District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Meehan [2010] NSWDC 3 Decision date: 15 November 2010 Before: Cogswell SC DCJ Decision: Aggregate sentence of 18 months for all counts. Under s 19AC(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) recognizance release order directing release after serving 12 months of 18 month aggregate sentence upon giving security in sum of $100, without sureties, that she comply with the conditions: (1) be of good behaviour for 6 months; and (2) accept supervision from the NSW Probation and Parole Service and accept all of their reasonable recommendations and directions including financial counselling and monitoring of her finances. Under s 21B of the Crimes Act 1914, order reparation to the Commonwealth in the amount of $140,090.61. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - social security fraud - offending over 18 year period - defrauded $140,000 - Sentence - relevant factors - significant health problems - genuine remorse - full admissions - purpose of sentence importance of general deterrence - no other sentence than full-time custody appropriate. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 19AC(1), 20(1)(b), 21B, 29B. Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 135.1(5). Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Heather Meehan (Offender) Representation: Solicitors: Ms Firth, Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mr Russell (Offender) File Number(s): DC 2009/248116 SENTENCE 1I have to sentence Heather Meehan who, over some 18 years, systematically defrauded the Department of Social Security of over $140,000. I am sentencing her for 8 offences against s 29B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and 1 offence against s 135.1(5) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). 2Each offence in the first category carries a maximum of 2 years imprisonment and the offence in the second category carries a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. 3It is important for a judge before sentencing an offender to set out briefly what happened in the particular case so that an assessment can be made of how serious an example of the crimes the particular offences were. 4The offences arose, as recorded in exhibit A, "out of the defendant having omitted to inform Centrelink that she was in receipt of income in the name of Heather Smith whilst in receipt of various social security payments in the name of Heather Hawes." The offences occurred over a period of some 18 years between 1990 and 2008. Over that period Ms Meehan received various Commonwealth benefits including Sole Parent Pension, Newstart Allowance and Parenting Payment (Single). They were paid into an account in the name of Heather Hawes. 5During the time that she was receiving these benefits Ms Meehan was regularly required to report to the Commonwealth any employment that she was engaged in for the Commonwealth to be able to assess whether or not any income from the employment would affect what she was being paid. She failed to tell the Commonwealth about various jobs that she had. The main job she had was at the Parramatta Nursing Home where she was working as a nurse's aid for some 11 years. Before that she had worked at Woolworths and at the Tourmaline Hotel. She did not disclose any of those jobs. 6She earned in those jobs in the name of Heather Smith over $450,000 over the period of 18 years. As Mr Russell, who appears for Ms Meehan, correctly points out I need to be careful how I deal with that large figure because it in fact represents about $22,000 per annum. 7As exhibit A says, for the whole of the period that she was being assisted by the Commonwealth she was "under an ongoing obligation to inform Centrelink of changes to her circumstances, and was periodically required to [?] a form in order to be paid the relevant payment." As early as July 1991 she even signed a statement to say that she had "not worked or received money for any work. I also have not worked for Woolworths Limited from 1988 to 1990 and I did not work under the names of Hawes, Smith or Meehan." 8Through cross-checking the Department eventually detected the fraud that Ms Meehan was perpetrating on it and officers searched her home under a search warrant. She was interviewed on 15 May 2008 and there is included in exhibit A a transcript of that interview. She appeared in the interview to give full and frank admissions. 