R v Easton - [2014] NZHC 522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2011-041-001510 [2014] NZHC 522

THE QUEEN

v

STUART DAVID EASTON

Counsel: D R La Hood for Crown
C R Carruthers QC for Prisoner

Re-Sentence: 21 March 2014

NOTES ON RE-SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Easton, on 12 July 2013 I convicted you on 22 charges of aiding and abetting three companies to knowingly fail to pay PAYE deductions to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. This offending breached s 143A(1)(d) of the Tax Administration Act 1994.

[2] I determined that the amount of PAYE that was not paid to the Commissioner was $204,213.03.

[3] You were the managing director and principal shareholder of the three companies involved, each of which have been placed into liquidation.

[4] On 9 August 2013 I fined you $3,000 in relation to each count, and ordered you to pay court costs of $130 on each charge. I also asked you to pay reparation to
the Commissioner. However, in order to avoid the Commissioner receiving more in

R v EASTON [2014] NZHC 522 [21 March 2014]

reparation than she was entitled to, I directed that the reparation order would not take effect until the liquidation of the three companies was completed.

[5] On 19 December 2013 the Court of Appeal determined that the combination of a fine and reparation was a manifestly inadequate response to the seriousness of your offending. The Court of Appeal also questioned whether the reparation order I made complied with s 36 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The Court of Appeal quashed your sentence and remitted your case back to me for re-sentencing. The Court of Appeal said that its judgment was not intended to preclude the possibility of home detention or a community-based sentence if I considered those options appropriate.

Sentencing reports

[6] I have had the benefit of three pre-sentence reports:

(1)The full pre-sentence report recommends you be sentenced to community work and reparation.

(2)The reparation report records that you accept that the total amount of reparation that remains unpaid is $199,292.98 and that there is no barrier to me ordering reparation of that sum on the basis that you will pay $7,500 every three months with the first payment to be made three months from today’s date.

(3)The third report advises that your home address is a suitable address for you to serve a sentence of community detention or home detention.

[7] In sentencing you, I shall:

(1) re-explain your offending;

(2) identify the starting point of your sentence;

(3) adjust the starting point to reflect mitigating factors;

(4) consider the options short of imprisonment; and

(5) explain your end sentence and the reasons for that sentence.

Your offending

[8] I have previously said the three companies to which the charges related, namely, East Quip Ltd (EQL), Hooked on Rigging Ltd (HORL) and Napier Equity Ltd (NEL), were part of the Easton Group which for many years was a successful and diverse business enterprise in the Hawke’s Bay. Other…

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 [2014] NZHC 522
Case: [2014] NZHC 522
Decision Date: 21 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Easton involved a conviction on 22 charges of aiding and abetting three companies in knowingly failing to pay PAYE deductions to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The defendant, Stuart David Easton, was the managing director and principal shareholder of the three companies, which had since been placed into liquidation. Easton was initially fined $3,000 on each count, ordered to pay court costs, and directed to pay reparation to the Commissioner, with the reparation order to be deferred until the liquidation of the companies was completed. However, the Court of Appeal deemed the original sentence manifestly inadequate and quashed it, remitting the case back to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing.

The primary legal issues revolved around determining an appropriate sentence for Easton's serious criminal offending, considering both imprisonment and non-custodial alternatives. The sentencing judge had to weigh mitigating factors such as Easton’s otherwise good character, his genuine efforts to manage the financial challenges faced by his companies, and the potential impact of imprisonment on his businesses and employees.

The court found that a sentence of imprisonment was not necessary or appropriate. The judge concluded that Easton was not likely to reoffend, considering the significant impact of the prosecution and sentencing process on him. Additionally, the judge was mindful of the potential consequences of imprisonment on Easton's remaining businesses and the employees. Thus, the court opted for a combination of community detention and community work, which it determined would adequately hold Easton accountable, promote acknowledgement of his offending, denounce his conduct, deter others, and be the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances. Easton was sentenced to 80 hours of community work and four months of community detention. The court also ordered reparation to be paid in instalments of $7,500 every three months, with the first instalment due three months from the date of the sentence.

Orders