Fraud Against WorkSafe

This is a case of fraud against WorkSafe Victoria that involves multiple charges of Fraud and Provide False Information.

What is alleged to have occured?
Our client suffered a workplace injury. After being declared unfit for work, he lodged a WorkCover claim for this injury. While waiting to receive payments from WorkCover, then for some time after payments commenced and before going back to full time work, the client did casual work to support himself. The client, on several occasions, did not disclose to his general practitioner or specialists (from whom he was receiving treatment through WorkCover) that he was doing casual work. The doctors signed affidavits and certified him as unfit for employment during this time.

This was brought to the attention of WorkSafe and the client’s payments were ceased. He was interviewed and made full admissions to the casual work and that he had not declared the employment. He was charged with Fraud and Provide False Information.

What happened at court?
Amelia Ramsay represented him at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

After carefully examining the brief and obtaining detailed instructions from the client, we negotiated a settlement figure with WorkSafe reducing the restitution sought by over $10,000. We also negotiated to have some of the charges withdrawn and for the other charges to be rolled up into one “between dates” charge rather than 8 separate charges.

The client was also advised to make full payment of the restitution prior to the court date as it would put him in a good position by the time the matter is heard in court – when he had already repaid the debt owed. The client also agreed to pay legal costs to WorkSafe and this amount was also paid in advance of the court date.

We conducted a plea in mitigation and informed the court of the circumstances surrounding the client’s offending as well as his personal circumstances. We made submissions in relation to an appropriate penalty for fraud against WorkSafe and the magistrate agreed that a fine was the appropriate order.

What was the result?
The magistrate took into account that restitution had been made, costs paid, and the fact that it was the client’s first mention of the matter. A fine of $1,000 with conviction was imposed.

Amelia RamsayAmelia Ramsay

Admitted to practice in 2013, Amelia performs her work with care and professionalism ensuring clients understand the Court process, their charges and that they receive the best possible outcome.

Since joining Doogue + George, Amelia has represented clients in a broad range of indictable offences including, manslaughter (one-punch laws), foreign incursion and terrorism related offences, importation of drugs, cultivation of drugs, and sexual offences. Her work has included trials in the County and Supreme Court, plea hearings and contested committals as well as appeals to the Court of Appeal. Amelia works closely with barristers including briefing Queen’s and Senior Counsel. Amelia also appears regularly at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court and suburban courts as a solicitor advocate.

View Amelia Ramsay’s profile.
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 03/03/2017