9It is important also to note that Ms Meehan's criminal record includes an offence of imposition on the Commonwealth which occurred in 1983. She got a good behaviour bond for that offence and she also has more recent offences of goods in custody and possessing a prohibited drug. 10Mr Russell called his client to give evidence. In the early 1970s she married Garry Smith and had two children. That relationship lasted about six years and in 1981 she remarried a man named Greg Hawes. That was a relatively short relationship and involved a lot of domestic violence. A son was born of that relationship and there was no formal divorce. She entered into another relationship in 1990 which also involved a lot of violence. It was so bad that she described it in evidence as "seven months of hell". As a result of those violence and threats she sent her young children to Melbourne. 11When things settled down she was the sole provider for her young family. She got employment. She is obviously well regarded as a worker but consistently failed to inform Centrelink of the employment. 12She has some significant health problems which require surgery. She has already had some surgery on one hip and is awaiting surgery on the other. She has had treatment for cancer and there is some suggestion of a recurrence and, not surprisingly, she is also being treated by a psychologist for depression and anxiety. 13Her home, where she has lived for 24 years, is a Housing Commission premises which she rents. She appreciated that she was doing the wrong thing fairly early but despite an intention to own up and pay back, she found that she was so far and so deep that she felt that she could not get out. She did not know how to deal with the situation and became very scared. 14I accept Mr Russell's submission, based upon her evidence, that she was not living what he described as the high life and in fact is engaged very much with her own family, her children and grandchildren. Her grandchildren include one significantly disabled 12 year old whom she helps her daughter with. She is repaying her debt to the Commonwealth at about a $100 a fortnight. She has expressed sorrow for what she has done and is obviously very ashamed. 15In cross-examination by Ms Firth, who appears for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Meehan acknowledged that she had received at one stage an inheritance of some $60,000 but had divided it up amongst her three children instead of putting it towards paying off the debt she owed to the Commonwealth. That circumstance illustrates the position that a person who commits these sorts of crimes puts themselves in. She was obviously reluctant to take the money, which was eventually destined for her children, to repay the Commonwealth because it would have deprived her children of significant benefits. But she really ought to have used the money to pay back what she had unlawfully taken from the Commonwealth. She acknowledged in hindsight, when asked by Mr Russell, that she should have used the inheritance to put towards her debt. 16I accept that she is a social drinker and despite some areas, quite appropriately explored by Ms Firth in cross-examination, I am not satisfied that there is any gambling problem so far as her personality or behaviour are concerned. 17A presentence report was prepared which records that she had a stable upbringing but left home early to marry at a young age, a course which was not sanctioned by her parents. The Probation and Parole officer said that Ms Meehan "presents as a person who appears to have struggled throughout her life to provide both herself and her children with the material possessions she believed they were entitled to." I think that is a fair observation and is consistent with what I have seen and heard of Ms Meehan. It is commendable that she has struggled to make provision for her children. It is not commendable that she has done that, unlike thousands of others, by taking the money from the government when she is not entitled to it. 18Mr Russell tendered a report by a forensic psychologist, Mr Chris Proberts. He, understandably, noted a high level of anxiety and some post traumatic stress disorder which I except is related to Ms Meehan being charged with these offences. He did note that her "offending behaviour does not appear to have been directly caused by a psychological or psychiatrist disorder, but more by her situation at the time the offending commenced and her inability to work out a method of stopping the offending without being caught." He noted that she was receiving psychological treatment. He thought that she was vulnerable to undertaking fraudulent behaviour as a way out of a very distressing relationship. He did not think that she would be offending in the future and in fact regard it as highly likely that she would re-offend. 