Hyde v Mason

[2005] QCA 79

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hyde v Mason [2005] QCA 79

PARTIES:

PETER RICHARD HYDE
(appellant/applicant)
v

GLEN WILLIAM MASON
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 121 of 2004
DC No 8 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

24 March 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 November 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fryberg and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Dismiss the application for leave to appeal

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction – Application for leave to appeal under s 118 District Court Act 1967 – Social welfare – Social security payments – Overpayments and debt recovery – Failure to disclose relevant information – Where applicant knowingly obtained social security payments which were only payable in part – Whether charges under s 1347 of the Social Security Act 1991 were duplicitous

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s 1075, s 1347
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), s 215

S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant was not represented
D R Kent for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant was not represented
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. McMURDO P:  For the reasons given by Fryberg J, the applicant has not demonstrated any grounds to warrant the granting of leave to appeal.  I agree with Fryberg J that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed with no order as to costs. 

1. FRYBERG J: On 26 March 2004 Dodds DCJ dismissed the present applicant’s appeal against his conviction and sentence in the Magistrates Court at Maroochydore on two counts of knowingly obtaining payment of a social security payment which was only payable in part; he was sentenced to 200 hours of community service. The present application is for leave to appeal against that dismissal under s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967. Before this court the applicant was unrepresented.

1. The grounds of the application are:

“1.The learned Judge erred in not ruling my entitlement should have been determined by reference to either accrued or receipted and taxable income.

2.The learned Judge erred in finding the charges were not bad in law for duplicity.

3.The sentence is manifestly excessive.

4.The learned Judge erred in not addressing Form 38 Application for Amendment of Community Based Order received by the District Court on 26^th March 2004.”

1. Ground four is misconceived.  It emerged during argument in this court that it referred to an application to vary the sentence of community service filed in the District Court after the hearing of the appeal but before the reserved judgment was delivered.  That application has apparently not been dealt with by the District Court and no proceedings are on foot to bring it before this court.  In any event it was probably misconceived; one would have thought an application to…