Stevens v Centrelink - [2003] NTSC 16

Stevens v Centrelink [2003] NTSC 16
PARTIES:DEON ROBERT STEVENS

v
CENTRELINK

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:JA104 of 2002 (20102281)
DELIVERED:  7 March 2003
HEARING DATES:  28 February 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  THOMAS J
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL - JUSTICES - Appeal against sentence - knowingly or recklessly presenting a document to an officer which was false in a particular - whether the magistrate erred in placing excessive weight on the appellant’s prior convictions - whether the magistrate erred in placing excessive weight on general deterrence - whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive - Justices Act (1928) NT.
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), s 217, Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20(1)(b), 21B
Lazaro Kovacevic v R (2000) 111 A Crim R 131, Munungurr v R (1994) 4 NTLR 63, applied.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:H Spowart
Respondent:  G Fisher
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Commonwealth Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:        C
Judgment ID Number:  tho200311
Number of pages:  10

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Stevens v Centrelink [2003] NTSC 16
No. JA104 of 2002 (20102281)

BETWEEN:
DEON ROBERT STEVENS

Appellant
AND:
CENTRELINK

Respondent

CORAM: THOMAS J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 7 March 2003)

This is an appeal from a sentence of a magistrate imposed in the Katherine Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 17 October 2002.
The appellant pleaded guilty to 10 counts of contravening s 217 of the Social Security (Administration) Act. The offences were committed between 6 April 2000 and 10 August 2000. The appellant, through his offending, obtained $3673.25 to which he was not entitled.
The learned stipendiary magistrate convicted the appellant. He imposed an aggregate sentence. His Worship stated the starting point was a term of five months which allowing for a 25 per cent discount reduced the sentence to three months three weeks imprisonment.
Pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, the learned stipendiary magistrate ordered the release of the appellant in the sum of $1000 after serving 21 days on condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of “three months”. Later in the sentence the learned stipendiary magistrate refers to this as being a period of three years. Pursuant to s 21B of the Crimes Act he further ordered that the appellant make reparation in the sum of $2807.31.
The amended grounds of appeal dated 24 February 2003 sets out the following grounds of appeal:
“1.The Learned Magistrate erred in placing excessive weight on the Appellant’s prior convictions.
2.The Learned Magistrate erred in placing excessive weight on general deterrence.
3.The sentence imposed is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the offender and the offences.”
The appellant does not complain in respect of the sentence of three months 21 days imprisonment. It is the appellant’s complaint that the magistrate erred in imposing 21 days of actual imprisonment rather than suspending the full period of…

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 Stevens v Centrelink 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: [2003] NTSC 16
Decision Date: 7 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory heard an appeal against a sentence imposed by a magistrate. Deon Robert Stevens was convicted of 10 counts of contravening s 217 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, for which he obtained $3673.25 to which he was not entitled. The magistrate imposed a sentence of three months and three weeks imprisonment, allowing for a 25 per cent discount, reduced to three months and 21 days. The magistrate also ordered that Stevens be released in the sum of $1000 after serving 21 days, on condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of three months, and make reparation in the sum of $2807.31. Stevens appealed against the sentence, arguing that the magistrate erred in placing excessive weight on his prior convictions, excessive weight on general deterrence, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the magistrate erred in placing excessive weight on Stevens' prior convictions. The court accepted that the 1989 offence was 13 years old at the time of conviction for this offence, it was committed when Stevens was 19 years old, and there was a gap of seven years between the first and second conviction and a gap of four years between the conviction in 1996 and the commission of these offences. The court found that the magistrate should have given Stevens credit for this gap in his record and that the sentence of actual imprisonment imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the offending. The court also found that the magistrate placed too great a weight on general deterrence and prior convictions. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the order for Stevens to serve 21 days actual imprisonment was set aside. The conviction and sentence of three months and three weeks imprisonment was confirmed, with Stevens to be released forthwith upon giving security in the sum of $1000 on condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of three years. The order for reparation still stands.

Orders