19Mr Russell also tendered a reference from the Assistant Director of Nursing at the Parramatta Aged Care facility. Ms Meehan is obviously very highly regarded. The author of that does not know about these offences so that needs to be taken into account, but that reference and another from someone who has worked with her clearly indicate that she was very good at what must be a very difficult job. 20Her medical conditions are confirmed by a medical report, as is the condition of her daughter who has the disabled son. 21Ms Firth, in her helpful written submissions, emphasised the importance of general deterrence and the fact that the higher courts have made it clear that these kinds of crimes usually must be punished by a period of full-time custody. Ms Firth emphasised the extensive period of time over which these offences had occurred and the fact that she had one bank account into which her government benefits were paid and another into which her salary was paid. I accept that she cannot be regarded as a person of good character given the fact that she has been committing these crimes, or had been, for a period of 18 years but also because of the matters which are on her criminal record. Ms Firth acknowledged that the plea of guilty was forthcoming at the earliest opportunity but was in the face of a very strong Crown case. 22There was in this case some delay between when the Commonwealth searched Ms Meehan's home in 2008 and these proceedings some 2 years later. Ms Firth properly drew my attention to the authorities which indicate that I can take that into account which I will do. 23I accept Ms Firth's submission that Ms Meehan "engaged in a deliberate and organised fraud on the social security system over a considerable period of time and involving a substantial amount of money." She was given plenty of opportunity to put a stop to this fraudulent behaviour but failed to. It only came to an end when it was detected by the authorities. She is genuinely contrite about what has happened, I accept, and I also take into account the fact that by pleading guilty she has shown a willingness to facilitate the course of justice although, as Ms Firth earlier said, it was in the face of a strong Crown case. 24Mr Russell correctly, in my opinion, did not cavil with the assertion that this crime must be punished by a period of full-time custody. That is, as I said, clear from what the Court of Criminal Appeal has said. I accept that she is genuinely remorseful and that she, although not a person of good character, is clearly highly regarded as a worker and as a mother and grandmother. 25I have determined that appropriate sentences in these cases would be fixed terms of 1 month for each of the 8 offences against the Crimes Act amounting to a period of full-time custody of 8 months and an additional sentence of some 10 months for the offence against the Criminal Code Act which comprises a cumulative component of some 4 months of full-time custody. In other words I have determined that the penalty should be composed of a period of full-time imprisonment of 12 months and a period beyond that of 6 months. 26I regard this as a case where no other sentence than full-time custody is appropriate for the reason that the Court of Criminal Appeal has made it very clear that cases such as this should be punished in that way. This is a serious case where the criminal behaviour extended over some 18 years. I accept that general deterrence is important in this case and the sentence which in general terms I have announced is, in my opinion, of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. HIS HONOUR: I will just suspend my remarks. Ms Firth and Mr Russell, as I have said I have in mind a period of full-time custody of 12 months from today until 14 November 2011 and then an additional period, to use old language, of 6 months from 15 November 2011 to 14 May 2012; and I will just get your assistance Ms Firth in the appropriate way of doing that. Do I need to be looking at s 19? FIRTH: Your Honour I could assist you; in terms of the sentences for the 8 offences under the Crimes Act what you've indicated is that that will - that each month will accumulate with each other-- HIS HONOUR: Correct. FIRTH: --for a total of 8 months. HIS HONOUR: That's correct. FIRTH: The additional sentence-- HIS HONOUR: It's the last one that I need to get. FIRTH: Yes; in order to be able to create a sentence where the offender would be serving 12 months imprisonment your Honour would have to, and I just my way of assistance, would, on that additional sentence for the Criminal Code Act offence, the 10 months would have be fully cumulative and what your Honour would then be doing is that would then mean that is an overall head sentence of 18 months-- HIS HONOUR: Correct. FIRTH: --the 8 months for those