DPP v Young (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Parsons, 11 September 2015).
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Customs offence – Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233BABAD(2) – Applicant convicted on one charge of defraud revenue and one charge of attempt to defraud revenue – Tobacco importation – Applicant freight forwarder alleged member of syndicate – Proof that applicant knew consignments contained tobacco – Proof that applicant knew of intention to defraud revenue – Circumstantial prosecution case – Inferences – Whether certain facts indispensable intermediate facts in prosecution case – Judge’s directions to jury – Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) ss 61, 62 – Whether provisions of Victorian Act precluded from application in trial of federal indictable offence by s 80 of Constitution (Cth).
SENTENCE – Total effective sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment to be released after serving 15 months on recognisance for a period of two years – Whether sentence manifestly excessive.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant
Mr D Gurvich QC and Mr A Sim
Mahons Lawyers
For the Respondent
Mr P Doyle
Solicitor for the Director Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)
For the Attorney-General (Intervening)
Mr R Niall QC (Solicitor-General) and Ms J Watson
Victorian Government Solicitor
ASHLEY JA WHELAN JA KAYE JA:
The applicant was found guilty by the jury, empanelled on his trial, of one charge of possessing goods, namely tobacco products, knowing that the goods were imported with intent to defraud the revenue contrary to s 233BABAD(2) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), and one charge of attempting to possess tobacco products, knowing that they had been imported with intent to defraud the revenue. He was acquitted of a third charge of attempting to possess goods, also tobacco products, knowing that the goods were imported with intent to defraud the revenue. He also pleaded guilty to a summary offence. It related to conduct that was quite different to the other offending, and no more need be said about it.
Following a plea hearing, the applicant was sentenced on 11 September 2015 as follows:
Charge on Indictment
Offence
Maximum
Sentence
Cumulation
1
Attempt to possess goods, namely tobacco products, knowing that the goods were imported with intent to defraud the revenue [Criminal Code (Cth) s 11.1]
10 years
Acquitted by jury
2
Possess goods, namely tobacco products, knowing that the goods were imported with intent to defraud the revenue [Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233BABAD (2)]
10 years
12 months
To commence on 11 September 2015
3
Attempt to possess goods, namely tobacco products, knowing that the goods were imported with intent to defraud the revenue
[Criminal Code (Cth) s 11.1]
10 years
18 months
To commence on 11 March 2016
Summary offence
Recklessly making a…
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 Young v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Young v The Queen [2016] VSCA 149
Case
[2016] VSCA 149
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of Australia, the case of Young v The Queen was presented, where the applicant contested his conviction on two charges related to defrauding revenue under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The charges stemmed from an alleged involvement in a syndicate that sought to import tobacco without paying the appropriate duties. The applicant, a freight forwarder, was found guilty of one count of defrauding revenue and one count of attempting to defraud revenue. The crux of the legal issues hinged on whether the prosecution had adequately proven that the applicant knew the consignments contained tobacco and was aware of the intention to defraud revenue. Additionally, the case delved into the interpretation and application of jury directions under the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) in the context of a federal indictable offence, and whether these provisions were precluded by section 80 of the Constitution (Cth).
The court considered whether the judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and whether certain facts were indispensable intermediate facts in the prosecution's case. It was crucial to determine if the jury had been adequately guided in drawing inferences from the circumstantial evidence presented. Furthermore, the applicability of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) provisions in the trial of a federal offence was examined, considering the constitutional framework that might preclude state legislation from affecting federal trials. The court analysed whether the Victorian jury directions could be applied and if they were necessary to the prosecution's case, given the federal nature of the charges.
Upon reviewing the case, the High Court concluded that the jury's verdict was based on substantial evidence, and the judge's directions were appropriate. The court found that the necessary facts were sufficiently proven, and the application of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) was not precluded by the federal legislative framework. The sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, with 15 months to be served on recognisance, was deemed not manifestly excessive. The High Court upheld the conviction, affirming the lower court's judgment.