Pratten v R [2014] NSWCCA 117

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Pratten v R [2014] NSWCCA 117 Hearing dates: 5, 6, 11 June 2014 Decision date: 01 July 2014 Before: Meagher JA; Fullerton J; Hamill J Decision: (1) Appeal against conviction is allowed.

(2) The appellant's convictions are quashed.

(3) There be a new trial of the appellant. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - seven counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception by lodging tax returns which did not disclose all assessable income - where Crown relied on the non declaration of a number of payments said to be income, whether trial judge erred in not directing jury that must be unanimous with respect to payments not disclosed which resulted in financial advantage - whether lodging of a tax return understating taxable income capable of constituting the obtaining of a financial advantage - whether trial miscarried because amended notices of assessment in respect of payments said to be income admitted in evidence - whether trial judge erred in not directing jury that to find financial advantage had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were not deductible expenses associated with amounts of income not disclosed - whether verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence - whether there was a miscarriage of justice because Crown did not call witness who audited financial statements tendered in the appellant's case Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1), 6(1) Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 134.2 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55(1), 136, 190 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 204(1) Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), Schedule 1, s 255-5 Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; 232 CLR 438 Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen [2012] HCA 14; 246 CLR 92 BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; 88 ALJR 101 Cesan v The Queen [2008] HCA 52; 236 CLR 358 Chapman v R [2013] NSWCCA 91 Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1 Cramp v The Queen (1999) 110 A Crim R 198 Fermanis v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 84; 33 WAR 434 Gassy v The Queen [2008] HCA 18; 236 CLR 293 Handlen v The Queen [2011] HCA 51; 245 CLR 282 Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 373 KBT v The Queen [1997] HCA 54; 191 CLR 417 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487 MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606 Mraz v The Queen (No 1) [1955] HCA 59; 93 CLR 493 Pratten v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] NSWSC 594 R v Apostilides [1984] HCA 38; 154 CLR 363 R v Beach (1994) 75 A Crim R 447 R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115 R v Clarke and Johnstone (1986) 21 A Crim R 135 R v Holmes [2006] VSCA 73 R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 R v Jo [2012] QCA 356 R v Lievers and Ballinger [1999] 1 Qd R 649 R v Mead [2002] 1 NZLR 594 R v More [1987] 1 WLR 1578 R v Vasic [2005] VSCA 38; 11 VR 380 S v The Queen [1989] HCA 66; 168 CLR 266 SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400 Walsh v R [2002] VSCA 98 Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; 224 CLR 300 Whitehorn v The Queen [1983] HCA 42; 152 CLR 657 Wilde v The Queen [1988] HCA 6; 164 CLR 365 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Timothy Charles Pratten (Appellant) The Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Odgers SC, R Seiden SC, T Davy (Appellant) D Fagan SC, B Hatfield (Respondent)