Director of Public Prosecutions v Dimitrievski
[2016] VCC 1314
•6 September 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-16-00075
Indictment No. F13016708
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DIANNA DIMITRIEVSKI |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARRISH | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 27 April 2016, 16 June 2016 and 23 August 2016 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 6 September 2016 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Dimitrievski | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 1314 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – theft – five “rolled-up” charges – position of trust – sum of money stolen $330,681.24
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958, Section 74; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:R v Ralphs [2004] VSCA 33; R v Grossi [2008] VSCA 51; R v Galletta [2007] VSCA 177; Department of Prosecutions v Najjar [2009] VSCA 246; Director of Prosecutions v Felton (2007) 16 VR 214; R v Elias [2007] VSCA 125 and Keane v R [2011] VSCA 156; Boulton & Ors v R [2014] VSCA 342
Sentence: Sentenced to 21 months imprisonment with 2 years CCO to follow with
community work hours and various conditions.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr J Shaw | Solicitor for Office Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms D Lamovie | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Dianna Dimitrievski, on 27 April 2016, you pleaded guilty to the following offences:
Charge 1 – that you, at Airport West in Victoria between 2 August 2011 and 30 November 2011, stole $1,149.20 belonging to Bora Engineering Pty Ltd, who I shall refer to as Bora, as detailed in the attached Schedule A.
Charge 2 – that you, at Airport West in Victoria between 26 April 2012 and 31 December 2012, stole $47,279.82 belonging to Bora Engineering Pty Ltd as detailed in the attached Schedule B.
Charge 3 – that you, at Airport West in Victoria between 23 January 2013 and 18 December 2013, stole $122,593.34 belonging to Bora Engineering Pty Ltd as detailed in the attached Schedule C.
Charge 4 – that you, at Airport West in Victoria between 22 January 2014 and 22 December 2014, stole $102,328.91 belonging to Bora Engineering Pty Ltd as detailed in the attached Schedule D.
Charge 5 – that you, at Airport West in Victoria between 7 January 2015 and 18 March 2015, stole $57,329.97 belonging to Bora Engineering Pty Ltd as detailed in the attached Schedule E.
Each of the charges involves theft, which is contrary to s.74 of the Crimes Act 1958 and each charge carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.
2 The plea was then adjourned to 16 June 2016 in order for your treating psychologist, Ms Kim Carli, to be available for cross-examination by counsel for the prosecution in relation to her report dated 21 April 2016.
3 On 16 June 2006, counsel for the prosecution made reference to a written summary of the circumstances surrounding your offending. Such summary has been marked as an exhibit (Exhibit 1) and has been accepted by you and your counsel as an appropriate representation of the offending. The important matters of such summary are:
(a)Each of the five charges to which you pleaded guilty is a “rolled-up charge” which covers all thefts committed by you in a particular calendar year as set out in the accompanying schedule to each charge. For example, Charge 1, involving Schedule A, covers all thefts committed in 2011. Between August 2011 and March 2015, you committed 178 thefts from your then employer, Bora, with the total amount stolen being $330,681.24.
(b)You are presently forty-two years old and was aged thirty-seven to forty during the period of the offending. Bora is a small engineering business operating in Airport West and is owned and operated by the Di Cicco and Pandel families.
(c)You commenced working there as a part-time bookkeeper on 1 March 2010 and worked twenty-five hours a week at a rate of $25 per hour. Your duties included accounts payable and receivable, weekly payroll to staff, preparation and issuing of cheques, depositing cheques and cashing payroll cheques, bank reconciliations, BAS reconciliations, superannuation fund returns, PAYG tax returns, data entry, invoice generation, typing quotations and general office duties.
(d)Staff wages were paid in cash, and casual labour hire employees were paid by cheques mailed to their home addresses. The process for paying staff wages was as follows:
·You would calculate hours worked from employees’ time sheets and log the hours onto a spreadsheet.
·You would then write a cash cheque for the total amount of wages and have it signed by Steve Di Cicco and Peter Pandel, directors of Bora.
·You would calculate the cash amounts needed to make up the individual pay packets then fax this information to the ANZ Bank branch at Westfield Shopping Centre.
·You would then go to the bank branch, present the cash cheque and be given the cash.
·You would then return to Bora with the cash and make up the respective pay packets.
(e) The process of paying suppliers of Bora was as follows:
·You would match suppliers’ invoices with corresponding purchase orders and delivery dockets, record the totals and create an accounts payable summary.
·Each month you would present the summary to Steve Di Cicco and Peter Pandel, who would authorise and sign cheques to pay the suppliers.
(f)On Thursday 19 March 2015, Jamie Di Cicco, an employee of Bora, noticed that certain icons were missing from your computer screen which involved Bora’s Quickbooks accounting program and the computer system’s security software. Jamie Di Cicco enquired of you about this and initially you claimed that the computer had a virus and a few minutes later stated you could not remember what keys you had pressed.
Jamie Di Cicco was able to restore Quickbooks onto the computer from a USB. Later that day, after you had left, he again checked the computer to find that the items he had restored had again been removed and the data on the USB had been deleted. Subsequent investigations found that 1,500 items had been deleted from the computer.
(g)On the following day, Friday 20 March 2015, you came to work and were sent home because the computer was still not working properly and there was, therefore, no work you could do. On Monday 23 March 2015, you did not come to work and attempts to contact you failed, as your mobile phone number had been disconnected, and you were not heard from again.
(h)Upon a review of Bora’s financial records from 2 August 2012 to 18 March 2015, you had presented 130 cheques totalling $308,025.83 on which you had forged the signatures of Steve Di Cicco and Peter Pandel. You recorded these cheques in Bora’s accounting records as having been paid to suppliers or as sundry payments to you.
(i)In relation to the 130 cheques presented:
(i)124 cheques, with a total value of $292,092.93, were made payable to you and deposited into your personal bank account;
(ii)5 cheques with a total amount of $13,776.40 were made payable to your friend, Mary Talevski, and deposited into Mary Talevski’s bank account;
(iii)1 cheque for the sum of $2,156.50 was made payable to your mother Dosta Dimitrievski, and deposited into your mother’s bank account.
(j)It was also found that between 2 August 2012 and 18 March 2015, you had presented 48 cheques totalling $343,298.13 for the payment of wages. Bora’s wage records show that only $320,642.72 was paid in wages during that period. You deliberately inflated the amount of the cheques so as to steal the surplus cash amounting to $22,655.4.
