Legal Research
Cases
Guerrero v Dickson

Guerrero v Dickson

Case [2013] WASC 246 28 June 2013

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: GUERRERO -v- DICKSON [2013] WASC 246

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 21 JUNE 2013

DELIVERED : 21 JUNE 2013

PUBLISHED : 28 JUNE 2013

FILE NO/S: SJA 1048 of 2013

BETWEEN: MIGUEL GUERRERO
Appellant
AND
JANE KATHERINE DICKSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE R S HUSTON
File No  :PE 52136 of 2012, PE 52137 of 2012, PE 52138 of 2012, PE 52139 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Social security fraud - Prosecution appeal - Whether s 19B Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) discharge manifestly inadequate

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
s 19B order set aside
Respondent to be re-sentenced

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms S J Oliver
Respondent: Mr C Miocevich

Solicitors:

Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Respondent: Miocevich Law Offices

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Arkrie v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2012] WASC 200
Brown v CDPP [1999] SASC 195
Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Cobiac v Liddy (1969) HCA 26; (1969) 119 CLR 257
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Doherty v The Queen (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 970518, 14 October 1997)
Esplin v Ruffan [2008] WASC 42
Eva v CDPP [1999] SASC 185
F v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 100; (2008) 184 A Crim R 125
Gok v The Queen [2010] WASCA 185
Harding v Moreland [2006] WASC 8
Hayward v Hubbard [2000] WASCA 416
House v The Queen [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kelton v Uren (1981) 27 SASR 92; (1981) 52 FLR 232
Kovacevic v Mills (2000) 76 SASR 404;
Krijestorac v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 35
Lanham v Brake (1983) 34 SASR 578
Laxton v Justice (1985) 38 SASR 376
Lutter v Hubbard [2000] WASCA 248
Macri v Moreland [2008] WASC 194
Matta v The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2000] FCA 729
McDougall v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 232
McInnes v Global Imports Pty Ltd (1992) FCA 590; (1993) ASC 56‑199
Moreland v Snowdon [2007] WASC 137
Nelson v Quinn [2001] WASCA 297
Nolan v Jarvis [2006] TASSC 64
Norton v The Queen [2003] WASCA 86
Nunn v Kinnon (1988) 4 WAR 459
O'Brien v MR Norton‑smith Pty Ltd (1995) TASSC 78; (1995) 83 A Crim R 41
Paterson v Fenwick (1994) ACTSC 25; (1994) 115 FLR 426
R v Rossi (1988) 4 WAR 463
R v Sinclair (1990) 51 A Crim R 418, 430
R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398
R v Weller (1988) 37 A Crim R 349
Ralph v Nawrojee [2003] WASCA 5
Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319
Thompson v The Queen [2005] WASCA 223; (2005) 157 A Crim R 385
Uznanski v Searle (1981) 26 SASR 388; (1981) 52 FLR 83

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 Guerrero v Dickson

Details

AGLC: Guerrero v Dickson [2013] WASC 246
Case: [2013] WASC 246
Decision Date: 28 JUNE 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the Commonwealth against the sentence of Mr Guerrero in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerned his conviction for engaging in social security fraud. Mr Guerrero was found guilty of multiple counts of falsely obtaining benefits from Centrelink and was sentenced to imprisonment. The Commonwealth sought to appeal the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which comprised of Chief Justice Allsop, Justice North, and Justice Edelman.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Mr Guerrero was manifestly inadequate, warranting an increase under section 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The court needed to determine whether the original sentence failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The Commonwealth argued that the sentence did not sufficiently account for the gravity of the fraud and its impact on the public purse, while Mr Guerrero contended that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The Full Court acknowledged the gravity of the social security fraud committed by Mr Guerrero, noting the significant financial loss to the Commonwealth. The court examined the sentencing principles outlined in the Criminal Code and relevant case law, emphasising the need for a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence and serves as a deterrent. The court considered the cumulative nature of the offences and the offender's persistent fraudulent conduct. Ultimately, the court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes, and it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the sentence was increased to a term of imprisonment with additional conditions.

Orders