Unless dishonesty in relation to Commonwealth allowances "is firmly punished, then there's a risk that an attitude of laxity will develop", a judge said as he sentenced a former "highly capable" soldier to jail for defrauding the Defence Department of nearly $100,000 during a seven-year period.
The offender, Travis David Morgan Stephens, was also sentenced for causing a $4406 loss to the department by falsely claiming he had been evicted from his previous place so the department would pay for his relocation, court documents state.
Stephens, 41, was enlisted as a soldier in the army in 2000 and rose to the rank of major in 2017 before being administratively discharged two years later.
He fronted the ACT Supreme Court on Monday for sentencing after he pleaded guilty to charges of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception and dishonestly causing a loss a Commonwealth entity.
Stephens' offending spanned nearly seven years, starting in 2011 when he and his mother, Ilze, jointly bought a unit in Kingston.
They obtained the finance for it on the condition both their names appeared on the mortgage and property title.
Between August 2011 and about April 2018, Stephens claimed rent assistance payments for the unit he jointly owned and dishonestly received $91,705.54 during that period.
It was an anonymous tip-off that prompted an investigation into his conduct.
For the fraud, Justice David Mossop sentenced Stephens to 16 months' jail to be suspended after four months.
Justice Mossop said "general deterrence of dishonesty offences relating to allowances provided within the military is important".
He said "unless there is to be an oppressive and expensive system of checking and enforcement, a system of allowances can only operate on the basis of honesty" by those applying for such allowances from the Commonwealth.
"Unless dishonesty in relation to the making of such representations [in applications] is firmly punished, then there's a risk that an attitude of laxity will develop, which will significantly undermine the administration of the scheme of such allowances," he said.
The judge said the offending was motivated by greed rather than need and it was unsophisticated "in the sense that upon investigation, it was relatively easy to detect the true position".
However, the lack of sophistication did not significantly affect the assessment of objective seriousness, Justice Mossop said.
"Because it also reflects the brazenness of the offending, or confidence of the offender that he would not be detected," he said.
As for the relocation assistance, he said it involved a "flagrant dishonesty" and "there would've been an entitlement to an amount" even if the true position had been disclosed.
The judge said Stephens was otherwise "a person of good character and was a highly capable soldier".
The sentencing proceedings were adjourned in May for Stephens to try to obtain an MRI scan of his brain after a psychological report revealed the possibility of a traumatic brain injury.
While that MRI scan was not obtained, Justice Mossop said he accepted other health evidence, including Stephens' diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, PTSD, and major depressive disorder.
However, he said none of the conditions "have been proved on the balance of probabilities to be causally related to the offending".
"The mental health conditions are not so significant that he would be so unlike the relevant population that they [conditions] would reduce the validity of the theory of general deterrence or indicate that using him as a vehicle for general deterrence would amount to an injustice," he said.
"I accept on the balance of probabilities that the conditions of imprisonment will to some extent weigh more heavily on the offender, in particular his ASD [autism] may make it more difficult for him to cope with prison life."
However, the judge said that impact was unlikely to be greater because he had shown a generally high level of functioning previously in his life.
The court heard some of the statements Stephens made to a forensic psychologist did not appear to "reflect acceptance of responsibility for the offending" because of assertions about not knowing he was on the property title.
The offender has since repaid the Commonwealth what he obtained from his fraudulent activities.
For the rent relocation offence, Stephens was required to enter a recognisance to be of good behaviour for two years.
For the fraud, Justice Mossop also took into account the offence of knowingly making a false or misleading statement in an application.
