CDPP v McFarlane [2026] VCC 320

Nancy McFarlane in February 2017 when you were aged 71 you made an application to Services Australia, known widely as Centrelink, for a Carer's benefit in relation to your mother. Your mother, Marjorie Cocciardi, was born in March 1923 and at that time was 93 years of age.
In April 2017 you began receiving a Carer's payment on the basis that you were caring for her on a constant basis. At that stage she was living with you and your husband at a property in Maryborough.
Your mother died on 25 October 2017. On the request of a funeral director, Mr Wagstaff, on your behalf, a Coroner released your mother's body to you. You arranged her funeral. Births Deaths and Marriages were notified by the funeral director. You paid for the funeral by 52 direct debit payments a Commonwealth Bank account.
Mr Wagstaff has a practice of offering to contact Centrelink of a death on behalf of the family or person organising the funeral. He has no record of any Centrelink details or pension cards in relation to Ms Cocciardi, the inference being that you undertook to make that contact.
Despite your mother's death you did not notify Centrelink of that fact. You accept by your plea of guilty that you were under an obligation to advise Centrelink of the death of the person you were caring for and in relation to whom you were receiving a Carer's benefit.
You continued to receive those payments for five years after your mother had died.[1] As a result of your deception, between 29 November 2017 and 26 October 2022, you dishonestly obtained a financial advantage of $106,219.54.
That is the basis of Charge 1.
Those payments ceased as a result of a phone call with Centrelink on 19 October 2022 which was for the purpose of undertaking a Carer Distance Review of your ongoing entitlement to carer related payments. You told the Services Australia representative that you were your mother's carer and gave answers about her mobility, personal hygiene, communication, medications and current care needs. You referred to her in the present tense.
When it was suggested to you that you no longer qualified for carer related payments because of what you had described as your mother's relatively good health (despite the fact she would have been 99 years of age at that time), you responded with words to the effect of 'She really is, you know, yeah.'
The Services Australia representative determined that as you no longer qualified for carer's payments, you could be transitioned to the Age Pension for yourself given you were by then 76 years of age. When informed that carer's payments would be ceased, you replied, 'Okay, that's fair enough.'
At no point in that phone call did you advise Services Australia of your mother's death.
In addition to receiving Carer's benefit as a result of your deception, you stole from Services Australia via your mother's bank account. You had become a joint signatory to your mother's Westpac bank account in January 2017. After her death, Centrelink continued to pay your mother's age pension into that account due to the belief that she was still alive. Those payments were the only income paid into that account.
As the only living signatory to it, you continued to use that money. Between 30 October 2017 and 8 March 2023 you did so dishonestly, and with an intention to permanently deprive Centrelink of it. That is the basis of Charge 2 (Theft from the Commonwealth).
Between 17 July 2019 and 7 February 2020, you called Westpac on five occasions, requesting a change or confirmation of the mailing address on the Westpac account to your current address or box office. In these phone calls, you referred to your mother as if she was alive, and stated you were her 'carer', that you were a 'signatory' for the account, and power of attorney for her. In particular:

CDPP v McFarlane [2026] VCC 320 | Case summary | Zoe

Nancy McFarlane in February 2017 when you were aged 71 you made an application to Services Australia, known widely as Centrelink, for a Carer's benefit in relation to your mother. Your mother, Marjorie Cocciardi, was born in March 1923 and at that time was 93 years of age.
In April 2017 you began receiving a Carer's payment on the basis that you were caring for her on a constant basis. At that stage she was living with you and your husband at a property in Maryborough.
Your mother died on 25 October 2017. On the request of a funeral director, Mr Wagstaff, on your behalf, a Coroner released your mother's body to you. You arranged her funeral. Births Deaths and Marriages were notified by the funeral director. You paid for the funeral by 52 direct debit payments a Commonwealth Bank account.
Mr Wagstaff has a practice of offering to contact Centrelink of a death on behalf of the family or person organising the funeral. He has no record of any Centrelink details or pension cards in relation to Ms Cocciardi, the inference being that you undertook to make that contact.
Despite your mother's death you did not notify Centrelink of that fact. You accept by your plea of guilty that you were under an obligation to advise Centrelink of the death of the person you were caring for and in relation to whom you were receiving a Carer's benefit.
You continued to receive those payments for five years after your mother had died.[1] As a result of your deception, between 29 November 2017 and 26 October 2022, you dishonestly obtained a financial advantage of $106,219.54.
That is the basis of Charge 1.
Those payments ceased as a result of a phone call with Centrelink on 19 October 2022 which was for the purpose of undertaking a Carer Distance Review of your ongoing entitlement to carer related payments. You told the Services Australia representative that you were your mother's carer and gave answers about her mobility, personal hygiene, communication, medications and current care needs. You referred to her in the present tense.
When it was suggested to you that you no longer qualified for carer related payments because of what you had described as your mother's relatively good health (despite the fact she would have been 99 years of age at that time), you responded with words to the effect of 'She really is, you know, yeah.'
The Services Australia representative determined that as you no longer qualified for carer's payments, you could be transitioned to the Age Pension for yourself given you were by then 76 years of age. When informed that carer's payments would be ceased, you replied, 'Okay, that's fair enough.'
At no point in that phone call did you advise Services Australia of your mother's death.
In addition to receiving Carer's benefit as a result of your deception, you stole from Services Australia via your mother's bank account. You had become a joint signatory to your mother's Westpac bank account in January 2017. After her death, Centrelink continued to pay your mother's age pension into that account due to the belief that she was still alive. Those payments were the only income paid into that account.
As the only living signatory to it, you continued to use that money. Between 30 October 2017 and 8 March 2023 you did so dishonestly, and with an intention to permanently deprive Centrelink of it. That is the basis of Charge 2 (Theft from the Commonwealth).
Between 17 July 2019 and 7 February 2020, you called Westpac on five occasions, requesting a change or confirmation of the mailing address on the Westpac account to your current address or box office. In these phone calls, you referred to your mother as if she was alive, and stated you were her 'carer', that you were a 'signatory' for the account, and power of attorney for her. In particular:

[8]

Fraud committed against a Commonwealth agency, Services Australia or Centrelink, is a serious offence reflected in the statutory maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. Similarly, theft against such an agency is reflected in the same maximum penalty. General deterrence is the primary consideration. That is so for a number of reasons.
First, these are prevalent offences. Many thousands of people in Australia receive government benefits of one form or another. Many of those people are struggling which is often the basis for their eligibility at first instance. The temptation to defraud that revenue is real for many people.
Second, such offences are difficult to detect, often relying on random computer matching between Centrelink and the ATO. That process and the process of then following up anomalies can be time consuming and laborious.
Third, these are not victimless crimes. They are crimes which draw on the resources created by payments made by all Australian taxpayers. The burden of that fraud therefore falls on the broader community.
For those reasons, I must impose a sentence which generally deters others from defrauding Centrelink and which denounces your behaviour on behalf of the community. It is important as the case law bears out that perpetrators of such offences should be aware that if they are discovered, they will most likely receive custodial sentences. Those custodial sentences must usually be served immediately. That is so even though in these types of cases, courts are frequently dealing with people without prior criminal offending, often of good character, and often with some genuine need.
In assessing the objective gravity of your offending, I take into account the following features.
While I accept that the offending in both charges commenced opportunistically on the death of your mother, once those first payments were made to you, they then continued for a period of over five years in relation to Charge 1, and over five and a half years in relation to Charge 2. That is a considerable period of time.
Significantly, they continued because of your overt dishonesty. In particular, when contacted by Centrelink for the review of the Carer's payment you lied and deceived the caller that your mother was alive and doing well. You spoke of her in the present tense, knowing that you had an obligation to tell the truth.
Your knowledge that you were obliged to notify the death of a person receiving Centrelink benefits is borne out by the fact that upon the death of your husband you made that notification within days.
In relation to Charge 2, similar phone calls with Westpac showed active deception wherein you represented that your mother was alive and using the bank account. The only reason for doing so was for your own gain and purposes.
Those phone calls which relate to both charges, are aggravating features of this offending. They take this case from a lower level omission or wilful blindness to a more serious case involving active and cunning deception.
The amount itself is not the determinative factor in considering sentence. There will always be greater and lesser amounts in other cases. Here the amount of money involved, namely $240,009.90 is considerable. You used that money for your own purposes, although it was not suggested you were in any way living a lavish lifestyle. Your instructions indeed are that much of that money was spent on horses and your own animals. The Westpac bank amounts are showing money to have been used at various grocers, bottle shops and the like.
The amount reflected in Charge 1 reflects the total amount paid by way of Carer's benefit and associated payments. However, I must take into account the fact that at that time you were lawfully entitled to an Aged Pension. You did not receive that pension as a result of receiving the Carer's Benefit. In relation to Charge 1 the difference between the two for that relevant period is approximately $12,122.98.
The offending was only detected due to the routine check of your mother's Medicare card. In other words, it stopped because it was discovered and not as a result of anything you did.
For all of those reasons this cannot be viewed as a lower level offence where someone has shut their eyes to their obligations.
Equally though, I accept it is not at the higher end of the range which commonly involves the creation of false accounts, false documentation or identification.
In my view it sits as a mid range example of this type of offending.

