASCA 114 Selles, Rollings, Direct…
R v Millard
[2016] ACTSC 305 Para 1

…There are three other cases which I have found useful: In R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217, the offender filed nine false tax returns, both in his own name and in the name of others. The offences occurred during a period of residence in the AMC. The offender was 28 years old with a drug and alcohol history as well as a l…

View all 8 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

R v Hawkins
[2023] NSWSC 1370 Para 1

…In R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 at 435, the Court noted that the amount of money involved was a “significant matter for consideration” in determining the gravity of such offences. In this case, the total amount paid out by the Australian Taxation Office was $18,431.82. It is a significant sum, though not even a…
R v Perry (a pseudonym)
[2016] ACTSC 190 Para 1

…Finally, I was referred to the decision of Burns J in R v Potts [2016] ACTSC 190. Again, it was useful in understanding the general approach that has been taken to these matters, though it was a rather different matter.…
R v Craig
[2016] ACTSC 26 Para 1

…I also have regard to the decision of Burns J R v Craig [2016] ACTSC 26, where his Honour dealt with seven offences of the same kind. It appears that there was something of an “industry” about this offending within the AMC in the years 2009 and 2011. Mr Craig submitted the income tax returns between 15 June 2009 a…
R v De Leeuw
[2015] NSWCCA 183 Para 1

…enterprise with various aspects so that the offences are part of a single course of conduct ( R v Farris (2015) 301 FLR 230 at 232; [6], R v de Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 at [177]). In that case, there is a likely overlap of the criminality of each of the counts.…
R v Miles
[2015] ACTSC 162 Para 1

…As Rares J said in R v Miles [2015] ACTSC 162 at [70]-[72], of similar offences:…
Bae v R
[2015] NSWCCA 133 Para 1

…To the same effect were the comments of Hall J, with whom Hoeben CJ at CL and Wilson J agreed, in BAE, Kangmin v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 133 at [81]-[82], as follows:…
R v Host
[2015] WASCA 23 Para 1

…on the Commonwealth and the wider community through the risk to services and infrastructure unable to be provided but, as McLure P stated in R v Host [2015] WASCA 23 at [24]:…
R v Voll
[2014] QCA 170 Para 1

…lies on self-assessment. A breach of that system amounts to a breach of trust because of the abuse of that system. See, for example, The Queen v Voll [2014] QCA 170 at [5]-[8], [14]. See also, R v Camp (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Wall DCJ, 6 June 2013) at 2.…
Barbaro v The Queen
[2014] HCA 2 Para 1

…isted by reference to comparable cases. Without trespassing beyond the permissible bounds of prosecutorial submissions set out in Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 at 73; [38], I found these useful for sentencing principles and as comparable sentences to which the High Court makes clear I should have regard.…
Mercanti v The Queen
[2011] WASCA 120 Para 1

…tention of the section is to ensure that there is “no hiatus between release on the State sentence and the commencement of the Federal sentence”: Mercanti v The Queen (2011) 210 A Crim R 213 at 216; [14].…
DPP (Cth) v Gregory
[2011] VSCA 145 Para 1

…It is also worth noting, as the Victorian Court of Appeal did in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gregory [2011] VSCA 145 at [53], that special emphasis on general deterrence is required in the case of taxation offences because, as I have noted above (at [103]), they are not particularly easy to detect and,…
R v. Holzberger
[2007] QCA 258 Para 1

…say that he has no prospects of rehabilitation but, nevertheless, I accept the caution expressed by the Queensland Court of Appeal in R v Holzberger [2007] QCA 258 at [19], where the Court said:…
Comptroller-General of Customs v Parker [No 3]
[2006] NSWSC 1269 Para 1

…As noted in Comptroller-General of Customs v Parker (No 3) [2006] NSWSC 1269 at [21], specific deterrence is not merely to deter an offender from repeating precisely the conduct the subject of the offences but has a broader purpose to deter the offender from engaging in other forms of dishonesty. In this case, that…
Cameron v the Queen
[2002] HCA 6 Para 1

…In Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 at 343; [11]-[14], the Court held that a guilty plea may indicate several factors in mitigation including evidence of remorse, acceptance of responsibility and “willingness to facilitate the course of justice”.…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 1

…ence of imprisonment is appropriate. There are multiple sentences to be imposed, each of which must result in an appropriate sentence, as required by Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610. I have regard, however, to the totality of the imprisonment to be imposed and, in those circumstances, have regard to the extent to whic…
Douglas v The Queen
[1995] FCA 411 Para 1

…sentencing for the addiction, in such circumstances where the addiction causes or contributes to his criminality, reduces his moral culpability. See Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465 at 470.…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 1

…likelihood of re-offending, his attitude to disobedience to the law, his moral culpability and his prospects for reform. See Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 477.…
Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Lin
[2007] WASC 314 Para 1

…Thus, as Templeman J pointed out in Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Lin [2007] WASC 314 at [105]:…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
1, 16A, 16A(2), 16A(2)(a), 16A(2)(b), 16... 9 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)