Aida Carranceja and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2013] AATA 738

[2013] AATA 738  

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number(s)	2013/3532
Re	Aida Carranceja
APPLICANT
And	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Jill Toohey, Senior Member
Date	14 October 2013
Place	Sydney

Decision Summary

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

........................................................................

Jill Toohey
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – visa cancellation – substantial criminal record – previous cancellation – application of Direction No 55 – offences due to gambling – high risk of applicant re-offending – decision under review affirmed.

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 ss 501, 499

CASES

Artigas and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 411

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Direction No. 55 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501

REASONS FOR DECISION

Jill Toohey, Senior Member

14 October 2013

BACKGROUND

1. Aida Carranceja is a 60 year old citizen of the Philippines. She has lived in Australia since October 1985 and has held a permanent visa since October 1988. She seeks review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (as he was then) to cancel her visa on the ground that she does not pass the character test in s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). 

2. This is the second time that Ms Carranceja has sought review of a decision by the Minister to cancel her visa.  On the first occasion, the Tribunal, differently constituted, set aside the Minister’s decision and decided not to exercise its discretion to cancel Ms Carranceja’s visa: Artigas and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 411.  She was released from custody but, approximately six months later, committed further offences. 

3. For the reasons that follow, I have decided that the Minister’s decision to cancel Ms Carranceja’s visa should be affirmed.

   LEGISLATION

4. The Minister may cancel a person’s visa if the Minister reasonably suspects that he or she does not pass the character test in s 501(6)(a) of the Act, and the person does not satisfy the Minister that he or she passes the character test: s 501(2).

5. A person is taken not to pass the character test if he or she has a substantial criminal record.  A person has a substantial criminal record if he or she has been sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment or more, or has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment totalling two years or more: subs 501(6)(a) and (7).

6. Ms Carranceja concedes that she has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test.

   DIRECTION NO 55

7. The discretion in s 501(2) must be exercised in accordance with Direction No. 55 - Visa refusal and cancellation (Direction 55) which came into effect on 1 September 2012.  Direction 55 is made by the Minister pursuant to s 499 of the Act and is binding on the Tribunal: s 499(2A). 

8. Direction 55 supersedes Direction 41 which was in force at the time of the Tribunal’s original decision.  It makes what the Minister submits are significant and material changes to Direction 41.

9. Direction 55 includes principles which it describes as “of critical importance” in furthering the Government’s objective of protecting the Australia community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens: cl 6.2. 

10. The principles, in summary, are as follows:

    (1)being allowed to enter or remain in Australia is a privilege conferred in the expectation that a person will be law-abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community;

    (2)a person who commits a serious crime, particularly against vulnerable members of the community, should expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia;

    (3)some conduct may be so serious that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable;

    (4)the degree of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct may be lower or higher depending on the length of time a person has lived in Australia;

    (5)a person on a temporary visa should have no expectation of being allowed to remain in Australia permanently; and

    (6)the length of time that a person has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are to be considered.

11. Guided by these principles, the decision-maker must determine whether the risk of harm by a non-citizen is unacceptable.  That determination requires consideration of the likelihood of future harm, the extent of the harm should it occur, and the extent to which, if at all, that risk should be tolerated by the Australian community: cl 7.

12. Recognising that persons holding a substantive visa will generally have an expectation that they will be permitted to remain in Australia for the duration of their visa, separate considerations apply to visa holders and visa applicants.  In the case of a visa holder, the following are primary considerations, and should generally be given greater weight than other considerations:

    (a)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

    (b)the strength, duration and nature of the person’s ties to Australia;

    (c)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and

    (d)whether Australia has international non-refoulement obligations to the person.

13. Other considerations are set out in cl 10 of the Direction.  They must be taken into account where relevant.  They include, but are not limited to:

    (e)effect of cancellation of the person’s visa on the person’s immediate family in Australia if those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely;

    (f)impact on Australian business interests;

    (g)impact of a decision not to cancel a visa on members of the Australian community including victims of the person’s criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims where that information is available and the person being considered for visa cancellation has been afforded procedural fairness; and

    (h)the extent of any impediments that the person may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country) taking into account:

    (i)the person’s health and age;

    (ii)whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

    (iii)any social, medical or economic support available to the person in that country.

