Director of Public Prosecutions v Carpenter

[2019] VCC 1453

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA  Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 18-02240

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

SARAH CARPENTER

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE GWYNN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 September 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Carpenter
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1453

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:Obtaining financial advantage by deception, attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception, making a false document, possession of identification information, theft

Catchwords:  Koori Court, offences committed whilst on court orders
Legislation Cited:  Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:  Honeysett v The Queen 2018 VSCA 214

Sentence:Total effective sentence of 34 months imprisonment

Non-parole period of 20 months imprisonment

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms. J. Manning (Plea) Ms. V. Gillis (Sentence)	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms. M. Casey (Plea) Ms. N. Valos (Sentence)	Valos Black & Associates

HER HONOUR:

1Sarah Louise Carpenter, you have pleaded guilty on indictment, to seven charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception, six charges of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, four charges of making a false document, three charges of theft, and one of possession of identification information.  You are also charged with two summary offences of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.

2The charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception, making a false document and theft are all punishable by a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. 

3The charge of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception is punishable by up to five years imprisonment. 

4The charge of possession of identification information carries a maximum of three years imprisonment and a charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail is punishable by up to three months imprisonment.  These maximum penalties reflect the seriousness with which Parliament regards these offences. 

5The circumstances of your offending are set out in a document entitled ‘Summary of Prosecution Opening’ dated 4 March 2019.  This is an agreed document and will be annexed to these reasons, as it is comprehensive.  It represents an acceptance by you of all the elements of the offences and the factual basis on which I am to sentence.  It is, however, necessary to set out some of the details of your offending in order to fully understand its true sophistication.

6Between 15 October 2014 and 12 February 2018, you committed four discrete sets of offending.  

a)You submitted 11 online applications containing false information to the American Express Corporation of Australia, known as the ‘Amex offending’, for credit facilities between 15 October 2014 and 8 January 2016. 

b)Then, between 1 March and 18 May 2016 whilst subject to a community corrections order, you provided three false medical certificates and one false letter to your corrections officer.  This has been referred to as the ‘corrections offending’. 

c)Between 29 March 2016 and 21 October 2016, you made 35 fraudulent withdrawals from two bank accounts belonging to Conchita Jowett.  This was referred to as the ‘Jowett withdrawals’, and

d)You also fraudulently sold and attempted to sell shares held by her between 29 August 2017 and 12 February 2018.  This was referred to as the ‘Jowett shares offending’.

7Charge 18 is a stand-alone offence, possession of identification information. 

8Across all offending, a period encompassing some three years and four months, you obtained a total financial advantage of $171,874.14.  Of the available funds, you withdrew $132,967.04.  Additionally, the value of the thefts of shares was $264,429.71.  You withdrew $59,202.26 of these funds. 

AMEX offending

9I turn now to the Amex offending.  Between 15 October 2014 and 8 January 2016 you submitted 11 on-line applications to Amex for various credit facilities.  In each application, you provided false information.  Relevant details of each application was set out in Annexure A to the Crown opening. 

10Six of the applications were refused by Amex and are the subject of the attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception charges, namely Charges 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11.  Five of the applications were approved and are reflected in Charges 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10.  You began using these funds obtained almost immediately from 23 October 2014.  Purchases were made at department stores, supermarkets, fast food outlets, the payment of phone bills and one to Qantas. 

11By way of example, one account was opened by you in the name of Virginia Sier.  Investigators subsequently located Virginia Sier who was a real estate agent as noted on the application form.  A debt collection company had already contacted her about outstanding debt, a debt which she knew nothing about. 

12You opened another account with ME Bank in the name of Eva Strasser, which was used for purchases from Flight Centre in Brisbane, department stores, fast food outlets, supermarkets, phone companies and at Melbourne Airport. 

