Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – appellant convicted of five counts of defrauding the Commonwealth under s 29D Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – appellant did not deduct Pay as You Earn tax from the wages of his workers and remit that to the Australian Tax Office (ATO) – appellant referred to workers as “sub-contractors” rather than employees – appellant ignored advice from ATO that workers fell within definition of “employees” under s 221A(1) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – whether trial judge erred in giving any directions regarding statements said to be lies by the appellant in circumstances where the prosecution chose not to call workers from callings such as draftspersons, plumbers and electrical engineers – whether trial judge gave inadequate directions as to lies

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – whether trial judge erred in failing to warn jury to closely scrutinise the evidence of a particular witness in circumstances where the evidence indicated that pressure had been applied to the witness by an Australian Federal Police Officer, prior to him receiving undertaking that he would not be prosecuted on the contents of a statement subsequently given against the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – whether a Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 direction was required

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – PARTICULAR MATTERS DISCHARGE OF JURY – whether trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury when two witnesses gave inadmissible and highly prejudicial evidence regarding conversations with the appellant’s “works manager”

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – whether the summing up in relation to the element of dishonesty was unbalanced and focussed solely upon the prosecution assertions with no mention of the factors relied upon by the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, to be released after giving security by recognisance in the sum of $5,000 after serving 21 months imprisonment – whether sentencing judge placed insufficient weight on applicant’s physical and mental health

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – whether sentencing judge was wrong to sentence on the basis that the ATO was deprived over 5 years of $640,000 – whether the figure of $640,000 is misleading

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – whether sentencing judge had sentenced on an incorrect basis – whether sentencing judge sentenced on the basis of a finding that “in most cases” the workers were paid more than the net rate but less than the gross wage that they could have earned working in a similar job elsewhere and that this had benefited the applicant in an amount of several hundred thousand dollars