[9]

In assessing your personal circumstances I have had regard to a Psychological report of Warren Simmons, dated 20 February 2026, a Neuropsychological report of Dr Loretta Evans, dated 26 January 2024, various Discharge Summaries from Bendigo Health, as well as the helpful submissions of your counsel Ms Jeffs.
You were the middle child, in a sibship of three born to your mother Marjorie, and father Roy. You were born and raised in Bayside Melbourne.
You had a close relationship with both of your parents and describe your upbringing within the family home as being relatively positive. Your mother died at the age of 94 following a fall. Your father passed away some decades earlier as a result of a cardiac arrest. Your younger sister passed away at the age of 50, and you are estranged from your older brother.
At the age of 13 you were the victim of a serious offence committed against you by a group across a number of days. This had a significant impact on you and undoubtedly changed the course of your life. You did not disclose that incident for many years. Ultimately you made a successful application to the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal.
You ultimately stopped going to school due to the traumatic impact of that offence which left you feeling overwhelmed in the school environment.
It is apparent, including from your prior criminal history, that alcohol use became a problem for you.
Ms Jeffs submits on your behalf, that whilst your childhood was not characterised by the type of disadvantage described in the case of Bugmy v The Queen[2] and those which follow it, the serious and brutal offence you experienced as a 13-year-old had a profound impact on you. Ms Jeffs cites the findings of Mr Simmons who opines that '[your] childhood would have left [you] vulnerable to substance use, particularly as [you] were the victim of a [serious] assault and described what appears to have been symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder at the time'.
Whether properly characterised under a Bugmy submission, I accept that the experience of your childhood left its mark on you, and that that experience in particular, when you were 13, led to a cascading pattern of events which ultimately characterised your life. I accept that you experienced post-traumatic stress disorder, disruption of your education and that you became dependent on alcohol. The impact of that offence against you has been long lasting.
Throughout your life you have worked as a machinist for chrome plating, and for a hosiery manufacturer, as well as in manual roles associated with dressage and horse riding.
You have had a number of relationships through your life.
Altogether, you have five sons across three separate marriages. In 2017 you lost your youngest son Rodney to suicide after his long battle with drug addiction. You are estranged from your remaining sons.
Your husband Terry McFarlane passed away in June 2023.
In 2022 you were the victim of an assault to the head and to your back, which resulted in you being admitted to Ballarat Hospital for two weeks.
Since 2023 you have been admitted to hospital frequently for a variety of health conditions relating to chronic back and neck pain, recurrent falls, hypertension (including non-compliance with medication), rib fractures and fractures to your vertebrae, alcohol dependence and cognitive impairment. This included five occasions in 2024.
You were assessed by neuropsychologist Dr Evans at Bendigo Hospital in January of 2024. You were referred to her for that assessment and opinion about your decision-making capacity to assist with discharge planning after you were admitted to hospital following recurrent presentations, dysfunctional living conditions, non-compliance with medical recommendations, and cognitive impairment secondary to chronic alcohol consumption. During that period, you were living alone on a regional property where you kept horses. Concerns were raised regarding your safety, and your ability to live independently on the property, and the conditions of the home environment. That property was 'off grid' and, for example, did not have running water.
Dr Evans opined that your 'neuropsychological profile is best explained by the effects of chronic alcohol consumption, that are further exacerbated by poor management of medical conditions' and that you were 'demonstrating cognitive inefficiencies and symptoms most associated with an alcohol related brain impairment, that is mild in nature but further exacerbated by Vascular-related changes to cortex.'
Dr Evans considered that you did not hold 'sufficient decision-making capacity' at that time in relation to your living arrangements. She further opined that at that time with poor adherence to medical recommendations and treatment and the potential for resumption of alcohol consumption 'the potential to declare ongoing decline is considered high and likely to be relatively rapid with advancing age'.
She ultimately concluded that she 'had serious concerns about [your] safety and ability to remain living alone on an isolated rural property'.
Thereafter as I understand it you have lived in various residential facilities including an aged care facility on the Mornington Peninsula.
In October 2025 you were admitted to Bendigo Hospital after self-reporting suicidal ideation in the context of loneliness.
At 80 you are of advanced age and require the assistance of a mobility aid to walk.
Ms Jeffs cites the findings of Mr Simmons and Dr Evans in support of her submission that the principles of R v Verdins[3] limbs 5 and 6 are enlivened. In particular, Mr Simmons opines that '[you] will almost certainly find any time in custody more onerous given [your] lack of mobility, [your] questionable cognitive function and overall health conditions'.
In support of that submission, Ms Jeffs highlights your frequent hospital admissions since 2023, with the most recent being only a few months ago. She further notes the consistency between the findings of Dr Evans in her assessment of you in 2024, and Mr Simmons's assessment in February of this year, as evidence of your continual cognitive decline. Those findings and the fact they enliven Verdins limbs 5 and 4 are not in dispute. I accept that is the case.
Clearly your age and state of health are significant matters on this plea. They are relevant in a number of ways.
Of some real importance in my sentencing exercise, if I was to imprison you, any term would involve the possibility that you may not live to be released from sentence.
Your health is a relevant factor and is obviously related to your age.