(k)You deleted the items and data from the computer, and USB referred to above, in order to conceal your offending.
(l)Your total net salary for the financial years 30 June 2010 to the year ending 30 June 2014 was $108,472. In the period from 1 March 2010 to 20 March 2015, you deposited $363,255.96 into your bank account and made withdrawals of $347,413.46. Of this amount:
(i)$125,404.94 was withdrawn to pay living expenses;
(ii)$222,008.52 was withdrawn for other purposes;
(iii)AUSTRACK records show that between 8 January 2013 and 21 November 2014, you transferred a total of $16,740 to various people in Macedonia.
4 You were arrested on 25 August 2015 at home and taken to the Flemington Police Station, where you were examined by a forensic medical officer, who formed the view that you were unfit to be interviewed.
5 On 11 September 2015, you voluntarily attended Flemington Police Station and made a “no comment” Record of Interview.
6 Counsel for the prosecution accepted that you expressed your intention to plead guilty at the committal mention on 27 January 2016 and he characterised such action as an early plea. Furthermore, counsel for the prosecution accepted that such early plea did have “some utilitarian value”, given the complexity of the facts that would have to have been proved if a full trial had been run. Counsel for the prosecution also confirmed that you have no prior criminal record.
Victim Impact Statement
7 The prosecution rely on a Victim Impact Statement made by Joanne Mary Pandel, one of the directors of Bora (Exhibit 2). Such statement was declared on 8 April 2016 and, at her request, was read by the prosecutor in Court save for the last four sentences in the second-last paragraph of the second page of the statement which were deleted by agreement of the parties.
8 In such statement, Mrs Pandel describes herself as one of the directors of Bora, together with her husband, Peter Pandel, Steve Di Cicco and Jane Di Cicco, the wife of Steve Di Cicco. She described Bora as a small engineering business which has existed with its current ownership structure for approximately the last nine years, although she and her husband, Peter, had owned the business in partnership with another couple for approximately 30 years. Bora employs six individuals on an ongoing fulltime basis and largely operates as a small family business. Mrs Pandel describes how you were employed as the bookkeeper for the business, on a recommendation from the previous bookkeeper, who was your cousin. She notes that after you had been employed for about five years with the company, it was found that you had defrauded the business of vast sums of money.
9 Mrs Pandel remembers, when being rung on 23 March 2015 by her husband, telling her that they had discovered your theft. She describes her husband as being in “disbelief” because it was more than the theft of the money, but was “a betrayal by a person who had our absolute confidence”.
10 Mrs Pandel notes that her husband began the business when he was 22 (approximately 40 years ago), worked tirelessly, often seven days a week since then, not only to provide for his own family but, also, to provide for his staff and, by extension, their families as well, with her husband taking the responsibility of employing his workers incredibly seriously, and every business decision taken had the staff’s well-being and clients’ happiness as the primary considerations.
11 In leading up to the uncovering of the theft, she describes her husband as being outwardly dissatisfied with the output of the business in the context that he believed he was working increasingly harder – more and more hours and more and more jobs - but no matter how hard he worked, the business was never as profitable as it should have been.
12 On the discovery of the theft, Mr Pandel became withdrawn and had no idea where or how to begin dealing with the theft. At that time, Mrs Pandel determined to investigate the extent, duration and value of the theft, in an attempt to minimise the effect on the business and prevent the flow-on effects of the theft to further affect the business and, most importantly, she wished to reduce the effect the theft was having on her husband.
13 Mrs Pandel described, over the last year, she has “lived and breathed” the theft, which permeated every aspect of the business, but, also, every aspect of their home lives as well. In particular, she describes the theft and resulting strain on the business, which in turn, placed undue and foreign strain on their relationship and family life. She described the role of bookkeeper in an organisation such as Bora, as involving “total trust and confidence” of all the partners. As Mrs Pandel stated:
“To say it’s hard to understand the theft is an understatement, but what’s been equally hard to come to terms with is the ongoing and prolonged nature of the deception for two-and-a-half years. Dianna had attended work each day engaging with both Peter, Steve, participating at work functions such as the Christmas celebrations, allowing partners to drive her home when they were concerned about her well-being and even sharing an office space with Steve. This was all done while maintaining the deception and nothing was out of the ordinary but, in fact, stealing from us. It is this factor that has been so hard to come to terms with, the betrayal and the ongoing nature of the deception. To be stolen from is one thing, to be stolen from every day while someone that you trust robs you to your face, is significantly worse to recover from.”
14 Mrs Pandel also describes how the business of Bora has suffered on several additional fronts beyond the immediate theft. She describes how you deliberately crashed the business computer system and deleted a necessary program, which had the effect of limiting the output of the business, requiring both time and additional money to be spent fixing these issues. Furthermore, there was the additional human cost of fixing these issues and the necessity of re-collating all the accounting records, which was an onerous task, and took time and help from an accountant, all of which came at an additional cost, as well as the time and energy.
15 In describing the flow-on effect into her home life, Mrs Pandel noted that her children have witnessed their father and mother under enormous stress, “resulting in us struggling to make simple decisions that ordinarily would not have been a problem”. Furthermore, in their parents’ anxiety about the ongoing viability of the business, that aspect of their lives has become pre-occupied with things relating to the theft and the business. In particular, she states:
“Every aspect of our lives have become pre-occupied with things relating to the theft and the business. Conversations within the home were dominated by the issue for months on end. We were unable to provide any certainty relating to the business or our future plans and we were unsure on the future of the business or the extent and subsequent consequences of the theft. This has not only affected relationships within our family, it has also significantly harmed the relationships between partners in the business, which have been undermined and strained. These relationships are still beginning to heal.”
Aggravating features and sentencing purposes
16 In particular, counsel for the prosecution also submitted that there were “aggravating” features of your offending and they included:
(a) A gross breach of trust on your part in relation to your employer.
(b) Your offending was carefully planned and executed.
(c)Your offending was sustained, frequent and ongoing over three-and-a-half years.
(d)That you put most of the stolen money to your own use, spending it on consumer goods and living expenses; and
(e) The offending was motivated by greed.
Counsel for the prosecution further submitted that the Court should have regard to the sentencing purposes of just punishment, denunciation, general deterrence and specific deterrence. It was further submitted that general deterrence is a significant sentencing consideration in cases of this kind (reference was made to R v Ralphs [2004] VSCA 33 at [14]).
