CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Edwards
[2025] VCC 1140
•11 August 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No.24-01968
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH) |
| v |
| EBONY JUSTICE EDWARDS |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE ELLIS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 29 July 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 11 August 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Edwards | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | 2025 VCC 1140 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Dishonestly Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception from the Commonwealth
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Cases Cited: DPP v Herrmann (2021) 290 A Crim R 110; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102; DPP (Cth) v Gregory [2011] VSCA 145; DPP (Cth) v Carter [1998] 1 VR 601; The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Rowson [2007] VSCA 176; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Sentence: 21 months imprisonment, released on a Recognisance Release Order, Reparation Order in the sum of $85,432.30
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr L. Winter | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J.J. Bourke | Gallant Law |
HER HONOUR:
1Ebony Justice Edwards, you have pleaded guilty to:
(a) One charge of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception from the Commonwealth, contrary to s134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth)[1] (Charge 1); and
(b) One charge of attempting to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage by deception from the Commonwealth, contrary to ss11.1(1) and 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (Charge 2).[2]
[1] Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
[2] Ibid.
2The maximum penalty for each of these offences is imprisonment for 10 years, and/or a pecuniary penalty of 600 penalty units.
Circumstances of Offending
3The circumstances of your offending are set out in a Prosecution Opening for Plea.[3] At the time of the offending, you were aged 25 years old.
[3] Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, ‘Prosecution Opening for Plea: CDPP v Ebony Justice Edwards’, 3 March 2025 (‘Prosecution Opening).
4By way of overview, your offending relates to the lodgement, by you or on your behalf, of six false Business Activity Statements (BAS) with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to enable the fraudulent claiming of Goods and Services Tax (GST) refunds.
5Through the acts comprised in Charge 1, you dishonestly obtained $88,359 from the ATO. Through the acts comprised in Charge 2, you attempted to dishonestly obtain $42,659 from the ATO.
(i)General Background to the ATO Regime
6To best articulate the circumstances of your offending, it is necessary to contextualise the ATO GST framework that you defrauded.[4]
[4] Prosecution Opening.
7The ATO requires Australian businesses to report most of their tax obligations and entitlements in a BAS, which are lodged periodically (monthly, quarterly or yearly). Businesses that are GST-registered typically pay 10 per cent GST to the ATO when supplying goods and services. These are referred to as 'taxable supplies'. GST will be also included in the price of things purchased or acquired by the business to enable it to conduct its enterprise. These are called 'creditable acquisitions' as they allow the business to accrue GST credits.
8The difference between the amount of GST collected by a business on its taxable supplies, and the amount of GST it pays on its creditable acquisitions, is the amount of GST the business either owes to, or claims back from, the ATO for that reporting period.
(ii)Specifics of Offending
9On 4 February 2022, you applied online for an Australian Business Number (ABN). Your application form detailed, among other information, that your business was a 'Beauty Service or Salon Operation (including epilation service)'. The application was approved by the ATO, and you were registered on the Australian Business Register with ABN 39 491 315 825. The same day, you nominated your personal Commonwealth Bank account as the payment destination for ATO refunds, and registered the business for GST.
10The acts comprising Charge 1 were committed between 21 February and 6 April 2022. In this period, four false BAS statements were lodged on your ATO profile, and in each you purported to have paid significantly more in creditable acquisitions than you had collected on taxable supplies. The months to which the BAS relates, and the refund you obtained from each, are:
(a) An initial BAS for the month of February 2022, claiming a refund of $24,490;
(b) A revised BAS for the month of February 2022, where you claimed a further refund of $9,510;
(c) An initial BAS for the month of March 2022, where you claimed a refund of $24,659; and
(d) A revised BAS for the month of March 2022, where you claimed a further refund of $29,700.
11As a result of these false BAS lodgements, the ATO credited your account with GST refunds totalling $88,359.
12The acts comprising Charge 2 are similar in nature, namely:
(a) On 1 May 2022, you lodged a false BAS for the month of April, claiming a refund of $24,659; and
(b) On 27 May 2022, you lodged a false BAS for the month of May, claiming a refund of $18,000, for a total of $42,659 referable to this charge.
13These claims were rejected by the ATO. You did not actually obtain any financial advantage from this deception, and as such Charge 2 is one of attempt.
