Kovacevic v Mills No. SCGRG-99-980

(2000) 76 SASR 404; [2000] SASC 106

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Sentencing standards
4. › Social security fraud
5. › Sustained and deliberate fraud
6. › Role of deterrence
7. › Whether deterrence must be paramount over all other considerations including rehabilitation
8. › Whether imprisonment mandatory absent exceptional circumstances
9. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 16G, 17A
10. › Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), ss 1344(1)(a), 1347(b), 1350, 1353
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Sentencing standards
4. › Revenue fraud
5. › Whether social security fraud and taxation fraud should be treated differently
6. › Comparison of sentencing approaches
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating circumstances
4. › Reparation
5. › Weight to be given to reparation in sentencing
6. › Voluntary cessation of offending
7. › Good character and prospects of rehabilitation
8. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)(f)(i)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Sentencing on incorrect factual basis
5. › Whether magistrate proceeded on erroneous view of facts

Quick Take

In cases of sustained and deliberate social security fraud, imprisonment is the ordinary starting point but deterrence cannot be treated as paramount to the exclusion of rehabilitation, mercy and leniency. A case need not exhibit 'exceptional' features before a court can properly refrain from ordering imprisonment to be served. There is no reason to treat revenue fraud (including taxation fraud) less strictly than social security fraud. The making of reparation is an important mitigating factor that must be acknowledged positively in the sentencing process.