Regina v. Bates, Philip - [2007] NSWCCA 297

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v. Bates, Philip [2007] NSWCCA 297

HEARING DATE(S): 2 October 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Hislop J at 26; Latham J at 27

DECISION: Both questions in the stated case answered yes.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Case stated from District Court - Double jeopardy - Whether Court of Criminal Appeal can quash an acquittal - Whether it should do so - TAXATION - Failure to furnish an approved form when and as required - Written notice requiring taxation returns by a specified date - Extension of time requested and not responded to - Question of fact as to what was required by the Commissioner - Whether offence proved

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s.5B
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s.162
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) s.8C, Schedule 1 par.388-55
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss.6.2, 13.3

CASES CITED: Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales v. X [2000] NSWCA 199, 49 NSWLR 653
R v. Sirocic [2000] NSWCCA 325
Robinson v. Woolworths Limited [2005] NSWCCA 426
The Australian Gaslight Company v. The Valuer-General (1940) 40 SR(NSW) 126

PARTIES: Regina - Crown
Philip Bates - Opponent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3294

COUNSEL: Mr. M. Buscombe for appellant Crown
Mr. D. Raphael with Ms. Ketas for respondent

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of DPP, Sydney for appellant
Johnson Winter & Slattery, Sydney for respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 06/12/1039

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Zahra DCJ

CCAP 2007/3294
DC 06/12/1039

HODGSON JA
HISLOP J
LATHAM J

Monday 22 October 2007

REGINA V. BATES, Philip

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: This matter concerns questions submitted to this Court pursuant to s.5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 by a document in the following terms signed by Zahra DCJ:

Taxation Administration Act

Income Tax Assessment Act

Criminal Appeal Act

A. Did I err in determining that a notice issued under s 162 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 requiring that a nominated income tax return be given to the Commissioner of Taxation by a nominated date, required the taxpayer named in the notice to do one of two things, either give the nominated income tax return to the Commissioner…

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 Regina v. Bates, Philip

Details

AGLC: Regina v Bates, Philip [2007] NSWCCA 297
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 297
Decision Date: 22 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v. Bates, Philip, the respondent was acquitted of charges of failing to furnish tax returns and was subsequently acquitted by the District Court. The Crown appealed this decision to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was required to determine if it had the authority to quash the acquittal and whether it should exercise that authority. The central issue was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal could intervene in the respondent's acquittal on the grounds that the respondent had failed to furnish tax returns as required by law.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether it had the power to quash the acquittal and if it was appropriate to do so. The court examined the principle of double jeopardy and whether this principle could be overridden in this context. It was necessary to determine if the failure to furnish tax returns constituted an offence that warranted intervention by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The court further explored the factual circumstances surrounding the respondent's failure to submit the tax returns and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

After careful consideration, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that it did not have the authority to quash the respondent's acquittal. The court held that the principle of double jeopardy protected the respondent from being retried on the same charges, and therefore, the acquittal stood. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the offence of failing to furnish tax returns. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's acquittal was upheld. The court did not consider it appropriate to intervene and quash the acquittal in these circumstances.

Orders