(iii)Detection and Investigation
14On 5 May 2022, the ATO sent you a letter advising that your tax account was being audited due to 'unusual refund activity'. It advised that the amounts claimed in the period from 1-30 April 2022 had been amended and the 'information held by the ATO doesn't indicate any evidence you're carrying on a business'. It further advised that additional false tax reporting could result in your prosecution. You did not respond to this letter, and on 27 May 2022, made the second false BAS lodgement captured in Charge 2.
15The ATO issued you with further audit correspondence on 2 June 2022 (relating to the May BAS) and 19 July 2022 (relating to the February and March 2022 BAS). The letter dated 19 July requested repayment of $88,359 and confirmed that your ABN and GST registrations had been cancelled. You did not respond to this correspondence.
16On 28 February 2024, you participated in an interview with Victoria Police and gave a written statement admitting to the offending, as well as voluntarily providing copies of statements for the relevant Commonwealth Bank account.
17You made the following comments in relation to the offending:
(a) You did not run a business and worked in retail at Supercheap Auto during the relevant period;
(b) You knew you were not entitled to the GST refunds from the ATO;
(c) You found out about the 'scam' through 'word of mouth, through everybody';
(d) Your friend Ellen Miller offered to lodge BAS on your behalf, and 'as more and more people started doing it and getting away with it, [you] decided to give it a shot';
(e) You asked MILLER to 'do it for [you]' and Miller lodged three BAS in your name;
(f) You agreed to pay Miller $1,000 after each of the three lodgements; and
(g) You spent the balance of the money paid by the ATO on holidays, shopping, utility bills and you gave some of it to family members.
18IP address information supports your assertion that Ms Miller lodged the first BAS on your behalf. Further, your bank statements record the payment of a total of $1,000 to an account in the name of Grant Morris, the partner of Ms Miller, after lodgement of that particular BAS. However, there is no corroborating evidence of further payments to Miller.
Procedural History
19You were charged with these offences on 25 July 2024. You were committed to this court on 12 November 2024, by which point the matter had resolved and you had indicated you would plead guilty to the present offences.
20On 31 March 2025 you were arraigned in full with respect to the present indictment and came before me for a plea hearing on 29 July 2025.
21I emphasise that the offending concluded in May 2022. It was not referred to Victoria Police by the ATO until January 2023, and they did not conduct an interview under 28 February 2024 nor were charges laid until 25 July 2024. I accept that this delay was not of your making. You thus fall to be sentenced more than three years after the offending acts were committed. Your counsel submitted, and I accept, that this period of delay is relevant to the present sentencing exercise in two ways.[5] Its hanging over your head would have caused you significant distress, and your lack of further offending in that time positively impacts your prospects for rehabilitation.
[5] Gallant Law ‘Outline of Ms Edwards’ Sentencing Submissions’ 25 July 2025, p7 (‘Defence Submissions’).
Prior Criminal History
22I note that you come before the court with no prior or subsequent criminal history outside the present offending. This speaks to your otherwise good character and capacity for rehabilitation, and while I will expand on each of these considerations later in my reasons, I note here that it is a meaningful factor in mitigation of sentence.
Sentencing Considerations
23As the charges are both Commonwealth offences, you fall to be sentenced in accordance with Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ('the Act'). Accordingly, I am required to have a number of matters which are set out in s16A(2) of that Act to the extent that they are relevant and known to the court, and I do so, as I will elaborate. One of these factors is your personal circumstances.[6]
[6]Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s16A(m).
(i) Personal Circumstances[7]
[7] Defence Submissions.
24You are presently 28 years of age and you were 25 at the time of the offending. You were born in New Zealand, migrating to Australia with your maternal grandparents at a young age. You have three younger siblings with whom you were not raised.
25You reported to psychologist Simon Candlish that your father physically and emotionally abused your mother. You recalled that he 'experienced significant anger dysregulation, abused alcohol and cannabis' and acted violently when withdrawing from those substances.
26You recalled also that your father emotionally abused yourself and your siblings, and that you were extensively body-shamed by both your parents and grandparents.
