Apologies for being late with this update…the Easter break
has left me a little behind.
Yesterday, 3 April 2013 the High
Court heard argument in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating.
In this case Keating was charged with obtaining a financial advantage in
breach of section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. This financial advantage was said to be the
overpayment of certain social security benefits, totalling the princely sum of
$6,292.79. The overpayments occurred
because Keating failed to inform Centrelink of changes to her income, which
fluctuated fortnightly. At the time of
the overpayments, there was no obligation on Keating to inform Centrelink of
the changes to her income. Indeed, this
was still the case at the time Keating was charged. This situation was remedied in 2011 with the
introduction of section 66A of the Social
Security (Administration) Act 1999. The
main issue that arises for determination in the High Court is whether or not
the Commonwealth has the power to retroactively impose the duty to inform
Centrelink so as to now criminalise her past conduct, and if it has such a
power whether section 66A in fact achieves that result.
Today the High Court hears
argument in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited, a case involving a chronic gambler seeking to recover $20.5
million from the operator of Melbourne’s Crown Casino. The appellant was suffering from a
psychiatric condition known as pathologic gambling. He was also subject to an exclusion order
from Star City Casino in Sydney (issued by the NSW Police) as a result of which
he was also prohibited from entering the Crown Casino in Melbourne and any
winnings payable to him from gambling were forfeited to the State of Victoria. It is apparent Crown Casino was aware of the
appellant’s gambling habits and financial difficulties over a long period of
time, but nonetheless the appellant was provided with various inducements to
return to the casino and to gamble. At
issue in the High Court is whether the Casino acted unconscionably within the
meaning of section 51AA of the Trade
Practices Act 1974 by inducing him to gamble when it knew or ought to have
known that he was suffering from a “special disadvantage”, namely pathological
gambling. Also at issue is whether or
not the Casino acted unconscionably in inducing him to gamble in circumstances
where it knew or ought to have known that by reason of the interstate exclusion
order he was unable to retain any winnings from gambling at the Crown Casino.
No comments:
Post a Comment