Regina v William John Walters - [2001] NSWSC 640

CITATION: Regina v William John Walters [2001] NSWSC 640

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70076/99

HEARING DATE(S): 25 June 2001 to 13 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 July 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
William John Walters

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1

COUNSEL :
D.J. Fagan SC - Crown/P.J. Renehan - Crown
J.R. Bishop/A. Blank/A. Ivantsoff/J. Mersic - Defendant

SOLICITORS: H. Armstrong - Commonwealth DPP
C. Adamson - Paclaw Solicitors - Defendant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (C'wealth)

CASES CITED: Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

DECISION: On Count 1: Fixed term of imprisonment for 2 years, commencing on 27 July 2001 and expiring on 26 July 2003; On Counts 2, 3 and 4: Fixed term of imprisonment for 3 years, commencing on 27 July 2001 and expiring on 26 July 2004; On Counts 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: Imprisonment for 4 years and 8 months, commencing on 27 July 2004 and expiring on 26 March 2009, with a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 27 July 2004 and expiring on 26 July 2007; On Count 10: Fixed term of imprisonment for 3 years, commencing on 27 July 2004 and expiring on 26 July 2007

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SULLY J

Friday 27 July 2001

70076/99 - REGINA v WILLIAM JOHN WALTERS

ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction

1 On 25 June 2001 Mr. William John Walters, (“the prisoner”), was presented in this Court for trial upon an indictment containing ten counts. Each count charged the prisoner with having been knowingly concerned in the defrauding by a particular named company of the Commonwealth. A different company was named in each count, but the nature of the defrauding that was charged in each case was alleged to have been “in respect of group tax required to be remitted to the Commissioner of Taxation” by the particular named company.

2 Offences of the kind thus charged contravene section 29D of the Crimes Act 1914 (C’wealth), (“the Act”). A contravention of section 29D attracts, relevantly, a statutory maximum sentence of imprisonment for 10 years.

3 The prisoner pleaded upon presentment not guilty to each count of the indictment; and he stood thereupon trial by jury. On 13 July instant the jury returned a verdict of guilty upon each charge. The prisoner was formally convicted in each case; and was then remanded in custody until 20 July, on which day the Court heard submissions on sentence, thereafter remanding the prisoner in custody until today, for the passing of sentence.

4 Before proceeding with the necessary canvass of the relevant objective and subjective matters bearing in a particular way upon sentence, there are some general matters that can be conveniently considered.

5 First, the offences of which the prisoner has been convicted are all “federal offences” as defined in section 16(1) of the Act. It follows that the offender is a “federal offender” as defined in that same section; and that…

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 William John Walters

Details

AGLC: Regina v William John Walters [2001] NSWSC 640
Case: [2001] NSWSC 640
Decision Date: 27 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v William John Walters, William John Walters was found guilty on ten counts of knowingly being involved in the defrauding of the Commonwealth by various companies, in violation of section 29D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The Court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for each count, taking into account the totality principle, the objective criminality, and the subjective factors. The court also had to consider the additional five offences related to breaches of a restraining order.

The court applied the principles established in Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 and Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 for sentencing multiple offences. The court found that the objective criminality of the offences was high, as the prisoner had engaged in a systematic dishonesty for over nine years, costing the public revenue approximately $7 million. The court also considered the subjective factors, such as the prisoner's lack of contrition, the need for general deterrence, and the prospect of rehabilitation. The court sentenced Walters to a total of six years of full-time custody, with parole eligibility after serving two-thirds of the sentence.

On Count 1, Walters was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for 2 years, commencing on 27 July 2001 and expiring on 26 July 2003. For Counts 2, 3, and 4, he received a fixed term of imprisonment for 3 years, commencing on 27 July 2001 and expiring on 26 July 2004, with all four sentences to run concurrently. For Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years and 8 months, commencing on 27 July 2004 and expiring on 26 March 2009, with a non-parole period of 3 years, commencing on 27 July 2004 and expiring on 26 July 2007, and all six sentences to run concurrently, starting after the completion of the sentences for Counts 1 to 4. On Count 10, Walters was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for 3 years, commencing on 27 July 2004 and expiring on 26 July 2007, to run concurrently with the sentences for Counts 5 to 9.

Orders