14. The primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, cancellation, and one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations: subcll 8(3) and (4).

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS

    Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

15. When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should consider the nature and seriousness of the person's conduct to date, and the risk to the Australian community should the person commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: cl 9.1.  Factors to which regard must be had are set out in cls 9.1.1 and 9.1.2.

    The nature and seriousness of the person’s conduct

16. Ms Carranceja’s first offence was in January 1986, when she had been in Australia approximately three months.  All of her 130 or more convictions since then have concerned obtaining money by dishonest means.  Her criminal record, which is not in dispute, is at Appendix 1.  She admits to a serious gambling problem.

17. In October 1993, Ms Carranceja was sentenced to a total of two years and nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine months on three counts of obtaining a financial benefit by deception.  In October 1997, she was convicted of four counts of fraudulently obtaining money or property and sentenced to a total of four years with a non-parole period of two years and six months.  She was subsequently found to have breached an earlier parole period and was ordered to serve the remainder of her sentence.  In April 1999, she was convicted of 14 counts of making a false statement, making a false instrument and using false instrument.

18. In May 2009, Ms Carranceja was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years on nine counts of obtaining benefit by deception.  Her sentence expired on 12 July 2011.  On 17 June 2011, the Tribunal, differently constituted, set aside the Minister’s first decision to cancel her visa.  Ms Carranceja was released from detention in August 2011.  In February 2012, she offended again, this time against her daughter and son-in-law with whom she was staying following her release.

19. Ms Carrenceja’s offences are described in detail in the sentencing remarks of the District Court judges in October 1997, May 2009 and October 2012.  Ms Carranceja has no dispute of any substance with the history of offending described by the Judge on each occasion.  The seriousness of her offending is reflected in the sentencing remarks and the lengthy gaol sentences imposed on each occasion.  The following summary of her offences is based on the sentencing remarks.

20. In 1995, Ms Carranceja befriended a fellow student and her husband.  By means of an elaborate deception, she persuaded them to part with money totalling approximately $250,000, none of which has been recovered. 

21. Over a period of approximately five years from 2002, Ms Carranceja befriended and defrauded a couple whom she met socially, a real estate agent, a woman she had met through a friend, and a single mother whom she met in a park.  By means of various elaborate, pre-meditated deceptions, including producing false bank statements and other documents, Ms Carranceja persuaded them to part with a total of $768,200, none of which has been recovered.  She also stole jewellery.  The nature and extent of the deception are described in detail in the sentencing remarks, as well as in the previous Tribunal’s decision, and it is not necessary to describe them in further detail here.  At least some of the offences were committed while Ms Carrenceja was on bail.

22. Sentencing her in 2009, Judge Ellis assessed the overall criminality of Ms Carrenceja’s conduct as being in the “high category”.  He said:

    The facts reveal a systematic, calculated and heartless series of deceptions made upon various individuals who had extended friendship to the offender over a number of years.  The offences involved continued false assurances as to repayment and in relation to some of the victims, the deceptions were continued and extended despite the clear financial hardship which was likely to be caused to the individuals.

23. In February 2012, seven months after her release from custody on the last occasion and while she was still on parole, Ms Carrenceja stole approximately $16,000 in money and jewellery from her daughter and son-in-law with whom she was staying at the time.  Her daughter was recovering from surgery at the time.  

24. None of Ms Carranceja’s convictions is for a violent crime but there can be no doubt that her criminal conduct has caused serious harm to each of her victims.  .  In each case, there was not only great financial loss, there was an enormous breach of trust.  None of the victims was a stranger to Ms Carranceja, and she relied on their friendship to develop and maintain the deception for the purposes of her own financial gain.  While in financial terms her most recent offences were less serious than her previous offences, they involved the greatest breach of trust because they were against her own daughter and son-in-law, while she was staying in their home and while her daughter was recovering from surgery.

