By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
Over March to July 2020, NSW Riverina region man Brodie O’Hanlon made 70 claims for payments under various relief schemes run by Services Australia, such as the Australian Government Disaster Relief Payment, the Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment and the Disaster Recovery Allowance. These claims, however, that resulted in his having acquired $18,000, were fraudulent.
Three successful claims totalling $9,000 were made under the disaster relief payment scheme and another $9,000 resulted from 12 claims to the pandemic relief initiative. Although, dozens of other claims made by O’Hanlon failed, and some were made under his own name, while others were false identities.
O’Hanlon’s claims to the Australian Government Disaster Relief Payment were made when the scheme had allowed affected adults to claim $1,000 each online for disaster relief, however, if the claimant was from Lismore, they could get up to three separate $1,000 payments. So, O’Hanlon said he was from Lismore and received the extra payment despite actually living in Leeton.
The fraudulent behaviour also involved a further 55 claims to the three relief funds in an effort to obtain more than $60,000, which were either rejected when identified as fraud or because O’Hanlon went on to withdraw the claims himself.
O’Hanlon’s fraud was eventually detected by the authorities, and he was arrested, but this was after he’d stopped lodging his fraudulent claims, and the reasons why he withdrew some of them remains unclear. While the Leeton man was not detected to be involved in any extravagant spending after receiving the falsely claimed funds.
Crimes motivated by drug dependency
O’Hanlon went on to plead guilty to three counts of obtain financial advantage by deception, contrary to section 134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which is a crime that carries up to 10 years imprisonment.
The Leeton man also admitted guilt to three counts of attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception, contrary to sections 11.1 and 134.2 of the Criminal Code.
Under section 11.1 of the Code, the law of attempt is an inchoate offence, or an incomplete crime, which becomes a criminal act when it is applied in conjunction with another more serious criminal act. A person convicted of attempting to commit an offence faces the same maximum penalty that the offence attempted carries, which in this case is up to 10 years.
In presiding over Albury District Court, Judge Justin Smith found that the offending was not a lengthy venture and nor was it sophisticated, but it was consistent. In respect of the fact that the man withdrew some of him claims, it could not be ascertained whether this was due to pangs of guilt over perpetrating fraud or whether it was part of the ruse to avoid detection.
But his Honour was clear that O’Hanlon, who was 25 at the time of offending, was driven by his need to finance his methamphetamine habit, which, whilst not amounting to a mitigating factor, or an aspect of the commission of a crime that serves to lessen the severity of a sentence, he did find that it is a “far less serious” reason to break the law than that of a “greed-driven offence”.
As for subjective matters, there was little to go on, as the Riverina man’s solicitor didn’t provide any details, although there was a 30 October 2024 sentencing assessment report before the court, which outlined that O’Hanlon had a long number of past larceny and theft convictions against his name. But the report author noted that it had been his drug habit that was fuelling this offending.
Since O’Hanlon’s mother died, he’d developed a habit of consuming up to 3.5 grams of ice a day, which could be quite expensive to keep up with.
Judge Smith then sentenced O’Hanlon to an aggregate 26 months in gaol, which reflected a 25 percent sentencing discount, due to the utilitarian impact of his early guilty pleas. His Honour also considered whether the offender could best serve his time in the community under the strict rules of an intensive correction order (ICO).
And as the overall sentence was under 36 months, his Honour applied a recognisance relief order, as per section 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). An RRO permits the court to set a date for release prior to the end of the entire sentence, in line with the provisions of section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, via the entering into a good behaviour bond on release, that can last for up to 5 years.
His Honour imposed an RRO that would see the prisoner released after 12 months prison time, based on the provision of a $500 bond and the condition that he be of good behaviour for the period of 18 months.
In respect of the least serious attempt to defraud charge, Judge Smith further imposed a 12-month-long community correction order (CCO) that O’Hanlon was to serve at the same time as his prison sentence. And finally, under section 21B of the Crimes Act, his Honour made O’Hanlon pay $16,226.89 in reparations to the Commonwealth.
