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.
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.
COUNSEL: JA Greggery for the Respondent
SOLICITORS: The appellant was self represented.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
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.
Both parties provided outlines of argument, and made further submissions on the hearing of the appeal, which I have considered.
Background
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
- AGLC
- Whittaker v Simpson [2017] QDC 230
- Case
- [2017] QDC 230
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.