27I accept that these experiences would have markedly impacted your self-esteem at a developmental age, and I take them into account. It was initially submitted on your behalf that these hardships amounted to 'profound childhood deprivation', enlivening application of the principles enunciated in Bugmy v The Queen[8] in the general sense articulated in DPP v Herrmann.[9] However, Mr Bourke did not forcefully press that submission in oral argument, and in any event I do not accept that your childhood circumstances, whilst no doubt at times difficult, rise to that threshold. They are nonetheless relevant in a general sense.
[8] [2013] HCA 37.
[9] (2021) 290 A Crim R 110.
28You completed schooling to a Year 10 level, although with interrupted attendance across Years 9 and 10. Since that time you have been variously employed at a takeaway shop, a sanitary products company, and a retail store. Your employment at the latter terminated shortly prior to this offending, and you report this was due to an incident where 'an assistant manager belittled [you] in front of others'.[10] You have been unemployed and in receipt of welfare payments since that time.
[10] Simon Candlish ‘Psychological Report’ 16 June 2025, 5 [39] (‘Psychological Report’).
29You report having first used alcohol and cannabis at the age of 14, and having regularly used substances including alcohol, cocaine and MDMA approximately four days a week between the ages of 18 and 22. You were regularly taking drugs at the time of the present offending. However, you report having ceased the use of drugs since meeting your partner in 2022 and no longer drinking to excess.[11]
[11] Ibid 6 [46].
30You are supported by your fiancé Mr Wood, with whom you have lived for the past two years.
Mental Health and Verdins
31
You were assessed by Simon Candlish on 4 April and 13 June this year. Most relevantly, he has diagnosed you with a 'mild personality disorder' that he opines developed during your adolescence, and which negatively impacts your
self-esteem. He opines that as a consequence, your offending 'seems to reflect attempts to feel socially included and to achieve various needs (financial freedom, admiration) in unhealthy ways.'[12] He further posited that this personality impairment could 'undermine [your] ability to cope in prison due to [your] identity issues, problems relating to others and [your] impressionability', placing you at greater risk of suicide attempts and/or depression, especially if a lengthy custodial term is imposed.[13]
[12] Ibid 12 [102].
[13] Psychological Report 12 [104].
32Emphasising your account to both the police and to Mr Candlish that you committed this offending due to peer pressure, Mr Bourke submitted on your behalf that this mental health condition was sufficient to enliven limbs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of R v Verdins.[14]
[14] R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.
33While accepting the application of Verdins limb 6, the prosecution submitted that limbs 1-4 were not enlivened by your mental health diagnosis.[15]
[15] Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ‘Prosecution Submissions In Response to Defence Submissions’ 28 July 2025 2 [7]-[11] (‘Prosecution Response’) .
34
Mr Winter argued there was an insufficient causal nexus between your mental impairment and your offending. He noted that the conclusions drawn by
Mr Candlish were based almost entirely on information you self-reported to him, which the court ought regard with caution given what Mr Candlish separately opined to be inconsistencies in your accounts of mental ill-health, as well as your general 'lack of self-awareness'.[16] In any event, the prosecution view is that your knowledge that the offending was wrong was not affected by your personality disorder.
[16] Psychological Report 2 [9].
35On this point I agree with the prosecution. Your offending is of a calculated nature, and it required you to consciously apply yourself to executing a fraudulent scheme. A personality disorder which affects your self-worth, while unfortunate and generally relevant to the assessment of your behaviour at the time of the offences, does little to limit the clarity of any culpable thinking of this nature. While you were no doubt influenced to a degree by having observed friends commit similar offences, this more instinctively appears to have served as inspiration to obtain similar benefits for yourself, rather than an irresistible social pressure with which you felt compelled to engage. This is somewhat illustrated by your comments to Mr Candlish in which you reported thinking 'free money, which means free holidays, which means free alcohol, which means free drugs'.[17] As such, I do not find limbs 1-4 of Verdins to be applicable in your case.
[17] Psychological Report 3 [16].
36However, I do find that the sixth limb is enlivened. I take this into account that there is a significant risk that imprisonment will have an adverse effect on your mental health.
(ii) Character References
37Three character references were tendered on your behalf, as prepared by family members and your partner. I have had regard to each of these references.[18] You are described as a kind and selfless family member who cares deeply for your loved ones. You are said to have been deeply impacted by the loss of your grandfather, with whom you were very close, and by your grandmother's battle with illness, which you instruct is Alzheimer's, amongst others.
