Ladd v Services Australia; Noblet v Services Australia - [2024] SASC 63

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeal: Criminal)
LADD v SERVICES AUSTRALIA; NOBLET v SERVICES AUSTRALIA
[2024] SASC 63
Judgment of the Honourable Justice Kimber
10 May 2024
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
This is a judgment in relation to two separate appeals against sentences imposed by a Magistrate in relation to dishonesty offences against the Department of Human Services (now Services Australia).
After making the allowances for the guilty pleas of each appellant, the Magistrate sentenced Mr Ladd to six months imprisonment and Ms Noblet to 10 months imprisonment. The Magistrate made a recognizance release order in relation to both appellants upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $1,000 that each be of good behaviour for a period of two years. Mr Ladd was ordered to serve a period of four weeks imprisonment. Ms Noblet was ordered to serve a period of six weeks imprisonment.
Both appellants contend that the Magistrate erred in failing to properly consider whether the sentence ought to have been served subject to a home detention order. Both appellants also contend that the sentences were manifestly excessive by virtue of failing to order immediate release on a recognizance release order or alternatively, in failing to order that the sentence of imprisonment be served subject to a home detention order.
Held, dismissing both appeals:
1.The Magistrate’s reasons for declining to order that the respective sentences be served on home detention were brief but, in the circumstances, including the submissions of each appellant before the Magistrate, those reasons were sufficient.
2.The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. While the sentence imposed on Ms Noblet was a heavy one considering her personal circumstances, in the case of both appellants, given the offending and the importance of deterrence, neither sentence was outside the permissible range of sentences for the relevant offending and relevant appellant.

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 134.2(1), 135.1(5); Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 4; Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 71; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(1)–(2), referred to.
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; R v Wilton (1981) 28 SASR 362; Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; Kovacevic v Mills (2000) 76 SASR 404; R v Cameron and Simounds (1993) 171 LSJS 305; Evdochim v The King [2022] SASCA 140, applied.
R v Hevko (2018) 272 A Crim R 191; R v Hibjelic [2018] SASCFC 35; R v Dell (2016) 126 SASR 571; Laxton v Justice (1985) 38 SASR 376; Walsh and Another v Department of Social Security (1996) 67 SASR 143, considered.

LADD v SERVICES AUSTRALIA; NOBLET v SERVICES AUSTRALIA
[2024] SASC 63
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

The appellants appeal against sentences imposed by a…

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 Ladd v Services Australia; Noblet v Services Australia 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: [2024] SASC 63
Decision Date: 10 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Ladd v Services Australia; Noblet v Services Australia involved appeals against the decision of the Magistrates Court of South Australia by the respondents, Ms Noblet and Mr Ladd, against the imposition of fines and orders to repay overpayments of Centrelink benefits. The appeals were heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the fines and orders to repay overpayments imposed by the Magistrates Court were within the proper exercise of its discretion, and whether the personal circumstances of the respondents were sufficiently mitigating to warrant a reduction in the penalties imposed.

The court considered the nature and duration of the overpayments, the respondents' personal circumstances, and the need for general deterrence. Regarding Ms Noblet, the court acknowledged her personal circumstances, including her caring responsibilities and mental health issues, but ultimately found that the seriousness of the offence, which involved a significant amount of overpayment over a prolonged period, justified the penalties imposed. For Mr Ladd, the court noted his employment history and good standing in the community since the offence, but also highlighted the duration and deliberate nature of his deception, which resulted in a substantial overpayment. The court concluded that the penalties were proportionate to the offending and necessary for general deterrence.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the Magistrates Court's decisions. The final orders of the court were that the appeals of both Ms Noblet and Mr Ladd were dismissed, and the fines and orders to repay overpayments remained in place as determined by the Magistrates Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

I dismiss Ms Noblet’s appeal. Consideration – Mr Ladd At the time of his offence, Mr Ladd was between 39 and 40 years of age. The letters provided on behalf of Mr Ladd suggest that, outside of this offending, he is well regarded. As in the case of Ms Noblet, it is to be assumed that any imprisonment will have a significantly adverse effect upon S. Mr Ladd’s commitment to Ms Noblet’s child, A, reflects well on him, and it can be assumed that she will be distressed by separation from him. Nevertheless, in the case of A, the period of four weeks is within the limits of separation commonly endured by children without a significantly adverse effect. The offending came to an end almost five years ago. Since that time, Mr Ladd has obtained employment with more than one employer; has performed well; and has been well regarded in the workplace. At the same time, the offence committed by Mr Ladd involved deception over a period of almost two years. It involved ongoing deliberate omissions and false statements about the nature of the relationship with Ms Noblet, the only obvious purpose of which was to secure a greater payment than that to which Mr Ladd was entitled. The overpayment was $15,547.22, and the offending did not cease voluntarily. While the impact upon S is to be assumed to be as determined by the Magistrate, as I have already observed, it appears that child will be cared for by a person with whom she is familiar and at a home(s) not foreign to her. The personal circumstances of Mr Ladd are not nearly as mitigatory as those of Ms Noblet. Mr Ladd was much older when he offended and there is no suggestion that he was suffering from mental health issues during any part of the period of his offence. While Mr Ladd is involved in the care of children other than S, he is not the only carer of those children. Further, unlike Ms Noblet, he does not have an infant child in his care. Given the conduct the subject of the offending occurred over about two years; the amount of overpayment; and the importance of general deterrence, I am unable to find that the sentence imposed upon Mr Ladd was not within the proper exercise of the discretion. I dismiss the appeal of Mr Ladd. Orders1.The appeal of Ms Noblet is dismissed. 2.The appeal of Mr Ladd is dismissed.