Legal Research
Cases
R v Alimic

R v Alimic

Case [2006] VSCA 273 6 December 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No. 48 of 2006
THE QUEEN	v
MARIA ALIMIC

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ and NETTLE and REDLICH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 December 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 December 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 273

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to s.29D Crimes Act 1914 and ss.134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (C’th) – Income tax returns lodged in false names and fraudulently claiming of Family Tax Benefits – Plea of guilty – Whether sentence of five and a half years with a non-parole period of four years manifestly excessive – Whether judge failed to comply with ss.16A(1) and 19(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (C’th) – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms R.E. Carlin	Director of Public Prosecutions (C’th)
For the Appellant	Mr T.E. Wraight	Leanne Warren & Associates

WARREN CJ:

I invite Nettle JA to deliver the first judgment.

NETTLE JA:

On 6 December 2005 the applicant was arraigned before the County Court of Victoria on 37 counts of social security fraud, to which she pleaded guilty:

· Count 1 charged that the appellant had between 9 April 1998 and 9 January 2001 defrauded the Commonwealth by obtaining a payment of Family Tax Benefit, to which she was not entitled, in the amount of $9,897.61. Count 2 charged that she had between 25 May 2001 and 3 March 2002 dishonestly obtained a gain from the Commonwealth by obtaining a payment of Family Tax Benefit to which she was not entitled in the amount of $2,131.83. Count 3 charged that she had between 31 March 1998 and 8 November 2000 defrauded the Commonwealth by obtaining a payment of Family Tax Benefit to which she was not entitled in the amount of $66,140.06. Count 4 charged that she had between 14 July 2000 and 9 February 2001 defrauded the Commonwealth by obtaining a payment of Family Tax Benefit to which she was not entitled in the amount of $18,133. 55.

· Each of Counts 5 to 13, inclusive, charged that the appellant had on and between dates in April 1998 and December 2001 defrauded or attempted to defraud the Commonwealth by causing false income tax returns to be lodged with the Australian Taxation Office wherein she claimed tax refunds to which she was not entitled, thus: Count 5: in the amount of $34,547.55; Count 6: in the amount of $20,556.78; Count 7 (attempted) $18,844,87; Count 8: $21,074.55; Count 9: $9,582.40; Count 10 (attempted): $11,129.88; Count 11: $12,667.65; Count 12 (attempted): $11,130.36; Count 13: $56,855.92.

· Each of Counts 14 to 37 alleged that the appellant had between the same dates obtained or attempted to obtain financial advantage by deception from the Commonwealth in the same manner, thus Count 14: $26,416.07; and Count 15 (attempted): $454.64; Count 16: $24,966.02; Count 17: $21,992.97; Count 18 (attempted): $16,167.30; and Count 19: $16,753.80; Count 20: $16,596.03; Count 21 (attempted): $44,297.94; Count 22 (attempted): $43,720.90; Count…

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 R v Alimic

Details

AGLC: R v Alimic [2006] VSCA 273
Case: [2006] VSCA 273
Decision Date: 6 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Alimic involved the appellant who was found guilty of defrauding the Commonwealth by lodging income tax returns in false names and fraudulently claiming Family Tax Benefits. The matter was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The appellant sought to appeal his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the judge had failed to properly consider certain statutory provisions when determining the sentence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence of five and a half years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years, was manifestly excessive, and whether the trial judge had failed to comply with statutory requirements under sections 16A(1) and 19(2) of the Crimes Act 1914. The court needed to assess whether the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances and if the judge had adequately considered the relevant sentencing principles and statutory provisions.

The High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing it. The court held that the judge had considered the appellant's offending, his background, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in arriving at the sentence. The court further determined that the trial judge had complied with the statutory provisions and that there was no error in the sentencing process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of five and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years, as imposed by the trial judge, was affirmed.

Orders