Cameron v Holt [1980] HCA 5

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Stephen, Mason, Murphy and Aickin JJ. Cameron v Holt [1980] HCA 5

ORDER Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1980, Feb. 19 Barwick C.J.

The applicant, an officer in charge of an investigation unit of the Commonwealth Department of Social Security, complained to a Justice of the Peace that the respondent had presented to an officer (i.e. of that Department) a document which was false in a particular contrary to s. 138 (1) (d) of the Social Services Act 1947 Cth as amended. The complaint related to three separate occasions—30th November 1977, 14th December 1977, and 11th January 1978, on which a document had been so presented. Section 138 (2) of the Act allowed of the inclusion of these separate instances in the one complaint.

The respondent was unemployed in August 1977, and applied for unemployment benefits by written application dated 24th August. The respondent was then living in the relationship of husband and wife, with two children whom he was supporting. In consequence, he received unemployment benefits on the footing that he was living with a de facto wife.

On each of the three dates with respect to which complaint was made, the respondent had made an application in writing for a continuation of his unemployment benefits. For this purpose, he filled in a form and presented it to an officer of the Department. The form required him to answer all questions which it asks. The last question on the face of the form, question No. 8, is in the following terms:

a. Have any of the events listed in Note A on the back of this form occurred in the period mentioned above.

b. If YES, give details.

Note A, entitled "EVENTS TO BE REPORTED", on the back of the form provides: "A beneficiary must report WITHIN SEVEN DAYS any of the following circumstances": a number of circumstances are listed, of which that against the letter (d) is presently relevant: "If he ceases to live with his wife or de facto wife or becomes widowed or divorced". The respondent on each of the three occasions answered question 8 "No".