R v Harris - [1999] TASSC 53

[1999] TASSC 53

CITATION: R v Harris [1999] TASSC 53

PARTIES:  R
  v
  HARRIS, Wayne Anthony

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  151/1998
DELIVERED ON:  23, 28 April 1999 and 17 May 1999
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:  20 - 23 and 26 April 1999
RULINGS OF:  Evans J

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction practice and procedure - Information, indictment or presentment - Averments - Uncertainty, duplicity and ambiguity - Rolling up of 68 separate and distinct referrals into one charge would be bad for duplicity.

Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77, Taylor v R 4/1997, applied.
Health Insurance Act1973(Cth), s129(2).
Aust Dig Criminal Law [16]

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction practice and procedure - Information, indictment or presentment - Averments - Uncertainty, duplicity and ambiguity - Charge alleging "false or misleading" not bad for duplicity.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Williams [1993] 1 VLR 238, applied.
R v Anthony (1982) 1 ACLC 20, referred to.
Ward v R (1989) 42 A Crim R 56, discussed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [16]

Statute - Interpretation - Furnish false or misleading information under Health Insurance Act 1973, s129(2) - Whether mens rea necessary - Offence of strict liability.
R v Sender (No 2) (1982 - 1983) 44 ALR 139, discussed.
R v Giordano (1982) 71 FLR 309; P v R (1986) 82 FLR 351, referred to.

He Kaw Teh v R (1984 - 1985) 157 CLR 523; Ward v R (1989) 42 A Crim R 56, discussed.
Health Insurance Act1973(Cth), s20BA.
Aust Dig Statutes [45]

Criminal Law - Evidence - Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence - Evidence unfair to admit or improperly obtained - Written referrals provided pursuant to request under Health Insurance Act 1973, s20BA(1) - Relevant and admissible - Discretion to exclude not exercised.

Swaffield and Pavic v R (1998) 96 A Crim R 96; Bunning v Cross (1977 - 1978) 141 CLR 55; Ridgeway v R (1995) 184 CLR 19; Hanfstaengl v American Tobacco Company [1895] 1 QB 347, referred to.

Bartlett v R (1991) 100 ALR 177; Button v Evans [1984] 3 NSWLR 191, discussed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [15]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
            Appellant:  B G Walmsley and J Read
            Respondent:  C C Waterstreet
Solicitors:
            Appellant:  Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
            Respondent:  Butler, McIntyre and Butler

Judgment Number: [1999] TASSC 53
Number of Paragraphs: 54

Serial No 53/1999
File No 151/1998

THE QUEEN v WAYNE ANTHONY HARRIS

RULINGS GIVEN DURING THE COURSE EVANS J

OF THE HEARING

(No 1) 23 April 1999

The accused is to plead to an indictment containing 68 counts alleging breaches of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) ("the Act"), s129(2). Count 1 is as follows:

"FURNISH A RETURN OR INFORMATION WHICH IS FALSE OR MISLEADING - Contrary to Section 129(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (C'wth)
PARTICULARS
THAT WAYNE ANTHONY HARRIS on or about 10 October 1994 did furnish, in pursuance…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: R v Harris [1999] TASSC 53
Case: [1999] TASSC 53
Decision Date: 6 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harris, the accused, Wayne Anthony Harris, was charged with 68 counts of breaching the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) by furnishing false or misleading information in the form of written referrals. The court considered whether the charges should be consolidated into one count, whether the charges were bad for duplicity, whether mens rea was required for the offence, and whether the evidence of the written referrals should be admitted. The court rejected the defence's submission that all the referrals should be the subject of one count, as each referral was separate and distinct. The court also held that the charges were not bad for duplicity, as furnishing material that was both false and misleading created only one offence. The court further determined that the offence did not require mens rea and that the evidence of the written referrals was relevant and admissible, and should not be excluded on the basis of unfairness or public policy. The accused was therefore required to plead to the 68 counts of the indictment.

Orders