STATE OF TASMANIA v ERIN FAY MELISSA GRANT 9 OCTOBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Erin Fay Melissa Grant, born on 14 November 1989, has pleaded guilty to crimes of computer related fraud and obtaining a financial advantage by deception.
On 5 February 2024, complaint 1539/24 was filed, alleging 108 counts of computer-related fraud under s 257B(b) of the Criminal Code. On 23 July 2025, the accused pleaded guilty to all charges, and the matter was committed to this Court for a first appearance on 2 September 2025.
Subsequently on 1 April 2026 an indictment was filed charging the defendant with one count of computer related fraud and one count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 134.2 (1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Both counts on the indictment relate to a course of conduct in which the defendant engaged between 31 August 2021 and 14 April 2022. She has pleaded guilty to that indictment.
The defendant was employed as a medical receptionist at Bellerive Doctors from January 2021 to June 2022. Her responsibilities included managing patient appointments, taking phone calls, and processing Medicare claims using the ‘Best Practice’ software. Between 31 August 2021 and 14 April 2022, she made 106 fraudulent Medicare claims by entering false details into the system, claiming that patients had attended appointments and paid in cash. She then lodged these claims with Medicare, directing the rebate payments to her personal ING debit card. To avoid detection, she cancelled the false appointments in the system to ensure the Practice’s financial records remained accurate. The fraudulent claims involved eight doctors at the Practice and included instances where she recorded herself as the patient. The total amount fraudulently obtained was $29,512.65.
The fraudulent activity was discovered in early April 2022 when a doctor noticed irregularities in patient consultation records. Dr Paul Luckman, the owner of the Practice, conducted a review and reported the matter to Tasmania Police, prompting an investigation. On 25 October 2023, the accused voluntarily attended the Bellerive Police Station and participated in an interview under caution. She admitted to the offences, explaining that she had been working part-time at the Practice, earning approximately $40,000 per year. She disclosed that she had been diagnosed with dissociation disorder after the offences and was taking anti-depressants daily. She also revealed that she had significant debts, including $20,000 owed to a debt consolidation service and $5,000 for educational courses. She stated that stress factors led to her offending, and she used the stolen money to pay off debts and fund a trip to Adelaide for her daughter’s dancing. She estimated she had obtained around $10,000 but was unaware of the exact amount.
The defendant was dismissed from her position at Bellerive Doctors in March or April 2022 due to her conduct.
I note that in 2013 the defendant was convicted and sentenced on complaint 3631/2013 of numerous counts of stealing involving amounts ranging between one dollar and $1,132 and numerous counts of forgery, uttering and dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage, involving a total amount of $28,100. She was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, which was wholly suspended for a period of two years on condition that she not reoffend and that she complete 105 hours of community service. She did not breach those orders.
I am told that that offending occurred in the direct aftermath of traumatic family events which, I am told, is also what occurred in a different context, in relation to the present offending which commenced in August 2021 when the defendant’s mental health had again deteriorated significantly.
Aside from traffic infringements, the defendant has no prior convictions other than those relating to those charges on the complaint no 3631/2013. Her record reflects that generally, she has lived in and contributed to the community without offending.
I have had a report prepared for the purposes of assessing the defendant for suitability for home detention. I am advised that she was raised alongside her brother by both parents until they separated when she was age 12. She noted her father consumed alcohol heavily, during which period he would become verbally and emotionally abusive toward her and her mother. She advised after her parents separated, she resided with her mother until age 21 and saw her father every second weekend. She noted her father was physically abusive toward her during this period, beginning when she was age 14. She advised she seldom saw her father now due to his ongoing problematic alcohol consumption. She noted she has a positive relationship with her mother, however due to the distance between their locations, they do not see each other often. There was no welfare involvement during her upbringing.
The defendant completed Year 11 in school and then completed a Certificate II in Hairdressing, and a Certificate III in Medical Reception. She had difficulty during her schooling, which she later attributed to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with which she was diagnosed as an adult. She was never suspended nor expelled during her school years and has no literacy issues, but she was subject to bullying during her schooling, which resulted in episodes of self-harm and a diagnosis of depression at age 14.
She entered the labour market at age 15 and has been working since that time, with the exception of a period of maternity leave for some seven months. She has again found employment as a Medical Receptionist from 18 May 2026 on a permanent full-time basis, working from 8:30am until 5:30pm, Monday to Friday. When she was dismissed from her previous position due to her offending, she nonetheless gained employment assembling furniture.
The defendant is currently a full-time single mother to a nine-year-old child and is pregnant. She advised she is not in a relationship with the father of her unborn child and notes she will be raising the child on her own.
I am informed that at the time of the offending she states that she was stressed from participating in mediation with her daughter’s father who she claims had unrealistic expectations about shared care arrangements. She also says that she was experiencing guilt in relation to separating from her daughter’s father and being unable to provide her a stable family with a mother and father under one roof.
A forensic psychiatric report notes that she was left with a debt of approximately $20,000 after the relationship ended. She advised she saw a psychiatrist at that time and was diagnosed with DD. She advised she has no memory of committing the index offending, though she does not deny it. Ms Grant stated she was advised by her psychiatrist that multiple stressful factors can cause episodes of dissociation which may result in periods of time where she is unable to recall what had occurred.
