Regina v Reece Evan Wayne - [2002] NSWCCA 426

Reported Decision:
(2002) 134 A Crim R 142

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Reece Evan Wayne [2002] NSWCCA 426

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60231/2002

HEARING DATE(S): 15/10/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 October 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Reece Evan Wayne

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 39; Buddin J at 1; Smart AJ at 33

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 02/11/0237

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Nield DCJ

COUNSEL : M Bracks (Crown)
HK Dhanji (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Giddy & Crittenden (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Appeal against severity - social security offences - voluntarily ceasing fraudulent activities - significance of pecuniary penalty order - no basis for intervention.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
R v Allen (1989) 41 A Crim R 51
R v Bacon [2000] NSWCCA 549
R v Conway (2001) 121 A Crim R 177
R v Lopez [1999] NSWCCA 245
R v Purdon (NSWCCA 27 March 1997 unreported) Hunt CJ at CL
R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570
R v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed to the extent only that the condition of the recognisance referred to by the sentencing judge that there be actual payment of the pecuniary penalty be deleted. Otherwise the sentence is confirmed.

60231/02

HODGSON JA
BUDDIN J
SMART AJ
TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER 2002

REGINA v REECE EVAN WAYNE

Judgment

1 BUDDIN J: The applicant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to three offences of defrauding the Commonwealth by receiving payments of the Newstart Allowance to which he was not entitled. Pursuant to s 29D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) each offence attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $110,000. The first count spanned the period between about 14 May 1997 and about 11 November 1997. The second count spanned the period between about 4 July 1998 and about 20 April 2001. In respect of each of these counts the applicant falsely claimed the Allowance in the name of Kenneth James Pearse. The third count spanned the period between about 4 January 1999 and about 5 February 2001 and was claimed by the applicant in the name of Reece Evan Wayne.

2 The applicant adhered to his pleas of guilty when he appeared for sentence in the District Court on 8 April 2002. In respect of count 1 he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months to commence on that date and to expire on 7 October 2002. In respect of count 2 he was also sentenced to imprisonment for six months but this sentence was ordered to commence on 8 October 2002 and to expire on 7 April 2003. In respect of count 3 he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and seven months to commence on 8 September 2002 and to expire on 7 April 2004. Pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, the sentencing…

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 Regina v Reece Evan Wayne

Details

AGLC: Regina v Reece Evan Wayne [2002] NSWCCA 426
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 426
Decision Date: 15 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Reece Evan Wayne, the appellant challenged the severity of his sentence for offences related to social security fraud. The appellant had pleaded guilty to several counts of dishonestly obtaining social security payments. The original sentence included a term of imprisonment and a pecuniary penalty order, which was later deemed unenforceable. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the enforcement issues and the fact that he had voluntarily ceased his fraudulent activities prior to being apprehended.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the appeal court should intervene in the circumstances presented. The court had to consider the appellant's voluntary cessation of the offending behaviour, the unenforceability of the pecuniary penalty order, and the overall proportionality of the sentence imposed. The appellant's argument centred on the idea that these factors should have warranted a more lenient sentence.

The court found that the appellant's voluntary cessation of the fraudulent activities and the unenforceability of the pecuniary penalty order did not provide a basis for the appeal court to intervene. The court emphasised that the appellant's voluntary cessation of the offending behaviour was not a mitigating factor that warranted a reduction in sentence. Furthermore, the unenforceability of the pecuniary penalty order did not render the overall sentence manifestly excessive. The court held that the original sentence was proportionate and appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences committed by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal against the severity of the sentence was dismissed.

Orders