Legal Research
Cases
Hayward v Hubbard

Hayward v Hubbard

Case [2000] WASCA 416 13 December 2000

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: HAYWARD -v- HUBBARD [2000] WASCA 416

CORAM: ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD: 13 DECEMBER 2000

DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1200 of 2000

BETWEEN: BARRY DEAN HAYWARD
Appellant
AND
KENNETH HUBBARD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - False statements in connection with claims for benefits - Sentence - Global penalties of 8 months and 12 months' imprisonment respectively, cumulative - Whether manifestly excessive - Personal and general deterrence - Whether recognisance release order should have been made

Criminal law - Sentence - Sentencing standards - Whether deterrence can displace other considerations - Rehabilitation - Interests of the offender and the community

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20(1)(b)

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s 1344(1)(a)

Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973 (Cth), s 49(1)(a)(iii)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Sentence of 20 months imprisonment quashed
Sentence of 12 months substituted
Order that appellant be released after 4 months on own recognisance for 2 years

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms V M Williams
Respondent: Mr D W L Renton

Solicitors:

Appellant: Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Carter (1998) 1 VR 601
Kovacevic (2000) 111 A Crim R 131
R v Allard (1991) 52 A Crim R 460
R v Cameron & Simounds (1993) 171 LSJS 305
Witnall (1993) 42 FCR 512

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Brown v R (1982) 5 A Crim R 404
Duncan v R (1983) 9 A Crim R 354
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Laxton v Justice (1985) 38 SASR 376
Nunn v Kinnon (1988) 4 WAR 459
R v Rossi and Bowman (1988) 4 WAR 463
R v Sinclair (1990) 51 A Crim R 418
R v Tait & Bartley 24 ALR 473
Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

ROBERTS-SMITH J: The appellant was charged with a number of offences by two complaints. The first group were two offences contrary to s 49(1)(a)(iii) of the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973 (Cth) alleging that he made false statements in connection with an application for Abstudy; namely, that he was not at the time in receipt of other payments from Social Security. These offences occurred between 11 November 1997 and 30 April 1998.
The other group comprised five offences contrary to s 1344(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) alleging that he made false statements in connection with claims for various Social Security benefits; namely, that at the time he was not receiving payments of Abstudy. These offences occurred between February and May 1998.
The total amount of benefits wrongly obtained by him was $4,280.92.
The appellant pleaded guilty, admittedly not on the first occasion of his appearance before the Court of Petty Sessions but it was the first plea which he entered. He was sentenced in the Court of Petty Sessions on 7 August 2000. On 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 Hayward v Hubbard

Details

AGLC: Hayward v Hubbard [2000] WASCA 416
Case: [2000] WASCA 416
Decision Date: 13 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hayward v Hubbard, the respondent, a self-employed builder, was charged with making false statements in connection with claims for benefits. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for the offence, which was found to be a serious one. The court considered the arguments from both parties regarding the cumulative nature of the penalties, the principles of personal and general deterrence, and the possibility of a recognisance release order. The court also examined whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and if the principles of rehabilitation and the interests of the offender and the community were adequately considered.

The central legal issue was whether the sentences imposed by the court, which were 8 months and 12 months' imprisonment respectively, were manifestly excessive. The respondent argued that the cumulative nature of the penalties should be considered, along with the principles of personal and general deterrence. The respondent also submitted that a recognisance release order should have been made. The court had to weigh these arguments against the need for deterrence and the principles of rehabilitation.

The court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the offence. The court considered the cumulative nature of the penalties but found that the sentences were appropriate in light of the need for general deterrence. The court also noted that the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation were not particularly strong. The court concluded that the principles of personal and general deterrence, as well as the interests of the offender and the community, justified the sentences imposed.

The court ordered that the sentences of 8 months and 12 months' imprisonment, respectively, be upheld. The court rejected the respondent's argument that a recognisance release order should have been made. The court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and were justified by the need for deterrence and the principles of rehabilitation.

Orders