13Investigators also located Eva Strasser.  She was indeed born on 25 July 1935 as noted on the application for credit and was 83 years of age.  She had never held an account with ME Bank.  Her bank statements, driver's licence and a payslip were later found at your house.  You would have been aware of her actual age at the time of your offending.

14As a result of your deceptions, you obtained a financial advantage of $54,400 and Amex suffered a loss of $14,874.29. 

15Charges 1 to 6 of this offending were in breach of an adjourned undertaking which you have received at Heidelberg Magistrates' Court on 1 August 2014 which had required you to be of good behaviour until 31 July of 2015. 

16This offending could be accurately described as well-planned and carefully orchestrated.  The two examples to which I have referred are real people, not created identities, the potential effects from them of your deceptive behaviour would have been known to you given your history and the nature of this offending. 

Corrections offending

17I turn now to the Corrections offending.  You were subject to a community corrections order from 23 October 2015 to 22 October 2017 having been sentenced to a two-year order by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 23 October 2015 in relation to a range of dishonesty offences. 

18You created three false medical certificates and a false letter which had the effect that you were unfit for normal duties between 1 March to 19 April 2016 and then again between 18 May to 8 June 2016. 

19Inquiries by Corrections revealed the falsity of these documents.  When confronted by this discovery, you indicated that you had only been at the relevant clinic days prior, that it must be the clinic that was mistaken and that you did not have a computer to make such documents. 

20This offending comprises Charges 12, 13, 14 and 17 on the indictment, and is somewhat unexplained in its foundation.  It certainly gave you the means to avoid your obligation to court ordered punishment. 

21Having received the community corrections order on 23 October 2015, your first offence in contravention of that order occurs a week later on 31 October 2015 and was encompassed by Charge 7 on the indictment, attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception. 

Jowett withdrawals

22Your offending in breach of this corrections order includes Charges 8 through to 19 on the indictment and is an aggravated feature to your offending.  It also demonstrates a real deliberateness to your offending which is characterised throughout. 

23In terms of the Jowett withdrawals in 2016, Evelyn Jowett, the daughter of Conchita Jowett, noticed mail was not arriving at her residential address.  It was only later when she spoke to the Commonwealth Bank that it was discovered that moneys had been taken. 

24The details of these transactions are set out in Schedules A and B to the indictment.  Between 29 March 2016 and 21 October 2016, you withdrew a total of $53,574.14 from a cash management on-call account with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia belonging to Conchita Jowett. 

25In total, there were 24 withdrawals, ranging from an amount of $82.95 to $9690.  This comprises Charge 15 on the indictment. 

26Between 24 April 2016 and 19 October 2016 you also withdrew a total of $63,900 from Conchita Jowett's direct investment account with the Commonwealth Bank.  There were nine withdrawals ranging in amount from $2000 to $14,660. 

27Across both accounts there was $117,474.14 fraudulently withdrawn, an amount which could hardly be described as insignificant.  You then made payments into various false Indue accounts. 

28Indue and their fraud team received email correspondence from you posing as the account holder where you complained about restricted access and being prevented from using your own money.  You requested compensation for being inconvenienced.  You threatened to report Indue for intimidating and threatening behaviour.  You communicated this via email claiming that you could not call as you had a disability.

29You are not to be punished for this communication, but it and the facts referred to earlier, further demonstrate the intricacy of this series of offending, your determination to both proceed and succeed revealing a very sophisticated and calculated set of offending. 

First arrest and identification offending

30You were arrested on 6 March 2017 in possession of a large amount of identification information relating to 30 different identities and this included credit cards.  A full list of items is particularised in Schedule C to the indictment and forms the basis for Charge 18, possession of identification information.  

31Several of the identities correlate to those used in the Amex offending and the Jowett withdrawals.  This part of your offending is also demonstrative of the significant degree of organisation and planning involved in executing your crimes. 

32Given the length between a number of these identifies and what is described as the Amex offending and the Jowett withdrawals, care must be taken by me in sentencing not to inflict what would amount to double punishment and there should be a significant amount of concurrency between Charge 18 and any sentence imposed on matters to which the identification information directly relates. 