Current sentencing practices
17 Counsel for the prosecution tendered the following documents:
(a)A bundle of documents situated at 32.14.11 of the Victorian Sentencing Manual, which is described as an overview of theft offences sentenced as the principal offence from 2006 to the present, that is, March 2016.
(b)Page 32.14.13, a two-page theft case summary; and
(c)Page 32.14.14 of the Victorian Sentencing Manual, being theft case summaries over the period from 2006 to 2012 (see generally Exhibit 3).
18 In particular, reference was made to the cases of De Sieno v R [2011] VSCA 353; R v Grossi [2008] VSCA 51; R v Galletta [2007] VSCA 177; Department of Prosecutions v Najjar [2009] VSCA 246; Director of Prosecutions v Felton (2007) 16 VR 214; R v Elias [2007] VSCA 125 and Keane v R [2011] VSCA 156
19 Counsel for the prosecution submitted that, bearing in mind the amount of money stolen and the presence of the aggravating features, to which he referred, a term of imprisonment be imposed. When queried as to his attitude to one of the submissions made by your counsel in her written submissions, that there be a period of imprisonment followed by a community correction order (and thus limiting the period of imprisonment to no more than two years), it was submitted that this would be “within range”. The prosecution accepted that some of the cases to which he referred predated the advent of community correction orders and, more particularly, the Court of Appeal decision of Boulton & Ors v R [2014] VSCA 342.
Your personal, education and vocational background
20 You will recall that your counsel tendered a document, “Plea submissions on behalf of the accused” (Exhibit A) and the report of your treating psychologist, Ms Kim Carli, dated 31 April 2016 (Exhibit B).
21 You may recall that on the morning of 6 June 2016, Ms Carli was in Court, and rather than make her wait, it was decided that her evidence would be taken straight away. I will return to that evidence shortly.
22 Based on the contents of the plea submissions and other information supplied by your counsel, I note the following in relation to your general background:
(a)You are the second child of Dosta. your mother who has been in Court with you, and George Dimitrievski, both of whom were of Macedonian nationality. You had a brother, Slate, who was approximately three years older than you.
(b)Your parents migrated to Australia in 1974 and settled in Williamstown, where they both found work in local factories. When growing up, you found your father very strict, and he was often violent towards your mother, and both you and your brother.
(c)You attended the Ardeer South Primary School, where you were considered “a good student”, after which you completed secondary school at Sunshine West High School, where you completed Year 11 and left halfway through Year 12, in 1992.
(d)During high school, your counsel described that you started to “hang out with a less diligent crowd” and that you would tend to wag school. During these years your older brother, Slate, began mixing with a rough crowd and using drugs, and after a series of petty offences, he was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment in 1993.
(e)On leaving school, your first employment was as a shop assistant in a bakery, commencing in 1994. Such job had been arranged by your father with a family friend, and you remained there for twelve months, after which you were unemployed for a few years.
(f)In 1995, your father died suddenly from a stroke, causing great devastation to your mother and an inability to cope. When Slate was released from prison, he was very unwell and continued to use drugs, and in 1996 died from pneumonia and chickenpox at the age of 24. At that stage you had been nursing him at your family home and went through a very difficult period coping with a coronial inquest.
(g)You had spent a year in Macedonia with your extended family, coming home a few days before your older brother died. In Macedonia you met Goren Nedlkovski, who you married and brought back to Australia. Unfortunately, in the year following, you found out that he was not sincere about that relationship, causing you to separate, and over the period you started using marijuana intermittently.
(h)In or about 1998, you completed a receptionist course at Victoria University in St Albans and later found work at Crown Casino in 2000 as a food and beverage attendant. You described this period as a relatively stable period in your life as you were earning good money and socialising.
(i)In or about 2001, you commenced a relationship with Bob Todorovic, a labourer, and you described it was during this relationship that your use of marijuana increased, and friends started to drop off because of that increased use.
(j)In 2002, you worked for Telstra in an administrative capacity, and in 2004 your relationship with Todorovic ends.
(k)You then commenced work with Bora and also commenced a relationship with Dean Fraser, a forklift driver, and ultimately moved out of your mother’s house in Spotswood and rented a house with Dean Fraser in Kingsville, and was living there at the time of some of the offending.
Circumstances surrounding her offending and post-offence conduct
23 You commenced employment with Bora in March 2010 and was employed part-time, that is, 25 hours per week, earning $25 an hour or $625 gross per week. In 2012, your relationship with Dean Fraser ended following his refusal to get married or have children. You asserted that it was in in this context that you began smoking methamphetamine, that is ice, and taking amounts of money from your employer. In particular, when Dean Fraser vacated the premises, you could not afford the rent on the house, but continued to pay the rent using money you had commenced taking from Bora.
24 In 2015, Mary Talevski, an old school friend, moved in and did not pay rent. At this stage, you assert that you had no other friends and was using ice in larger and larger quantities.
25 At the time that your offending was detected, you had become increasingly paranoid and delusional, and when arrested on 25 August 2015, was assessed as unfit to be interviewed. On 11 September 2015, as I have already recorded, you voluntarily attended Flemington Police Station and made a “no comment” Record of Interview.
26 After being charged, you moved back to Moe to live with your mother, where you have tried to make new friends and spend some time helping your mother with shopping and gardening. Your mother is aged seventy-one, and remains supportive, and accommodation will remain open to you. There is also a maternal uncle, aged 55, who also lives in Moe.
27 Your counsel advised me that your interests at the moment involved cooking, and you particularly like cooking Italian food, and for the future, you would like to pursue another or a further course of study. On a day-to-day basis, you presently take your mother to medical appointments and translate for her, as and when required. You are presently receiving a Centrelink payment for unemployment.
Evidence of the psychologist, Ms Kim Carli
28 As I have already recorded, your counsel tendered the report of Ms Carli, dated 21 April 2016. That report can be summarised as follows:
·You stated that you had had a history of depression prior to the offending behaviour, and that when using ice, you had developed comorbid symptoms of depression and psychosis.
·Your symptoms of depression are entrenched, but with consistent and long-term psychological therapy, are likely to show considerable improvement. Any symptoms of psychosis were resolved as at the last appointment on 14 April 2016.
·It was only when" ice" commenced that you developed symptoms of psychosis, including paranoid thoughts.
