Whittaker v Simpson

Case [2017] QDC 230


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Whittaker v Simpson [2017] QDC 230

PARTIES:

MARK ALAN WHITTAKER
(appellant)

v

CHRISTIAN TIMOTHY SIMPSON          
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No. D 53/17

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

12 June 2017

JUDGE:

Morzone QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   The decision of the magistrates Court made on 4 April 2017 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – TAXATION LAW – APPEAL - appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 –imprisonment for taxation offences and recognisance release order = original decision upheld on appeals – subsequent failure to lodge the income tax returns in the approved form – noncompliance with condition to lodge required taxation returns in recognisance release order – whether revocation of order effects a revocation of original conviction or constitutes a “re-conviction” for the original offence mode of hearing of appeal – arguments about conviction res judicata - whether noncompliance ‘without reasonable cause or excuse’ – whether reasonable excuse if belief of false declaration required by the orders - resentence under s 20AB by was of intensive correction order.

Legislation
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AC(1).
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss 31, 194.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), ss 161, 162.
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 222, 223(1), 227.
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), ss 111 – 118.
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), s 8C(1).

Cases

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172.

Doyle (1996) 84 A Crim R 287.

Dwyer v Calco Timbers (2008) 234 CLR 124.

Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132.

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118.

Grimm v R (1995) 124 FLR 372.

Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446.

Morris (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal NSW, 14 July 1995).

R v Harrington [2016] ACTCA 10.

Signorotto v Nicholson [1982] VR 413.

Stevens v McCullum [2006] ACTCA 13.

Taikato v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 454.

Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84.

The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550.

The Queen v Whittaker [2015] QCA 116.

Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531.

White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121

Whittaker v Simpson [2014] QDC 289.

COUNSEL:

JA Greggery for the Respondent

SOLICITORS: The appellant was self represented.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
  1. The appellant defends his noncompliance with a condition to lodge numerous taxation returns pursuant to a recognizance release order on the grounds that the conviction was unlawful and fraudulent, and compliance would have forced him to make a false declaration (and thereby commit an offence) if he signed the taxpayer declaration. 

  1. Both parties provided outlines of argument, and made further submissions on the hearing of the appeal, which I have considered.

Background

  1. On 3 April 2014, the appellant was convicted after a summary trial in the Magistrates Court of eight income tax offences before the trial…

Continue reading Whittaker v Simpson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Whittaker v Simpson [2017] QDC 230
Case
[2017] QDC 230
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Whittaker, was appealing against his conviction and sentence in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, following his imprisonment for tax offences. The court was asked to determine whether the conviction and sentence were lawfully made and if the decision to revoke the recognisance release order and impose a new sentence was justified. The central legal issue was whether the failure to lodge tax returns as required by the recognisance release order constituted a fresh offence or a breach of the conditions of the order, and if so, whether this constituted a new conviction or merely a breach of the original order. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the non-compliance with the order was without reasonable cause or excuse, particularly if the appellant had a belief that the declaration required by the orders was false.

The court examined the nature of the recognisance release order and its conditions, which included the requirement to lodge tax returns. It was determined that the failure to comply with these conditions did not amount to a new conviction but rather a breach of the order. The court further found that the appellant's belief that the declaration required by the orders was false did not constitute a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The court rejected the argument that the conviction was res judicata, meaning that it could not be re-litigated, as the issue at hand was the breach of the conditions of the recognisance release order rather than the original conviction itself.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Magistrates' Court made on 4 April 2017. The court maintained that the appellant's imprisonment and the subsequent sentence of an intensive correction order were appropriate given the breach of the recognisance release order conditions. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The decision of the magistrates Court made on 4 April 2017 is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.