Geiszler v Bolton - [2003] NTSC 37

Geiszler v Bolton [2003] NTSC 37
PARTIES:GEISZLER, JUSTIN MATTHEW
v

BOLTON, NAOMI KATHLEEN

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: APPEAL FROM COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 41 OF 2003 (20302135)
JA 42 OF 2003 (20214871)
JA 43 OF 2003 (20302135

DELIVERED:  11 April 2003
HEARING DATES:  2 April 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:I. Read
Respondent:  G. Fisher
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  ril0314
Number of pages:  15

ril0314
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Geiszler v Bolton [2003] NTSC 37
JA 41 of 2003 (20302135)
JA 42 of 2003 (20214871)
JA 43 of 2003 (20302135)

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin

BETWEEN:
JUSTIN MATTHEW GEISZLER

Appellant
AND:
NAOMI KATHLEEN BOLTON

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 11 April 2003)

On 13 February 2003 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to four offences being:

(a) one count of knowingly obtaining payment of a Social Security payment, namely New Start Allowance, by means of a fraudulent device contrary to s 216 and s 217 of the Social Security(Administration) Act;
(b) one count of opening an account with a cash dealer in a false name contrary to s 24(1) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act;
(c) one count of operating an account with a cash dealer in a false name contrary to s 24(2) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act; and
(d) one count of hinder a Commonwealth public official in the performance of her functions as a public official contrary to s 149(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

The circumstances of the offending were not in dispute. The appellant made a dual claim for benefits from Centrelink in the period between 27 March 2001 and 9 August 2001. Through his offending he obtained $2981.20 to which he was not entitled. Whilst in receipt of a New Start Allowance in the name of Geiszler, he applied for and obtained a second grant of that allowance in the name of John Peter Marshall. He achieved that by creating a false story that he was John Peter Marshall and had left Adelaide in a hurry due to “violence”. He therefore had no documents of identification. Centrelink gave him an identification card in the name of Marshall. At first he received counter cheques in the name of Marshall and then he asked that the benefit be paid into a bank account which was in the name of Geiszler. Subsequently, through deception, he obtained further identification in the name of John Peter Marshall from the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and, using that identification and the Centrelink card, opened a bank account in the name of John Peter Marshall.
The offending occurred over a period of about four months…

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 Geiszler v Bolton

Details

AGLC: Geiszler v Bolton [2003] NTSC 37
Case: [2003] NTSC 37
Decision Date: 11 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Justin Matthew Geiszler appealed against the sentence handed down by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin, challenging its severity and the consideration given to certain factors. The court found Geiszler guilty of multiple offenses, including defrauding the Social Security system, opening and operating a bank account under a false name, and hindering a Commonwealth official. The appellant's criminal history, which included offenses of dishonesty dating back to 1990, was presented during sentencing. The court imposed a total sentence of six months imprisonment, which was not suspended. Geiszler argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate did not adequately consider the totality principle and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court considered the nature of the offenses and the appellant's criminal history. It determined that the offenses under the Financial Transaction Reports Act were serious and warranted specific and general deterrence. The court found that the sentences imposed for these offenses were within the range available and not manifestly excessive. The offense against the Social Security (Administration) Act was also considered serious, and the sentence was deemed appropriate. The court found no error in the magistrate's approach to considering the totality of the offenses, as they were deemed separate types of offending. However, the court agreed that the sentence for hindering a Commonwealth official was manifestly excessive and set it aside, replacing it with a fine of $500.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed in all other respects, and the sentence for hindering a Commonwealth official was set aside and replaced with a fine of $500. The rest of the sentence remained unchanged.

Orders