148 Charges Including Obtain Property by Deception and Fraud Against WorkSafe Victoria – 147 Charges Withdrawn – Community Based Order

The client was initially charged with 148 offences comprising offences of obtaining property by deception and false accounting. The prosecuting agency was WorkSafe Victoria.

It was alleged that over a period of 2 years, the client received payment through WorkSafe as a carer for hours of work which were not actually undertaken. Initially the total amount of money said to have been obtained was in excess of $80,000, although this amount was substantially reduced prior to the plea hearing.

The client was young and had no prior convictions for dishonesty.

Shaun Pascoe represented the client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court for the charges of Supplying false information and Fraud.

After negotiations Workcover agreed to proceed on one offence only for the period of alleged offending, and the quantum of restitution was reduced to $60,000 on account of charges which were withdrawn.

The client had given a comprehensive statement outlining her involvement, and had agreed to give evidence against the principal offender.

During a plea in mitigation, the Sentencing Magistrate was alerted to several significant mitigatory factors namely: the client was relatively young, had no prior convictions and her cooperation and assistance to WorkSafe had been substantial.

Client was ordered to undertake a Community Based Order for 12 months and unpaid community work over this period. Importantly, this order was made without conviction.

 


Shaun PascoeShaun Pascoe

Shaun is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist and a partner of the firm. Shaun runs the Heidelberg branch of Doogue + George.

He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.

Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his background and experience.

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 25/02/2013