·In particular, the following questions and answers were recorded:
“The extent to which the condition and the symptoms affect my client’s mental capacity or functioning including:
— Making her disinhibited or less able to control her emotions or faculties, to which Ms Carli answered:
‘It is my view that, throughout the time that Dianna was using ice, that her ability to reason and make positive decisions was significantly impaired. Her symptoms led to the breakdown of her ten year romantic relationship and she became disinhibited and her ability to regulate her emotions was significantly impaired.’
— She was then asked affecting her ability to understand the wrongfulness of her actions to which Ms Carli replied or responded:
‘Given the history of Dianna’s substance abuse it is my view that at the time she was unlikely to have understood that her actions were wrong and she did identify that it was wrongful behaviour that the substance disinhibited her feelings thus she continued the offending behaviour.’
— Finally when queried, or when asked, affecting her ability to think clearly, make calm, reasoned decisions and appropriate judgements Ms Carli responded:
‘From Dianna’s self-report her ability to think clearly, to make good and reasonable decisions and make appropriate judgements were significantly impaired while using ice.’”
·You have engaged well in psychological therapy and undertaken exercises in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Mindfulness Therapy and Dialectical Behavioural Therapy. At the time of the report you had seen Ms Carli seven times.
·At the commencement of treatment you had ceased using ice and this was based on your own decision. You were still experiencing symptoms of psychosis after the cessation of ice, but it was believed that such symptoms could be attributed to the substance abuse.
·In particular, in response to the question of whether imprisonment would be more difficult for you, or have a greater adverse effect on your mental health because of your condition as compared to a person without the condition, Ms Carli stated:
“People suffering from depression often become more depressed in prison than non-depressed people; hence it will likely be a difficult experience for Dianna.”
·Ms Carli considered you capable of complying with a community correction order; that you would require significant report.
·When queried whether you responded to the offences and what remorse you had shown, Ms Carli stated:
“Dianna shows significant remorse and shame for her past behaviours. To this day she states she does not understand how she could do such a thing.”
·Ms Carli considered that your prospects for rehabilitation are “extremely positive” and there is evidence that you have shown significant change in your thought form and personal care. Furthermore, Ms Carli was of the opinion at the time of the making of her report that you were not “at risk of re-offending”.
29 At the commencement of her viva voce evidence, Ms Carli said she had qualifications of a Bachelor of Science (Psychology), a Graduate Diploma in Psychology and a Master of Professional Psychology Practice. She confirmed that the Master’s was completed at the end of 2012 and that she had been practising as a psychologist, both as fully registered and provisional, for nine years, and as fully registered since 2012.
30 Ms Carli confirmed that you were referred to her by Dr Michelle McCarthy on a Mental Health Plan for symptoms of psychosis and depression. You were initially seen on 30 July 2015 and, thereafter, on 3 September 2015, 1 October 2015, 5 November 2015, 18 November 2015, 9 December 2015, 14 April 2015, 4 May 2015 and 31 May 2015.
31 The Court was informed by Ms Carli that she had only found out on that day that you had had prior contact with two of her colleagues at the clinic, that being with the psychologist, Ms Lisa Costire, on 1 July 2012 and prior to that, with Dr Michael King, on 1 March 2012, 22 February 2012, and also 21 October 2011. Curiously, Ms Carli had no knowledge of these attendances, or the reason for such attendances.
32 Although you did not disclose anything about the subject offending on the first consultation, Ms Carli obtained a history that on 3 September 2015, you had been arrested and that you had taken money over a three-year period of time and was frightened about going to court.
33 In particular, the following evidence was given.
Q: “In terms of her being frightened, did she tell you what her expectation was in terms of an outcome?- - -
A: We talked about a few, we actually, on that particular day, talked about the offence and how it had come about and why she had done what she had done.
Q: What did she tell you about it?- - -
A: She was telling me at the time that when she was taking the money she was using ice and that her use of ice increased. Again, that she was depressed. She felt a lot of guilt for what she was doing, she said, because she liked the employers very much.
At that stage the court interposed and queried Ms Carli with this question:
Q: She felt a lot of guilt when, at the time she saw you or when she was performing the acts?- - -
A: Both Your Honour.
Q: Just on that, then I don’t quite understand when you say at point 2 of your report, ‘given the history of Dianna’s substance abuse, it is my view at the time she was unlikely to have understood that her actions were wrong’?- - -
And the answer to that from Ms Carli:
A: Yes, I read that this morning again myself.
Q: How can that fit in with she was guilty about doing it?- - -
A: The reason I wrote it in that way, and I probably should’ve worded that better, was that she had some grandiose ideas, she knew it was wrong, it made her feel important so it implies a knowledge of knowing but not really knowledge. I guess it is a difficult one to explain sometimes.”
34 Ms Carli gave evidence that you took money to pay for your ice addiction, as such addiction gets “very costly”. Ms Carli also offered the opinion that because you were addicted to ice during the period of the offending does not mean that you could not function or do your job.
35 Ms Carli confirmed her statements and report that you were over any psychotic condition, and that your depressive condition had actually improved, and that her treatment was about stabilising your mood. When queried by your counsel as to how you dealt with the various psychological techniques used, Ms Carli stated:
A: "Dianna had a lot of difficulty accepting responsibility for what she had done, in terms of we had to work through the guilt and shame associated with it, and she was very remorseful and would often say ‘I still can’t believe I actually did that’. So we had to go through the whole responsibility and take ownership, consequences; those sorts of things and she did struggle.
Q: When she did struggle, what did she say about it?- - -
A: She was tearful. She tried to be defensive. We broke down those barriers for her when she accepted what she had done and I believe that’s actually, she started accepting her behaviour and what might come from it.
Q: When you say accept it, what do you mean by that?- - -
A: Well she owned it.
Q; You mean took responsibility?- - -
A: Correct. Yes.
Q: Was she able to articulate anything to you about the impact on the victims in relation to her conduct?- - -
A: She felt really bad for them. She said they were caring people and it was a good place to work so she couldn’t believe, she still couldn’t believe that she had actually done what she had done.”
36 Ultimately, Ms Carli said that you have got a low-level depression and, if imprisoned, she thought it likely you would become depressed again, but the antidepressants that you are on also help. Ms Carli was of the view that you have formed the attitude not to resume ice, although you do occasionally use marijuana.
37 Under cross-examination, Ms Carli accepted that she is not a forensic psychologist, although in her Master’s degree that was touched on “a little bit”, as was “recidivism”. Other than the Master’s program, which was a long time ago, she has had no particular training in assessing the risk of recidivism.