33A number of handwritten notes were also found at the house, setting out bank accounts, false phone numbers, amounts of money and other details relevant to the offending. 

34When interviewed by police about these matters you answered, 'No comment' as it your right, and you were subsequently bailed to appear at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court. 

35One would have thought that your arrest on 6 March 2017 would have presented you the opportunity to rethink your lifestyle at that time.  However, undeterred by the arrest process and the bail orders, you continued in a similar vein in breach of bail conditions.

Jowett shares offending

36It is in that context, that the offending referred to as the Jowett shares occurred.  Conchita Jowett held shares with the National Australia Bank and Australia and New Zealand Bank.  In 2017, she noticed that some of her shares were missing. 

37On 16 August 2017, you applied for a new account with CMC Market Stockbroking Ltd providing Jowett's name, address and date of birth.  On 29 August 2017 and 31 August 2017, you completed Suncorp conversion forms in her name in order to sell shares, each form purportedly signed by Ms Jowett.  In total, the forms related to 6001 ANZ shares, and 3000 NAB shares. 

38In terms of Charge 19, on 1 September 2017, you accessed the CMC account and sold 501 of Ms Jowett's ANZ shares.  The value of the shares was $14,779.61.  Shortly thereafter on 12 September 2017, you transferred these funds into two fraudulent accounts with Suncorp Bank set up in Jowett's name.  Once the funds reached these accounts, you disbursed those funds into other fraudulent bank accounts held in different names.  This was repeated by you on 13 September 2017 by selling a further 500 shares valued at $15,060.05.  You again transferred the funds and disbursed to other fraudulent accounts. 

39On 19 September, 2017, you again accessed the CMC account, selling a further 500 ANZ shares valued at $15,140.05.  Before you could withdraw those funds, the account had been frozen. 

40On 27 September 2017, you telephoned Suncorp pretending to be Jowett and asking to speak to the Fraud Department providing again her full name, her date of birth, her address and her password which was the name of her dead husband. 

41Your offending as it relates to Conchita Jowett was in full knowledge of her advanced years.  You were then asked to attend a Branch to prove identity.  In response to this request, you sent an email to Suncorp's customer relations pretending to be Ms Jowett.

42This email partially reads, 'I am writing to make a formal complaint and to request closure of my accounts.  I am an elderly disabled woman who currently banks with Suncorp Bank.  With the help of my granddaughter, I have been able to set up internet banking and use your telephone banking facilities.  I find the manner in which I have been dealt with unacceptable.  As a disabled member of the community it is apparent my ability to simply get to a branch to provide photo identification is not possible.  It was not discussed with me alternative options due to my disability and age.  I have not dealt with such discrimination and lack of professionalism to date.  I will not be attending a branch to provide photo identification as I am disabled and over 70 years in age.'

43Again, this represents a robust response to the potential identification by the Fraud Department of your offending, and a very clear effort by you to avoid that identification. 

44In total, 1501 ANZ shares were sold to the value of $44,979.71 from which you were able to successfully withdraw $29,839.66.  That forms the basis for Charge 19, theft.

45On 17 November 2017, you submitted an off-market transfer form to transfer 3000 of Jowett's NAB shares to a fraudulent NAB trade account which had been opened in the name of Thomas Solyuk.  A second form was submitted and accepted on 15 December following signature verification checks.  This form was reportedly signed by both Jowett and Solyuk and included a certified copy of Solyuk's marine licence to prove both his signature on identity.  3000 NAB shares were transferred on 27 November 2017, forming the basis for Charge 20, theft.

46On 3 January 2018, you placed an order on the Solyuk account to sell 500 NAB shares.  This was completed and $14,807.55 was deposited into Solyuk's Wealth Hub cash account.  You then made withdrawals from that account between the 5th and 15th of January 2018.  Transfer descriptions included the word, 'holiday' and 'car deposit.' 