25. Although Ms Carranceja maintains she accepts full responsibility for her actions, giving evidence before the Tribunal she appeared reluctant to concede the extent of the harm she had caused.

    Previous warnings

26. On 29 October 2001, the (then) Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs on behalf of the Minister issued Ms Carranceja with a notice of intention to consider cancelling her visa on account of her substantial criminal record.  Following extensive written submissions from her lawyer, with lengthy statutory declarations from Ms Carranceja and each of her children, the Minister decided against cancelling her visa.  Instead, in March 2002, she was issued with a formal warning that her visa may be cancelled if she reoffended.

27. Ms Carranceja apparently ignored the Minister's first warning.  As the sentencing remarks of Judge Ellis in 2009 show, although she was not charged with her subsequent offences until February 2007, by late 2002 or early 2003 she had formed a friendship with the  couple whom she later defrauded and had given them to believe that she had become very wealthy on account of her various investments before going on to subject them to an elaborate deception over several years.

28. In July 2010, a further notice of intention to consider cancellation was issued on account of Ms Carranceja’s further offending.  In April 2011 her visa was cancelled.  That decision was the subject of the previous Tribunal's decision. 

29. Despite the previous warnings, and despite the actual cancellation of her visa, Ms Carranceja offended again within approximately seven months of her release from gaol. 

    The risk to the Australian community should the person commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

30. Clause 9.1.2 provides that, in assessing whether a person represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

    (a)The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the person engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

    (b)The likelihood of the person engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

    (i)information and evidence on the risk of the person re­offending; and

    (ii)evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).

31. The nature of the harm that may be done to members of the Australian community should Ms Carranceja reoffend is serious.  Her offences have consistently involved defrauding innocent people of large sums of money, none of which has been recovered and none of which she has attempted to repay.  All of her offences have been attributable to her problem gambling.  Everything points to the strong likelihood that she will re-offend and cause similar serious harm to others in the future.

32. Ms Carranceja says she takes full responsibility for her actions and feels deep remorse.  She says she is committed to undergoing rehabilitation.  During her recent incarceration she has been attending meetings of Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous, and she has been accepted into a residential rehabilitation program run by the Salvation Army.  She has been seeing a psychologist who says she will be available to her during her rehabilitation, and she has been taking antidepressant medication which she says has helped to stabilise and balance her behaviour.  She says she has learned “coping skills techniques” and is undertaking advanced Bible studies.  Combined with her strong motivation to remain in Australia to be with her children and grandchildren, Ms Carranceja says all of these measures mean that the risk of her reoffending is low.

33. Ms Carranceja says it was not until she was diagnosed with depression during her recent incarceration that she came properly to understand what underlies her gambling addiction and, now that she is properly medicated with antidepressants, she is able to deal with her addiction.

34. The difficulty with what Ms Carranceja says is that she has said it all before.  I accept that the diagnosis of depression and anxiety is relatively recent but I am not persuaded that makes any real difference to her prospects of rehabilitation and the likelihood that she will not re-offend.

35. Sentencing her in 1997, Judge Johnston noted that Ms Carranceja said she started gambling when her first marriage ended while she was living in the Philippines.  He noted that “Inquiries with her gambling counsellor indicate that recently her progress has been good and it is important that she continues with her counselling”.  He noted a report from the secretary of a chapter of Gamblers Anonymous stating that Ms Carranceja had been attending weekly meetings and was “a very remorseful person of what has happened in her life because of gambling” (sic).

36. A Department of Corrective Services Probation and Parole Service report in November 2001 shows that, while on parole, Ms Carranceja had attended gambling counselling on a regular basis, and her counsellor reported she was progressing “in a positive and motivated manner”.

