R v Tadik [2019] NSWDC 663

R v Tadik [2019] NSWDC 663

The offender committed persistent and sophisticated dishonesty over about six years, involving over 128 false representations and almost $100,000 obtained from the Commonwealth, despite an earlier warning about another false identity. Although she had no prior convictions, pleaded guilty early and had a context of domestic violence, her remorse was not established by sworn evidence, her prospects of rehabilitation were guarded, and deterrence and protection of the community required imprisonment. An Intensive Correction Order was inappropriate because it was not more likely to address the risk of reoffending, the objective seriousness of the offending required full-time imprisonment, and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence Following Early Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 12 months and a recognizance release order for 10 months; an Intensive Correction Order was refused and a reparation order was made.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Causing a Risk of Loss to a Commonwealth Entity' 'commonwealth Benefits Fraud' 'intensive Correction Order' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'reparation Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dishonestly Causing a Risk of Loss to a Commonwealth Entity' 'commonwealth Benefits Fraud' 'intensive Correction Order' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'reparation Order']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentence Following Early Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for dishonestly causing a risk of loss to a Commonwealth entity contrary to s 135.1(5) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.' 'Whether the sentence should be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order or by full-time imprisonment.' 'Whether a reparation order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender committed persistent and sophisticated dishonesty over about six years, involving over 128 false representations and almost $100,000 obtained from the Commonwealth, despite an earlier warning about another false identity. Although she had no prior convictions, pleaded guilty early and had a context of domestic violence, her remorse was not established by sworn evidence, her prospects of rehabilitation were guarded, and deterrence and protection of the community required imprisonment. An Intensive Correction Order was inappropriate because it was not more likely to address the risk of reoffending, the objective seriousness of the offending required full-time imprisonment, and...

Court Disposition

The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 12 months and a recognizance release order for 10 months; an Intensive Correction Order was refused and a reparation order was made.

Orders

  • ['Imprisonment for a period of 1 year 10 months.' 'Non-parole period of 12 months to date from 4 October 2019.' 'Released to a recognizance release order for 10 months as and from 3 October 2020.' 'Reparation order of $98,879.36.']