[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Steed v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 75 (01 February 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/75.html Cite as: [2011] Lloyd's Rep FC 238, [2011] EWCA Crim 75 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL ( CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT CARDIFF
His Honour Judge P Richards
T20060918
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
and
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ELGAN EDWARDS
____________________
Gareth Edward Steed |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
The Crown |
Respondent |
____________________
Mr Rex Tedd QC and Mr Michael Mather-Lees (instructed by Gwent Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 2nd December, 2010
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Moses :
"STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Failing to submit accounts for tax due tending to prejudice Her Majesty the Queen and The Revenue with intent to defraud Her Majesty the Queen contrary to common Law.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
GARETH EDWARD STEED on diverse (sic) dates between the 1st April 2003 and 31st December 2004 did cheat Her Majesty the Queen and the Public Revenue in that you did fail to submit [and/or did honestly fail to make accurate] declarations of tax due including the proceeds derived from the sale of vehicles, furniture and tools together with that from building work [where the proceeds derived from such work exceeds but is not limited to £32,500]."
The prosecution say that the words in square brackets were deleted. In order to make sense of the appellant's plea of guilty it is plain that they must have been.
"(1) Every person who –
(a) is chargeable to income tax…for any year of assessment, and
(b) has not received a notice under section 8 of this Act requiring a return of that year of his total income and chargeable gains,
shall…within 6 months from the end of that year, give notice to an officer of the Board that he is so chargeable."
S.7(8) provides for a penalty for failure to comply with the obligation identified in s.7(1); (s.7(8) has now been repealed).
"(1) …this section applies to any person (the taxpayer) as regards a year of assessment if as regards the immediately preceding year –
(a) he is assessed to income tax under section 9 of this Act in any amount and
(b) that amount (the assessed amount) exceeds the amount of any income tax which has been deducted at source
…
(2) …the taxpayer shall make two payments on account of his liability to income tax for the year of assessment –
(a) the first on or before the 31st January in that year, and
(b) the second on or before the next following 31st July;
and…each of those payments on account shall be of an amount equal to 50 per cent of the relevant amount."
"More than one incident of the commission of the offence may be included in a Count if those incidents taken together amount to a course of conduct having regard to the time, place or purpose of commission."
The omissions of the defendant were all connected with one another by their common purpose and formed part of the same criminal enterprise. Thus it was appropriate to charge them in a single count (see DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584 at 607 C). The defendant admitted, by his plea of guilty to that single count of cheat, that he had failed to give notice that he was chargeable to income tax pursuant to his obligation under s.7, that he had failed to make a return of the tax payable by him pursuant to his obligation under s.8 and that he had thereby defrauded the Revenue of the amount which he should have paid. In those circumstances the offence to which he pleaded guilty was an offence committed over a period of at least six months. For those reasons, we endorse the Judge's conclusion that the appellant had a criminal lifestyle and reject his appeal against that finding.
"What the account confirms, of course, is Mr Steed's capacity for concealing the proceeds of his moonlighting activities. It does show that the source of the money used to obtain the property was not other than from his general criminal conduct. Indeed, it tends to confirm it, that it was from his moonlighting activities and, therefore in connection with that criminal conduct for which tax was evaded." (Judgment, 24, (c)-(d))
"He admits that he did not declare that (the price for building work undertaken of £27,500) for tax and so it is all part of the moonlighting and the tax evaded and, plainly, this therefore, is a benefit from the defendant's general criminal conduct or in connection with that conduct." (Judgment, 29(g)) (our emphasis)
"I find it difficult to accept, in those circumstances, that the Court has been presented with a full account of his moonlighting activities or that the Inland Revenue has been presented with a full account of his true liabilities to it. I also accept Mr Robinson's assertion that Mr Steed is 'a grafter, who is always on the lookout for an opportunity to make a profit out of trading'."
"It may be that the defendant…would not be convicted on the criminal standard of all the matter to which I have referred. It is a question of viewing an overall picture and the conclusion I come to is that the overall picture supports the contention that it is more likely than not that he was involved in criminal conduct over and above the Count to which he pleaded guilty. The clear impression the evidence gives is that he was an individual who drew very heavily on the fruits of society without making his proper contribution to society in return for those fruits…" (Judgment, 42(a)-(c))
"Where there is a mixed legitimate and illegitimate business, as the applicant was contending, it is for the applicant to demonstrate what those proportions are."