47A similar process was undertaken by you on 29 January 2018 when you placed another order on the Solyuk account to sell 500 of the remaining 2500 NAB shares.  When completed $14,555.05 was deposited into the Solyuk Wealth Hub cash account from which you then made withdrawals. 

48On 12 February 2018, you submitted a second off market transfer form to transfer 4500 of Jowett's ANZ shares to the Solyuk account.  By that stage, the account had been frozen due to suspected fraudulent activity. 

49On 17 February 2018, you travelled to New South Wales and purchased a custom, limited edition 2007 Suburu Liberty.  Over the next few weeks, there were several emails between Wealth Hub and you posing as Solyuk dealing with the freezing of the account and your desire to access the funds.  On 23 February 2018, you transferred $50 from the fraudulent Solyuk NAB account in to the Wealth Hub cash management account, with the reference, 'Test'. 

Second arrest

50On 14 March 2018, at about 9.06 am, investigators intercepted you driving your newly purchased vehicle.  You were arrested and cautioned.  A search warrant was again executed at your home where items linked to your offending were found.  Police also located a printer in one of the rooms.  In the printer's tray was an account document in the name of Conchita Jowett referring to the ANZ shares.  Numerous SIM cards were located with many registered in names used throughout the offending including a SIM card in the name of Solyuk located in the phone of your daughter. 

51Hand written notes were again located relating to false addresses, phone numbers, bank accounts and amounts of money.  There are also references to the share transfer forms, dates of various actions taken by you and Solyuk's fake signature. 

52You participated in a second interview with police, and again gave no comment responses to the allegations put to you. 

53Whilst not particularised in the Crown opening, the summary offences relate to committing the offence of obtaining financial advantage by deception whilst on bail between the dates of 15 October 2014 and 18 April 2015, and to committing an indictable offence, namely theft and possession of identification information between 29 August 2017 and 12 February 2018 whilst subject to a bail order.

54Section 16(3)(C) of the Sentencing Act requires that every term of imprisonment imposed on a person for an offence committed whilst released on bail must, unless otherwise directed by the court, be served cumulative on any uncompleted sentence or sentences of imprisonment imposed on that offender whether before or at the same time as that term. 

55The totality principle requires that where an offender is being sentenced to multiple terms, or is otherwise to serve multiple sentences, then the sentences should ensure that the total sentence remains what is described as just and appropriate for the whole of the offending. 

56The principle of totality is relevant to the application of s.16(3)(C) as well as to the sentences imposed on all of the offences before this court.

57Whilst your offending has been broken down into four distinct areas of offending, those being the AMEX credit card facility, the community corrections order offending, the Jowett withdrawals and the Jowett shares, plus the identification document offence, it amounts to serious offending over a period of some three years and four months.

58As already described, it is extremely sophisticated and calculated offending, indeed progressively so, designed for your gain and to meet your needs with little thought to your numerous victims and those such as your family who could be regarded by you as collateral damage. 

59A Victim Impact Statement authored by Evelyn Jowett was read to the court by the learned prosecutor.  The purpose of the Victim Impact Statement is to give those affected by your crime the opportunity to participate in the criminal justice process by informing the court about the effects of the crime upon them.

60Ms Jowett's Victim Impact Statement speaks of her mother's extreme emotional distress caused by your offending.  This distress has impacted on Conchita Jowett's enjoyment of her retirement and has had ongoing impact on both her and her family members.  As this statement was read to the court, the effect of your offending on Conchita Jowett and her family cannot be lost upon you. 

61You persisted in your offending in the face of your first arrest and in the face of being confronted for your offending by at least two of the institutions you had offended against, at which time you indicated great umbrage about being suspected of fraudulent behaviour. 

62Your offending while subject to court orders - at various stages, an adjourned undertaking, bail and a community corrections order - is an aggravating feature which in the case of the bail order, is the subject of a separate charge and will be dealt with accordingly. 

