Cloros v Centrelink - [2013] SASC 74

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
CLOROS v CENTRELINK
[2013] SASC 74
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
30 May 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
PROCEDURE - COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY - JUDGES - POWERS AND DUTIES IN RESPECT OF UNREPRESENTED LITIGANTS
Appeal by defendant against conviction and sentence - defendant convicted following a trial in the Magistrates Court of 16 counts of making a reckless false statement in connection with a claim for Newstart Allowance contrary to sections 212 and 217 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) - defendant failed to declare income and employment details to Centrelink - defendant sentenced to term of imprisonment of five months - defendant to be released immediately upon entering a good behaviour bond - reparation order of $7,731.21 imposed pursuant to section 218 of the Social Security (Administration Act) - where defendant had appeared at trial unrepresented - whether Magistrate erred in finding that Centrelink had made the payments alleged by prosecution - whether Magistrate erred in finding that defendant had made misrepresentations - whether Magistrate erred in concluding that defendant's bank records confirmed the receipt of Centrelink payments and payments from defendant's employers - whether Magistrate erred in concluding that defendant had not made disclosure of his employment to Centrelink - whether Magistrate dissuaded defendant from giving evidence - whether Magistrate failed to have regard to defendant's personal circumstances in sentencing.
Held: Appeal dismissed - Magistrate's findings were open on the evidence - Magistrate complied with her obligations regarding unrepresented defendants - sentence imposed was appropriate for an offence of this kind.
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 212, s 217 and s 218; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2) and s 20(1)(b), referred to.
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Cooling v Steel (1971) 2 SASR 249; Finn v Department of Correctional Services [2012] SASC 88; Spurway v Police [2011] SASC 177; Frick v Police [2011] SASC 17; R v Zorad (1990) 19 NSWLR 91; Pezos v Police (2005) 94 SASR 154; Kovacevic v Mills (2000) 76 SASR 404; R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231, considered.

CLOROS v CENTRELINK
[2013] SASC 74
Magistrates Appeals: Criminal
GRAY J.

This is an appeal against conviction and sentence.
The defendant and appellant, Jonathon Dean Cloros, was charged with 17 counts of making a reckless false statement in connection with a claim for Newstart Allowance contrary to sections 212 and 217 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth). One count, being count 4, was withdrawn.
The defendant pleaded not guilty to the remaining 16 counts. The trial was conducted before a Magistrate at the Elizabeth Magistrates Court on 27 and…

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 Cloros v Centrelink

Details

AGLC: Cloros v Centrelink [2013] SASC 74
Case: [2013] SASC 74
Decision Date: 30 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cloros v Centrelink, the defendant appealed against both his conviction and the subsequent sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. The defendant was convicted on 16 counts of making reckless false statements in connection with a claim for Newstart Allowance, as per sections 212 and 217 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth). The defendant had failed to disclose income and employment details to Centrelink. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five months, with immediate release upon entering into a good behaviour bond, and a reparation order of $7,731.21 was imposed under section 218 of the Act. The defendant appeared unrepresented during the trial. The grounds for appeal included whether the Magistrate erred in finding that Centrelink had made the payments alleged by the prosecution, whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the defendant had made misrepresentations, whether the Magistrate erred in concluding that the defendant's bank records confirmed receipt of Centrelink payments and payments from his employers, whether the Magistrate erred in concluding that the defendant had not disclosed his employment to Centrelink, whether the Magistrate dissuaded the defendant from giving evidence, and whether the Magistrate failed to consider the defendant's personal circumstances in sentencing.

The court considered whether the Magistrate erred in any of her findings or in the imposition of the sentence. It was determined that the Magistrate's findings were open on the evidence presented. The court also found that the Magistrate complied with her obligations regarding unrepresented defendants and that the sentence imposed was appropriate for an offence of this kind. The reparation order was also upheld as permissible under section 218 of the Act.

Consequently, the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed. The Magistrate's findings were deemed to be within the bounds of what was supported by the evidence, and the sentence was found to be appropriate given the nature of the offence. The court concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the Magistrate's exercise of discretion or her findings. The reparation order was also upheld as it fell within the statutory authority.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held: Appeal dismissed - Magistrate's findings were open on the evidence - Magistrate complied with her obligations regarding unrepresented defendants - sentence imposed was appropriate for an offence of this kind.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J

Likewise there was no error in the making of the reparation order. Section 218 of the Social Security (Administration) Act enables an order for reparation to be made for the entire amount. Conclusion The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.