Chang v R [2016] NSWCCA 296

Chang v R [2016] NSWCCA 296

The appeal against conviction failed because, despite some lack of clarity in the Crown submissions and directions, the jury would have understood that the single conspiracy alleged was an agreement to make false GST claims with the intention of dishonestly causing loss to the ATO, and that inflated or false invoices were the means by which that object was to be achieved. The indictment was not duplicitous, the verdict was not uncertain, proof of an intention to liquidate group entities was not required, and no miscarriage of justice was shown. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge made adequate findings about the appellant's important role and knowledge, was entitled to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From the District Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy With Intention of Dishonestly Causing Loss to the Commonwealth' 'gst Refund Fraud' 'jury Directions' 'duplicity and Uncertainty of Verdict' 'rule 4 Leave' 'sentence Appeal Findings']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['conspiracy With Intention of Dishonestly Causing Loss to the Commonwealth' 'gst Refund Fraud' 'jury Directions' 'duplicity and Uncertainty of Verdict' 'rule 4 Leave' 'sentence Appeal Findings']

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 Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From the District Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Crown submissions and trial directions left the alleged conspiracy undefined or included incorrect, elided or unclear elements.' 'Whether the offence for which the appellant was convicted was unknown to the criminal law.' 'Whether the written directions and summing-up were internally inconsistent and confusing so as to make the verdict unreasonable.' 'Whether the charge on the indictment was latently duplicitous or the verdict uncertain.' 'Whether the verdict was unsafe because the Crown case required proof that the appellant intended loss to crystallise on liquidation.' 'Whether alleged errors cumulatively gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to make adequate findings concerning the appellant's dishonesty, involvement, knowledge of inflated invoices and the amount of loss."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction failed because, despite some lack of clarity in the Crown submissions and directions, the jury would have understood that the single conspiracy alleged was an agreement to make false GST claims with the intention of dishonestly causing loss to the ATO, and that inflated or false invoices were the means by which that object was to be achieved. The indictment was not duplicitous, the verdict was not uncertain, proof of an intention to liquidate group entities was not required, and no miscarriage of justice was shown. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge made adequate findings about the appellant's important role and knowledge, was entitled to...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Dismiss the appeals against conviction and sentence.']