The defendant believes that impulsiveness relating to ADHD also attributed to the offending. It is noted the psychiatric evaluation states the following:
“My opinion would be that Ms Grant has attempted to compartmentalise the difficult thoughts, emotions and pressures brought about by her actions. This would be viewed as a conscious process and would seem a much more plausible explanation to her actions than repetitive episodes of dissociation, in the form of depersonalisation, as an explanation for her actions. It is likely that the actioning of the apparent fraud would have been anxiety inducing but, to reiterate, that would have been at a point after which Ms Grant had made the conscious decision to acquire the money illegally. It is also noted that Ms Grant does not have a history of compulsive theft going back to her years as a minor and it is clear that she was under considerable financial pressure during the period when the offending apparently occurred.”
When asked to reflect upon the present offending, I am informed that she stated that she wishes she had received her diagnoses sooner as she feels by engaging in therapy sooner, she would not have offended in such a way. She advised regardless of her diagnoses, she takes responsibility for the offences.
The author of the pre-sentence report notes that the defendant became emotional when saying that, and appeared to show remorse for her behaviour.
Her counsel submits that since being charged with the present offending the defendant has made considerable progress towards addressing the factors which contributed to her behaviour. She has worked with mental health care providers to adjust her medication regime and has engaged in psychological therapy intended to assist her in coping with interpersonal challenges, like those arising in her relationship with her ex-husband immediately prior to the offending. The defendant instructs her counsel that her mental health has now improved markedly and she is no longer experiencing suicidal ideation. And her counsel submits, significantly, the defendant took steps to obtain a diagnosis for ADHD, the untreated symptoms of which Dr Jordan says he considers likely to have contributed to her offending. I accept that submission save to say that it does not seem to me, that Dr Jordan actually suggests that there is a causal connection between the defendant’s psychiatric illness or disorder and the offending.
Dr Jordan opines that “treatment since [the offending] has been successful in improving not only [the defendant’s] mental state but also her insight into her fallibilities”. In providing instructions to her counsel, I am told that the defendant asked that it be emphasised that her life, and in particular her mental state, is “very different” situation now from the way that it was at that earlier time.
It is well understood that offending of the type involved here is serious because of the breach of the relationship of trust between employee and employer. Sentencing frequently involves a term of imprisonment actual or suspended. Egregiously Ms Grant has prior convictions for similar offences of dishonesty. However, taking into account all of the matters I have set out above, including the amount involved, the defendants personal circumstances and her remorse and medical diagnoses and their contribution towards rehabilitation, I am of the opinion that a period of home detention is the appropriate sentencing outcome in the present case for the more substantive Commonwealth crimes and a suspended sentence in respect of the State offence.
The defendant is convicted of one count of computer related fraud contrary to s 257B(c) of the Criminal Code and one count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 134.2 (1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
In respect of the Commonwealth crime, taking into account the matters contained in s 16A of the Crimes Act, the defendant is sentenced to a period of 12 months’ home detention. (That period takes account of the level of restriction I have imposed as contrasted with the less restrictive confinement recommended by Community Corrections, which in my view is insufficient).
The order will contain all of the core conditions contained in s 42AD(1) of Part 5A of the Sentencing Act 1997.
Pursuant to s 42AD (1) (g) and (h) of that Act the following conditions will be included in the Order:
- you must, during all of the operational period of the order submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device.
- during the period that you are required to submit to electronic monitoring:
(a) you must not remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring
(b) you must not allow anyone else to remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring
(c) you must comply with all reasonable and lawful directions given to you in relation to the electronic monitoring, including in relation to the installation, attachment or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring by:
i a police officer;
ii a probation officer or prescribed officer; or
iii another person whose functions involve the installation or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring.
The following special conditions will be included in the Order:
- you must, during the operational period of the order, remain Unit 2/7 High Street, Bellerive at all times unless approved by a probation officer.
- you must attend the Community Corrections office at Hobart for induction onto this order. You must attend this service for induction during normal business and no later than 10:00 am on Monday, 12 October 2026.
- you must, during the operational period of the order, maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times.
- you must submit to the supervision of a community corrections officer as required by that officer.
- you must not, during the operational period of the order, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include:
-
- Any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001
- Any medication containing an Opiate, Benzodiazepine, Bupropion, Hydrochloride or Pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication.
- you must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol, and you must, if directed to do so by a police officer or Community Corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test, or other test, for the presence of alcohol.
- you must not, enter upon or remain upon any licensed premises (excluding cafes, theatres, cinemas and ten-pin bowling venues) unless approved in advance by the Probation Officer.
In respect of the State crime, bearing in mind the extend of the overlap with the Commonwealth offence, the defendant is sentenced to a period of 9 months’ imprisonment, which sentence is wholly suspended on condition that she commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years from today.
Finally, I make a reparation order under section 21B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in the sum of $29,512.65, with the formulation of the terms of that order to be adjourned sine die.