Deception Charges Withdrawn
Talon Legal successfully negotiated the withdrawal of deception charges for a client who was incorrectly charged for offences that were committed in the course of their employment.
In South Australia, deception offences can carry significant penalties, especially when aggravated circumstances are present. At Talon Legal, we pride ourselves on providing compassionate and effective legal representation to individuals facing such charges. This case study highlights our successful defence of a client charged with deception.
Background
Our client, a dedicated father of two and a married individual, served as a clerk responsible for processing and filing various license applications within a local government setting.
Balancing his professional responsibilities with his personal life, he encountered severe health issues that necessitated hospitalisation. Unfortunately, his health complications prompted him to return to work prematurely upon discharge, impacting his ability to perform his duties with the usual diligence.
The Charge
Upon his return to work, discrepancies were noted in the license applications he handled. The prosecution alleged that our client engaged in “rubber stamping” processes, submitting applications without conducting the necessary thorough checks and failing to obtain required signatures.
Despite the absence of any benefit or detriment, the prosecution charged our client with multiple counts of deception and breach of public office. However, upon reviewing the evidence our criminal lawyers discovered that the prosecution evidence could not come to proof. There was no inherent element of dishonesty, nor any intent to gain a benefit and no detriment was caused.
The only benefit, was that of our client completing being able to process and lodge applications quicker – and that was caused arose from being overworked, understaffed and returning to work too soon after suffering a serious health setback. Recognising the complexity of his circumstances, our legal team worked diligently to mitigate the charges.
After lengthy negotiations with the prosecution our client’s actions were construed as making false or deliberately misleading statements in support of applications for liquor licenses, pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 (SA) – a far less serious regulatory offence.
Our Approach
Understanding the critical elements the prosecution needed to prove was paramount.
Under section 139 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), the prosecution must establish that:
- Deception – The accused engaged in deliberate misrepresentation.
- Dishonesty – The conduct violated the standards of honesty expected by reasonable individuals.
- Intent – There was an intention to gain a benefit or cause detriment.
- Causal Connection – The deception directly resulted in the benefit or detriment.
Our defence focused on the following key points:
- Personal Circumstances – Highlighting the client’s severe health issues and premature return to work, we demonstrated that his actions were not driven by malicious or dishonest intent but by a compromised capacity to perform his duties effectively.
- Lack of Benefit and Detriment – We established that there was no personal or third-party benefit gained from the alleged deception. The primary “benefit” was the expedited completion of work tasks, which did not translate into any financial or proprietary advantage. Moreover, there was no tangible detriment suffered by any party as a result of his actions.
- Absence of Malicious Intent – Emphasising that the client’s actions were reckless rather than malicious, we argued that he did not intend to deceive or cause harm but was instead struggling to cope with his health-related challenges.
- Mitigating Factors – We presented evidence of his good character, dedication as a father and husband, and the absence of any prior criminal history to further humanise our client and illustrate that the offence was an aberration caused by his health struggles.
Court Outcome: Deception Charge Withdrawn
After consideration of our sentencing submissions, the Court ordered that our client:
- Receive a Penalty Without Conviction;
- Enter into a 12 month Good Behaviour Bond;
- Pay a $150.00 Victims of Crime Levy;
- Pay $160.00 Prosecution Costs;
- Does not have to pay Court Costs; and
- Pay a nominal $100.00 fine.
By meticulously addressing each element the prosecution needed to prove, we successfully dismantled the core of their case in establishing that our client neither caused any detriment, nor obtained any financial or proprietary benefit. This was essentially in recasting the offence as something far less serious.
Deception charges in South Australia carry serious implications, particularly when aggravated circumstances are present. However, as demonstrated in this case study, a well-crafted defence that thoroughly examines the client’s personal circumstances, challenges the prosecution’s claims, and highlights the absence of significant harm can lead to favorable outcomes. At Talon Legal, we are committed to providing strategic legal support to ensure our clients receive fair treatment under the law.
Book a Free 30 Minute Consultation
If you or someone you know is facing deception charges in South Australia, contact Talon Legal today for a free 30 minute no obligation consultation. Our experienced criminal defence lawyers are experts in financial crimes, deception and fraud. We are here to provide the expert legal representation you need to navigate these challenging times effectively.