37. In 2009, Judge Ellis noted a report in 2008 from a psychologist, Emma Collins.  Ms Collins noted:

    Ms Carranceja’s gambling problems are long standing and she lacks alternative coping strategies.  Her attendance at a gambling counselling program should therefore continue upon her release from jail, and could be facilitated as a longer period of her role with therapeutic conditions.  Suitable programs include the gambling treatment clinics facilitated through the University of Sydney …

38. Judge Ellis also took into account a report from Wesley Rehabilitation Services and the various courses that Ms Carranceja had undertaken over the previous two years while in custody. 

39. In a statement dated 29 September 2010, apparently in response to the second warning from the Minister, Ms Carranceja wrote that she was “deeply ashamed of all the trouble” she had caused; she knew she had a bad gambling problem and would “have to keep going to gambling counselling”; she said she had gambling treatment lined up and would be talking at information sessions with people in the immigrant community about her own gambling issues; she had been accepted by the gambling clinic at Sydney University as soon as she was released.  She said she was very motivated to change; she was now a grandmother and wanted to spend as much time as she could with her grandchildren. 

40. Sentencing Ms Carranceja in October 2012, Judge Bozic noted a report from a psychologist, Patricia Santoso, that therapy would be a long process for Ms Carranceja “because of the core issues she had, which would deeply entrenched”.  He considered her prospects of rehabilitation were moderate but said, in light of the past history and criminal record, he could not be satisfied that she was unlikely to reoffend.

41. On the previous occasion, a report was before the Tribunal which indicated that Ms Carranceja had “engaged well with intervention services” while in custody and completed a number of programs including Best Bet – Gambling Problems and Get Smart Recovery, and she was attending weekly meetings of Gamblers Anonymous.  The Tribunal noted that Ms Carranceja said she accepted “full responsibility for her offences and [was] deeply remorseful for what she did in the pain and hardship caused to the victims”.

42. Setting aside the Minister's decision previously, the Tribunal noted that Ms Carranceja had apparently not been diagnosed with depression until a recent assessment by a forensic psychologist, Tim Watson-Munro and that she was now receiving treatment.  Mr Watson-Munro reported that she had made “considerable progress in her recent rehabilitation”, was “more insightful about her condition” and “genuinely remorseful”.  Apart from treatment for gambling, she needed regular support from a clinical psychologist.

1. Despite all that, the only thing Ms Carranceja did on her release in 2011 was to see a psychologist whom her children arranged for her to see.  She gave evidence that she was unable to do more because, three days after her release, her daughter with whom she was living had a serious accident and needed almost full-time care for three months. 

2. Ms Carranceja claims her daughter’s injury was difficult to handle.  It was unexpected and without the routine she was used to while in gaol, she floundered.  I do not accept that explanation.  Ms Carranceja had approximately seven months before she reoffended in which to take some steps to deal with her gambling.  By her own evidence, she did not find the psychologist whom her children had arranged to her to see very helpful but she took no steps to see someone else.  She did not attend a single Gamblers Anonymous meeting.  She did none of the things that she told the Tribunal on the last occasion that she would do.

3. Rachel Austin, who first met Ms Carranceja in 2011 in her capacity as a mentor with the Women in Prison Advocacy Network, has provided a written letter in support and gave oral evidence.  She believes Ms Carranceja has not given her any indication of being dishonest or untrustworthy and is genuinely motivated to change.  The difficulty I have is that it became evident that Ms Carrenceja has given Ms Austin a somewhat abbreviated account of her criminal history which itself indicates that she fails to appreciate the seriousness of her conduct or she is not prepared to be entirely honest about it, even with someone like Ms Austin.

4. Although she says she takes full responsibility for her conduct, Ms Carranceja showed a tendency while giving evidence to minimise, or explain or excuse, both her offending and the failure to seek rehabilitation.  According to Ms Austin, they met or spoke by telephone quite frequently, and discussed things like her grandchildren.  They do not appear to have had any discussion about Ms Carranceja’s rehabilitation or any difficulties she was having doing what she had undertaken to do.   

