Charges:

3 charges of fraudulent obtaining Loss of Earnings benefits pursuant to s116 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 and 1 charge of providing false or misleading information pursuant to s117 of The Transport Accident Act 1986.

Plea: Guilty

Result:

The Magistrate sentenced the accused by ordering that he undertake a 2 year Community Corrections Order to be supervised by the Office of Corrections and to perform 300 hours of unpaid community work.  The order was imposed with conviction.  The Magistrate also ordered the accused pay the TAC compensation in the amount of $70,778.39 and professional costs of $5,932.00.  But for the plea of guilty Magistrate Guthrie noted the accused would have sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

Remarks:

The accused was charged with fraudulently obtaining TAC benefits and providing the TAC with false or misleading information with respect to a transport accident that the accused alleges occurred in March 2019, which allegedly occurred in the Jancourt area.  The accident was reported to police in April 2019.  A subsequent investigation into the alleged accident resulted in sufficient evidence being obtained to conclude that the accident never occurred.  That evidence included several statements the accused employees who all attested to the accused stating he was involved in an accident in February 2019.  The investigation also revealed that no immediate medical attention was sought, no ambulance or hospital treatment was provided contrary to the accused’s claims and further an Expert Reconstructionist report into the claims concluded that the accused’s car had not been in any accidents, had never been repaired and it was impossible for the accused to have sustained the alleged injuries in the vehicle allegedly driven and in the manner the accident allegedly took place.  Initially the accused contested the charges and the matter had ultimately been listed for a 5 day contested hearing in late April 2023.  In the weeks just before the contest the prosecution were advised that the matter would not run as a contest and the accused would be pleading guilty.  Subsequently, negotiations between the parties resulted in the accused pleading guilty to 3 charges of fraudulently obtaining benefits (representative rolled up charges of the other 57 issued) and one charge of provided false or misleading information, being the report the false accident.  In submissions from the defence the court was advised that the accused was suffering PTSD and numerous other psychological issues which predated the offending.  In support of their submissions a medical report was tendered, which was obtained in preparation for defending the charges.  This report was relied upon for the assertion that the accused moral culpability for the offending was ameliorated and as such he could not be held as morally culpable as a person who was not suffering any psychological conditions.  Prosecution submissions in response centred on the protracted nature of the offending as well as the need for general deterrence as well as specific deterrence and the need for denunciation of the offending.  In support of the prosecution submissions the courts attention was drawn to several comments made by the Dr in the Defence tendered medical report.  At the conclusion of submissions the Magistrate advised he was having difficulty coming to a decision and that he felt imprisonment was a really possibility. The Magistrate adjourned the matter for sentencing to consider his decision but also advised he would have the accused assessed for his suitability to undertake a Community Corrections Order in the interim.  At the sentencing hearing the Magistrate Guthrie made the following remarks in announcing his sentence.  He noted he struggled with sentencing but referred to the sentencing principles contained in the Sentencing Act and in particular those of “Just Punishment” He noted the accused’s history as referred to in tendered medical reports, in particular the paragraph’s cited by the Prosecution.  He then noted the defence’s submissions as to the Verdin’s principles but identified that the offending involved a fair degree of planning the industry knowledge of the accused and the fact the accused claimed resources which were otherwise meant for others who were actually entitled to them..

Restitution:	$70,778.39
Total Fines:	$N/A
Disbursements:	$N/A
Statutory Costs:	$N/A
Professional Costs:	$5,932