AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 August 2025

R v Kadadi

[2025] NSWDC 450

Fraud & dishonesty
CRIME SENTENCE FRAUD ON THE COMMONWEALTH INTENSIVE CORRECTIONS ORDERS FINES CONFLICTING PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS

Citation: R v Kadadi [2025] NSWDC 450
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 August 2025
Judge: Anderson SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 41-year-old man, pleaded guilty to two counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to section 134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The first offence (sequence 1) involved 66 fraudulent claims for the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment between April and August 2021, netting $68,400 by using real and fabricated identities and falsely claiming flood damage. The second offence (sequence 67) involved four fraudulent claims for COVID disaster payments between August and October 2021, yielding a further $24,300.

The total fraudulent advantage was $92,700, of which $4,200 had been recovered through the withholding of Centrelink payments. The offender made no voluntary repayments to the Commonwealth. Notably, he committed sequence 1 while on bail for an unrelated drug supply offence, and spent 48 of the 57 days that comprised sequence 67 in custody on that other matter.

The parties disputed the appropriate form of sentence. The Crown pressed for a substantial custodial term, while the defence submitted that an intensive corrections order (ICO) or release on a recognisance was available on the facts.

  • What was the objective seriousness of the offending, having regard to the quantum obtained, duration, planning, and exploitation of emergency payment systems?
  • What weight should conflicting psychological reports attract when assessing the offender's moral culpability?
  • Whether an ICO was appropriate in the circumstances, or whether only a term of full-time custody would suffice.
  • What discount applied for the guilty plea, and what ancillary orders (fines, reparation) were warranted?

Decision

Objective seriousness. Anderson SC DCJ found the offending was of moderate objective seriousness. The total sum of $92,700 was described as "relatively small" given that the offence provision carries no upper monetary limit, but the quantum was only one factor. The judge emphasised the duration of nearly six months, the 70 discrete fraudulent transactions across two benefit types, and the exploitation of emergency payment systems that were deliberately designed with reduced scrutiny to assist people in urgent need. That deliberate exploitation of a low-barrier system was treated as an aggravating feature, even though the scheme was not found to be "sophisticated" in the technical sense.

Moral culpability and psychological evidence. The Court received conflicting psychological reports. The Defence relied on a report by Mr Albassit suggesting a link between the offending and drug use. His Honour engaged with this evidence but gave it limited weight in mitigation, finding no clear causal nexus between drug use and the commission of the offences was established on the material. The offending while on bail for drug supply was treated as an aggravating factor under the sentencing framework.

Victim impact. Two identifiable individual victims emerged from sequence 1. The offender had assisted a flood-affected woman to make a legitimate claim but diverted the payment to his own account. A second real person's identity was misused without his knowledge. Beyond these individuals, the Court acknowledged the broader societal harm caused by large-scale fraud on emergency payment systems.

Form of sentence. Despite the Crown's submissions for full-time custody, the Court was satisfied that an ICO was appropriate. Applying a 25 per cent discount for the guilty plea, the Court arrived at an indicative sentence of two years and four months for sequence 1 and one year for sequence 67, producing an aggregate of two years and nine months. Relying on Mustafa v The Queen (2021) NSWCCA 164, the Court confirmed that an ICO may be imposed regardless of the length of an indicative sentence, provided the aggregate does not exceed three years. Fines and a reparation order were also imposed.

Orders Made

  • Conviction recorded on both counts.
  • Aggregate sentence of two years and nine months imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order, commencing 18 August 2025 and expiring 17 May 2028.
  • Fine of $20,000 attached to sequence 1.
  • Fine of $7,500 attached to sequence 67.
  • Reparation order requiring repayment of $88,500 to the Commonwealth.

Conditions attaching to the ICO:

  • No further offences.
  • Supervision by Community Corrections Service for the duration of the order, including compliance with directions to undertake assessment, therapy, treatment, or counselling.
  • 200 hours of community service work.
  • Abstention from illicit substances and monthly urinalysis testing.
  • No use of prohibited or restricted drugs or substances, except those lawfully prescribed.

Key Takeaways

  • Exploitation of emergency payment systems with deliberately low barriers to entry can be treated as an aggravating feature of objective seriousness, even where the scheme is not technically sophisticated.
  • Under Mustafa v The Queen (2021) NSWCCA 164, an ICO remains available as a sentencing option regardless of the length of an indicative sentence, so long as the aggregate does not exceed three years.
  • Offending committed while on bail for a separate offence is a recognised aggravating factor in Commonwealth sentencing under section 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
  • Where the Crown seeks to rely on specific factual examples to demonstrate seriousness, those examples must appear in the agreed facts; the Court here rejected Crown submissions that relied on matters outside the agreed statement of facts.
  • A reparation order will account for amounts already recovered by the Commonwealth, with the $88,500 order in this case reflecting the outstanding balance after the $4,200 previously withheld.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 134.2
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(2), 17A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 7

Cases:
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Hoskins v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 169
- Mitchell v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 306
- Mustafa v The Queen (2021) NSWCCA 164
- NK v The King (2025) NSWCCA 73
- O'Hanlon v The King (2025) NSWCCA 118
- The Queen v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- Vamadevan v The King (2024) NSWCCA 223