5. Since 1997, when she said she acknowledged her gambling problem and was doing something about it, Ms Carranceja has continued to offend.  She has not undertaken the treatment that she said she would and, to the extent that she has undergone counselling and attended meetings of Gamblers Anonymous, it has made little, if any difference.  I cannot have confidence that she will undertake the residential rehabilitation program that she says she has been accepted into, or any other sustained form of treatment for her gambling.  Without such treatment, the risk of her reoffending must be very high indeed.  I do not accept, merely because she is being treated with antidepressant medication, that the risk is reduced.

6. I find that the protection of the Australian community weighs very heavily in favour of cancelling Ms Carranceja’s visa.

   The strength, duration and nature of the person’s ties to Australia

7. Decision-makers must have regard to how long the person has lived in Australia including whether he or she arrived as a young child.  Less weight should be given where the person began offending soon after arriving in Australia, and more weight should be given to time the person has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.  Regard must also be had to the strength, duration and nature of any family, social or employment links with Australian citizens or others who have a right to remain in Australia: cl 9.2

8. Australia has been Ms Carranceja’s home since 1987.  She has lived and worked here almost half her life.  All of her immediate family is here.  I accept that she has strong and enduring ties to Australia.  That said, members of her own family have been among the victims of her offending.

9. Ms Carranceja committed her first offence of “Fraudulently omit to account” in January 1986.  The charge was proved but dismissed without conviction in February 1988.  As the record of her convictions shows, there have been relatively few periods since then when she was not either engaged in some form of criminal conduct or in custody.  Insofar as she has made a positive contribution to the Australian community by way of employment from time to time, the value of her contribution is undermined by her repeated offending.

   The best interests of minor children in Australia

10. Ms Carranceja has five adult children ranging in age from 39 to 30.  All live in Australia and are Australian citizens.  Her three daughters are married, the oldest with two children, the second with one child and the third with a child due shortly.  Her sons are both single. 

11. In the time she has been in gaol, Ms Carranceja has had limited visits from her children and grandchildren.  This has apparently due partly to distance and partly because she felt embarrassed and did not want them to see her in gaol. 

12. After her release in 2011, Ms Carranceja helped look after her eldest grandchild while her daughter was recovering from her injury and says she has developed a strong relationship with him.  She wants to maintain her relationship with her other grandchildren and for them all to have the benefit of a relationship with her. 

13. I accept that children benefit from a loving relationship with grandparents.  I accept that maintaining a relationship at a distance is not easy, even with the benefit of emails and skype.  I accept that the best interests of Ms Carranceja’s grandchildren weigh in favour of allowing her to remain in Australia.

    Whether Australia has international non-refoulement obligations to the person

14. Ms Carranceja does not claim, and there is nothing to suggest, that Australia has any international non-refoulement obligations towards her.  This consideration is not relevant in her case.

    OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

    The effect of cancellation on Ms Carranceja’s family in Australia

15. In a letter dated 18 September 2013 to the Tribunal, Ms Carranceja’s children write that, despite all that has happened, they will continue to support their mother and always hope that she will get better.  They say that, as her children, they still need their mother and they would like their own children to get to know their grandmother again.  They say it will put a strain on them mentally and financially if she is deported because they will constantly worry about her physical and mental health and will worry it would lead to her death.

16. Ms Carranceja’s oldest daughter, Rosario Viengkhou, gave evidence before the Tribunal.  She acknowledged that relationships have been somewhat strained since Ms Carranceja’s most recent offences, especially between her and her eldest daughter.  However, she said, they will continue to support their mother wherever she is.  They currently give her approximately $150 each fortnight to buy what she needs in gaol, and they will continue to support her financially where ever she is.

17. Ms Carranceja says she now has a close relationship with her three grandchildren and could not maintain the same kind of relationship by means of telephone calls, correspondence and email. 

18. I accept that Ms Carranceja’s removal from Australia will cause sadness to her children and grandchildren, and that this consideration weighs in favour of allowing her to remain in Australia.

