R v Rowley - [2012] NZHC 2087

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2010-085-6205 [2012] NZHC 2087

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID INGRAM ROWLEY BARRIE JAMES SKINNER

Hearing: 17 August 2012

Counsel: D La Hood for Crown
M T Lennard for Mr Skinner
M R C Keating for Mr Rowley

Sentence: 17 August 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mr Skinner, you have been found guilty on indictment of 80 counts of dishonestly using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage, seven counts of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice and five counts of knowingly providing false information to the Revenue

[2] Mr Rowley, you have been found guilty on indictment of 75 counts of dishonestly using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage, seven counts of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice and five counts of knowingly
providing false information to the Revenue.

R v ROWLEY & SKINNER HC WN CRI 2010-085-6205 [17 August 2012]

The offending

[3] The circumstances of your offending have been set out in detail in my reasons for verdicts delivered on 20 July 2012.

Fraud charges

[4] You devised a scheme to invoice clients for services (and in some instances goods) where there was either no underlying supply at all or supply to an extent well below the face value of the invoice rendered. The invoices were false.

[5] The scheme was devised in conjunction with a Mr Shaan Stevens, a Wellington accountant. Mr Stevens was your co-accused in 13 of the counts you faced. He pleaded guilty to those counts and was sentenced in the Wellington District Court on 7 November 2011 to 10 months’ home detention and 150 hours of community work. As your counsel accept, your offending is at an altogether different scale to that of Mr Stevens. A higher starting point than the five years the Judge there began with is inevitable in your case. In particular, the discounts for guilty pleas, reparation, cooperation and character that applied to Mr Stevens do not apply to you.

[6] The scheme was sold by you to your clients as a means of sheltering them from tax. It may be helpful to set out how that was to occur:

(a) Let us imagine a client with a notional assessable income of $100, with $33 in income tax to pay. You wrote a false invoice of $100, creating a deductible expense, thus reducing the assessable income to
0 and saving the client $33 tax. The client also gained a false GST

input credit of $12.50.

(b)Had you acted out of the goodness of your hearts, the tax system would have been $45.50 worse off and your clients $45.50 better off.

(c) But you did not do this out of the goodness of your hearts. You charged your clients a fee for writing the invoices. Your clients paid the invoices to a trust account at your business, Tax Planning Services Ltd. Typically you then returned two thirds of the face value of…

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 Rowley

Details

AGLC: R v Rowley [2012] NZHC 2087
Case: [2012] NZHC 2087
Decision Date: 17 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rowley was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The defendants, David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner, were convicted on multiple counts of dishonestly using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and knowingly providing false information to the Revenue. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendants based on the nature and extent of their offending, as well as the purposes and principles of sentencing.

The defendants devised a scheme to invoice clients for services or goods that either did not exist or were significantly understated. The scheme was sold as a means of sheltering clients from tax, but in reality, it resulted in clients paying their taxes twice - once to the defendants and again to the Revenue. The court found that the defendants' offending was deliberate, premeditated, and sophisticated, causing substantial harm and loss to the community, clients, and their own families.

Considering the purposes and principles of sentencing, the court determined a starting point of seven years' imprisonment for Skinner and six and a half years for Rowley, taking into account the aggravating factors of their offending and relevant case law. The court also imposed additional sentences for the attempted perversion of the justice process and tax evasion charges, resulting in a total of eight and a half years for Skinner and eight years for Rowley. The court decided not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, allowing the parole process to determine the appropriate time for the defendants' release, contingent on their demonstrating a realistic appreciation of their serious criminal conduct.

Orders