R v Skuta - [1998] VSCA 35

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

Not Restricted

No. 85 of 1998

THE QUEEN

RAYLENE MAY SKUTA

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., PHILLIPS and KENNY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 August 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 August 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1998] VSCA 35

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Defrauding the Commonwealth by false social security claims - Head sentence of three years confirmed - Non-parole period of two years' imprisonment manifestly excessive - Reduced to nine months' imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. D. Parsons	Solicitor to Cth. DPP
For the Applicant	Mr. P.M. Taft	Kevin Davine & Sons

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Kenny, J.A. to give the first judgment in this application.

KENNY, J.A.:

On 7 April 1998 the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court at Morwell on an indictment containing one count of defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to s.29D of the Crimes Act 1914 (count 1) and two counts of forging a document deliverable to the Commonwealth contrary to s.67(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (counts 2 and 3). The charges related to the applicant's claiming certain benefits from the Commonwealth Department of Social Security under a false name whilst in receipt of disability support pension and forging certain letters in relation to that fraudulent claim. The offences occurred during the period between 22 April 1994 and 22 August 1996. At the time of the offences the maximum penalty for defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to s.29D of the Crimes Act was 10 years' imprisonment, 1,000 penalty units or both, and the maximum penalty for forging a document contrary to s.67(b) was 10 years' imprisonment, 1,000 penalty units or both.

After hearing a plea in mitigation, the learned sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to three years' imprisonment on count 1, such sentence commencing immediately. On counts 2 and 3 the applicant was sentenced to six and nine months' imprisonment respectively, such sentences commencing immediately. The sentences imposed on counts 2 and 3 were ordered to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on count 1, making a total effective sentence of three years' imprisonment. The judge further ordered that, after serving a period of two years' imprisonment, the applicant be released upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The applicant was also ordered to make reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $18,212.42 pursuant to s.21B of the Crimes Act 1914. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence upon three grounds: first, that the sentence was imposed on the basis of incorrect factual information; secondly, the learned sentencing judge gave no or insufficient consideration to the applicant's mental state, her personal circumstances and her plea of guilty; and, thirdly, that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Briefly stated, the salient facts are as follows. The applicant has been in receipt of various forms of benefit from the Commonwealth since 22 June 1990…

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 Skuta

Details

AGLC: R v Skuta [1998] VSCA 35
Case: [1998] VSCA 35
Decision Date: 26 August 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in the case was Skuta, who was convicted of defrauding the Commonwealth by making false social security claims. The matter came before the court for the purpose of determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant. The court had to decide on the appropriate head sentence for the offence and whether the non-parole period of two years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the defendant, and the need for general deterrence. The court noted that the offence involved a significant breach of public trust and caused substantial financial loss to the Commonwealth. However, the court also took into account the defendant's guilty plea and his otherwise good character. The court concluded that a head sentence of three years' imprisonment was appropriate, but that the non-parole period of two years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court reduced the non-parole period to nine months' imprisonment.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a head sentence of three years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months' imprisonment. The defendant was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $100,000 to the Commonwealth. The court's decision confirms the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence for an offence.

Orders