Ridley v R - [2008] NSWCCA 324

Reported Decision: 192 A Crim R 139

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Gavin Mark RIDLEY v REGINA [2008] NSWCCA 324

HEARING DATE(S): 12 September 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 December 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Johnson J at 99; Price J at 100

DECISION: 1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.
2. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
3. Appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: TAXATION – SALES TAX – TAX EVASION – administration of Goods & Services Tax scheme – Business Activity Statements lodged with Australian Tax Office – input tax credits improperly claimed – serious fraud against the revenue - CRIMINAL APPEAL – CONVICITION – alleged failure to give directions – directions said to be inadequate – directions said to be misdirections. - CRIMINAL APPEAL – SENTENCE – considerations said not to be legitimate – weight given to specific deterrence – sentence said to be manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)

PARTIES: Gavin Mark RIDLEY
REGINA

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 3833/2007

COUNSEL: Mr P Lowe
Mr P Roberts SC

SOLICITORS: Mr P Bodiscoe

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0192

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sorby DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 3 August 2007

3833/2007

18 December 2008

Gavin Mark RIDLEY v REGINA

JUDGMENT

1 ALLSOP P: Gavin Mark Ridley (the appellant) appeals against his conviction and sentence following a jury verdict in respect of a trial in the District Court between 2 and 22 May 2007.

2 On 2 May 2007, the appellant pleaded not guilty to twelve counts on an indictment, nine counts relating to defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 29D and three counts of attempt by deception to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage contrary to the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), ss 134.2 and 11.1.

3 The jury convicted the appellant on all twelve counts.

4 On 3 August 2007, Sorby DCJ sentenced the appellant in respect of each of the charges on which he had been found guilty to an effective overall period of imprisonment of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years.

The indictment

5 The indictment contained twelve counts as follows:

Counts 1 to 9:

“… On or about [date] at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did defraud the Commonwealth, namely the Commissioner of Taxation, in the sum of [$ amount] by causing to be lodged with the Australian Taxation Office a Business Activity Statement for the period [period] on behalf of [name of company] which falsely claimed a Goods and Services Tax refund of [$ amount].”

Counts 10 to 12:

“… On or about [date] at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did attempt by a deception to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage, namely a Goods and Services Tax refund in the sum of [$ amount] from a Commonwealth entity, namely the Commissioner of Taxation by lodging with the Australian Taxation Office a Business Activity Statement for the period [period]…

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 Ridley v R

Details

AGLC: Ridley v R [2008] NSWCCA 324
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 324
Decision Date: 18 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ridley, appealed against his conviction and sentence for tax evasion and related offences under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) legislation. The case reached the High Court of Australia, where the central issue was the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury and the proportionality of the sentence imposed. The appellant argued that the directions were inadequate and misdirected the jury, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive, given the weight placed on specific deterrence.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the directions given to the jury during the trial. The appellant contended that the directions were insufficient to ensure the jury understood the requirements of the GST legislation and the nature of the tax evasion charges. Furthermore, the appellant claimed that the trial judge's directions misdirected the jury on the elements of the offence, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. In terms of the sentence, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to consider relevant mitigating factors and placed undue emphasis on specific deterrence, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.

The High Court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and found that they were adequate and did not misdirect the jury on the essential elements of the offence. The court held that the directions provided a clear explanation of the relevant legal principles and the jury's role in determining the appellant's guilt. Consequently, the court rejected the appellant's argument that the directions were inadequate or misdirecting. Regarding the sentence, the High Court found that the trial judge had considered relevant mitigating factors and appropriately balanced the various sentencing considerations, including general and specific deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the appellant's criminal conduct and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence, upholding the findings of the lower courts. The appellant's conviction and sentence for tax evasion and related offences under the GST legislation were affirmed.

Orders