    The extent of any impediments that the person may face in their home country in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards

19. Ms Carranceja’s mother, who lived in the Philippines, died recently.  She has a brother who lives in Sarawak in Borneo.  All of her other siblings live overseas and she has not had contact with them for many years.  She says she will be isolated from her family and friends in Australia if returned to the Philippines, and the only option to homelessness would be to return to live with her former husband

20. Ms Carranceja suffered a serious injury to her shoulder when she fell from a chair while in Kempsey gaol.  She has apparently commenced proceedings to obtain compensation for her injury.  She has undergone surgery and requires further surgery.  She says she will be unable to obtain the same standard of medical treatment in the Philippines that she could obtain in Australia.  She also says she will be unable to obtain adequate treatment for her depression and gambling addiction in the Philippines.

21. There is no evidence before the Tribunal about the standard of medical care that would be available to Ms Carranceja in the Philippines but I have no reason to conclude that she would not be able to obtain the surgery she requires or that she would not be able to obtain suitable treatment for her depression.  Whether that treatment would be to the same standard that might be available in Australia is not to the point.

22. Ms Carranceja spent the first 32 years of her life in the Philippines.  She was educated and employed there.  Up until 2006, she returned to the Philippines frequently.  She is a citizen and entitled to the same social, medical and economic support available to any other citizen in that country.  She will also have financial support from her children in Australia.

23. Up until her detention in March 2006, Department of Immigration records indicate that Ms Carranceja visited the Philippines on 21 occasions between 1987 and 2006. 

24. I accept that Ms Carranceja has made a life in Australia and that it will not be altogether easy to establish herself again in the Philippines.  However, I am not satisfied that any impediments she may face are sufficient to weigh in favour of allowing her to remain.

    CONCLUSION

25. The seriousness of Ms Carranceja’s conduct and the harm to the Australian community should she re-offend weigh very heavily in favour of cancelling her visa.  I accept that it would be in the best interest of her grandchildren for her to remain in Australia.  I accept that her children and grandchildren will be distressed by her removal.  I accept that she will face some hardship in the Philippines because it will be difficult to be away from her children and her grandchildren, and it will not be easy to adjust to life in the Philippines again.   However, those matters do not in my view outweigh the very real risk of serious harm to the Australian community that her continued stay in Australia presents.

26. I affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 68 (sixty -eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J Toohey.

..............[sgd].................................

Associate

Dated 14 October 2013

Date of hearing	26 September 2013
Applicant	In person
Advocate for the Respondent	Ms E Baggett
Solicitors for the Respondent	DLA Piper