and then the 10 months for that. HIS HONOUR: That's correct. FIRTH: And then your Honour would have to make a recognizance release order which is what you're required to do under s 19 of the Crimes Act. HIS HONOUR: Which subsection? FIRTH: AC where you're in-- HIS HONOUR: Sorry, 19AC? FIRTH: Yes, when you must-- HIS HONOUR: Okay, sorry, just a second. Yes. FIRTH: So 19AC where you impose a Federal sentence that does not exceed 3 years at the time of the sentence the Court must make a recognizance release order in respect of that sentence to those sentences. So what you-- HIS HONOUR: Sorry, what subsection was that. I just got distracted? FIRTH: 19AC(1). HIS HONOUR: Just bear with me; good, yes. FIRTH: And what you would then be required to do is to, in terms of that 10 month sentence, you'd be saying a head sentence of 10 months which would be fully cumulative with the previous 8 months and then you'd be making a recognizance release order that the offender be released after serving-- HIS HONOUR: 4 months. FIRTH: 4 months, yes, of that because that would then bring you to your 12 and that would be under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act; and your Honour would then be ordering that she be of good behaviour for an appropriate period, whether that be the balance of the sentence or a longer period and that's a matter for your Honour. HIS HONOUR: All right; Mr Russell are you wanting to add anything? RUSSELL: No your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I will sentence your client. 27Ms Meehan, for each of the 8 offences against s 29B of the Crimes Act, I sentence you to 1 month imprisonment. Each term of imprisonment is to be cumulative on the earlier term. The first term is to commence today, 15 November 2010 and the eighth term will expire on 14 July 2011. 28For the offence against s 135.1 of the Criminal Code Act I sentence you to 10 months imprisonment and under s 19AC(1) I make a recognizance release order in respect of that sentence and by that order I direct that you be released on 14 November 2011 and that is 1 year from yesterday. Have a seat Ms Meehan. HIS HONOUR: Ms Firth, I am just looking at s 20(1)(b)-- FIRTH: Yes your Honour. HIS HONOUR: --which you drew my attention to and I have just directed that she be released. Now what about giving security, what's that. FIRTH: Your Honour I just might draw your attention to s 19(2). That was in the list of general federal sentencing principles. HIS HONOUR: Yes, I've got to list every one do I? FIRTH: Yes, so that in particular that the sentence on 135.1(5) offence-- HIS HONOUR: When that commences? FIRTH: When that's going to commence. HIS HONOUR: Okay. FIRTH: And to ensure that each sentence follows the other so that there isn't any gaps that occur. HIS HONOUR: No, I'll do that in a moment, thank you. FIRTH: Thank you. HIS HONOUR: Now what about s 20(1)(b), do I ask her for security? FIRTH: All it is your Honour it's just a stated amount, so it's just self in the sum of, and that's just an amount that your Honour nominates, to be of good behaviour or any other specific conditions. HIS HONOUR: All right; I don't think the presentence report contained any suggested conditions did it? Is this a case where I should order supervision? Yes, yes, I will. Your client can remain seated. 29For count 1 in the indictment I impose a sentence of 1 month imprisonment to commence today, 15 November 2010 and to expire on 14 December 2010; for count 2 in the indictment I impose a sentence of 1 month imprisonment to be cumulative commencing on 15 December 2010 expiring on 14 January 2011; for count 3 on the indictment I impose a sentence of 1 month imprisonment to be cumulative to commence on 15 January 2011 to expire on 14 February 2011; for count 4 in the indictment I impose a sentence of 1 month imprisonment to be cumulative to commence on 15 February 2011 and to expire on 14 March 2011; for count 5 in the indictment I impose a sentence of 1 month imprisonment to be cumulative to commence on 15 March 2011 and to expire on 14 April 2011; for count 6 in the indictment I impose a sentence of 1 month imprisonment to cumulative and to commence on 15 April 2011 and to expire on 14 May 2011; for count 7 on the indictment I impose a sentence of 1 month imprisonment to commence on 15 May 2011 and to expire on 14 June 2011; for count 8 on the indictment I impose a sentence of 1 month imprisonment to be cumulative to commence on 15 June 2011 and to expire on 14 July 2011. 