R v Pratten (No 12) [2014] NSWSC 396

R v Pratten (No 12) [2014] NSWSC 396

Although the jury verdicts required sentencing on the basis that Mr Pratten deliberately omitted some known income from his tax returns and dishonestly obtained a financial advantage from the Commonwealth, the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the full alleged undeclared income or tax shortfall, particularly in relation to third party payments and loans. The offending was a continuing course of conduct implemented through three episodes of lodging false returns and was serious because of dishonesty and the need for general deterrence, but it was at the lower end of objective seriousness because Mr Pratten was not proved to have planned the scheme or falsified documents. His...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence Following Guilty Verdicts After Jury Trial
Outcome
Defendant convicted and sentenced to community service on counts 1 to 3 and imprisonment on counts 4 to 7.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'understated Tax Returns' 'commonwealth Sentencing' 'general Deterrence' 'exceptional Hardship to Dependants']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'taxation Fraud'] ['dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'understated Tax Returns' 'commonwealth Sentencing' 'general Deterrence' 'exceptional Hardship to Dependants']

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 Sentence / Sentence Following Guilty Verdicts After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for seven counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from the Commonwealth by deception through understated tax returns.' 'What amounts of alleged undeclared income and tax benefit were proved to the requisite standard for sentencing purposes.' "Whether third party payments and loans should be treated as personal income deliberately and dishonestly omitted from the defendant's tax returns." "How objective seriousness, general deterrence, conditional liberty, prior custody, health issues and exceptional hardship to the defendant's daughters should affect sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the jury verdicts required sentencing on the basis that Mr Pratten deliberately omitted some known income from his tax returns and dishonestly obtained a financial advantage from the Commonwealth, the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the full alleged undeclared income or tax shortfall, particularly in relation to third party payments and loans. The offending was a continuing course of conduct implemented through three episodes of lodging false returns and was serious because of dishonesty and the need for general deterrence, but it was at the lower end of objective seriousness because Mr Pratten was not proved to have planned the scheme or falsified documents. His...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted and sentenced to community service on counts 1 to 3 and imprisonment on counts 4 to 7.

Orders

  • ['For the 1st and 2nd offence on the indictment, you are convicted and you are sentenced to 500 hours of community service.' 'For the 3rd offence on the indictment, you are convicted and you are sentenced to 250 hours of community service.' "For the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th offences on the indictment you are convicted...