R v GOEL [2011] NSWDC 83

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v GOEL [2011] NSWDC 83 Hearing dates: 1 August 2011 Decision date: 04 August 2011 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: See para [30] jury to be directed accordingly Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - causation under Commonwealth Criminal Code - tax fraud - "but for" test rejected Legislation Cited: Criminal Code 1995 (Commonwealth) Cases Cited: Arulthiakan v The Queen 204 ALR 259 Moffatt v The Queen (2000) 112 ACrimR 201 R v Petroulias (no 30) [2007] NSWSC 119 Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The Crown Dinker Goel Representation: W Hunt - The Crown A Morris - The Accused Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) Mark Klees and Associates File Number(s): 2009/00011996

Judgment

Introduction 1The trial of Dinker Goel began last Monday. He was arraigned on 41 counts under s135.1(3) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Commonwealth). Evidence was called over 3 days until, in circumstances I am about to describe, he was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty. This followed a request, from Mr Goel's counsel, Mr Morris, that I indicate how I was proposing to direct the jury as regards one aspect of the elements of each of the alleged offences. After I heard argument from Mr Morris and the Crown Prosecutor, I indicated that I would not be directing the jury in the way Mr Morris asked me to. I then adjourned for Mr Morris to get further instructions in the light of what I had just said. It was when the Court resumed that Mr Goel was re-arraigned in the presence of the jury and pleaded guilty. 2These are the reasons for me deciding that I would not direct the jury in the way Mr Morris sought.