30For count 9 on the indictment I impose a sentence of 10 months imprisonment and I make in respect of that last sentence a recognizance release order under which I direct that Ms Meehan be released upon her giving security in the sum of $100 without surety that she will comply with the following conditions - (1)That she will be of good behaviour for 6 months. HIS HONOUR: Ms Firth, are you asking me to make a reparation order? FIRTH: Yes your Honour I would be asking for that and the reparation order that I'll be seeking is the full amount of the fraud which was $140,000-- HIS HONOUR: She's paid some off hasn't she? FIRTH: No, that's gone towards - there's a separate debt that isn't part of these proceedings. HIS HONOUR: Okay, all right. FIRTH: So it still remains that the total is outstanding, so it's $140,000.80. HIS HONOUR: It's got here $140,090.61. FIRTH: Yes your Honour that's correct. Your Honour with the sentence for count 9 in the indictment, and I don't know that you've stated it, that would be commencing on 15 July 2011. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. 31That should commence on 15 July 2011 and expire on 14 May 2012. FIRTH: Thank you your Honour. HIS HONOUR: And that is a 10 month penalty, (2)That she pay reparation in the sum of $140,090.61. (3)That she accept supervision from the New South Wales Probation and Parole Service and accept all of their reasonable recommendations and directions including financial counselling and monitoring of her finances. FIRTH: Your Honour I might just point out, I'm sorry to do this, in terms of the order for reparation that doesn't generally form as part of the conditions of the recognizance. It's separately under s 21B of the Crimes Act. HIS HONOUR: Oh. FIRTH: So it's a separate order under s 21B. HIS HONOUR: I was looking at s 20(1)(a). It seems to me that it shouldn't be a condition because she wouldn't be-- FIRTH: No your Honour because-- HIS HONOUR: --able to comply-- FIRTH: --that's correct, you'd be setting her up to fail the recognizance-- HIS HONOUR: --that's right-- FIRTH: --so it is just a separate order under s 21B. HIS HONOUR: All right, I'll come to that in a second. FIRTH: Thank you. 32The two conditions therefore are that she be of good behaviour for 6 months and the condition about supervision. HIS HONOUR: Now give me that section again about reparation? FIRTH: It's s 21B of the Crimes Act. HIS HONOUR: 21B? FIRTH: Yes your Honour. HIS HONOUR: I'm not sure that's made it into my-- FIRTH: And what that section is - it's just s 21B Reparation for Offences-- HIS HONOUR: All right. FIRTH: --and it simply enables that order to be made. 33I order that Ms Meehan make reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $140,090.61. HIS HONOUR: Now have I made it clear as to when her release date is which should be- FIRTH: 14 November-- HIS HONOUR: --14 November 2011; what order do I make? FIRTH: And that's the order that you've made that she be released after entering the recognizance after serving 4 months on last offence. HIS HONOUR: Right. FIRTH: You could state the date if your Honour wished but I think that that is clear on the face of the start date of the offence. HIS HONOUR: All right, start date of the sentence. FIRTH: Yes, sorry, for that offence was 15 July. HIS HONOUR: Yes. 34The release order is she is to be released on 14 November 2011 on that recognizance. FIRTH: Thank you. HIS HONOUR: Now Ms Firth before I discharge my responsibility to explain that to Ms Meehan, are there any other orders I need to make? FIRTH: No your Honour there's no other orders that are required. HIS HONOUR: No; Mr Russell? RUSSELL: No your Honour. 35Ms Meehan, I have sentenced you to 18 months imprisonment. You must serve 12 months, so you go into prison today and I have directed that you be released in 1 year's time on 14 November 2011. Do you understand that? OFFENDER: Yes. 36Then you are on 6 months promised good behaviour/recognizance. Means you promise to behave yourself and stay out of trouble for 6 months; do you understand that? OFFENDER: Yes. 37I've ordered you to repay the Commonwealth the amount that you owe. Do you understand that? OFFENDER: Yes. 38And perhaps most importantly I've ordered that you accept supervision, once you're released, from the Probation and Parole Service and let them assist you in whatever ways they think they can and they are experienced in these sorts of things. Do you understand that? OFFENDER: Yes. HIS HONOUR: Okay; nothing else? RUSSELL: No your Honour. FIRTH: No your Honour. HIS HONOUR: I'll just allow Ms Meehan a few moments with her family. RUSSELL: Thank you your Honour. FIRTH: Thank you your Honour. HIS HONOUR: And then she can be taken down. Thanks Ms Firth for your assistance, thank you Mr Russell. FIRTH: Thank you your Honour. RUSSELL: Thank you your Honour. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 25 February 2014