Section 16A(2)(p) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) must be applied according to its terms: there is no requirement that 'exceptional hardship' be demonstrated before the probable effect of a sentence on an offender's family or dependants may be taken into account. The line of authority beginning with R v Sinclair (1990) and including R v Togias, R v Hinton, R v Matthews, R v Nguyen, R v Constant, R v Ibbetson and Saoud v The Queen should no longer be followed. Section 16A does not establish a hierarchy of sentencing considerations, and it is incorrect to describe general deterrence as the 'primary' or 'pre-eminent' sentencing consideration in social security fraud cases.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 126 later cases that cite this judgment.
53 of the 126 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.