63Your inability to abide by court orders indicates a lack of respect for law and raises genuine concerns in terms of your future prospects.  You seek to excuse your offending by your use of drugs at the time and your perceived need to provide for your family in that context.

64This explanation simply holds little or no water.  Your offending demonstrates a cool, calm and collected persona, not one riddled with the chaos of constant drug-use.

65Whilst I do accept you were using drugs at the relevant time, it is simply not a matter that I take into account in excusing nor explaining your resort to offending on such a high, enduring and persistent level. 

66I find both the objective gravity of your offending and your moral culpability for it to be at the higher end.  This finding takes into account your relevant prior history.

67In terms of that prior history, you have a prior criminal record reflecting 62 prior matters spanning eight separate court appearances. 

68Your offence history started in the Australian Capital Territory where you were dealt with for dishonesty offences in 1996.  There were a number of subsequent matters including breach of a recognisance order dealt with in the ACT Magistrates' Court in January of 1999. 

69On 8 October 1999, you were convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years imprisonment for a single charge of armed robbery.

70On 20 March 2001, you were convicted and sentenced to four months imprisonment for a single charge of contempt to be served on the expiry of the earlier sentence.  There was then a significant gap in your offending. 

71The next in time was on 1 August 2014 when you were dealt with at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court for contravening a family violence intervention order and failing to answer bail.  As I have already referred, at this time you received an adjourned undertaking without conviction. 

72On 23 October 2015 at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court, for multiple charges of dishonesty, you were convicted and placed on a community corrections order to which I have already referred, for a period of two years.  There were no treatment based conditions to that order. As I have already referred, much of your offending before this court occurred whilst that order was in place. 

73You are not to be punished for this criminal history again, but it is of assistance to me in the Sentencing progress in order to determine what weight to give to specific deterrence, that is, putting you off further offending; general deterrence sending a message to the community, punishment, denunciation and the need to protect the community from you. 

74Overall, recent history would indicate that both specific deterrence and the need to protect the community from you weigh heavily in the sentencing mix. 

Personal history

75I do take into account matters personal to you, as I am obliged to do.  You are presently aged 40 years and are the youngest of three siblings.   Your father, Ron, was proud of his aboriginal heritage.  He unfortunately died in 2018.  Your parents separated when you were 18 years of age. 

76Your mother, Julie, resides in Queanbeyan, New South Wales, and remains supportive of you, as do your two sisters, Laura and Rachel, whom also reside interstate.

77You describe a normal childhood and relatively good upbringing, albeit you also describe your father as hostile and a heavy drinker, who was verbally abusive when intoxicated.  You describe a positive relationship with your mother, in both your upbringing and presently. 

78You completed a Year 11 education leaving school to pursue a relationship.  Well prior to that date, your drug use had commenced at the age of 13 years and you moved out of home at the age of 17 years, shortly thereafter commencing the use of heroin in the context of that romantic relationship.

79Also in the context of that relationship, you received your first term of imprisonment at the age of 21 for the offence or armed robbery, as already outlined.  Your first child, Joseph, was born in custody.  You moved to Victoria shortly after your release from that sentence. 

80In 2004 you commenced a relationship with your ex-partner, Tom.  A second child, your daughter, Leila, was born in 2007.  Your relationship with Tom finished around 2011 and was a relationship you described as both violent and controlling.  Tom currently has the full time care of your daughter Leila.

81I understand that you commenced your relationship with your current partner, George, around 2012 and this has always been and remains a supportive relationship.  You have hid your drug-use from him until these proceedings have made it clear.  I am told that you were using both cannabis and ice around the time of your offending. 

82Your son Joseph has been residing with your mother and your partner George.  It would appear that Joseph has been greatly affected by your incarceration and is currently suffering from depression and anxiety and is also using drugs.

