Sood v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 114 12 April 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
165 A Crim R 453

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Suman SOOD v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 114
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 14 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Simpson J at 114; Adams J at 137

DECISION: 1. Appeal Allowed.; 2. Conviction and sentence quashed.; 3. New trial ordered.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Against Conviction – Particular offences – Dishonestly obtaining a benefit by deception, s134.2 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). - CRIMINAL LAW – Elements of statutory scheme – Whether question of entitlement one of law or fact – Meaning of “with respect to”. - CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Whether trial judge made a ruling or gave a direction to jury on question of entitlement. - CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Whether directions on dishonesty constituted a miscarriage of justice, s134.1 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). - CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Whether a new trial should be ordered.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth): s130.3, s134.1, 134.2
Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth): s20, s20A

CASES CITED: Collector of Customs v AGFA-Gevaert Ltd (1995) 186 CLR 389
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280
Dalima Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (New South Wales Supreme Court, unreported, 22 October 1987)
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1
Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493
R v Petroulias (2005) 62 NSWLR 663
Vetter v Lack Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 CLR 439
Wonall Pty Limited v Clarence Property Corporation Limited (2003) 58 NSWLR 23
Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland v Technical Products Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 642

PARTIES: Suman SOOD (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/1710

COUNSEL: S Odgers SC (Applicant)
D Staehli (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Craig Robinson - RBHM Commercial Lawyers (Applicant)
Pauline Caust - Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/1102

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Blackmore DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14/02/2006

- 3 -

2005/1710

SPIGELMAN CJ
SIMPSON J
ADAMS J

WEDNESDAY 12 APRIL 2006

Suman SOOD v REGINA

Facts

The Appellant was convicted by a jury of 96 charges of dishonestly obtaining a financial benefit by deception contrary to s134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The Appellant was a medical practitioner and a registered provider with the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). The Crown case was that she had obtained a financial advantage from the HIC by claiming assigned Medicare benefits (via “bulk billing” arrangements) for the termination of pregnancy services whilst also imposing additional charges for those services on patients.

It was uncontested that the Appellant’s patients were charged additional fees for counselling and theatre services, and that these fees varied according to how advanced the patient’s pregnancy was. The Crown contended that this arrangement was…

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 Sood v R

Details

AGLC: Sood v R [2006] NSWCCA 114
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 114
Decision Date: 12 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sood, appealed against his conviction for obtaining a benefit by deception under section 134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant was found guilty of obtaining a benefit by deception in relation to the acquisition of a parcel of land. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury on the question of entitlement and the concept of dishonesty.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the question of entitlement was a question of law or fact and whether the trial judge made a ruling or gave a direction to the jury on the question of entitlement. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the directions on dishonesty constituted a miscarriage of justice and whether a new trial should be ordered. The court considered the meaning of the phrase "with respect to" in the context of the statutory scheme.

The court found that the trial judge did not make a ruling or give a direction to the jury on the question of entitlement, but rather, the jury was left to determine the issue of entitlement. The court also found that the phrase "with respect to" in section 134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) meant that the deception had to be related to the entitlement to the benefit. Furthermore, the court held that the directions on dishonesty did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no new trial was ordered.

Orders