WILKINSON -v- MORRISSEY [2000] WASCA 241

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 241
Case No:	SJA:1078/2000	Heard:	4 AUGUST 2000
Coram:	TEMPLEMAN J	Delivered:	4/08/00
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER WILKINSON KEVIN PATRICK MORRISSEY
Catchwords:	Appeal against sentence imposed for offences under Social Security Act 1991 Whether fines imposed for knowingly retaining pension far beyond respondent's entitlement were adequate Whether Magistrate properly considered usual disposition for matters of this nature Operation of s 20AB Crimes Act 1914 and s 67(2)(g) Sentencing Act 1995
Legislation:	Crimes Act 1914 Sentencing Act 1995 Social Security Act 1991
Case References:	Liddington (1997) 97 A Crim R 400 Nunn v Kinnon (1988) 4 WAR 459 Pickett v Fox, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 930347; 15 June 1993 R v Purdon, unreported; CCA (NSW); Appeal No 60659; 27 March 1997 R v Rossi (1988) 4 WAR 463 Laxton v Justice (1985) 38 SASR 376 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 R v Tait (1979) 24 ALR 473

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : WILKINSON -v- MORRISSEY [2000] WASCA 241 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J HEARD : 4 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 4 AUGUST 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1078 of 2000 BETWEEN : PETER WILKINSON

Appellant

AND

KEVIN PATRICK MORRISSEY

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal against sentence imposed for offences under Social Security Act 1991 - Whether fines imposed for knowingly retaining pension far beyond respondent's entitlement were adequate - Whether Magistrate properly considered usual disposition for matters of this nature - Operation of s 20AB Crimes Act 1914 and s 67(2)(g) Sentencing Act 1995

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914

Sentencing Act 1995
Social Security Act 1991

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D W L Renton

Respondent : In person

Solicitors:

Appellant : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Liddington (1997) 97 A Crim R 400
Nunn v Kinnon (1988) 4 WAR 459
Pickett v Fox, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 930347; 15 June 1993
R v Purdon, unreported; CCA (NSW); Appeal No 60659; 27 March 1997
R v Rossi (1988) 4 WAR 463

Case(s) also cited:

Laxton v Justice (1985) 38 SASR 376
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
R v Tait (1979) 24 ALR 473

(Page 3)

TEMPLEMAN J

: The Crown has appealed against a sentence imposed on Mr Kevin Patrick Morrissey by a Stipendiary Magistrate sitting in Kalgoorlie.

1 Mr Morrissey pleaded guilty to two offences against s 1347 of the Social Security Act 1991. The offences involved Mr Morrissey in knowingly obtaining payments of disability support pension far beyond his entitlement to that pension. One offence involved the sum of $9158.70 and the other offence $477.30. In relation to the second offence the learned Magistrate imposed a fine of $250. There is no appeal from that sentence.

2 The offence in relation to…

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 Wilkinson v Morrissey

Details

AGLC: Wilkinson v Morrissey [2000] WASCA 241
Case: [2000] WASCA 241
Decision Date: 4 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Wilkinson, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court for offences under the Social Security Act 1991. The central issue was whether the fines imposed for knowingly retaining pension far beyond the respondent's entitlement were adequate. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the Magistrate properly considered the usual disposition for matters of this nature and the operation of section 20AB of the Crimes Act 1914 and section 67(2)(g) of the Sentencing Act 1995.

In addressing these issues, the court examined the Magistrate's assessment of the usual disposition for such offences and considered whether the penalties imposed were commensurate with the severity of the appellant's actions. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need to ensure that the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence. It considered whether the Magistrate had adequately balanced the relevant sentencing principles and statutory provisions, including the deterrent effect of the sentence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the Magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion and considered the statutory requirements in determining the sentence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court was upheld. The court found that the fines were adequate in the circumstances and that the Magistrate had properly considered the relevant sentencing principles and statutory provisions. The decision underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to ensure that sentences are commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.