R v Susan Lee [2011] NSWDC 257

R v Susan Lee [2011] NSWDC 257

The offences were objectively serious, premeditated and involved systematic dishonesty over almost 9.5 years in obtaining substantial Centrelink payments in the name of a deceased person. Although the offender's family circumstances were exceptional and justified a substantial reduction, and although further leniency was warranted for the guilty pleas, unexplained delay, health issues and limited criminal history, those factors did not amount to very special circumstances justifying avoidance of full time custody. A total sentence of 12 months imprisonment with release after 6 months on a recognizance, together with reparation of the full amount obtained, was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty to Two Charges Relating to Social Security Fraud
Outcome
Offender convicted on both charges and sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 12 months with release after 6 months on a recognizance release order; reparation ordered to the Commonwealth.
Legal Topics
['social Security Fraud' 'commonwealth Offences' 'custodial Sentence' 'recognizance Release Order' 'reparation Order' 'effect of Sentence on Family or Dependants' 'mental Illness' 'gambling' 'delay in Charging']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['social Security Fraud' 'commonwealth Offences' 'custodial Sentence' 'recognizance Release Order' 'reparation Order' 'effect of Sentence on Family or Dependants' 'mental Illness' 'gambling' 'delay in Charging']

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

Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty to Two Charges Relating to Social Security Fraud

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the offender's social security fraud offences required a custodial sentence or whether very special circumstances justified a lesser order." "Whether the probable effect of imprisonment on the offender's family or dependants was exceptional and what weight it should receive under s 16A(2)(p) of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth)." "What effect should be given to the offender's early guilty pleas, delay in charging, health, mental illness, gambling, prior character and prospects of rehabilitation." 'Whether a reparation order should be made for the amount fraudulently obtained from Centrelink.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were objectively serious, premeditated and involved systematic dishonesty over almost 9.5 years in obtaining substantial Centrelink payments in the name of a deceased person. Although the offender's family circumstances were exceptional and justified a substantial reduction, and although further leniency was warranted for the guilty pleas, unexplained delay, health issues and limited criminal history, those factors did not amount to very special circumstances justifying avoidance of full time custody. A total sentence of 12 months imprisonment with release after 6 months on a recognizance, together with reparation of the full amount obtained, was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on both charges and sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 12 months with release after 6 months on a recognizance release order; reparation ordered to the Commonwealth.

Orders

  • ['For the offence under s 29B of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three months commencing on 7 December 2011 and expiring on 6 March 2012.' 'For the offence under s 135.1(1) of the Criminal Code, 1995 (Cth), the offender is convicted and sentenced to...