83A letter authored by Dr Andrew Donald, dated 18 September 2018, confirms that Joseph has been attending upon him since May of that year, with severe anxiety, depression and insomnia, and that medications and counselling had not been successful at improving his mental state.

84A further letter dated 4 March 2019 repeats those observations and refers to his dependence on you for emotional support.  You see him as a motivator for your rehabilitation upon your release in terms of trying to support his recovery.  It is a great shame you did not have that insight any earlier.

85You have also authored your own letter to this court setting out the factors that you believe have contributed to your offending and your current insights, whilst I appreciate the efforts made in compiling this document, it is relatively self-serving and will be of limited weight in the sentencing mix.  It does express a desire to change and I can only hope that you maintain this desire and the insights otherwise expressed in that correspondence. 

86Tendered on your behalf were two psychological reports authored by Ms Carla Ferrari, consultant psychologist.  In her first report, dated 29 March 2019, Ms Ferrari indicated that your current offending was highly influenced by your meth-amphetamine use and a desire to support yourself and your children.  She considered that you presented with a low-risk of reoffending if able to maintain your current mental status, absence from substances once released, and consistently engage in psychological treatment to address and resolve trauma and grief issues, as well as underlying factors which contributed to your substance abuse.  You were diagnosed by her with major depression disorder, mild amphetamine use disorder in early remission, and cannabis use disorder. 

87It was the provision of this report and its assessment that led to a request by the Crown that Ms Ferrari be made available for cross-examination and your plea which had commenced on 1 April 2019 was adjourned to 5 August 2019. 

88Prior to that date, a supplementary report was provided by Ms Ferrari.  She amended some factual details and also assessed an alleged gambling problem that had not been brought to her attention at the time of her earlier assessment. 

89Whilst opining that you fell within a high risk range of problem gambling during the period of your offending, it was unclear to me from Ms Ferrari's report, how she formed this view and whether this was, or was not a problem for you and whether it did or did not contribute to your resort to offending. 

90On balance, I am not satisfied that you had a gambling problem, nor that it contributed to your offending.  In any event, it would not excuse it if this was the case. 

91Ms Ferrari's diagnosis from an earlier report remained unchanged, but she was of the opinion there had been a decline in your mood and functioning since the original assessment in terms of your depression.  She was of the view this required immediate intervention to prevent further deterioration.

92She did describe as you as having above-average intelligence.  This is apparent from your offending itself.  Ms Ferrari's evidence in court provided little additional assistance to the psychological reports tendered, which in themselves, provided limited assistance. 

93I did accept her clarification as to your risk of reoffending.  Her earlier description of you as presenting as a low-risk of reoffending was conditional.  It was conditional on you maintaining mental stability, maintaining abstinence from drug use once released, and engaging in psychological treatment to address unresolved trauma and the other factors which contributed to your substance use.  Otherwise, she assessed you as presenting with a moderate to high risk of reoffending.  

94The recent decline in your mental health largely associated with your concern about your son Joseph, is a factor that I will reflect in sentence, in that I accept that this presently makes your time in custody more burdensome than someone without this presentation and personal difficulty.

Koori Court

95The most important aspect of matters that I am considering is the fact that your plea took place in the Koori Court.  The Koori Court can only hear a proceeding involving an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander offender who pleads guilty and consents to the matter being dealt with by the Koori Court and where a judge considers the matter is appropriate to come before the Koori Court.

96The clear objective of the Koori Court is to ensure greater participation of the Aboriginal community in the sentencing process of the County Court, through the role played in that process by Aboriginal elders and respected persons.  Others such as family members and supports are also able to contribute in what is referred to as the sentencing conversation.  The sentencing conversation is designed to assist the reform of an aboriginal offender through a blend of customary law and the English common law.  Participation in the process can be more burdensome than appearing in a traditional plea hearing, because of its confronting nature and the inability of an offender to hide behind their counsel.

