Cairns v Stringer - [2015] TASSC 8

[2015] TASSC 8

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Cairns v Stringer [2015] TASSC 8

PARTIES:  CAIRNS, Marisa
  v
  STRINGER, Sharon Lesley

FILE NO:  LCA 744/2014
DELIVERED ON:  11 March 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 February 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Social Welfare – Offences – False statements and fraud – Penalty – Obtaining of $44,979 over 5 years 7 months – Sentence of imprisonment with order for immediate release on recognizance and community service order – Whether manifestly inadequate – Mitigatory effect of depression and impact on family.

Aust Dig Social Welfare [1116]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  I M Arendt
             Respondent:  R Foon
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)
             Respondent:  Douglas & Collins

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 8
Number of paragraphs: 20

Serial No 8/2015
File No LCA 744/2014

MARISA CAIRNS v SHARON LESLEY STRINGER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

11 March 2015

This is a motion for the review of sentencing orders made by a magistrate, Mr T Hill, in a social security fraud case. The respondent, Sharon Stringer, obtained social security benefits to which she was not entitled by pretending that she was a single mother when, in fact, she was living as a member of a couple. She was charged with two counts of obtaining a financial advantage contrary to s 135.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). She defended the case, but the learned magistrate found her guilty and convicted her on both charges. Each charge related to an intentional false representation in a "Customer Declaration Form" – the first in September 2004 and the second in September 2006. As a result of those representations the respondent received $44,979.72 to which she was not entitled over a period of 5 years 7 months. On the first charge, the learned magistrate ordered her to perform 140 hours' community service. On the second, he sentenced her to five months' imprisonment, but made a recognizance release order permitting her to be released forthwith. The applicant, an officer of the Department of Human Services who was the complainant in the court below, contends that the sentences were manifestly inadequate, and that the learned magistrate made two specific errors in the sentencing process.

Ground 1 – Reasons for the decision to release the respondent forthwith

The first of the applicant's grounds of review reads as follows:
"1The Learned Magistrate erred in law in making the order to release the Respondent forthwith by taking into account only those matters personal to the Respondent."
The legislative provisions that applied to the sentencing of the respondent are to be found in ss 16A, 19AC, and 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). They can be summarised as follows:
· Section 16A(1) requires a sentencing court to "impose a sentence or make an order that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence".
· Section 16A(2) lists some 15 matters that the court must take into account, if they are…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cairns v Stringer

Details

AGLC: Cairns v Stringer [2015] TASSC 8
Case: [2015] TASSC 8
Decision Date: 11 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cairns was convicted of multiple offences related to the fraudulent acquisition of social welfare benefits over a period of 5 years and 7 months. The total amount obtained through false statements was $44,979. Following sentencing, Cairns was given a term of imprisonment, an order for immediate release on recognizance, and a community service order. Cairns appealed the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate, taking into account his depression and the impact on his family.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Cairns was manifestly inadequate, considering the nature and extent of his offending, along with personal mitigating factors such as his depression and the effect on his family. The court needed to assess whether the punishment sufficiently reflected the seriousness of the crimes and whether it was appropriate in light of the mitigating circumstances presented.

In evaluating the appeal, the court considered the gravity of the offences, the significant amount obtained through fraudulent means, and the absence of any previous convictions. The court also acknowledged Cairns's depression and the potential impact of the sentence on his family. However, the court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced these mitigating factors against the seriousness of the offending. The court concluded that the sentence, which included a term of imprisonment, an order for immediate release on recognizance, and a community service order, was not manifestly inadequate. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not alter the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. Therefore, the final orders remained as initially determined, with Cairns to serve a term of imprisonment, be released immediately on recognizance, and complete a community service order.

Orders