38 Significantly, the following evidence occurred in relation to the history of commencing ice:
Q: "And she told you when she started using ice didn’t she?- - -
A: Yes.
Q: That was mid-2014 is that right?- - -
A: I believe that’s right.
Q: Obviously we can’t put exact dates on that that she reported to you that she started using ice in about the middle of 2014?- - -
A: Yes.”
39 In that context, Ms Carli accepted, bearing in mind that when she first consulted with you, you had ceased using ice and she thought that the period of use of ice would be no more than about a year. When queried by the prosecution about your offending in 2011, 2012, 2013 and into 2014, Ms Carli accepted that ice could not be relevant to any offending during those periods.
40 When queried as to why you commenced your series of thefts in 2011, Ms Carli stated that you only reported symptoms of depression at that time and that a friend coaxed you into such act. Ms Carli noted “That’s the only knowledge about why it started”. In particular, Ms Carli obtained a history that your friend, Mary, told you that you could take the money, it was a good idea, and convinced you of it.
41 Ms Carli was cross-examined in relation to her opinion that you felt remorseful for the people who were affected by your betrayal or trust, how you were able to continue such ongoing theft for years on a weekly basis. In particular, the following evidence was given.
Q: “Given that, given what you said about the people she worked with and so on, did you ask her how it was then that she was able to commit these acts for years on a weekly basis?- - -
A: I did ask.
Q: And what did she say?- - -
A: She felt professional, she felt important.
Q: That was her explanation?- - -
A: Yes.
Q: At the end of your report you were asked, what are her prospects of rehabilitation and likelihood of re-offending. You have told the Court you don’t have any training in this area, do you apart from a small component of your Master’s?- - -
A: Not formalised training but I do rehabilitation with clients on a regular basis.
Q: Yes, you help rehabilitate them?- - -
A: Yes.
Q: But you are not in a position to say whether a particular person is likely to re-offend or not, are you?- - -
A: If I had the test report I would have that.”
42 The test report to which Ms Carli was referring was purportedly the MMPI Test which had been completed by you but had not been assessed by a forensic psychologist and, accordingly, Ms Carli had no result. Ultimately, Ms Carli accepted that any opinion in relation to re-offending and rehabilitation was her personal view from dealing with you. She stated, also, that that was based on the improvements that you have thus far made.
43 After Ms Carli had completed her evidence, the Court expressed some dissatisfaction to a variety of aspects of her evidence. Such aspects included the history-taking and note-taking by the psychologist and the boldness of various propositions in her report when compared to the foundation for such opinions. Furthermore, a reading of her report would suggest that your use of ice caused your inability to reason and make positive decisions to be significantly impaired, and that such circumstances would have caused you not to understand that your actions were wrong, that is to say, the theft of the moneys from Bora. Although stating this on one hand, it seems clear enough that Ms Carli obtained a history from you that your use of ice did not commence until sometime in 2014 and could have no role (if there be one) in your offending from 2011 up to when you commenced using ice. As your counsel fairly conceded, the only evidence before the court is the history obtained from Ms Carli that your ice use commenced some time in 2014 and, according to Ms Carli, was limited to no more than about a year.
44 Your counsel fairly observed that Ms Carli “overreached” in certain aspects of her evidence and, in particular, seemingly did not have any proper basis for offering any opinion about the prospects of rehabilitation or recidivism. Again, your counsel was conscious that, without wishing to “cherry pick”, some things could be obtained from the evidence of Ms Carli:
(a)That you were prepared to engage with a treatment provider, both in relation to overcoming any psychotic symptoms and, indeed, your longstanding depression. Subsequently, your counsel provided a medication summary from your general practitioner as at 3 May 2016 (Exhibit C). Such document reveals that you have been prescribed Pristiq and Zyprexa for your ongoing depression.
(b) That the reporting of remorse should carry some weight; and
(c) You deciding to overcome any reliance on the drug ice.
45 Ultimately, your counsel urged the court order a Pre-sentence report pursuant to s.8A of the Sentencing Act 1991 to have material before me relating to such issues as the prospects of rehabilitation and re-offending. Ultimately, the court ruled that such course would be appropriate and an order was made to that end.
Pre-sentence report
46 Unfortunately, because the receipt of such reports takes at least five or six weeks, the plea hearing had to be adjourned to 23 August 2016, at which date a report was available, authored by Ms N Kyle, leading community corrections officer, Morwell Community Correctional Services and Ms T Jones, senior community corrections officer, Morwell Community Correctional Services. Both authors had the summary of offences from the Director of Public Prosecutions, the report of Ms Carli dated 21 April 2016 and had an interview with you on 21 July 2016. In the report under the heading “Circumstances surrounding the current offence”, it is noted:
·You stated that when you commenced to offend you initially “did not think about the consequences or the impact on your previous employer, Bora Engineering Pty Ltd”. You reported that your addiction to ice was the driving factor in the offence and it was in the last year of the thefts occurring that you realised that what you were doing was not right and contemplated stopping, however, could not stop to fund your drug habit, and accordingly, continued to take the money.
·You stated that the majority of the money was spent on drugs, mainly ice and cannabis, and that you paid for your own drugs, as well as the drugs of your former friend, Ms Mary Talevski.
·You stated that Ms Talevski had suggested the idea of taking money from work after you were both “hanging out for it”, but did not have any money to purchase more drugs. You also reported using the money to cover the costs of Ms Talevski’s rent.
·You stated that you should not have taken the money and taken responsibility for the offending, however, you stated that you placed a lot of blame for the offending on Ms Talevski, as she introduced you to ice.
·You informed the authors that you agreed with the summary prepared by the prosecution and believed that the amounts taken are accurate, although you deny that you were attempting to hide anything on the computer by deleting it, and asserted that you approached the boss’s son, Jamie, to help, after you wiped the program off the desktop.
·You also denied that you avoided going to your employer and was unaware that your former employer knew about the missing money. You were waiting for a call from them to tell you to return to work.
·That you did express remorse and guilt in relation to the offending, stating that you did not want to see your previous employer, due to what you had done to them.
·That you reported that Ms Talevski “gave you” up to police.
