AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 25 September 2026

Mehieddine v R

[2026] NSWCCA 151

Fraud & dishonesty
CRIME APPEALS APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE SENTENCING FOR FEDERAL OFFENCES DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS UTILITARIAN VALUE OF GUILTY PLEA

Citation: Mehieddine v R [2026] NSWCCA 151
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 25 September 2026
Judge(s): Ward P at [1], Hamill J at [2], Fagan J at [3]

Background

The applicant, a registered physiotherapist, was sentenced in the District Court after pleading guilty to eight counts of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception from the Commonwealth's Department of Human Services. The offending involved submitting 40,844 false Medicare rebate claims for physiotherapy and chiropractic services that were never provided, resulting in fraudulent payments totalling $2,215,351. The conduct spanned November 2019 to September 2022, including a period when the applicant was suspended from practice.

The fraudulent scheme was sophisticated. The applicant obtained a HICAPS terminal registered to his father's company, cloned the terminals of other health practices using identification numbers and rolling passwords, stored 134 images of Medicare cards on his phone, purchased Medicare numbers, and used multiple bank debit cards linked to separate accounts to receive the payments. He also falsely coded many claims to identify patients as Indigenous, engaging an exemption from annual service limits.

The District Court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months, applying a 20% discount for the guilty pleas. The applicant sought leave to appeal on three grounds: denial of procedural fairness in relation to the plea discount, error in the finding concerning remorse, and manifest excess in the aggregate sentence.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the sentencing judge denied the applicant procedural fairness by reducing the plea discount from 25% to 20% without adequate notice or opportunity to be heard (Ground 1)
  • Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant's criminal conduct reflected a deep-seated inclination towards dishonesty, rather than a product of drug and gambling addiction (Ground 2)
  • Whether the aggregate sentence of 7 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive (Ground 3)

Decision

Ground 1(a): Procedural fairness and the plea discount

The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the claim that the applicant was denied procedural fairness. An exchange during the sentence hearing had made it clear that the judge was considering a 20% discount rather than the 25% sought, on account of the delayed and protracted process of revising the agreed facts. The applicant's counsel was therefore on notice and had the opportunity to make submissions in support of the higher discount (at [42]). The Court also noted that the Crown had expressly left the level of discount to the judge's discretion and had made no specific submission limiting it (at [42]).

Ground 1(b): Penalising correction of the agreed facts

The Court rejected the argument that the judge improperly penalised the applicant for seeking correction of the factual basis for sentencing. The judge did not reduce the discount because the applicant had sought correction; the corrections were accepted as warranted and the amended figures were used. Rather, the reduction reflected the procedural disruption caused by multiple changes of legal representation close to court listings, vacated fixtures, and a protracted period of adjournments spanning several months after the applicant had already signed the first agreed facts document (at [43]-[46]). The 20% discount was within the reasonable range of the judge's discretion (at [46]).

Ground 2: Remorse and the attribution of offending to addiction

The sentencing judge's findings were reasonably open on the evidence. The applicant had sought to attribute his offending substantially to drug and gambling addiction, framing it as a closed chapter of his life. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that this explanation was unsustainable given the applicant's broader criminal history of dishonesty, the sophistication and duration of the offending, and the absence of any repayment more than two and a half years after arrest. Those findings supported a conclusion that the applicant lacked genuine insight and remorse, and reflected a pattern of dishonesty that appeared deep-seated rather than situational (at [55]).

Ground 3: Manifest excess

The Court was not persuaded that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive. The offending was objectively serious, involving a sustained and resourceful exploitation of the Medicare rebate system over more than two years, false claims in the names of multiple other health providers, and total fraudulent proceeds exceeding $2.2 million. The sentencing judge's assessment that specific deterrence warranted proper consideration, combined with limited findings of genuine remorse, supported the sentence imposed (at [57]-[58]).

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • In sentencing for Commonwealth offences, a sentencing judge has a broad discretion in assessing the utilitarian value of a guilty plea under s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and is not bound by the fixed discount schedule in s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (at [37]-[39]).

  • Procedural disruption caused by repeated changes of legal representation, vacated fixtures, and protracted renegotiation of agreed facts over many months can legitimately reduce the utilitarian value attributed to an early guilty plea, even where the Crown makes no specific submission to that effect, provided the offender has notice and an opportunity to respond (at [44]-[46]).

  • A sentencing judge does not err by declining to attribute sophisticated, sustained dishonest offending entirely to a closed period of drug or gambling addiction, particularly where the offender has a pre-existing history of dishonesty, the offending required skill and planning, and no restitution has been made (at [55]).

  • Using a false Indigenous patient identifier to circumvent annual Medicare service limits was identified as an aggravating feature of the offending, contributing to the court's characterisation of the scheme as sophisticated and resourceful (at [57]).

  • No error was established in the aggregate sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months for large-scale, systematic Medicare fraud totalling over $2.2 million across eight counts, each carrying a maximum of 10 years (at [3], [58]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Criminal Code (Cth)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)

Cases
- Kaurasi v R (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA 253
- R v Mehieddine [2025] NSWDC 326
- Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4