[18] Crimes Act s 16A(2)(m).
38Pausing there, I recognise that you have caring responsibilities for your grandmother, including by taking her to near-daily medical appointments and providing her with medication. I appreciate that a custodial disposition would significantly interrupt your grandmother's care, an outcome that would also likely cause you psychological distress.
39Your referees also comment on the guilt and shame you have experienced in relation to your offending. I accept that it is an aberration in your otherwise good character. It is fortunate that you have the ongoing support of loved ones, and that bodes well for your prospects of rehabilitation.
(iii) Plea of Guilty
40You offered to plead guilty at an early stage of proceedings, and the matter was not listed for contest at any stage prior to or following committal. I take this plea into account.[19] It demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for your conduct, as well as a willingness to facilitate the course of justice, and has saved the community the significant expense of a trial.
[19] Crimes Act 16A(2)(g).
41The utilitarian value of the guilty plea is elevated in your case given that you actively co-operated with investigators, including by providing full and frank admissions both verbally and in a written statement, and by volunteering bank records for the relevant account. You have helped to avoid the expenditure of greater investigative resources by providing this assistance, and I note that at no point has any witness been required for cross-examination. For all of these reasons you are entitled to a discount on sentence.
(iv)Prospects of Rehabilitation
42I accept that you are remorseful for your offending.[20] So much is evident from the sentiments expressed by your character referees, and in the investigative assistance you provided to authorities. You are also a relatively young offender, having been 25 years old at the relevant time.
[20] Ibid s 16A(2)(f)(ii)
43You lack a prior or subsequent criminal history, and while you are not currently working, you have previously demonstrated your capacity for gainful employment. In sum, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be very good, and the prosecution did not seek to persuade me otherwise.
s 16A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
44I am required under the Crimes Act 1914 to impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate to all of the circumstances of the offence.[21] The court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment for a Federal offence unless having considered all of the available sentences, the court is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in the circumstances.[22] As indicated, I have considered the matters set out in s16A(2) of the Act.
[21] Ibid s 16A(1).
[22] Crimes Act s 17A(1).
(i) Nature and Gravity of Offending
45Turning now to the nature of the offending, which I must take into account pursuant to s16A(2)(a).
46With reference to DPP (Cth) v Gregory[23] and DPP (Cth) v Carter,[24] the prosecution submits that serious tax fraud ordinarily necessitates a custodial disposition unless 'powerful' mitigating circumstances are established. A more severe sentence is said to be appropriate where a 'sophisticated degree of planning [is] accompanied by a lack of contrition'.[25]
[23] [2011] VSCA 145 (‘Gregory’) (Warren CJ, Redlich JA, Ross AJA) [54].
[24] [1998] 1 VR 601.
[25] Gregory (n 22) [54].
47The prosecution submitted that the offending was objectively serious and that your moral culpability is high. Mr Winter drew my attention to a number of features of this offending said to be most pertinent to this assessment.
48Firstly, it was submitted that your offending was well-planned and involved a level of sophistication, in that you went to the effort of registering a false ABN, registering a bank account in your own name to receive refunds, and lodging (or arranging to be lodged) a total of six false BAS, four of which resulted in GST refunds. That the figures you submitted in the BAS were illogical and readily liable to detection is said to reflect the 'brazen nature of the offending' rather than to serve as a factor in mitigation.[26] Likewise, the prosecution view is that your utilising of a friend to lodge at least one BAS statement on your behalf does nothing to minimise the seriousness of the offending, instead reinforcing the need for general deterrence, given co-operation is not uncommon among those who attempt to defraud Australia's taxation system.[27]
[26] Prosecution Response [4].
[27] Prosecution Response [5].
49Secondly, your offending produced funds that you spent on non-essential items such as holidays, shopping and gifts to family members, demonstrating that you were not motivated by personal hardship in committing these acts, instead motivated by greed.
50Thirdly, it is noted that you have paid back only $2,926.70 of the $88,359 that you obtained across the course of your offending.
51Acting on your behalf, Mr Bourke agreed this offending is inherently serious, requiring general deterrence and denunciation to be duly weighted during sentencing. However, he did not concede that the offending involved a 'sophisticated degree of planning accompanied by a lack of contrition', as was considered an aggravating feature by the Court of Appeal in Gregory.[28]
[28] Defence Submissions 3 [11].
