Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v The Queen

Taylor v The Queen

Case [2019] VSCA 162 5 July 2019

Appeal

Obtaining financial advantage by deception

Sentencing

Totality principle

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0099

JULIAN RICHARD TAYLOR	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 July 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 July 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 162
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Taylor (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 14 August 2018 (Conviction); [2018] VCC 2271 (Sentence)) (Judge Brookes)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Obtaining financial advantage by deception and associated charges – Applicant obtained registration as a teacher from Victorian Institute of Teaching falsely declaring that he had no prior convictions – Applicant obtained employment as a teacher based on registration falsely declaring that he had no prior convictions – Whether disclosure of prior convictions improperly prejudicial – Whether obtaining registration is a financial advantage – Whether obtaining employment is a financial advantage – Whether judge misdirected the jury on meaning of financial advantage – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Obtaining financial advantage by deception and associated charges – Total effective sentence of 2 years and 11 months with non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months – Applicant obtained registration as a teacher from Victorian Institute of Teaching falsely declaring that he had no prior convictions – Applicant obtained employment as a teacher based on registration falsely declaring that he had no prior convictions – Whether judge erred in assessing prospects of rehabilitation – Whether totality principle infringed – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Crown	[Madame Prosecutor]	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

Introduction

Over the years, the applicant, who was born Steven Robert Barr on 16 January 1965, has gone by number of different names, including Julian Richard Taylor.

On 14 August 2018, a jury empanelled in the County Court found the applicant — charged under the name Julian Richard Taylor (formerly known as Steven Mark Bahntoff; Steven Robert Barr; Steven Robert Parker; Julian Mark Bahntoff; and Steven Robert Bahntoff) — guilty of four charges of using a false document[1] (charges 1, 3, 7 and 10); one charge of perjury[2] (charge 2); seven charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception[3] (charges 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 13); and one charge of making, using or supplying identification information[4] (charge 9).
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 83A(4). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 314(1). The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 82(1). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[4]Crimes Act 1958, s 192B(1). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.

Following a plea on 18 September 2018 conducted by counsel on the applicant’s behalf, on 20 November 2018 the trial judge sentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of two years and 11 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two…

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 Taylor v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taylor v The Queen [2019] VSCA 162
Case: [2019] VSCA 162
Decision Date: 5 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taylor v The Queen, the applicant sought to appeal both his conviction and sentence for obtaining financial advantage by deception and associated charges. The applicant had falsely declared no prior convictions to obtain registration as a teacher and subsequently employment. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the disclosure of prior convictions was improperly prejudicial, if obtaining registration and employment were financial advantages, and if the judge misdirected the jury regarding the meaning of financial advantage. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the totality principle and the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of "financial advantage" under the applicable legislation and whether the applicant's actions constituted such an advantage. The court considered the requirement of disclosure in the context of obtaining teacher registration and employment, assessing whether these were integral steps towards the financial advantage claimed. The applicant argued that the judge had misdirected the jury, potentially leading to an improper conviction. Furthermore, the court assessed the sentence's proportionality and whether it infringed on the totality principle or failed to adequately consider the applicant's rehabilitation prospects.

The High Court found that the judge had not misdirected the jury, and the applicant's actions did constitute obtaining a financial advantage. The court held that the disclosure of prior convictions was not improperly prejudicial, as the applicant's deception was central to the fraud. The court also determined that the sentence was proportionate, taking into account the totality principle and the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation. Consequently, the High Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the applicant's conviction and sentence.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the applicant's conviction for obtaining financial advantage by deception, rejecting the argument that the judge misdirected the jury. The court also affirmed the sentence, finding it to be proportionate and not manifestly excessive. The applicant's appeal was consequently dismissed, leaving the original conviction and sentence intact.

Orders