APPENDIX 1

Offence	Date of offence	Date of conviction	Penalty imposed
Fraudulently Omit to Account	23 February 1988 (302 Castlereagh St Local Court)	Proved, without conviction and dismissed.
Obtain Benefit by Deception	25 July 1990 (Parramatta Local Court)	Community Service order for 200 hours
Obtain Benefit by Deception (5 charges)	25 July 1990 (Parramatta Local Court)	On each charge: recognisance self $750 to be of good behaviour for 18 months.  Pay compensation $12,750.50.
Dishonestly obtain Financial Advantage by Deception	6 May 1992 (Parramatta Local Court)	Recognisance self $1,000 to be of good behaviour of 18 months
Use false instrument	6 May 1992 (Parramatta Local Court)	Fined $200
Fail to appear	6 May 1992 (Parramatta Local Court)	Fined $100
Cheque not met	6 May 1992 (Parramatta Local Court)	Fined $50
Make False Statement with Intent to Obtain Money (2 charges)	26 October 1993 (Liverpool District Court)	On each charge: 9 months imprisonment
Make False Statement with Intent to Obtain Money	26 October 1993 (Liverpool District Court)	9 months imprisonment.  Additional imprisonment 2 years.
Obtain valuable thing by false statement (2 charges)	14 February 1997 (Parramatta Local Court)	On each charge: taken into account at Parramatta District Court on 10.10.1997
Obtain benefit by Deception (2 charges)	14 February 1997 (Parramatta Local Court)	On each charge: taken into account at Parramatta District Court on 10.10.1997
Make False Instrument (2 charges)	14 February 1997 (Parramatta Local Court)	On each charge: taken into account at Parramatta District Court on 10.10.1997
Use False Instrument (2 charges)	14 February 1997 (Parramatta Local Court)	On each charge: taken into account at Parramatta District Court on 10.10.1997
Obtain Benefit by Deception (2 counts)	February 1995 - October 1998	10 October 1997 (Parramatta District Court)	On all charges: 2 years 6 months imprisonment commencing 08.08.1997.  Additional imprisonment 1 year commencing 08.02.2000
Fraudulent misappropriation		10 October 1997 (Parramatta District Court)	On all charges: 2 years 6 months imprisonment commencing 08.08.1997.  Additional imprisonment 1 year commencing 08.02.2000
Breach of Recognisance		10 October 1997 (Parramatta Local Court)	6 months imprisonment
Make false instrument with Intent (9 charges)	16 October 1997 (Parramatta Local Court)	Taken into account at Parramatta District Court on 10 October 1997.
Use false instrument with Intent (9 charges)	16 October 1997 (Parramatta Local Court)
Obtain money etc by Deception	16 October 1997 (Parramatta Local Court)
Make misleading statement - intent to obtain financial advantage (2 charges)	16 April 1999 (Sydney District Court)	On each charge: 6 months imprisonment commencing 08/02/2000
Make false instrument	16 April 1999 (Sydney District Court)	On each charge: 6 months imprisonment commencing 08/02/2000
Use false instrument	16 April 1999 (Sydney District Court)	On each charge: 3 months imprisonment commencing 08/02/2000
Pass valueless cheque (2 charges)	2002 -  June 2007	7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	3 years imprisonment commencing 13.07.2010.  None parole period 12 months.
Furnish false information/statement to licensee		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	3 years imprisonment commencing 13.07.2010.  None parole period 12 months.
Obtain money by deception (13 charges)		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	3 years imprisonment commencing 13.07.2010.  None parole period 12 months.
Use false instrument with intent		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	3 years imprisonment commencing 13.07.2010.  None parole period 12 months.
Larceny (2 charges)		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	3 years imprisonment commencing 13.07.2010.  None parole period 12 months.
Obtain money etc by deception		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	32 months imprisonment commencing 13/01/2010 (non parole period of 15 months)
Obtain money etc by deception		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	27 months imprisonment commencing 13/07/2009 (non parole period of 15 months)
Obtain money etc by deception		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	27 months imprisonment commencing 13/01/2009 (non parole period of 15 months)
Obtain money etc by deception		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	27 months imprisonment commencing 13/07/2008 (non parole period of 15 months)
Obtain money etc by deception		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	27 months imprisonment commencing 13/04/2008 (non parole period of 15 months)
Obtain money etc by deception		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	12 months imprisonment commencing 13/01/2008 (non parole period of 15 months)
Obtain money etc by deception		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	9 months imprisonment commencing 13/10/2007
Obtain money etc by deception		7 May 2009 (Parramatta District Court)	6 months imprisonment commencing 13/07/2007
Dishonestly Obtain Property by Deception (27 charges)	20 February 2012; 24 February 2012; 27 February 2012; 29 February 2012; 7 March 2012; 13 March 2012	17 October 2012 (Parramatta District Court)	18 months imprisonment; Non parole period 10 months 20 days.
Dishonestly Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception (9 charges)	20 February 2012; 24 February 2012; 27 February 2012; 29 February 2012; 7 March 2012; 13 March 2012	17 October 2012 (Parramatta District Court)	18 months imprisonment; Non parole period 10 months 20 days.
Dishonestly Obtain Property by Deception (6 charges)	20 February 2012; 24 February 2012; 27 February 2012; 29 February 2012; 7 March 2012; 13 March 2012	17 October 2012 (Parramatta District Court)	4 months imprisonment; served concurrently