Legal Research
Cases
R v Easton

R v Easton

Case [2013] NZCA 677 19 December 2013

Sentencing

Repudiation & Termination

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA595/2013
[2013] NZCA 677

BETWEEN	THE QUEEN Appellant
AND	STUART DAVID EASTON Respondent

Hearing:	19 November 2013
Court:	Randerson, Heath and Asher JJ
Counsel:	M F Laracy and A R van Echten for Appellant C R Carruthers QC and R P Harley for Respondent
Judgment:	19 December 2013 at 3:00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe Solicitor-General’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
BThe appeal is allowed.
CThe sentences imposed by the High Court are set aside.
DSentencing is remitted to the High Court to be reimposed in a manner consistent with this judgment.
EMr Easton is remanded at large for sentence on a date to be fixed by the Registrar of the High Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Heath J)

The appeal

Following a trial in the High Court at Wellington in early July 2013, Collins J (sitting alone) found Mr Easton guilty on 22 charges of aiding and abetting three companies that knowingly failed to pay PAYE deductions to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (the Commissioner).[1] The amount in issue was just under $200,000.[2] Mr Easton was sentenced on 9 August 2013. He was fined $3,000 on each charge (a total of $66,000) and was ordered to pay reparation of $140,000 to the Commissioner. Execution of the reparation order was effectively suspended until after liquidation of the three companies had been completed, so that the amount of any distributions to be made to the Commissioner could be determined. Leave was reserved to Mr Easton to apply to reduce the amount of reparation ordered, if the Commissioner were to receive more than $60,000 by way of dividend.[3]
[1]R v Easton [2013] NZHC 478, (2013) 26 NZTC 21-030 [reasons for verdicts]. The charges were brought under s 143A of the Tax Administration Act 1994.
[2]See [6] below.
[3]R v Easton [2013] NZHC 1683 [sentencing notes] at [21] and [22].
The Solicitor-General seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed.[4] On his behalf, Ms Laracy submitted that the sentence was both manifestly inadequate, and wrong in principle. As a result of directions made by French J on 16 October 2013, the application for leave and the appeal itself were heard together.

Background facts[5]

[4]Crimes Act 1961, s 383(2).

[5]This summary is taken from the reasons for verdicts, above n 1.

Mr Easton and his wife owned and managed six companies and entities (the Group). The Commissioner’s investigations into the Group began in 2007. Mr Easton, in evidence, described the Group as being in “dire straits” around that time. At a meeting held on 24 April 2008, Ms Lancaster, an employee of the Inland Revenue Department, explained to Mr and Mrs Easton and Mr Taylor, the Group’s tax adviser and external accountant, that it was a criminal offence not to pay over PAYE deductions to the Commissioner, that amounts deducted from wages were the property of the Commissioner and not the employer and that if…

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 R v Easton

Details

AGLC: R v Easton [2013] NZCA 677
Case: [2013] NZCA 677
Decision Date: 19 December 2013 at 3:00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Easton involved an appeal by the Solicitor-General against the sentence imposed on Stuart David Easton for aiding and abetting three companies in knowingly failing to pay PAYE deductions to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The total amount in dispute was approximately $200,000. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle. The Court of Appeal granted leave for the appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the sentences imposed by the High Court. Sentencing was remitted to the High Court to be reimposed in a manner consistent with this judgment. The Court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate as it did not adequately mark the offending, did not reflect the gravity of the offending, and did not meet relevant sentencing goals of denunciation, deterrence, and accountability. The reparation component of the sentence was also found to be ineffective and not likely to be an effective sentencing response. The Court concluded that it was preferable for the trial Judge to conduct the re-sentencing exercise.

Orders