Charges:

1 charge of providing false or misleading information pursuant to s117 of The Transport Accident Act 1986.

Plea: Guilty

Result:

The Magistrate found the charge proven but dismissed the matter without imposing a penalty.

Remarks:

The accused was involved in a transport accident in September 2011 where multiple injuries were sustained.  In 2015 the accused was assessed by medico-legal examiners and an impairment assessment was determined to be 50% whole person which entitled the accused to ongoing loss of earning capacity benefits. Investigations, including surveillance obtained identified the client to be busking for many hours as a "statue man" in various locations in Melbourne which indicated the client was not fully representing to medical examiners the true physical capacity.  When provided with this new information the client’s impairment was reassessed at below 50% whole person and the client was no longer entitled to loss of earning capacity benefits.  As a result of the client’s misrepresentations to the TAC and medico legal examiners, the client was charged with fraudulently obtaining benefits and with supplying the TAC with false or misleading information.

The matter was listed in Court as a 5 day contested hearing, after many adjournments for various reasons, in February 2023.  The prosecution was mainly in relation to loss of earning capacity benefits with the accused declared as being over 50% impairment due to the misrepresentations to medical professionals, the main factor being the accused was unable to stand for over 20mins.

Part way through the running of the Contested Hearing the defence requested a plea deal. The defence advised they were willing to plead guilty to the s117 charges of providing false or misleading information if the s116 charges of fraudulent obtaining loss of earnings capacity benefits were withdrawn.  The Prosecution agreed and accepted that as a resolution to the matter.  The matter was then adjourned for a plea hearing.

On 5 April 2023 the plea hearing proceeded and the Magistrate considered the multiple delays in the proceedings, the fact that there was never any negotiations or agreement to come to a plea arrangement for the client to plead to s117 charges only which could have been regarded as an early guilty plea.  The Magistrate effectively found the charge proven and dismissed the matter without imposing a penalty.  The prosecution protested that there should be a conviction and penalty but the magistrate decided it was the appropriate way to be resolved

Restitution:	$
Total Fines:	$
Disbursements:	$
Statutory Costs:	$
Professional Costs:	$

Stay: