Note: A schedule of the verdicts returned appears at the end of these written reasons. A summary of reasons is also given, beginning at [459] below.

Index

A. Introduction .....................................................................................................[1] Charges...................................................................................................................[1] Verdicts ..................................................................................................................[7] Judge-alone trial .....................................................................................................[8] Crown case – outline ............................................................................................[18] Defence case – outline .........................................................................................[30] B. Dishonest Use – Background and Legal Elements .....................................[39] Background ..........................................................................................................[39] Legal elements .....................................................................................................[41] C. Dishonest Use – Earlier Period Clients .......................................................[50] Introduction ..........................................................................................................[50] Kathy Ertel – tax and GST returns – counts 1 & 2 ..............................................[52] Jamie Wilson – tax and GST returns – counts 3 & 4 ...........................................[89]

R v ROWLEY & SKINNER HC WN CRI 2010-085-006205 [20 July 2012]

Harding Electrical Limited – tax and GST returns – counts 5 to 12 ..................[104] Country Theme Franchise Limited – tax and GST returns – counts 30 to 32 ...[134] Esk Contractors Limited – tax and GST returns – counts 14 to 19....................[152] Esk Group Limited – tax and GST returns – counts 20 to 29 ............................[152] Pipitea Street Developments Limited – tax returns – counts 33 to 34 ...............[180] Lorraine Skiffington – tax returns – counts 35 to 38 .........................................[180] Strategic Directionz Limited – tax and GST returns – counts 81 to 84 .............[180] Sharon Skinner – tax returns – counts 65 to 69 .................................................[211] Leyser Enterprises Limited – tax returns – counts 39 to 40...............................[222] Sharpay Holdings Limited – tax returns – counts 41 to 42 ................................[234] Nigel Hall Decorators Limited – tax and GST returns – counts 43 to 45 ..........[252] Overall evaluation of period up to June 2007 ....................................................[265] D. Dishonest Use – Later Period Clients ........................................................[269] Topline Tailors Limited – tax and GST returns – counts 49 to 52 ....................[270] Mangiare Foods Limited – tax and GST returns – counts 75 to 77 ...................[270] AAA Finance Limited – tax returns – counts 53 to 55 ......................................[284] Sunshine State Finance Limited – tax returns – counts 63 and 64.....................[284] SS Transport Limited – tax returns – counts 56 & 57........................................[293] Vicki Breen – tax returns – counts 58 to 61 .......................................................[300] MQ Property Services Limited – tax return – count 62 .....................................[307] Scotty’s Construction Limited – tax returns – counts 70 to 74 ..........................[317] Steven Godfrey – tax returns – counts 78 to 80 .................................................[329] Quik’n’Tuff Holdings Limited – GST returns – count 85 .................................[341] BRMVR Holdings Limited – GST returns – counts 86 to 87 ............................[350] Conaghan Consulting Limited – tax and GST returns – counts 88 to 90 ..........[360] Kilbirnie Plymouth Investments Limited – GST returns – count 91 .................[374] AGI Motor…

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 1778
Case: [2012] NZHC 1778
Decision Date: 20 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Rowley, the defendants, David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner, were charged with multiple counts of dishonest use of documents to obtain a pecuniary advantage, perverting the course of justice, and knowingly providing false information to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The defendants, both accountants and tax agents, were accused of orchestrating a scheme involving the issuance of false invoices to their clients, which enabled the clients to claim deductions and input credits in their income tax and GST returns. The scheme allegedly resulted in a benefit to the clients and personal financial gain for the defendants. The trial was conducted as a judge-alone trial, with the judge considering the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. The judge found the defendants guilty on 80 out of 89 counts of dishonest use, all seven counts of perverting the course of justice, and five counts of knowingly providing false information. The judge concluded that the defendants had indeed devised a fraudulent scheme, which involved issuing false invoices to clients and facilitating false claims in tax returns, resulting in significant financial benefits to both the clients and the defendants. The judge also found that the defendants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by providing false information to their clients to deflect the Revenue investigation. Finally, the judge determined that the defendants' personal tax returns were false as they failed to declare the income obtained from their fraudulent activities.

Orders