Saxon v Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency - [2004] SASC 118

SAXON v COMMONWEALTH SERVICES DELIVERY AGENCY
[2004] SASC 118
Magistrates Appeal

DUGGAN J. The appellant has appealed against a sentence imposed on him in the Adelaide Magistrates Court for 13 offences of recklessly making a false statement contrary to s 212 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
The offending took place between 30 May 2002 and 27 November 2002. The false statements were made on application forms for the payment of Newstart Allowance. The total overpayment made as a result of the false statements was $1,913.77.
The magistrate recorded convictions and imposed a global penalty of imprisonment for 12 months. There was a direction that the appellant be released on a bond for three years in the sum of $10.00 after serving a period of three months. An order was made that he be under the supervision of an officer of the Department for Community Corrections for a period of 18 months during the period of the bond. Reparation was ordered in the sum of $1,913.77.
The appellant is 30 years of age. He is single and has no dependants. There has been instability in his employment and the appellant’s counsel advised the Magistrates Court that the appellant leads a disorganised life. The court was provided with a psychological assessment which stated that the appellant suffers from a dependant personality disorder. It was stated in the assessment that the essential feature of this order is a pervasive and excessive dependence upon others which leads to submissive behaviour, pessimism and self-doubt.
I deal first with the complaint in the grounds of appeal that the magistrate erred in placing too much weight on a previous conviction of the appellant.
In 1998 the appellant was prosecuted for making false statements in claims for social security payments. There were 24 counts and the offences resulted in overpayments totalling $6,418.84. The appellant pleaded guilty to all counts and convictions were imposed. He was sentenced to imprisonment for six months but released forthwith upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for 18 months.
In the course of his sentencing remarks in the present case the learned magistrate said:
“In this case, your prior history and record are factors, which the courts can take into account and must take into account whilst sentencing. Your record however, must not be used in an impermissible way, but it is a relevant factor and very relevant in your case. I do not say that your offending conduct on this occasion was necessarily a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law when retribution, deterrence and protection of the society may call for a more severe penalty, but nor was it an uncharacteristic aberration in light of your past conviction and indeed in light of the accumulated debts to the Department.”
According to the appellant’s argument, these remarks demonstrate error on the part of the magistrate. I am unable to agree. The remarks indicate that the magistrate was aware that he was not…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Saxon v Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] SASC 118
Decision Date: 10 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Saxon v Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency, the appellant challenged a sentence imposed by the Adelaide Magistrates Court for 13 offences of recklessly making false statements under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The appellant argued that the magistrate had erred in sentencing, particularly by giving excessive weight to his prior conviction for similar offences and by not considering his personal circumstances, including his dependent personality disorder and the impact of his father's illness and death. The magistrate had imposed a global penalty of imprisonment for 12 months, with a release on bond after three months, and ordered supervision and reparation.

The court examined whether the magistrate appropriately considered the appellant's prior criminal history, debts to the Department that were not subject to criminal charges, and the appellant's personal circumstances, including his psychological condition and family issues. The court found that the magistrate had correctly applied the principles of sentencing, considering the appellant's prior conduct, which demonstrated a continuing attitude of disobedience towards the law, and the need for deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders