4 Lo NOTE: - NOT APPROPRIATE FOR REPORTING OR FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION . (AEW) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. WAG 1 of 1985 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISTON OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE J.D. DAVIES BETWEEN : a APTHUP LETTS Applicant and THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER COURT: Wocdward, Tachey and Pincus JJ. DATE: 29 May 1985 PLACE: Perth THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The appeal be dismissed. (Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by 0.36 of the Federal Court Rules). NOTE: ~ NOT APPROPRIATE FOR REPORTING OR FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION (AEW) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. WAG 1 of 1985 ee ew GENERAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED PY THE HONOURABLE MP JUSTICE J.D. DAVIES BETWEEN : = ARTHUR LETTS Arplicant and THE DIRECTCR GENERZL OF SCCIAL SECUPITY Respondent COURT: Woodward, Toohey and Pincus Jd. DATE: 29 May 1985 PLACE: Perth EX-TEMPOPE JUDGMENT WOODWARD J. This is an appeal by Mr Arthur Letts against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Mr dustice Davies, which affirmed a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Security to deduct $8 per fortnight from Mr Letts' age pension. The deduction is being made because it is alleged that Mr Letts, over a period of some time, received a sum of about $7000 by making a false claim for an age pension in the name of Alan Ryan. Mr Letts was convicted of an offence under the Crimes Act 1914 in relation to this matter. Mr Letts is obviously suffering under a great sense of injustice over this conviction and over other dealings with the police and other persons in authority over the years, and although every member of the Court feels a considerable degree of sympathy for Mr Letts in the obvious distress from which he suffers, we can only be concerned with the possible errors of law in the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribimal which is the subject of os a. this appeal. The Court gave Mr Letts at the outset of the hearing this afternoon leave to substitute a Notice of Froposed Substituted Natice of Appeal, dated 9 May 1985, for his earlier notice of appeal. Having studied that document and listened to everything Mr Letts had had to say, I have been able to detect, I think, three different points which could arguably be said to raise issues which need to be determined this afternoon. The first of those is that the conviction and the evidence which was given at the trial should not have been used by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in arriving at its decision. I think the short answer to that is that s.33(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 gives the Tribunal power to rely upon matters which would not normally be admissible in a court of law, and to anform itself as it sees fit. The exact wording of the paragraph is: ",... the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate." It seems to me, on reading its reasons for decision, that the Tribunal was careful in the way in which it made use of the material from the trial, and that there is no criticism which can properly be levelled on that score. The second point which I think Mr Letts has been concerned to maye is that there was an opportunity at the trial to deal with questions of restitution, and the prosecution could have asked for such an order and did not do so, and that it is not appropriate for the Department of Social Security to take action after the trial and conviction and the serving of the sentence. That was a matter which was dealt with by Mr Justice Davies in his reasons for decision and in my view he dealt with it correctly when he said that the failure of the prosecution to take that step did not bind the Secretary to the Department of Social Security, who was entitled to exercise his power under s.140(2) of the Social Security Act 1947. The final point which Mr Letts has made is related to that last one, and it is in effect that he is suffering a double penalty by reason of having served a prison term and now 'being called upon to make restitution for the sum alleged to have been falsely claimed, even at the very slow and probably rather unproductive rate, so far as the Department is concerned, of $8 a fortnight. That matter was also dealt with by Mr Justice Davies in the same passage which I have just quoted. He said that he could see no element of double punishment, it was always open to the Crown both to seek punishment by way of imprisonment for the fraud which was involved and to obtain restitution of moneys improperly obtained. I would agree with his Honour in that finding. I am not able to detect in what has been said or written any other point of significance or relevance toa the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and since I find that there 21s no substance in the matters that have been raised, it is my ) = view that the appeal should be dismissed. TOOHEY J. Iam aiso of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. I agree with the reasons just delivered by the presiding judge and I have nothing to add to those reasons. PINCUS J. I agree. I hereby certify that this and the three (3) preceding pages are a true and accurate copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of The Court Dan Associate to The Hon. Mr Justice Woodward Dated: 23 May 1985