R v Pilarinos - [1999] VSCA 142

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

Not Restricted

No. 164 of 1999

THE QUEEN

VALERIE MAUREEN PILARINOS

---

JUDGES:	BROOKING, TADGELL and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 September 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 September 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSCA 142

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Social security fraud - Pensions illicitly obtained by misrepresentation over long period - Probability that offender could have legitimately obtained some other pension - Imprisonment for 30 months but to be released on recognizance after eight months - Application dismissed.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) ss.29B, 29D.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr N.T. Robinson

Solicitor for Public

Prosecutions (Cth.)

For the Applicant

Miss L. Lieder, Q.C. and

Mr M. Kowalski

A. Lewenberg

BROOKING, J.A.:

Tadgell, J.A. will give the first judgment.

TADGELL, J.A.:

The applicant, Valerie Maureen Pilarinos, pleaded guilty in the County Court to three counts of what is sometimes nowadays called social security fraud. She was sentenced to imprisonment, against which sentence she now seeks leave to appeal.

The period during which the offences occurred was one extending over twelve years, beginning on 1 December 1983 and ending on 10 January 1996. During that period, by reason of her misrepresentation and deceit, the applicant received some $125,000 by way of pension payments to which she was not entitled. The judge made a reparation order for some $122,000 in addition to the term of imprisonment that he imposed. The first count was that, between 1 December 1983 and 24 October 1984, the applicant imposed on the Commonwealth contrary to s.29B of the Crimes Act 1914 by an untrue representation made by omission with a view to obtaining a benefit, namely a widow's class A pension, in that she failed to advise the relevant department that she was living in a de facto relationship with Peter Pilarinos. The second count was that, between 25 October 1984 and 18 May 1989, (which latter date was the day before she married Pilarinos) she did, contrary to s.29D of the Crimes Act 1914, defraud the relevant department by receiving a widow's class A pension, which then became a sole parent's pension, by failing to advise the department that she was living in a de facto relationship with Pilarinos. The third count was that, between 19 May 1989, (which was the date of her marriage to Pilarinos) and 10 January 1996 she, contrary to s.29D of the Act, defrauded the department by receiving a sole parent's pension by failing to advise the department that she was married to Pilarinos.

A short chronology might usefully be stated. In 1963 the applicant made a claim for a widow's class A pension in the name of Morgan on the footing that she was a deserted wife with one dependent child. She commenced to receive payment of the pension in June 1963. In 1974 or 1975 the applicant began a relationship with Peter Pilarinos and in 1977 a son was born to her…

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 Pilarinos

Details

AGLC: R v Pilarinos [1999] VSCA 142
Case: [1999] VSCA 142
Decision Date: 7 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pilarinos involved the defendant, who had engaged in social security fraud over an extended period by misrepresenting his circumstances to obtain pensions to which he was not entitled. The matter was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal in Australia. The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant's criminal conduct, which had resulted in significant financial gain through fraudulent means. The court had to weigh various factors, including the severity and duration of the fraud, the defendant's culpability, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court identified that the defendant's actions constituted a serious breach of public trust, involving prolonged deceit and misrepresentation to illicitly obtain pensions. While the court acknowledged the defendant's potential to have legitimately obtained some other pension, it emphasised the gravity of the fraud and the need for deterrence. The appeal against sentence focused on whether the original penalty imposed was too lenient or too severe. The Court of Appeal ultimately concluded that the original sentence of 30 months imprisonment, with the defendant to be released on recognizance after serving eight months, was appropriate. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's sentencing decision.

The court's reasoning underscored the importance of balancing punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentencing, particularly in cases of social security fraud. The decision highlighted the need to impose penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the individual circumstances of the offender. The court's dismissal of the appeal affirmed the lower court's assessment that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed, taking into account the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and the broader societal implications of such fraudulent activities. The final orders confirmed the original sentence, ensuring that the defendant would serve the remaining term of his sentence under the conditions specified.

Orders