47 During the course of the interview, you declared if you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment for six months or longer you would suicide, although you considered that a period of imprisonment of three months would be “okay”. Towards the end of the interview you said to the authors that you confirmed that you had no current plan to suicide. The authors obtained a history that you currently smoke .25 grams of cannabis every two days and spend most of your Centrelink benefits on “smoke”.
48 During the interview conducted on 21 July 2016, there was conducted a Level of Service/Risk-Need-Responsivity (LS/RNR) Simulation Tool. This identified you to be within a medium risk of re-offending, with the focus on addressing criminogenic needs such as: pro-criminal attitude/orientation, leisure/recreation and alcohol/drug problems.
49 You did report abstinence from methylamphetamine use and have engaged with your general practitioner for medication to address your mental health.
50 You were assessed, and deemed suitable, for a community correction order with the following conditions: unpaid community work pursuant to s.48C of the Sentencing Act 1991; assessment and treatment for drug abuse and mental health assessment, and offending behaviour programs pursuant to s.48D of the Sentencing Act 1991, and supervision to be undertaken pursuant to s.48E of the Sentencing Act 1991.
Conclusion of the prosecution submissions
51 I was informed by counsel for the prosecution that the employer had now been fully indemnified by its insurer and a compensation order will be sought by the insurer for payment from you in the sum of $330,681.24. I indicated that I would make such an order.
52 Counsel for the prosecution also stated that, taking into account his earlier submissions on sentence, and in particular bearing in mind various comments made by you to the makers of the pre-sentence report, an appropriate disposition would be a term of imprisonment of significant duration rather than a period of imprisonment followed by a community correction order. In this respect, counsel for the prosecution submitted the following matters:
(a)Notwithstanding your admission to Ms Carli that your ice habit only commenced in 2014, you stated to the authors of the pre-sentence report that your addiction to ice was the driving factor in your offending, and further, although you realised what you were doing was not right and contemplated stopping, you could not because of your drug addiction.
(b)That you still do not take appropriate responsibility for your offending and continue to blame Ms Mary Talevski as the person who suggested taking money after you and her were “hanging out for it”, to which I took to mean to satisfy some drug habit.
(c)Your comment in relation to suicide given in relation to a term of imprisonment greater than a certain period was an attempt to “blackmail the court”.
(d)Your assertion that you did not hide anything on the computer by deleting it and that you approached the boss’s son, Jamie, to help after you wiped the program off the computer, is inconsistent with the prosecution opening to which you have already agreed. Similarly, your assertion that you were waiting for your employer to call you back is inconsistent with the prosecution opening, and in particular is inconsistent with your employer attempting to call you, but the telephone was disconnected.
It was submitted by counsel for the prosecution that such circumstances suggest that you were either telling lies or are deluded about key features of your culpability.
53 Counsel for the prosecution also note that in distinction to any so-called opinion by Ms Carli, you were found to be at a medium risk of re-offending by the authors of the pre-sentence report.
Ultimate submissions of your counsel in mitigation
54 Your counsel submits that the following matters are particularly relevant in determining an appropriate sentence:
(a) Prior to this offending, you had no criminal record whatsoever.
(b)Consistent with the submission of counsel for the prosecution, your counsel submitted that you entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity and have saved the community the cost and expense of proceeding to trial which, no doubt, would have been long and complex. Furthermore, I would accept that a trial would be very onerous for the directors of your former employer to go through and relive the circumstances of your employment, and the deceit that they experienced, as a result of your actions.
(c)That you have the support of your mother, with whom you are able to live, and you are developing new friendships with those who are not involved with the ice culture.
(d)That you have taken some responsibility by seeking to be referred to Ms Carli, where you have received treatment for psychotic symptoms – which are now overcome – most probably caused by your use of ice, and for treatment of your ongoing mild depression which has been improved by tablet medication.
(e)That your determination to rid yourself of ice use and to improve your mental state are positive signs for your rehabilitation.
(f)That you have demonstrated remorse, both by comments made to Ms Carli and to the authors of the Pre-sentence report, where you expressed remorse and guilt in regard to the offending, stating that you did not want to see your previous employer due to what you had done to them.
(g)Your counsel also relied on one of the so-called Verdins[1] principles, wherein the existence of your depression may well mean that a given sentence of imprisonment will weigh more heavily on you than it would on a person in normal health. In this respect, your counsel noted that you had been a long-term sufferer of depression, and continue to suffer from such condition, albeit, with some amelioration due to tablet medication.
[1]See R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102
55 Your counsel submitted that in terms of the gravity of your offending, it is conceded that your offending shows features of planning and organisation to conceal your conduct from your employer. Furthermore, while there has been a sustained pattern of conduct and deception which warrants primacy be given to general deterrence, it was submitted that this factor should not displace rehabilitation.
56 Ultimately, your counsel submitted, given the gravity of the offending, an immediate sentence of imprisonment is warranted, but such period of imprisonment should be in combination with a community correction order which could address all sentencing factors - general and specific deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community, while balancing the need for rehabilitation and allowing it to take place in the community.
57 In the alternative, it was submitted that if there is a straight period of imprisonment, that should be accompanied with a larger than usual parole period to help provide for your rehabilitation.
58 In particular, your counsel submitted, in response to the prosecution’s final submissions after receipt of the Pre-sentence report, that the prosecutor was selective in reference to parts of the report. It was put, that although you would appear to continue to minimise aspects of your offending, that probably more reflects you being ashamed, embarrassed and confused about that time in your life. It was submitted that that does not mean that you are not remorseful.
59 Your counsel, on your behalf, again informed the court that you accept the prosecution opening, and of course, you have entered a plea of guilty.
60 Your counsel accepted the finding in relation that you are of moderate risk of re-offending, but submitted that you are better dealt with under a community correction order, (coupled with a period of imprisonment), under which you would obtain the appropriate treatment and support. In this respect, your counsel accepted that if there was a community correction order following a period of imprisonment, that that order could also have elements of punishment, for example, the performance of community work.
61 Your counsel also referred to the Court of Appeal decisions of Bellizia v R [2016] VSCA 21 [2] and Dyason v R[3] [2015] VSCA 120, Jamieson v R[4] [2014] VSCA 294 and Melnikas v R[5][2016] VSCA 112.
[2][2016] VSCA 21
[3][2015] VSCA 120
[4][2014] VSCA 294
[5][2016] VSCA 112
Conclusion
62 I consider your offending to be of a serious nature. Not only is the sum which you stole from your employer a significant amount, to wit $330,681.24, the theft of such money occurred over a lengthy period between August 2011 and March 2015 on a regular basis. As you appreciate, each of the five charges to which you pleaded guilty is a “rolled-up” charge which covers all the thefts committed by you over the period and amount to178 acts of theft.
