R v Schultz [2022] NSWDC 63

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Schultz [2022] NSWDC 63 Hearing dates: 25 February 2022 and 02 March 2022 Date of orders: 02 March 2022 Decision date: 02 March 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Grant DCJ Decision: I refuse to make the orders for compensation sought by the Crown. Catchwords: Criminal law – application for compensation – Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 – corporation as an aggrieved person – dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception – employed based on false resume – work performed to standard required – no loss sustained by reason of the offending Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) Cases Cited: Fagan v Crime Compensation Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666 R v White (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 580 R v Wills: Application by Woolworths Limited [2013] NSWDC 1 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Timothy Leslie Schultz (Offender) Representation: Solicitors: Mr S Baumgarten (DPP) Ms K Espiner (Offender) File Number(s): 2020/00181304 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. The Crown seeks orders of the Court for compensation pursuant to s 97 of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013. It is said that the following entities are aggrieved persons and have sustained loss: 1. Charles Sturt University, $43,992; 2. Telstra Business Centre Tamworth, $6,254; 3. LRE Services, $91,599. Of that an amount the offender has paid $10,000; and 4. The Coleambally Irrigation Company, $48,584. 1. The application raises a number of issues. They can be summarised as follows: 1. Where the Act uses the word "person" does it include corporation; 2. If person also means corporation are any of the entities corporations as defined in s 57A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); 3. Has the "aggrieved person" suffered loss through or by reason of the offence: s 97(1).