Skyring v Commonwealth Commissioner of Taxation

COURT OF APPEAL

[1993] QCA 119

McPHERSON JA
PINCUS JA

SHEPHERDSON J

CA NO. 201 OF 1992

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING

Appellant

THE COMMONWEALTH COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

BRISBANE

... DATE 25/03/1993

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court on 20 March 1992 of an offence under the Taxation Administration Act of failing to furnish a tax return. He appealed under s.222 of the Justices Act, 1886, to a Judge of District Courts, who heard his appeal. The Judge in question delivered his decision on 4 September 1992 dismissing that appeal.

The appellant now seeks to appeal to this Court. The difficulty with which he is confronted in doing so is that the section of the Justices Act, which as I have said is s.222, conferring a right of appeal to a District Court Judge, provides that the determination of that District Court Judge on the appeal to him, "shall be final between the parties to the appeal".

The result, therefore, in this instance, is that, having suffered his appeal to be determined by the District Court Judge, as happened in this case, the determination of that Judge is final and this Court has no power to deal with the appeal that is now sought to be brought to it from that determination.

I perhaps ought to add that, in the course of making his submissions before us, the appellant raised again, as he has

done in several other matters in the past, the question of whether a proper system of currency prevails in this country.

For my part, I would say simply that the question that was before the magistrate was whether the appellant had, in common parlance, lodged his tax return, not whether he was able to pay or discharge in any form whatsoever, or by any means whatsoever, any liability to taxation that might follow on from lodging the tax return. The question that as I say was sought to be raised as it has been in the past, was therefore, as I see it, not in any way relevant to the proceedings in the Magistrates Court.

The appeal should be dismissed.

PINCUS JA: I agree and I would add only that Mr. Skyring, I'm sure, understands the point that the complaint is not about the content of his return but about not having put returns in.

SHEPHERDSON J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: The appeal is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Brisbane presided over by McPherson JA, Pincus JA, and Shepherdson J, heard an appeal against a decision from the District Court regarding an offence under the Taxation Administration Act. The appellant, Alan George Skyring, had been convicted by a Magistrate of failing to furnish a tax return and subsequently appealed to a District Court Judge under section 222 of the Justices Act, 1886. The District Court Judge dismissed the appeal, and Skyring sought to appeal further to the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether they had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the District Court Judge's decision, given that section 222 of the Justices Act provided that the determination of a District Court Judge on such an appeal was final. The Court considered the appellant's argument that the currency system in Australia was improper, but found this irrelevant to the proceedings before the Magistrate.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the District Court Judge's decision was final and binding between the parties, as stipulated by section 222 of the Justices Act. They held that the appeal to the Court of Appeal was thus out of time and beyond their jurisdiction. McPherson JA, Pincus JA, and Shepherdson J agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, with Pincus JA emphasizing that the issue was not the content of the tax return but the failure to lodge it. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the District Court Judge remained final.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established