63 The subject of your thefts at Bora Engineering Pty Ltd, is a small engineering business operating in Airport West and is owned by Peter and Joanne Pandel and Steve and Jane Di Cicco. This business has been run for about nine years by both couples, but Peter and Joanne Pandel had been in the business for approximately 30 years. At the time of your offending, it employed about six individuals.
64 You were employed by the business as a part-time bookkeeper – twenty-five hours a week – on recommendation from the previous bookkeeper, who was your cousin. You worked with each of the proprietors of the business on a day-to-day basis. As stated in Ms Pandel’s Victim Impact Statement “And had our absolute confidence”.
65 I refer to the Victim Impact Statement of Ms Pandel where she eloquently describes the devastation you caused to the business which, in turn, affected her relationship with her husband and her family.
66 As she stated, the role of a bookkeeper in such an organisation involves “Total trust and confidence” of all the partners, and although it was hard to understand your theft, what is “Equally hard to come to terms with is the ongoing and prolonged nature of the deception for two-and-a-half years”. She describes your deception and thefts impacted on each of the partners in the business and caused emotional stress, in particular, on her husband which, in turn, permeated family life.
67 Ms Pandel described how the business has suffered on several additional fronts beyond the immediate thefts. How you deliberately crashed the business computer system and deleted a necessary program, which had the effect of limiting the output of the business, requiring both time and additional money to be spent re-collating all the accounting records, which she described as an onerous task, which also involved the time and help of their accountant, which came at an additional cost.
68 Using your bookkeeping skills, your offending was sustained, frequent and, as I say, over a lengthy period of time. Furthermore, your offending was carefully planned and executed, hiding your deceit on the computer. In this sense, I accept the submission of counsel for the prosecution that there were “aggravating features” of your offending, which included:
(a) A gross breach of trust on your part in relation to your employer.
(b) Your offending was carefully planned and executed.
(c)Your offending was sustained, frequent and ongoing over three-and-a-half years.
69 Although not totally clear why you commenced such offending, it is clear that most of the money stolen was put to your own use, spending it on consumer goods and living expenses and, seemingly, the offending was motivated by greed. No money has been recovered from you.
70 During the course of this sentence, I have expressed dissatisfaction with a variety of opinions expressed by your treating psychologist, Ms Carli. However, I do accept her evidence insofar as she asserted that you informed her that you commenced taking methylamphetamine in 2014 and had ceased taking such drug by the time you commenced attending on Ms Carli, that is, on 1 July 2015. Both in your general history to Ms Carli and, indeed, to the authors of the Pre-sentence report, the flavour of such history was that the offending was brought about to feed your habit of taking methylamphetamine or ice. Such was not the case, although you were most probably using cannabis from your early days of employment with Bora.
71 When queried about this aspect of the matter, Ms Carli ultimately stated you informed her that a friend, Mary Talevski, coaxed you to commit the thefts. You also told the authors of the Pre-sentence report that you placed a lot of blame on “Mary” for your offending.
72 Ultimately, I have come to the view that there was no particular reason such as gambling addiction, medical reasons, et cetera, for you to commence the offending other than to accommodate your greed.
73 Your life is marked with some unhappy events such as the death of your older brother at the age of twenty-four in 1996 and you experiencing various relationship breakdowns. However, you were able to complete a receptionist course at Victoria University in 1998 and later found work at the Crown Casino in 2000, and later still with Telstra, in an administrative capacity. Clearly, you have the ability to perform clerical work or receptionist work, as you have demonstrated over the years. You described your relationship with your deceased father as difficult, and in particular you found when growing up, your father was very strict and was often violent towards your mother, and both you and your brother. However, you seemingly have a good relationship with your mother, with whom you now live, and I am informed by your counsel that you will be able to continue to live with her into the foreseeable future.
74 I note that the subject offending occurred over the years that you were aged thirty-seven to forty. Up to that time you had no criminal record and, indeed, there is no suggestion that you have come under the notice of the police since the subject offending. I also accept that you entered a plea of guilty to the subject offences at the earliest opportunity. Both counsel for the prosecution and your counsel submitted, and I accept, that such an early plea had some utilitarian value in that it saved the community the cost and expense of proceeding to a trial, which I have said, no doubt, may well have been long and complex. Furthermore, I would also accept that a trial would have been very onerous for the directors of your former employer to go through and relive the circumstances of your employment and the deceit that they experienced as a result of your actions.
75 Your counsel urged me to accept that you have shown genuine remorse in relation to your offending. In particular, she referred to the following:
(a)The comments in the report of Ms Carli, where she described you as showing “Significant remorse and shame for her past behaviours” and your comment that you do not understand how you could do such a thing.
(b)The viva voce evidence of Ms Carli that, through various psychological techniques, you ultimately “took responsibility” for what you had done, and in particular you were reported as stating that you, “Felt really bad for them. They were very caring people and it was a good place to work so you still could not believe that you actually had done what you had done”.
(c)When, under cross-examination, Ms Carli was queried how the ongoing thefts continued for years on a weekly basis, if you were remorseful that people were affected by your betrayal of trust. Ms Carli proffered the opinion that you “Felt professional, you felt important” and confirmed that was your explanation.
(d)In the Pre-sentence report, it is recorded that you did express remorse and guilt in relation to the offending, stating that you did not want to see your previous employers due to what you had done to them.
76 Although I consider that you have expressed some remorse in relation to this offending, which I do take into account when considering an appropriate sentence, I do consider that you fail to display thorough and genuine remorse, bearing in my your continued reference to your friend, Mary Talevski, who you blame as the instigator of the offending, your reference to being under the throes of ice at times when, from your own mouth, it would have been impossible to be so and, seemingly, have given little or no assistance to those who were investigating the theft save, of course, your early plea of guilty.
77 I do accept that, seemingly, you have made the effort to contact your general practitioner and be referred to a psychologist to help you over issues associated with ice and to minimise your depressive symptoms. I accept that, seemingly, at this point, you have overcome your ice habit, and according to Ms Carli, you have not used such drugs since she commenced treating you. I accept that this is some evidence of you attempting to right your life. I also accept the submission of your counsel that, given your pre-existing history of depression, any period of imprisonment may be harder than for one who does not suffer from such condition, although I should quickly add, I do not consider your depression to be acute and, indeed, from what Ms Carli stated, the medication has helped that condition. Accordingly, I give some very limited weight to the principle relied on by your counsel.
