District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mehieddine [2025] NSWDC 326 Hearing dates: 4 October 2024,10 October 2024, 9 December 2024, 15 April 2025 Date of orders: 29 May 2025 Decision date: 29 May 2025 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Sutherland SC DCJ Decision: Aggregate sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months, at [305].
The offender to make reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $2,215,351, at [306].
Catchwords: SENTENCING – Fraud offences – Obtain a financial advantage by deception – Defrauding the Commonwealth – Defrauding the Medicare Benefits Scheme – Offender abusing position as a healthcare provider and physiotherapist – Submitting false claims for services never provided – Initial offending unsophisticated – Initial offending involved over-claiming for patients under his care – Later offending more sophisticated – Later offending involved claiming on behalf of other practitioners at other practices for patients he had never seen – Obtained HICAPS terminal to continue conduct – Began “cloning” HICAPS terminal identifications at other practices by using a “rolling password” – Obtained counterfeit Medicare numbers online – Offending occurred over a period of 3 years – Total amount dishonestly obtained of $2,215,351
SENTENCING – Subjective factors on sentence – Offender on conditional liberty at the time of offending – History of dishonesty offences – Offender’s comparative youth at time of offending – Offender’s ongoing conduct motivated by drug and gambling addiction – Extensive expenditure on luxury car rentals and restaurants overseas – Drug rehabilitation prior to sentence – Delay due to disputed facts negotiations and changes in representation
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 53A
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss Pt 1B, 16A, 16G, 21B
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 82(1)
Criminal Code (Cth) ss 134, 135
Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 32
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA
Cases Cited: Canning v Northcott [1988] WASC 200
Corbett v R (1991) 52 A Crim R 112
DPP (Cth) vPhan [2016] VSCA 170
DPP v Hamman (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 1 December 1989, unrep)
El Rakhawy v R [2011] WASCA 209
Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 152
Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Issakidis v R [2019] NSWCCA 302
Quetcher v R [2010] NSWCCA 257
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Cox; R v Cuffe; R v Morrison [2013] QCA 10
R v Dunn (No 9) [2014] WASC 61
Continue reading R v Mehieddine
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Mehieddine [2025] NSWDC 326
- Case
- [2025] NSWDC 326
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the appellant's sophisticated and persistent fraud, and whether the primary judge had erred in the application of sentencing principles. The court also considered subjective factors such as the appellant's conditional liberty at the time of the offending, his history of dishonesty, his youth during the offending, and his ongoing conduct motivated by drug and gambling addiction. The court further considered the appellant's pre-sentence conduct, including drug rehabilitation and extensive expenditure on luxury items.
The court held that the primary judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in imposing sentence, taking into account both the objective and subjective factors. The court found that the primary judge had given appropriate weight to the appellant's conditional liberty at the time of the offending, his history of dishonesty, and his youth. The court further held that the primary judge had correctly considered the appellant's drug and gambling addiction as a mitigating factor, but that this did not excuse the seriousness of the offending. The court also found that the primary judge had appropriately taken into account the appellant's pre-sentence conduct, including drug rehabilitation and the expenditure on luxury items.
The court confirmed the sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months. The court also ordered the appellant to make reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $2,215,351.
Orders
Orders of the court
Aggregate sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months, at [305].
The offender to make reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $2,215,351, at [306].
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
Full text does not contain this section.