Hughes v Phillips [1948] HCA 1

Hughes v Phillips [1948] HCA 1

The return stated that the whole of the respondent's income from the specified sources was £226, while the information alleged that amount was understated by not less than £722. Falsity in that final net income figure was falsity in a particular within s. 227, so the information sufficiently charged an offence and was not bad merely because the falsity could have arisen from more than one item or source.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Making Absolute an Order Nisi for Statutory Prohibition in Respect of the Respondent's Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the Supreme Court set aside; order nisi discharged; conviction restored.
Legal Topics
['false Income Tax Return' 'information for Taxation Offence' 'duplicity' 'statutory Prohibition' 'averments']
['taxation Law' 'criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['false Income Tax Return' 'information for Taxation Offence' 'duplicity' 'statutory Prohibition' 'averments']

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

Appeal / Appeal From a Decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Making Absolute an Order Nisi for Statutory Prohibition in Respect of the Respondent's Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a statement of total or net income in an income tax return can be false in a particular within s. 227 of the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1946.' "Whether the information sufficiently charged an offence by alleging that the amount returned as net income from the respondent's business and commissions was understated." 'Whether the information was bad for duplicity or insufficient particulars.']

Ratio Decidendi

The return stated that the whole of the respondent's income from the specified sources was £226, while the information alleged that amount was understated by not less than £722. Falsity in that final net income figure was falsity in a particular within s. 227, so the information sufficiently charged an offence and was not bad merely because the falsity could have arisen from more than one item or source.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the Supreme Court set aside; order nisi discharged; conviction restored.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Order of the Supreme Court set aside.' 'Order nisi discharged.' 'Conviction restored.' "Appellants to pay respondent's costs of appeal in accordance with undertaking." 'No order as to costs in the Supreme Court.']