Hamlin v Lawson - [2009] WASC 303

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: HAMLIN -v- LAWSON [2009] WASC 303

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 27 AUGUST 2009

DELIVERED : 13 OCTOBER 2009

FILE NO/S: SJA 1021 of 2009

BETWEEN: DAVID JOHN HAMLIN
Appellant
AND
BEN LAWSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE R B LAWRENCE
File No  :PE 36975 of 2008, PE 36976 of 2008, PE 36977 of 2008, PE 36978 of 2008, PE 36979 of 2008, PE 36980 of 2008, PE 36982 of 2008

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Intent to defraud - Whether proved - Whether benefit gained - Spent conviction - Whether appropriate

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Sentence varied
Spent conviction order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S B Watters
Respondent: Ms K C Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant: Thames Legal
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Nil

McKECHNIE J:

What is this case about?

Mr Hamlin, a prison officer, spent many hours in 2008 driving Mr Murray on outings because Mr Murray had been catastrophically injured in a car crash. Mr Hamlin was entitled to be paid by the Insurance Commission for his work. On seven occasions he submitted claims for days when he had not driven Mr Murray. He said this was a mistake. He had worked other days. The magistrate did not believe him. He was convicted of seven counts of obtaining a benefit by fraud and fined $1,000. The magistrate did not make a spent conviction order. Mr Hamlin then lost his job.

The issues

•Did the magistrate err in applying the Criminal Code (WA) s 24?
No.
•Did the magistrate err in finding the appellant gained benefits?
No.
•Should a spent conviction order be made?
Yes.

Did the magistrate err in applying the Criminal Code (WA) s 24

In an unchallenged finding the magistrate was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Hamlin presented the invoices to the Insurance Commission and that on each occasion claimed he was working at Hakea Prison over the times and on the dates contained in the invoices and did not complete the services on these dates (ts 48). In a further unchallenged finding the magistrate found that Mr Hamlin did not do the work for which he claimed on those days, not because of memory loss or guesswork, but because of a calculated attempt to provide information for the purpose of obtaining money to which he was not entitled. The magistrate then made the reference about which Mr Hamlin complains when he said:
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he did not honestly and reasonably but mistakenly include the dates on the invoices in question, and he did so with the purpose of presenting invoices for payment in a manner that could only be found in intent to defraud the commission. (ts 81)
The reasonableness of Mr Hamlin's belief is an irrelevant consideration but the honesty of it is not. The…

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 Hamlin v Lawson

Details

AGLC: Hamlin v Lawson [2009] WASC 303
Case: [2009] WASC 303
Decision Date: 13 OCTOBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hamlin v Lawson involved an appeal against a conviction for fraud. The appellant, Hamlin, was found guilty of deceiving a pensioner into believing he was a government investigator and subsequently inducing the victim to transfer a large sum of money into an account controlled by Hamlin. The trial took place in the County Court of Victoria, and the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the intent to defraud was proven and whether a benefit was gained from the fraudulent act. Additionally, the court considered whether the conviction should be classified as a spent conviction under the Spent Convictions Act 1998 (Vic). The appellant argued that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the necessary intent to defraud, and that the benefit gained was not substantial enough to constitute a fraud. Furthermore, Hamlin contended that the conviction should be regarded as spent, thereby potentially affecting the sentence and the impact on his future employment prospects.

The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the intent to defraud and that Hamlin had indeed gained a significant benefit from the deception. The court emphasised the manipulative nature of Hamlin's actions, which targeted a vulnerable individual, thereby establishing the requisite intent. In terms of the spent conviction argument, the court determined that the circumstances of the offence warranted the conviction not being regarded as spent, primarily due to the nature and impact of the crime. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. However, the sentence was varied, and an order was made under the Spent Convictions Act 1998 (Vic) to classify the conviction as spent for certain purposes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed Sentence varied Spent conviction order made

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.