Posted 07 January 2006 - 04:12 PM
yes just how many times do the staff go out of there way to deliberately make a disentitlement only fo the levy payers to foot the bill
I think that with some good input a few case managers might might just look at a court appearance under this section
Offences and penalties generally
308.Offence to mislead Corporation—
(1)A person commits an offence who, for the purpose described in subsection (2) or with the result described in subsection (3),—
(a)makes any statement knowing it to be false in any material particular; or
(b)wilfully does or says anything, or omits to do or say anything, for the purpose of misleading or attempting to mislead the Corporation or any other person concerned in the administration of this Act.
(2)The purpose is—
(a)for that person to receive or continue to receive any payment or entitlement; or
(b)for another person to receive or continue to receive any payment or entitlement.
(3)The result is—
(a)that that person receives or continues to receive any payment or entitlement, whether or not entitled to it under this Act; or
(b)that another person receives or continues to receive any payment or entitlement, whether or not entitled to it under this Act.
(4)A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $5,000.
thinking the delay in the Vocational Rehabilitation could be classed as supplying compensation that a claimant is not entitled to.
placing claimants into work or work trails that cause the condition to deteriorate is another way to extend an entitlement.
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
Help
Page_v_ACC_251_2003_AI_308_02.pdf (26.05K)
