Pearce v Jennings and Luttrell - [1987] TASSC 101

Serial No B31/1987
List "B"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Pearce v Jennings and Luttrell [1987] TASSC 101; B31/1987

PARTIES:  PEARCE
  v
  JENNINGS
  LUTTRELL

FILE NO/S:  LCA 29/1987
DELIVERED ON:  9 July 1987
JUDGMENT OF:  Green CJ

Judgment Number: B31/1987
Number of paragraphs: 10

Serial No B31/1987
List "B"
File No LCA 29/1987

PEARCE v JENNINGS and LUTTRELL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GREEN CJ

9 July 1987

The appellant was charged with the following offences:

Complaint 2815/87 dated 20 February 1987: three counts of imposition contrary to s29B of the Crimes Act 1914 which were alleged to have been committed on 31/2/82, 21/0/84 and 26/11/84.

Complaint 1422/87 dated 23 January 1987: one count of imposition contrary to s29B of the Crimes Act 1914 which was alleged to have been committed on 3/9/85. The particulars of the charge were as follows:
"That Sally Maree PEARCE on or about the 3rd day of September, 1985 at Bellerive in Tasmania did impose upon the Commonwealth by means of an untrue representation to wit by presenting to the Department of Social Security a document entitled 'Clients Report' in which in answer to the question, 'Please advise if you are still working', the defendant answered 'No' which answer was false in that she was employed by Royal Hobart Hospital in the name of Sally Lee WEBB and was in receipt of wages."
Complaint 1421/87 dated 23 January 1987: 43 counts of obtaining payment of a benefit which was not payable contrary to s138(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1947. The offences are alleged to have been committed between 20 October 1984 and 12 June 1986. The following count is typical:

"THAT SALLY PEARCE on or about the 20th day of October 1984 at Bellerive obtained payment of a benefit to wit an instalment of a Supporting Parents Benefit in the sum of $295.80 to which she was not entitled in that at the time the benefit was paid the defendant was employed by the Royal Hobart Hospital in the name of Sally Webb and in receipt of income from that employment."

All three complaints came on for hearing before a magistrate at the same time. After hearing submissions from both parties the learned magistrate in the exercise of his discretion ordered that complaints 2815/87 and 1422/87 be dealt with summarily. This is a motion to review those orders.

The learned magistrate's exercise of his discretion was influenced by, inter alia, the following findings or conclusions:

AThat the charge of imposition in complaint 142287 "related to" an amount of $300.60.
BThat what was alleged against the defendant in respect of all the complaints was a course of conduct whereby the appellant obtained benefits to which she was not entitled.
CThat the conduct constituting the offences against the Crimes Act was identical to that which constituted the offences against the Social Security Act.
DThat complaint 281587 alleged breaches of s29B of the Crimes Act rather than breaches of the Social Security Act 1947 only because proceedings…

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 Pearce v Jennings and Luttrell 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: [1987] TASSC 101
Decision Date: 9 July 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania reviewed a decision made by a magistrate in the case of Pearce v Jennings and Luttrell, where the appellant, Sally Maree Pearce, was charged with multiple offences including counts of imposition under the Crimes Act 1914 and obtaining benefits contrary to the Social Security Act 1947. Pearce was alleged to have falsely claimed unemployment benefits while employed by the Royal Hobart Hospital under the name Sally Lee Webb. The magistrate's decision to handle two of the complaints summarily was contested by Pearce, leading to a motion for review by the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate's exercise of discretion to handle the complaints summarily was justified. The court had to assess if the magistrate's findings, which included the belief that the charges were related to a specific amount and that the conduct constituting the offences was identical, were supported by the evidence presented. The court found that the magistrate's conclusions were not adequately supported by the materials available, which included imprecise statements and an incorrect assertion regarding the charges.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court determined that the magistrate's findings were not substantiated by the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of discretion. The court quashed the magistrate's orders and decided not to exercise its own discretion on the matter, opting instead to allow the recommencement of the hearing before a magistrate. The court considered it preferable for the discretion regarding the appropriate forum for the charges to be exercised in a Court of Petty Sessions, pending further submissions.

The Supreme Court ordered that the hearing of all three complaints be recommenced before a magistrate, ensuring that the process adhered to the appropriate legal standards and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support any future findings or decisions.

Orders