78 I accept the opinion of the authors of the Pre-sentence report that, based on the Service-Risk-Need Responsivity Simulation Tool, you are a medium risk of re-offending, with the focus on addressing criminogenic needs, such as pro-criminal attitude/orientation, leisure/recreation and alcohol/drug problems. To that end, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be guarded.
79 I consider that the court should have regard to the following sentencing principles of just punishment, denunciation, general deterrence and specific deterrence. Given the nature of this offending, which is frequently hard to detect, and hard to follow the accounting trails, and frequently committed by those who have no criminal record, general deterrence, in particular, is an important sentencing consideration[6]. I refer to R v Ralphs [2004] VSCA 33 at [14].
[6]See R v Ralphs [2004] VSCA 33 at [14]
80 Given the nature of the offending and the various aggravating features, both counsel accept that you should be sentenced to an immediate period of imprisonment, however your counsel submits, that it would be appropriate for such a sentence of imprisonment to be combined with a community correction order, whereas given the nature of the offending, counsel for the prosecution now seeks a straight prison sentence. Your counsel did note that if it was to be a straight prison sentence, there should be a longer than normal period of parole, to allow an appropriate transition into the community.
81 I refer to the guideline judgment given by the Court of Appeal in Boulton & Ors v R[7][2014] VSCA 342 pertaining to the operation of community correction orders, which have been available in Victorian courts since January 2012. As that court stated, the community correction order is a radical new sentencing option, with the potential to transform sentencing in this State. Although a non-custodial order, such order has certain mandatory conditions laid down by the legislature, and a sentencing court can attach to a community correction order, a range of conditions which are variously “coercive, prohibitive, intrusive and rehabilitative”. As pointed out by the Court of Appeal, a community correction order is a “Flexible sentencing option in enabling punitive and rehabilitative purposes to be served simultaneously”.
[7][2014] VSCA 342
82 I refer to s.5(4) and s.5(4C) of the Sentencing Act 1991, which respectively state:
“(4) A court must not impose a sentence that involves the confinement of the offender unless it considers that the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by a sentence that does not involve the confinement of the offender.
(4C)A court must not impose a sentence that involves the confinement of the offender unless it considers that the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by a community correction order to which one or more of the conditions referred to in sections 48F, 48G, 48H, 48I and 48J are attached.”
83 As the Court of Appeal has stated, s.5(4)(c) of the Sentencing Act 1991 prohibits the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment unless the sentencing court has paid specific and careful attention to:
(a)The purposes for which the sentence is to be imposed on the offender; and
(b)Whether those purposes can be achieved by a community correction order to which one or more of the specific onerous conditions is attached.
84 It is necessary that I first assess the objective nature and gravity of the offending and moral culpability of you. As I have already recorded, I consider your offending to be of a serious nature and your moral culpability is significant given the nature of such offending.
85 I am of the opinion that the offending, as so assessed, is so serious that nothing short of a sentence comprised of an immediate term of imprisonment will suffice to satisfy the risk of justice, but such should be in conjunction with a community correction order, given that I consider that the various conditions can be attached to such and would be relevant to the concerns of the authors of the Pre-sentence report, in that various conditions could focus on the matters raised by them.
86 For the sake of completeness, I should state that I have read the various decisions relied on by counsel and, indeed, perused the sentencing statistics. Furthermore, notwithstanding the amount of money in relation to rolled-up Charges 3, 4 and 5, Part 2B of the Sentencing Act 1991 and Schedule 1A to that Act, involving “Continuing criminal enterprise offender” is not relevant in sentencing you, in that the rolled-up charge does not qualify as a Schedule A offence by virtue only of the rolled-up value. Furthermore,[8] given that the charges are rolled-up charges, it would be inappropriate to give an aggregate sentence across all of the charges. Each separate charge must carry its own sentence and then be accumulated, or not, as the case may require.[9]
[8]See R v Ralph [2004] VSCA 33
[9]See Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Felton [2007] VSCA 65; R v Grossi [2008] VSCA 51
87 Please be upstanding:
(a)In relation to Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment.
(b)In relation to Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.
(c)In relation to Charge 3, you are convicted and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment. The sentence imposed on this charge will be the base sentence.
(d)In relation to Charge 4, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment.
(e)In relation to Charge 5, you are convicted and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment.
I direct that one month of the sentenced imposed on Charge 1, two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, five months of the sentence imposed on Charge 4 and three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 5 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence imposed on Charge 3.
The total effective sentence is 21 months’ imprisonment.
(f)In relation to Charges 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, you are also sentenced to a community correction order for a period of 24 months. The order commences upon the completion of the imprisonment term and ends two years from that date.
You must attend at the MORWELL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES within two working days after completion of imprisonment.
In addition to the mandatory terms, the order contains the following conditions:
(i)Pursuant to s.48C of the Sentencing Act 1991, you are to perform unpaid community work for a period of 120 hours;
(ii)Pursuant to s48D(3)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991, you are to undergo assessment and treatment, including testing for drug abuse or dependency;
(iii)Pursuant to s48D(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991, you are to undergo any mental health assessment and treatment that may include psychological, neuropsychological, psychiatric or treatment in a hospital or residential facility;
(iv)Pursuant to s48D(3)(f) of the Sentencing Act 1991, you are to undergo any program that addresses factors relating to your offending behaviour;
(v)Pursuant to s48E of the Sentencing Act 1991, you are to be supervised, monitored and managed as directed by the Secretary of Justice;
(g)The court orders that you are to pay to AIG as insurer of BORA ENGINEERING compensation in the sum of $330,681.24, being the amount of the thefts committed by you.
(h) Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, save for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 38 months.
HIS HONOUR: Has counsel anything to say?
MR SHAW:No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: It will be necessary for your client to sign the documents in relation to the community correction order.
MS LAMOVIE: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, what I might do is adjourn. Are family here today; are they; is there any family?
MS LAMOVIE: Yes, my client's mother and uncle.
HIS HONOUR: I will allow the family to approach the offender in the dock before she is taken away, for a short period.
MS LAMOVIE: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: For a short period. I will adjourn temporarily while those orders are attended to.
- - -
0
14
0