[19]

A reparation order in the sum of $231,391.19 is sought pursuant to s21B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), that is not opposed by you and I will make that order.
Are there any matters to raise, counsel?
MS DELTONDO: No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Ms Jeffs, any matters to raise?
MS JEFFS: No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Ms McFarlane, Ms Jeffs will explain that to you when I leave the Bench. You can sit there, that's fine. So Ms Jeffs will explain that to you. In fact I am required to explain the consequences of the order I have just made.
So the orders that I have just made are that there is a total of 22 months' imprisonment, but I release you today to be of good behaviour for two years. That release order is in the sum of $2,000. You do not have to pay that immediately. If you are called back to the court because you breach that order, that's when it would be payable and that's when you would be looking at serving that 22 months of imprisonment. So it is a bit like a suspended sentence, Ms McFarlane. That 22 months' imprisonment hangs over you, if you like, for those two years that you must be of good behaviour. Does that make sense?
OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour, and there's no worries about that, I'll be on good behaviour.
HER HONOUR: All right. So I will make those orders.
Thanks very much, Ms Deltondo, to you and to your instructor, both of you have been particularly helpful through the course of this case, so I thank you very much. And Ms Jeffs and Ms Morone, thank you so much for becoming involved when you did and your efforts, not just to bring the matter to conclusion, but the way you have done that with great humanity, looking after Ms McFarlane and supporting her, not just in a legal sense but in other ways as well. I have been singing the praises of the Law and Advocacy Centre for Women as loudly and to as many people as I can.
I need to have Ms McFarlane sign the release order, so that will be printed out and I will wait to leave the Bench while that is done. Ms Jeffs, you are welcome to assist there.
MS JEFFS: Thank you, Your Honour.
OFFENDER: Thank you, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Thanks very much. Ms McFarlane, your signature on that document is your promise that you will comply with that order.
OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Thanks very much. Thank you, we will now adjourn. Thank you, Ms Deltondo.
MS DELTONDO: The court pleases.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (22 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (3)