Hanna Maree Dickinson v The Queen - [2021] VSCA 50

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0001

HANNA MAREE DICKINSON	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 March 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 March 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 50
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2021] VCC 1867 (Judge Dawes)

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

–––

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal – Sentence – Applicant pleaded guilty to obtaining a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity contrary to sub-section 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) – Applicant fraudulently obtained Disability Support Pension payments over a 4 year period by claiming to have been diagnosed with terminal cancer – Not reasonably arguable that judge erred in giving modest weight to consequence of adverse media publicity to applicant – Not reasonably arguable that sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr B Sonnet	Criminal Lawyers Geelong
For the Respondent	Ms K Breckweg with Mr R de Vietri	Ms A Pavleka, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)

KAYE JA:

The applicant pleaded guilty, in the County Court of Victoria, to one charge of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity, contrary to sub-section 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The charge, to which the applicant pleaded guilty, alleged that the applicant, between 15 January 2014 and 27 October 2018, dishonestly obtained payments of Disability Support Pension from the Commonwealth in amounts totalling $100,230.73, by providing false information to Services Australia that she had been diagnosed with, and was seeking treatment for, cancer.

Following a plea presented on her behalf, the applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1.	Dishonestly obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception from Commonwealth Entity (contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth)	10 years	2 years 6 months’ imprisonment
Total Effective Sentence:		2 years 6 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		12 months’ imprisonment and then to be released on recognisance in sum of $1,000 for period of 3 years.
Section 6AAA Statement:		3 years 3 months’ imprisonment 15 months’ imprisonment and then to be released on recognisance in sum of $1,000 for period of 3 years.
Other Orders:		Reparation order — sum of $92,178.72

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against her sentence on the following two grounds:

Ground 1:The sentencing judge erred in according the applicant only ‘a modest sentencing benefit’ as a consequence of the adverse media publicity.
Ground 2:The sentence imposed by the sentencing judge is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances by virtue of:
(a) breaching the principle of totality; and/or
(b) giving insufficient weight to matters in mitigation.

Circumstances of offending

On 2 December 2013, the applicant telephoned Services Australia (‘the Department’) and advised of her intention to make an application for a Disability Support Pension. Following that call, the Department sent to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hanna Maree Dickinson v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] VSCA 50
Decision Date: 11 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hanna Maree Dickinson v The Queen involves an application by Dickinson for leave to appeal against a sentence determined by a single judge. The applicant had pleaded guilty to obtaining a financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity, specifically by fraudulently obtaining Disability Support Pension payments over a four-year period by falsely claiming to have been diagnosed with terminal cancer. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether it was reasonably arguable that the judge erred in giving modest weight to the consequences of adverse media publicity to the applicant and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered whether these grounds were sufficient to establish that the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

The court found that it was not reasonably arguable that the judge had erred in giving modest weight to the adverse media publicity. The court also concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The sentence imposed by the primary judge remained in place.

Orders