97In Honeysett v The Queen 2018 VSCA 214, the Court of Appeal looked at the Koori Court plea process and determined:

'In our view in determining the weight to be attached to an offender's participation in a Koori Court sentencing conversation is a mitigating factor, a sentencing court should consider a range of factors including,

(1) The fact that participation in the process is a voluntary one, maybe confronting to the offender and will likely involve him or her being shamed.  As noted in Morgan, participation in the process may, of itself, be rehabilitative.

(2) The fact that an offender is rather than hiding behind counsel, taking the opportunity to personally

(a) demonstrate his or her remorse for the offending,

(b) demonstrate insight into the reasons for and the seriousness and effect of the offending and,

(c) express any intention to reform and how that will be done, including participating in available rehabilitation programs;

(3) The court's assessment of the genuineness of the offender's statements during the sentencing conversation. That assessment should take account of all of the information before the court.

Based on the sentencing court's assessment of the quality and genuineness of the statements made by the offender, it is a matter for the individual judge to assess the weight and circumstances of a particular case. 

In fixing a sentence, it is the duty of the court to impose just punishment adapted to all the circumstances of the case, by reference to the permissible sentencing purposes of general and specific deterrence, any means which rehabilitation of the offender be facilitated, denunciation of the offending and the need to protect the community.'

98Auntie Jackie Stewart and Auntie Lynette McInnes were respected elders who took place in the sentencing conversation that included you and your sisters.  Your mother was present in the body of the court as was your partner.  Each of the elders challenged you, and you were respectful towards them. 

99They reminded you of the importance of your community and what it offers you by way of assistance and connection.  Each of them emphasised that you need to have a plan for a positive future and to stop using drugs.  All of this was reinforced by your two sisters who have long embraced their heritage. 

100I was cynical at the commencement of this process, in your particular instance, given your well-established and calculated ability to deceive.  Up until your participation in the Koori Court sentencing process you had all but denied your Aboriginal heritage, which is in stark contrast with your two sisters who would appear to genuinely want to help you to fully understand what your community can offer.  I did find your participation in the sentencing conversation to be a genuine one.

101Whilst you are only beginning to fully understand the impact of your offending on others besides yourself, you spoke of taking the time to learn about your culture since going to gaol. 

102You have actively involved yourself in culture-related training and courses on remand including the Dilly-bag program, Sisters Day In and NAIDOC Week.  You are now utilising in that context, the support of both your sisters and mother and what they can offer. 

103It is important in an overall perspective, which includes your rehabilitation and therefore protection of the community that you seize upon your current stated intention, efforts and reconnection with community. 

104These considerations must be balanced with the fact that your efforts at rehabilitation are relatively new, and are so contingent on maintaining abstinence from drugs and using supports to help you. 

105It also remains necessary to reflect other relevant sentencing considerations to which I have already referred, and include deterrence, denunciation and punishment. 

106Character references were also tendered on your behalf, and I take the contents of those documents into account.  This includes a reference from George Orfanos, your local pharmacist, your partner, George Papadopoulos, your brother's-in-law John Muehlke and Michael Cima, your mother, Julie Carpenter, and your sisters Laura Berry and Rachel Carpenter. 

107Whilst each of these persons have known you in a different capacity and over different time spans, they do offer some insight as to your background, how they know you, the supports they offer you and a more positive side of your character than that which is reflected in the charges before me and your criminal history.

108I accept you have a number of important and available supports, particularly through your relationship with your mother, sisters and your partner.  You are motivated to be available for your son Joseph and to reconnect with your daughter, Leila, who you have not seen for 12 months.  These motivations are daunting aims and you will need to maintain your resolve. 

109You have completed programs on remand and I tendered on your behalf the six clean urine screens, you have maintained employment within the custodial setting and regularly maintain a physical exercise regime.  Your employment supervisor describes you as an exceptional worker and that you are undertaking a Certificate II in Horticulture. 

110You have commenced work also with West CASA, a letter authored by Julie Kruss, dated 7 January 2019 indicates that you added yourself to their waiting list at that time for ongoing counselling. 