Fresh evidence to avoid miscarriage
O’Hanlon then appealed his sentence to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) on 6 June 2025, and he did so based on two grounds.
The first ground involved the failure of O’Hanlon’s solicitor “to place evidence before the court relevant to the applicant’s subjective circumstances, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice’’. The second ground asserted the judge made an error in not imposing an intensive correction order.
In considering the first ground, NSWCCA Justice Andrew Coleman found that it was clear O’Hanlon’s solicitor had failed to place any substantive evidence before the court about his client’s subjective circumstances, which is a serious omission as details relating to, for example, a difficult or deprived upbringing can act as a mitigating factor on sentencing, which has the effect of lessening a penalty.
So, O’Hanlon was seeking to put new evidence before the court, which is not usually permitted on appeal. But his Honour considered in respect of the fresh evidence being submitted to court on appeal that it should be permitted in cases, such as this, where it would likely result in a miscarriage of justice if not before the court.
“It does not matter in this case whether a miscarriage of justice occurred by reason of incompetent or careless representation at the sentencing hearing,” Justice Coleman found. “The fact is the applicant was deprived of the advantage of having additional material going to his subjective case, which may go towards mitigation of the sentence put before the sentencing judge.”
“This omission, in my opinion, resulted in a miscarriage of justice,” his Honour continued, and went on to state that the ground was made out, and due to this, there was no reason to consider the second ground of appeal.
Fresh evidence on appeal
Additional material was put before the court by O’Hanlon in a 12 May 2025 affidavit, which listed a number of criminal offences he’d been charged with before, some of which had been withdrawn, along with details of how he had been attempting to obtain counselling and treatment to end his dependence on drugs, which commenced in his teenage years and had led to his offending.
O’Hanlon’s different instances of drug treatment were listed, including one that was run by the Orange Aboriginal Medical Service. The offender also notes that he fell into relapse whilst attempting to abstain, but since he’d been in prison he had remained drug-free. The prisoner also told the court that his solicitor made no suggestion or attempt to put this information before it.
Also placed before the court on appeal were corroboration of O’Hanlon’s efforts at the Orange Aboriginal Medical Service, a 5 May 2025 psychological report by Julie Dombrowski, a Corrective Services NSW case management assessment, and finally, the appellant’s former solicitor’s records from the sentencing proceedings were too submitted on appeal.
In her report, Dombrowski outlined that O’Hanlon had had a difficult upbringing. His parents were both unemployed and his father drank and was abusive. He’d been sexually abused by one of his father’s friends. He moved out of home at the age of 13 because of his father’s violence, and then he lived with various friends during his adolescent period.
Resentencing
“I consider that the evidence leads to a finding that the applicant’s drug and alcohol addictions, which feature as a factor in all of his offending, including the index offending, result from his early exposure to drugs and alcohol and are linked to his mental health conditions such that they should not be considered as addictions of choice,” Justice Coleman determined in summing up.
His Honour considered that the man’s violent and troubled upbringing should be given full weight on sentencing, especially in terms of moral culpability. This is in line with the NSW sentencing practice known as the Bugmy principles, which require that social disadvantage should be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing, and this is regardless of how many times an individual has offended.
In terms sentencing, in light of the fresh evidence, no other penalty except for imprisonment was necessary in this case, in order to denounce criminality and punish the conduct.
So, Justice Coleman imposed a sentence of 18 months, which reflected a 25 percent discount for O’Hanlon’s early guilty pleas. His Honour said that he considered the 8 months and 4 days the man had already served as time enough, so he imposed an RRO that commenced immediately, with O’Hanlon required to pay $500 in security and adhere to a 12 month good behaviour bond.
As for the reparations order and the additional 12 month CCO, his Honour did not reimpose these penalties.
And on 11 August 2025, NSWCCA Justices Anna Mitchelmore and Mark Ierace agreed with their colleague’s orders, so Brodie O’Hanlon is a free man.
