R v Schultz

Case

[2022] NSWDC 63

02 March 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
R v Schultz [2022] NSWDC 63 [2022] NSWDC 63 02 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to section 134.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) after being found to have made false statements on a resume in order to secure employment. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to a fine and a term of imprisonment, which was wholly suspended. The appellant subsequently applied for compensation under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (Vic) on the basis that the corporation which employed them was an aggrieved person for the purposes of that statute. The Crown opposed the application on the basis that the corporation had not suffered any loss as a result of the offending.

The legal issues in this case related to whether the corporation was an aggrieved person for the purposes of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (Vic), and whether the corporation had suffered any loss as a result of the offending. The court was required to consider the definition of an aggrieved person in the statute, as well as the evidence of loss or absence of loss sustained by the corporation. The court also needed to determine whether the work performed by the appellant met the required standards, despite the false information on their resume.

In determining these issues, the court found that the corporation was an aggrieved person for the purposes of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (Vic) as it was a legal person that had suffered harm as a result of the offending. However, the court found that the corporation had not suffered any loss as a result of the offending, as the work performed by the appellant met the required standards despite the false information on their resume. The court also found that the appellant had no history of criminal offending and had otherwise rehabilitated themselves, and that the crime did not have a significant impact on the appellant’s life. As a result, the court refused to make the orders for compensation sought by the Crown.

In light of the above, the court refused to make the orders for compensation sought by the Crown. The appellant’s conviction and sentence stand.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

Legal Concepts

  • Dishonesty

  • Fraud

  • Employment Fraud

  • Compensation Orders

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

3

Statutory Material Cited

4

R v White (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 580