Legal Research
Cases
Harding v Moreland

Harding v Moreland

Case [2006] WASC 8 13 January 2006

Appeal

Sentencing

Overpayment of Social Security Payments

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: HARDING -v- MORELAND [2006] WASC 8

CORAM: HASLUCK J

HEARD: 13 JANUARY 2006

DELIVERED : 13 JANUARY 2006

FILE NO/S: SJA 1106 of 2005

MATTER :Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) Pt 2

BETWEEN: DAVID ANDREW HARDING
Appellant
AND
PAULA MORELAND
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :CHIEF MAGISTRATE S A MALLEY
File No  :BR 42566 of 2004, BR 42567 of 2004, BR 42568 of 2004, BR 42569 of 2004, BR 42570 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Overpayment of social security payments - Whether custodial term appropriate - Need for deterrence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2)(g), s 20(1)(b)

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1347, s 1350

Social Security Administration Act 1999 (Cth) s 215, s 217

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr G M Irving & Mr R L Eagle
Respondent: Mr D W L Renton

Solicitors:

Appellant: Eagle & Partners
Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Cardile v The Queen [2003] WASCA 72
Chivers v State of WA [2005] WASCA 97
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Alateras [2004] VSCA 214
Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231
Hayward v Hubble [2000] WASCA 416
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15
Kovacevic v Mills (2000) 174 ALR 77
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Lutter v Hubbard [2000] WASCA 248
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Playle v The Queen [2004] WASCA 86
R v Jennifer Rose Purdon, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; Library No 60659 of 1996; 27 March 1997
R v Rossi (1988) 4 WAR 463
Ralph v Nawrojee [2003] WASCA 5
Rigby v Moreland [2005] WASC 150
Shooter (1997) 97 A Crim R 581
Stapleton v The Queen [2004] WASCA 130
White v The Queen [2003] WASCA 197

Case(s) also cited:

Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Angelo Alateras [2004] VSCA 214
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v El Karhani (1999) 21 NSWLR 370
Heryadi (1998) 98 A Crim R 578
Nunn v Kinnon (1988) 4 WAR 459
Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141
Olbrich (1999) 108 A Crim R 464
R v Keir [2004] NSWSC 1194
R v Niketic [2002] NSWCCA 425
Sinclair (1990) 51 A Crim R 418
Strong (2003) 141 A Crim R 56

HASLUCK J: The appellant, David Andrew Harding, is pursuing an appeal against certain sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court at Broome on 30 September 2005. On 14 November 2005 leave to appeal was granted in respect of all of the grounds the subject of his notice of appeal dated 28 October 2005. I…

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 Harding v Moreland

Details

AGLC: Harding v Moreland [2006] WASC 8
Case: [2006] WASC 8
Decision Date: 13 JANUARY 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harding and Moreland were involved in a legal dispute that eventually reached the court. The appellant, Harding, was convicted of overpaying social security benefits, which he had done by providing false information. The sentence imposed included a custodial term, and Harding appealed the decision, arguing that the sentence was inappropriate. The court was required to decide whether the custodial term was warranted and whether it was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate given the nature of the offence. The court had to consider the necessity for deterrence and whether a custodial term was necessary to achieve this goal. The court also had to consider the specific circumstances of the case, including the appellant's background and the seriousness of the offence.

The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and considered the need for deterrence. The court recognised that while the offence was not violent, it was a serious breach of the law and had significant consequences for the social security system. The court noted that the appellant had a previous criminal record and that a custodial term was necessary to achieve the goal of deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

The court ordered that the original sentence imposed by the lower court be upheld. The court did not alter the sentence or provide any further direction to the lower court. The decision highlights the importance of deterrence in sentencing and the need for courts to consider the specific circumstances of each case when imposing a sentence.

Orders