R v Pratten (No 26) [2016] NSWSC 935

R v Pratten (No 26) [2016] NSWSC 935

The adjournment was refused because no High Court order had removed the proceedings, the constitutional point concerning determination of financial advantage and income tax assessment was not shown to be arguable, sentencing would not render the High Court proceedings nugatory or interfere with any Part IVC review rights, and Mr Pratten had already had opportunities to raise the same point in earlier Supreme Court proceedings and on appeal, which was withdrawn.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Practice; Application for Adjournment of Sentencing / Application for Adjournment or Vacation of Sentencing Hearing After Guilty Verdict
Outcome
The adjournment is refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Sentencing' 'removal to the High Court' 'chapter III Judicial Power' 'financial Advantage' 'income Tax Assessment' 'procedural Fairness']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'constitutional Law' 'taxation'] ['adjournment of Sentencing' 'removal to the High Court' 'chapter III Judicial Power' 'financial Advantage' 'income Tax Assessment' 'procedural Fairness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Practice; Application for Adjournment of Sentencing / Application for Adjournment or Vacation of Sentencing Hearing After Guilty Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should adjourn sentencing until the final disposition of, or remitter of, High Court proceedings or alternatively for approximately two weeks.' 'Whether the application for removal under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) affected the Supreme Court proceedings where no High Court order for removal had been made.' 'Whether the constitutional argument concerning determination of financial advantage and income tax assessment was sufficiently arguable to justify an adjournment.' 'Whether proceeding to sentence would render the High Court proceedings nugatory or interfere with rights of review under Part IVC of the Income Tax Assessment Act.' 'Whether refusal of the adjournment would deny procedural fairness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because no High Court order had removed the proceedings, the constitutional point concerning determination of financial advantage and income tax assessment was not shown to be arguable, sentencing would not render the High Court proceedings nugatory or interfere with any Part IVC review rights, and Mr Pratten had already had opportunities to raise the same point in earlier Supreme Court proceedings and on appeal, which was withdrawn.

Court Disposition

The adjournment is refused.

Orders

  • ['The adjournment is refused.']