Legal Research
Cases
Tatana v The King

Tatana v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 634 25 March 2025

Sentencing

Appeal

Limitation Periods

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-28

CRI-2025-409-29 [2025] NZHC 634

BETWEEN
MELANIE JILL TATANA

Appellant

AND

THE KING AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Respondents

Hearing: 17 March 2025

Appearances:

J Grainger for Appellant

B W D Alexander and P W Saunders for Respondent

Judgment:

25 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 March 2025 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

TATANA v R [2025] NZHC 634 [25 March 2025]

[1] Melanie Jill Tatana was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court to three years imprisonment1 on 63 charges of being a party to the withholding of PAYE deductions2 (the PAYE charges) and seven charges of failing to provide information, namely GST returns to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (the Commissioner) with the intention of evading the assessment or payment of tax (the GST charges).3 Ms Tatana seeks leave to appeal this sentence out of time and to adduce fresh evidence in the form of a cultural report on the basis the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The offending

PAYE charges

[2] Ms Tatana was the sole director and 90 per cent shareholder in an asbestos removal company, Asia Pacific Group Limited (APG). Between 1 April 2019 and 23 September 2022, APG was required to file returns reporting the deductions it had made from its employees’ wages.4 Between August 2019 and September 2022, APG failed to pay the full amounts of the PAYE deductions to the Commissioner. The deductions not paid by the due date totalled $1,602,864.17. Late payments and transfers that were received reduced the amount of outstanding unpaid PAYE to $1,121,204.47.

[3] A large portion of these appropriated funds were spent by Ms Tatana. By reference to the Commissioner’s analysis of APG’s bank records, those details were set out in the District Court Judge’s sentencing remarks:

[10] …

(a) For the year 2020, amounts spent on personal spending, gambling, liquor, bars and ATM cash withdrawals were $219,687.95.

(b) For the 2021 year, $316,607.48. (c) For 2022, $281,518.52.
(d) For 2023, $64,686.86.

[11] This totals $882,500.81.

1      R v Tatana [2024] NZDC 26390.
2      Tax Administration Act 1994, s 148(1) and s 143A(1)(d); maximum penalty five years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $50,000.
3      Tax Administration Act 1994, s 143B(1)(b) pursuant to s 143B(1)(f); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $50,000 or both.
4      RD 22 of the Income Tax Act 2007.

[12] During the relevant period of offending amounts were received into Ms Tatana’s personal bank account from APG’s bank account over four years, totalling $194,680.21.

[13] During the relevant period of offending $166,020.29 was received from APG into [Ms Tatana’s] daughter’s bank account for relevant years.

[14] APG provided returns to the Commissioner which detailed wages paid from APG to [Ms Tatana] and [her] husband across the relevant period of offending in the four…

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 Tatana v The King

Details

AGLC: Tatana v The King [2025] NZHC 634
Case: [2025] NZHC 634
Decision Date: 25 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melanie Jill Tatana was sentenced to three years imprisonment on 63 charges of being a party to the withholding of PAYE deductions and seven charges of failing to provide information, namely GST returns to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Ms Tatana, the sole director and 90 per cent shareholder in an asbestos removal company, Asia Pacific Group Limited, was found guilty of not paying the full amounts of the PAYE deductions to the Commissioner, resulting in a total of $1,121,204.47 in outstanding unpaid PAYE. Ms Tatana's appeal against the sentence was based on the grounds that the District Court did not apply a discount for her previous good character and failed to consider the content of a cultural report. The Crown argued that the District Court had already provided a 35 per cent discount for mitigating factors and that the overall sentence was within the range available to the sentencing Judge. The court found that a small deduction for Ms Tatana's previous good character would have been warranted, but no more than five per cent. The cultural report, which was not presented at the District Court, was allowed to be adduced on appeal as the interests of justice required it. However, the court concluded that the report would have resulted in a minimal adjustment to the sentence. The court found that the overall sentence imposed by the District Court was not manifestly excessive and the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Leave to appeal out of time is granted. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders