R v Stephens - [2023] ACTSC 226

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Stephens
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 226
Hearing Date:	16 August 2023
Decision Date:	16 August 2023
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [46].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – making a false statement in an application – offending below the mid-range of objective seriousness – no criminal history –
recognizance of good behaviour and fines imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 17A(1), 19B, 20 Criminal Code (Cth), s 136.1(1)
Parties:	The King Ilze Stephens (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
M Hassall (Crown) J Moffett (Offender)
Solicitors
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Tim Sharman Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 266 of 2022
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
1․	On 9 November 2022, the offender, Ilze Stephens, pleaded guilty to four counts of
making a false statement in an application contrary to s 136.1(1) of the Criminal Code
(Cth). The maximum penalty is 12 months’ imprisonment. The maximum fine is 60
penalty units.
2․	The pleas were entered on these summary charges in the Supreme Court following initial
pleas of not guilty to charges on an indictment. The guilty pleas were entered after the
matter was listed for trial.
3․	The offender’s son, Travis Stephens, was the co-offender. He was sentenced on
1 December 2022: R v Stephens (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 335.
Facts
4․	The facts are agreed and are in summary as follows.
5․	At all relevant times the offender resided in Croydon Hills, Victoria.
6․	Travis enlisted as a solider in the Australian Army in 2000. Between January 2010 and
December 2019, Travis was posted to various units in the Canberra region.
7․	Housing assistance is provided to Australian Defence Force (ADF) members and may
be given to a member requiring accommodation who does not have a “suitable own
home” in the member’s posting location. A member is taken to have a “suitable own
home” when the member holds an interest as an owner of the home. The interest can be
a controlling interest or an equal share and may be legal or equitable.
8․	Rent Allowance (RA), a subsidy paid to the ADF member fortnightly, is a form of housing
assistance paid to a member who privately rents a suitable home to live in, in his or her
posting location. A member who owns or partly owns a suitable home in his or her posting
location is not entitled to RA.
9․	In 2011, Travis was in receipt of RA for an apartment he rented on Giles Street, Kingston
(“the Giles St property”).
10․	On or about 26 May 2011, Travis made an offer to purchase an apartment on Wentworth
Ave, Kingston (“the Kingston property”). The offer was accepted, and Travis paid a cash
deposit of $5000. The original buyer recorded on the sales contract was Stephens Estate
Pty Ltd, with the address of the Giles St property rented by Travis. On 13 June 2011, the
buyer recorded on the Sales…

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 Stephens

Details

AGLC: R v Stephens [2023] ACTSC 226
Case: [2023] ACTSC 226
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stephens, Ilze Stephens was convicted in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for making false statements in applications to the Defence Housing Authority. Stephens pleaded guilty to four counts of this offence, each carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonment and a maximum fine of 60 penalty units. The court heard that Stephens and her son, Travis Stephens, engaged in a scheme where Travis falsely claimed housing benefits while privately renting a property owned by his mother. Stephens' involvement included signing statutory declarations and other documents that misrepresented her son as a tenant and herself as the sole owner of the property.

The legal issues before the court included determining the objective seriousness of the offence, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the appropriate sentence considering her plea of guilty, lack of criminal history, and her role in the offending. The court considered that while the offence was below the mid-range of objective seriousness, the importance of truthful documentation and general deterrence were significant factors. However, the court also recognised Stephens' subordinate role, her lack of criminal history, and her positive character references.

Justice Mossop concluded that the appropriate sentence would involve a recognizance of good behaviour for 12 months and fines, acknowledging the significant mitigating factors. The final orders required Stephens to enter into a recognizance of good behaviour for 12 months with security of $100 for the first two charges, and for the latter two charges, she was also required to pay a pecuniary penalty of $1000.

Orders