52Mr Bourke emphasised a series of matters said to mitigate the objective seriousness of your offending, including:[29]
(a)Firstly, that you made no attempts to conceal your identity, given your ATO registration and recipient bank account were nominated in your name;
(b)Secondly, that you were introduced, and to some extent actively assisted, in this method offending by your friend, Ms Miller; and
(c)Thirdly, your offending was very unsophisticated and quickly detected through an ATO audit. For example, across the fraudulent BAS, you reported only $1,000 in GST payable on taxable supply, compared to $114,018 in GST on creditable acquisitions, which would equate to $1,254,198 in business purchases across a three-month period - a fanciful figure for a sole-trader beauty salon with so small a taxable supply.
[29] Ibid 4.
53I do not agree that the near inevitability of your offending being detected acts to meaningfully mitigate the objective seriousness of your offending. The complexity of the steps taken is a significantly less weighty consideration than your intent in taking them. You knew you were not entitled to any of the funds obtained in respect of Charge 1, and which you attempted to obtain in respect of Charge 2. Indeed, the very fact that you had observed friends execute similar fraud with relative ease appears to have been a motivator for the offending itself. It does not accord with intuition that a factor which at least partly motivated a criminal offence be considered to ameliorate its objective seriousness. If anything, it heightens the importance of general deterrence.
54Ultimately your offending yielded a very significant monetary quantum and was motivated primarily by greed and convenience, as opposed to hardship. I consider your moral culpability to be high, notwithstanding your relative vulnerability to peer pressure. I find that this offending falls above the mid-range of objective seriousness.
55Furthermore, despite having been put on notice by the ATO of unusual activity, you then went on to lodge a further document which is the subject of Charge 2. Notification of an audit clearly did little to deter you.
(ii) Current Sentencing Practices
56I have had regard to sentencing practices. However, this is only one factor and not the controlling factor in the fixing of a just sentence. As the High Court set out in The Queen v Pham,[30] when sentencing for a Commonwealth offence, I must have regard to the sentences that have been imposed in other States and territories.
[30] (2015) 256 CLR 550 (‘Pham’) [18].
57Both the prosecution and defence provided tables of summarised cases involving sentences for offences against s134.2 of the Code. Each party submitted that these cases provide guidance as to the application of relevant sentencing principles and illustrate, but not define, a sentencing pattern for deception offending of this kind. Broadly speaking, these cases relate to a similar financial quantum obtained or attempted to be obtained as that in your case, albeit with a relatively wide range. I note also that some, though not all, of these cases relate to similar means of defrauding the Commonwealth (that is, through the lodging of false BAS and/or other tax documentation).
58I have had regard to these tables and to each of the cases they refer to. Those cases demonstrate that a term of imprisonment administered through a recognisance release order, with or without actual time to serve in custody, is in range for offending of this nature.
(iii) General and Specific Deterrence
59The prosecution submitted, and defence counsel agreed, that general deterrence looms large in this sentencing exercise. Mr Winter argued that it is the role of the courts, in sentencing offenders such as yourself, to protect the integrity of Australia's self-reporting GST calculation regime.[31] To these ends, the prosecution relies on comments made by the Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Rowson.[32]
[31] Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ‘Prosecution Submissions on Plea’ 27 March 2025 [5].
[32] [2007] VSCA 176 [24].
60I accept that general deterrence is of particular significance in this case. GST fraud is often difficult to detect, and it harms the community as a whole.[33] Others who may be tempted to offend in a similar fashion, notwithstanding the risk of detection, must be deterred from doing so.
[33] Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ), [63].
61I find that specific deterrence is a less weighty consideration in the present exercise, but it is not irrelevant given that your offending involved a number of applications lodged over a period of months. But you have no prior or subsequent criminal history, and as I have said, you have demonstrated considerable remorse for your behaviour. No doubt these proceedings have had a salutary effect upon you.
Disposition
62Taking into account all of the factors I have discussed, the prosecution submits that an immediate term of imprisonment is the only appropriate disposition, placing particular weight on the high objective seriousness of the offending and on the primacy of general deterrence. Prosecution argues that the matters you have raised in mitigation are not 'powerful', and a period to be served in custody before release on recognisance is required.[34]
[34] Prosecution Response [4].
