Taxpayer might pay beneficiary’s fine

Press, 1 December 1978, Page 3

Taxpayer might pay beneficiary’s fine

A man who has numerous, convictions for a wide var-j iety of offences, including: many for dishonesty, and | who has served a number of i terms of imprisonment, would have his $3OO fine ' raid by the taxpayer because he was a sickeness . beneficary and would apply to the Social Welfare De- 1 partment for a supplementary benefit to pay the fine, it was stated in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr Justice Roper dimissed an appeal by Gavin Edgar William Kinsman, aged 49, a sickness beneficary, against a fine of $3OO imposed in the Magistate’s Court on a charge of organising illegal games of chance. However, I his Honour did allow Kin-: sman a further six months! In which to pay the fine. I On August 24 a police, raiding party armed with a' search warrant burst into: the residence occupied by I Kinsman in Pannell Avenue, i Forty persons were found in ] the house playing games of I chance. Kinsman admitted using the premises as a gaming house and admitted printing and selling some of the entrance tickets, hiring the tables, and providing the gaming equipment. He told the police that he had organised the games ! evening to assist a woman! friend to raise cash for her I legal expenses. Kinsman had! a number of previous convictions. Counsel, Mr D. C. Fitzgibbon, said that Kinsman had four fines to pay and that as he was receiving only $46 a week his financial position was hopeless. Kinsman’s attempts to meet. his obligation had not been especially beneficial to the taxpayer. It was his practice to go to the Social vVelfare Department and get a supplementary benefit to pay the fines so that the money obtained from the Crown went back to the Crown. It was a ridiculous situation but unfortunately that was the way the system worked. Mr Fitzgibbon said.

I His Honour said that the’ I matter had a charitable fla’vour in that it seemed that j Kinsman was attempting to i raise funds to provide legal assistance of a friend who faced a serious charge in the Supreme Court. The Magistrate had referred to Kinsman as the organiser although it appeared that he was one of several organisers and he noted that another offender, whom the Magistrate described as an assistant, was fined $250. It was impossible to say that the fine of $3OO was

:1 manifestly excessive or in- ■ appropiate for that type of! t criminal activity. > “Kinsman is a sickness j I beneficary and it has been i submitted by Mr Fitzgibbon! : that if the fine stands at its present figure he can apply I ■ to the Social Welfare De-j - partment for a suppiemen- ! I tary benefit which would | 1 assist him in the payment of > ; the fine, which seems a' i curious situation. In the! i hope that that course can be! : avoided I propose to allow : him further time to pay,” > said his Honour.