111A letter from the Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Service dated 26 July 2019 confirms that they have provided you with family violence support.  This apparently commenced in October 2017 and you have re-engaged with that service whilst on remand. 

112Your partner has managed to locate employment for you as a stop-go person in traffic management.  I understand these positions are quite lucrative.  The potential significant difference to you on this release, which will ultimately occur at some point, is your now genuine interest in being part of your community and Aboriginal heritage. 

113You should seek to seize the day in the true value of this resource, made all the more alive to you through the programs on remand, your participation in Koori Court and the very special way your sisters have offered to help. 

114I accept that you have used your time wisely and effectively whilst in custody and that this, in combination with the relationship you have now commenced with your Aboriginal heritage, the supports available to you, should you choose to avail yourself of them, offer you a greater prospect for rehabilitation than I would have otherwise assessed.  Overall, some caution must be expressed as to those prospects which still remain guarded. 

115I accept that you pleaded guilty at an early opportunity.  I accept your plea has utilitarian value and have saved the court the time and expense of what would have been a lengthy and protracted trial proceeding.  In recent times, there have been expressions of remorse by you.  These are all factors which I take into account in favour. 

116The basic purposes for which a court may impose sentence are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. 

117In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of matters such as the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and those of your victims. 

118I am also required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure, as far as possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and are reintegrated into society. 

119I have taken into account the relevant sentencing guidelines referred to in s.5 of the Sentencing Act where relevant to your case.  I have taken into account current sentencing practices for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. 

120I also make the ancillary orders as sought for compensation to Amex, the Estate of Conchita Jowett, who has now died, ME Bank and PayPal.  These orders total approximately $90,000.  I also grant the applications for forfeiture of the car you purchased and disposal of items located by police during the various searches of your premises. 

121In terms of sentence, I propose to impose a series of aggregate sentences as I am satisfied that the offences, the subject of those aggregates are founded on the same facts or form or a part of a series of offences of same or similar character.  In so doing, I bear in mind at all times the principles of both totality and proportionality. 

122In relation to Charges 19 to 21, referred to as the Jowett shares, you are convicted and sentenced to 24 months imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness and sophistication of that offending itself, together with the fact that is has occurred once your earlier offending in time had been identified, yet you returned to and persisted.  This is the base sentence. 

123In relation to Charges 15 and 16, the Jowett withdrawals, also extremely serious offending, you are convicted and sentenced to 22 months imprisonment, five months of this sentence is cumulative on the base sentence. 

124In relation to Charges 1 through to 11, referred to as the Amex offending, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, two months of this sentence will be cumulative on the base sentence and the other sentences imposed. 

125In relation to the Corrections offences, Charges 12, 13, 14 and 17, you are convicted and sentenced to two months imprisonment, of which one month is cumulative on the base sentence and other sentences imposed.

126In relation to Charge 18, the identification information offence you are convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment to which one month is cumulative on the base sentence and the other sentences already imposed.

127In relation to summary Charge 7, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. 

128In relation to summary offence 8, you are convicted and sentenced to two months imprisonment.  This offence was committed post your first arrest, one month of the sentence on Charge 8 is cumulative on the other sentences imposed.  This forms a total effective sentence of 34 months imprisonment. 

129Reflective of your efforts to reform whilst in custody, and your participation and response to the Koori Court plea system, I am satisfied that this is a case where a lengthy period on parole would be more effectively assist your transition and support into the community, and thereby offer greater community protection.  Accordingly, I fix a period of 20 months before you are eligible for parole, 540 days hopefully that maths is correct, is reckoned as having already been served. 

130Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentence I would have imposed if you had not pleaded guilty to the charges. 

131If not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of four years and four months imprisonment with a minimum of two years and nine months, before being eligible for parole.  In theory, you should be eligible for parole in about three months. 

132All right, any matters arising?  All right, thank you, I will close the court till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

- - -