63By contrast, Mr Bourke submitted that your argument for a non-custodial disposition is a particularly compelling one. With regard to your excellent prospects of rehabilitation, genuine remorse, good character, unfortunate personal circumstances and relative youth, as well as the general principles of proportionality and totality, he argues that your immediate release on a recognisance is within range.
64I have considered the matters raised carefully. I must take into account the maximum penalties for these offence, the gravity of the offending, your personal circumstances and all of the matters raised on the plea, whilst giving effect to the objectives of sentencing. These include deterrence, just punishment, denunciation, rehabilitation and protection of the community. For avoidance of doubt, I do indeed denounce your conduct.
65Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that whilst a term of imprisonment is warranted for this offending, having regard to all relevant matters including your plea of guilty, co-operation, demonstrable remorse, delay, your previous good character and prospects of rehabilitation, that you should be placed on a recognisance release order to be released forthwith. This would, in my view, meet the objectives of sentencing. This means that you will not be sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment. Can you please stand up, Ms Edwards.
Sentence
66On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
67Charge 1 will be the base sentence. I order that six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed on Charge 1. The sentence on Charge 1 commences immediately. The sentence imposed on Charge 2 commences 12 months from today.
68At the conclusion of my reasons for sentence I will confirm with the prosecution as to whether or not the orders that I am making are accurate, in terms of what I can do under the Act.
69This makes a total effective sentence of 21 months' imprisonment. I order that pursuant to s20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914, that you are to be released forthwith. You will be released upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $2,000 that you be of good behaviour for a period of two years from today's date.
70You are going to be asked to sign some paperwork in a moment. This is the recognisance release order. So I need to explain to you the effect of the sentence that I have imposed. It is not that dissimilar to a suspended sentence in some ways. The overall sentence is 21 months' imprisonment, but you will be released immediately. This period of 21 months will be hanging over your head for the next two years. If in that time, you were to commit a further offence punishable by imprisonment, then you may well be required to serve that period of 21 months gaol, in addition to whatever penalty you might receive on the further offending. The recognisance amount, that is the $2,000, is only potentially payable if you breach the terms of the recognisance – that is, if you re-offend in the two year period you may be required to pay that $2,000 amount.
71Do you understand what I have just explained to you?
72OFFENDER: Yes I do.
73HER HONOUR: Yes. So the period of imprisonment that I have imposed is a total of 21 months.
74OFFENDER: Yes.
75HER HONOUR: But you are going to be released immediately on the condition that you agree to enter into a recognisance release order to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.
76OFFENDER: I agree.
77HER HONOUR: All right. You will be provided with the paperwork. Just before you do, can I please confirm with you, Mr Winter, as to whether or not those orders work under the Commonwealth Act?
78MR WINTER: Yes, no issue with those orders, Your Honour, thank you. As Your Honour pleases.
79HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you, all right.
Order for Reparation
80I also order that pursuant to s21B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that you make reparation in the sum of $85,432.30 which is payable to the Commonwealth of Australia.
Pre-sentence detention
81I note that there is no pre-sentence detention.
S 6AAA
82I also indicate pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to two and a half years' imprisonment to be released on a recognisance after serving eight months. So had you pleaded not guilty and gone to trial, and been found guilty at trial, you would have received a sentence of two and a half years' gaol, and you would have been required to serve eight months before being released on a recognisance, all right.
83OFFENDER: I understand.
84HER HONOUR: All right. You can have a seat. We will print out the recognisance release order. I will give your barrister, Mr Bourke, an opportunity to approach you so that he can go through the documentation with you, all right.
85OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
86HER HONOUR: All right, I note that you have now signed that documentation, Ms Edwards. I will just confirm with counsel whether there are any matters that require correction or that I have overlooked.
87MR WINTER: No, Your Honour.
88MR BOURKE: No, Your Honour.
89HER HONOUR: Thank you. I thank counsel for your assistance. Ms Edwards, you have very very narrowly avoided going to gaol today. The offending, as I have said, was serious. I have taken all of the matters into account. It is really important that you are of good behaviour for the next two years or you may find yourself being required to serve the sentence that I have imposed. As I have said, you very narrowly avoided going to gaol.
90OFFENDER: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
- - -
0
9
0