Letts, Arthur v Director General of Social Security

[1985] FCA 246

NOTE: - NOT AFFROFRIATE FOR REPORTING OR FOR GENERAL CIRCUL .AT1 -ON - .

(m)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

WESTERN	AUSTRALIA	DISTRICT	REGISTRY	)	No. NAG 1 of 1985
)

DIVISION GENERAL )

ON AFFEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEXLS TRIEUNAL CONSTITUTED BY

THE HONOURABLE MP. JUSTICE J.D. DAVIES

AFTHUP LETTS

and

THE DIRECTOR GENEPAL

OF SOCIAL SECURITY

MINUTES OF ORDER

COURT : Wocjdward, Tocjhey and Pincus LJJ

DATE : 29 May 1985

PLACE : Perth

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

(Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by 0.36 of the

Federal Court Rules).

I

I .

I

I

NOTE: - NOT AFPROFRIATE F@R REPORTING @R FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION

( A m )

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. WAG 1 of 1985
)

DIVISION GENERAL )

ON AFFEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE

ADMINISTRATIVE APFEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED EY

THE HONOURABLE IQ JUSTICE J.D. DAVIES

ARTHUR LETTS Applicant

and

THE DIWCTCP GENERAL

O F SCPIAL SECUPITY Respondent

COURT	:	Woodward, Toohey and Fincus JJ.
DATE:	2 9 Hay 1985

PLACE : Perth

I

EX-TEMFOPE JTJDGMENT

WOODWARD J .

Thls is an appeal hy Mr Arthur Letts against a declslon

of the Administrative Appeals Trlbunal, constituted by Mr JOstxce

Davies, which afflrmed a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Security to deduct $8 Fer fortnight from Mr Letts’ age pension. The deduction is being made because it is

alleged that Mr Letts, over a period of some time, received a sum

o€ about $7000 by making a false clalm for an age pension in the

name of Alan Ryan. Mr Letts was convlcted of an offence under the

Crimes Act 1914 in relation to this matter.

Mr Letts is obviously suffering under a great sense of

injustice over this conviction and over other deallngs with the

police and other persons in authority over the years, and although

I every member of the Court feels a considerable degree of sympathy

for Mr Letts in the obvlnus distress from which he suffers, we can

only be concerned with the possible errors f law in the decision

of the Administrative Appeals Trihanal rThich is the sub~ect of

m-

7.

this appeal.

The Court gave W- Letts at the outset of the hearing

this afternoon leave to substitute aNotice of Froposed

Substituted Fntlce of Rppeal, dated 9 May 1985, f o r his earlier

notice of appeal. HavinT studied that document and listened to

everything Mr Letts had had to say, I have been ahle to detect, I

think, three different points which could arguably be said to

rais? issues which need to be determined this afternoon.

The first of those is that the conviction and the

evidence which was given at the trial should not have been used by

I	the Administrative Appeals Tribunal In arrlvlng at its decision.
I thlnk the short answer to that is that s.33(l)(c) of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 glves the Tribunal power
I
to rely upon matters which would not normally be admissible in a
court of law, and to Inform itself as it sees flt. The exact
\	wording of the paragraph is:

- 3 -

'I.... the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence

but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it

thinks appropriate."

It seems to me, on reading its reasons for decision, that the

Tribunal was careful in the way in which it made use of the

material from the trial, and that there is no criticism which can

properly be levelled on that score.

The second point which I think Mr Letts has been

concerned to m G e is that there was an opportunity at the trial to

rc-.

deal with questions of restitution, and the prosecution could have

asked for such an order and did not do s o , and that it is not

appropriate for the Department of Social Security to take action

I after the trial and conviction and the serving of the sentence.

That was a matter which was dealt with by Mr Justice Davies in his

reasons for decision and in my view he dealt with it correctly

I when he said that the failure of the prosecution to take that step

did not bind the Secretary to the Department of Social Security,

who was entitled to exercise his power under s.140(2) of the

Social Securitv Act 1947.

The final point which Mr Letts has made is related t o

that last one, and it is in effect that he is suffering a double

penalty by reason of having served a prison term and now being

called upon to make restitution for the sum alleged to have been

falsely claimed, even at the very slow and probably rather

unproductive rate, so far as the Department is concerned, of $8 a

fortnight. That matter was also dealt with by Mr Justice Davies

,

- 4 -

in the same passagc which I have just quoted. He said that he

could see no element of double punishment, it was always open to

the Crown both to seek punishment by way of imprisonment for the

fraud which was involved and to obtain restitution of moneys

improperly obtained. I would agree with his Honour in that

f inding .

I am not able to detect in what has been said or written

any other point of significance or relevance to the decision of

the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and since I find that there

1s no substance in the matters that have been raised, it is my

3’

L

view that the appeal should be dismissed.

TOOHEY J.

I am also of the opinion that the appeal should be

dismissed. I agree with the reasons just delivered by the

presiding judge and	I have nothlng to add to those reasons.
PINCUS J.

I agree.

I hereby certify that this and the

three ( 3 ) preceding pages are a

true and accurate copy of the Reasons

for Judgment herein of The Court

+Associate % to

The H&. Mr Justice Woodward

Dated : 23 May 1985