Bowles v R

Bowles v R

The evidence now obtained does not and could not undermine the safety of the jury’s verdict, as there is no credible evidence of unclaimed input VAT sufficient to offset the output VAT liability, and the applicant's conduct supports the jury's finding of dishonesty.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Philip Bowles; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence Post Conviction
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Cheating the Revenue, VAT Fraud, Adducing Fresh Evidence, Dishonesty, Restraint Orders
Criminal Law Tax Law Cheating the Revenue VAT Fraud Adducing Fresh Evidence Dishonesty Restraint Orders

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Bowles

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence Post Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh forensic accountancy evidence should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the failure to adduce such evidence at trial undermines the safety of the conviction
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's belief regarding input tax offsetting output tax negates dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence now obtained does not and could not undermine the safety of the jury’s verdict, as there is no credible evidence of unclaimed input VAT sufficient to offset the output VAT liability, and the applicant's conduct supports the jury's finding of dishonesty.

Court Disposition

application dismissed