Charges:

1 charge of fraudulent obtaining Loss of Earnings benefits pursuant to s116 of the Transport Accident Act 1986.

Plea: Guilty

Result:

The Magistrate imposed a fine of $2,000.00, without conviction.  The accused as also ordered to pay compensation of $63,374.00 and legal costs of $2,799.

Remarks:

The accused was involved in a transport accident in 2018 and was in receipt Loss of Earnings benefits.  The TAC was advised the accused was working in a take away store.  The TAC’s investigation which included surveillance confirmed same and whilst there was no money trail in the form of wages to corroborate this the TAC was able to obtain information from the owner of the store that the accused was a partner in the business and was helping to run the store.  After hearing a summary of the offending the court heard defence submissions, which centred around the accused’s personal background, having no family, being of good character as evidenced by several character references tendered, lack of criminal offending both pre and post offending and remorse through the plea of guilty.  The court was advised that the accused was now employed as a cleaner and consented to the compensation order and costs order as sought by the prosecution.  Ultimately the defence sought a penalty that did not involve a conviction based on the accused’s previous good record and character and her need to relevant police checks for employment.  The prosecution submissions centred on the need for a conviction to be recorded based on the value of the fraud involved and the prolonged nature of the offending and submitted that a Community Corrections Order (CCO) with conviction would be appropriate in the circumstances.  In announcing the sentence Magistrate Ong identified the elements he must consider for sentencing as well as those for recording a conviction. While he noted the prolonged nature of her fraudulent behaviour and the amount involved he also considered the accused’s age, lack of criminal history, family circumstances and otherwise good character over the period of time the accused has been in Australia.  While he had considered a CCO as penalty, the accused’s willingness to repay the money along with good character he was persuaded to impose a fine.  He also stated that given the submissions put by the defence he was also persuaded to impose the penalty without conviction.

Restitution:	$63,374
Total Fines:	$2,000
Disbursements:	$
Statutory Costs:	$
Professional Costs:	$2,799

Stay: 3/5/2023