Director of Public Prosecutions v Dooley
[2022] VCC 650
•16 May 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-20-01575
CR-21-01169
CR-21-00785
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JOHNNY DOOLEY MICHAEL DOOLEY JOSEPH BALL |
---
JUDGE: | O'CONNELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 March, 6 –7April,16 May 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 May 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v DOOLEY & ORS | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 650 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Obtaining property by deception – (2 offenders 7 charges), (1 Offender 6 charges); Obtaining financial advantage by deception - (2 offenders, 6 charges), (1 Offender, 5 charges); Attempt to obtain property by deception - (2 offenders, 4 charges), (1 Offender, 3 charges); Knowingly deal in proceeds of crime (3 offenders, 1 charge); Supplying identification information to commit/facilitate commission of indictable offence (3 offenders, 4 charges); Plea of guilty; Offending commonly described as a ‘roofing scam’; Objectively serious offending targeting mainly elderly and vulnerable victims; Victim impact; General deterrence; Whether attempt is a continuing criminal enterprise offence; Significance of quantum of monies obtained; Whether Verdins principles engaged in respect of 2 offenders; Significance of lengthy pre-sentence detention served in restrictive conditions necessary to deal with pandemic; Significance of guilty pleas entered during pandemic.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Shiel v The Queen [2017] VSCA 359; DPP v McDonagh [2020] VCC 760; Koch v The Queen [2011] VSCA 435; R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269; DPP v O’Neill [2015] VSCA 325; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 4 years 9 months with non-parole period of 2 years 9 months (Johnny DOOLEY)
Total effective sentence of 4 years 9 months with non-parole period of 2 years 9 months (Michael DOOLEY)
Total effective sentence of 4 years with non-parole period of 2 years (Joseph BALL)
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms C Paganis | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused M Dooley | Mr A Patton | Theo Magazis Lawyers |
| For the Accused J Dooley | Mr J Kelly SC | Matthew White and Associates |
| For the Accused Ball | Mr C Pearson | Vassis & Co. |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Michael Dooley and Johnny Dooley, you have each pleaded guilty to all charges on Indictment No. C2013732.3 which comprises seven charges of obtaining property by deception, four charges of attempting to obtain property by deception, six charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, one charge of knowingly dealing in the proceeds of crime, and four charges of supplying identification information to commit or facilitate the commission of an indictable offence.
2You, Joseph Ball, have pleaded guilty to all charges on Indictment No. L11697298.1 which comprises six charges of obtaining property by deception, three charges of attempting to obtain property by deception, five charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, one charge of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, and four charges of supplying identification information to commit or facilitate an indictable offence.
3You, Joseph Ball, proceeded separately from your two co-offenders at a plea hearing conducted on 21 March 2022.[1] Michael Dooley and Johnny Dooley, your plea hearing proceeded on 6 and 7 April 2022.[2]
[1]A short additional hearing was held on 12 May 2022 to deal with, among other matters, outstanding compensation orders.
[2]A short additional hearing was held on 10 May 2022 to deal with, among other matters, outstanding compensation orders.
4On 21 March, Ms Paganis, who appeared on behalf of the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, read and tendered a summary of prosecution opening dated 16 February 2022. Mr Pearson, who appeared for you, Joseph Ball, accepted that summary of the circumstances of your offending as accurate and that it could form the factual basis for sentence.
5At your plea hearing, Michael Dooley and Johnny Dooley, on 6 April 2022, the prosecutor tendered an amended summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 5 April 2022 which detailed the offending you engaged in with Mr Ball. Ms Paganis also went on to summarise the incidents which comprise the three additional rolled-up charges to which you have both pleaded guilty, being one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception (Charge 1 on your indictment), one charge of obtaining property by deception (Charge 2 on your indictment) and one charge of obtaining a financial advantage by deception (Charge 3 on your indictment).
6Mr Patton, on your behalf Michael Dooley, and Mr Kelly SC, who appeared on your behalf Johnny Dooley, accepted that the amended summary of prosecution opening was accurate and could form the factual basis for sentence in your matters. What follows in setting out the circumstances of your offending is largely based on both prosecution summaries.
Background
7You, Michael Dooley, were born in November 1985 and are now 36 years of age. You are an Irish national who arrived in Australia on a student visa on 26 February 2019. That visa entitled you to work 20 hours each week.
8You, Johnny Dooley, were born in December 1987 and are now 34 years of age. You are a citizen of the United Kingdom and arrived in Australia on 29 January 2020 on a tourist visa which did not permit you to work in this country.
9You, Joseph Ball, were born in March 1991 and are now 31 years of age. You are a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia. You most recently arrived in Australia on 26 September 2019.
10The kind of deceptions undertaken by the three of you is commonly referred to as a ‘roofing scam’. The method used generally involved cold-contacting the victims, many of whom were aged 60 or older,[3] and suggesting that they had minor issues with their roof after which a modest initial quotation to fix the roof would be provided. You, either on your own account or through the use of contractors/workers, would then commence work which generally involved removing tiles from the victim’s roof.
[3]The oldest victim was 93 years of age.
11The quotations to fix the roof would then be increased to excessive amounts on the spurious basis that the problems were far more serious than first thought. Typically, the victims would feel pressured to accept the inflated quote because work had been commenced and their roofs were exposed to the weather.
12As part of the deception, you purported to be from legitimate trade or contracting businesses but predominantly used unskilled tradesmen whom you had engaged from online platforms such as Gumtree. In many instances, the victims’ roofs were left in a worse condition than when you, or your workers, commenced the work.
13The three of you never used your real names. You would provide alias details to workers and victims, often utilising phones and vehicles registered in other people’s names to conceal your true identity. Wages, when paid, were paid in cash. Needless to say, none of you paid any tax on the income you received through this work.
14As the prosecutor explained, these deceptions were committed as a joint criminal enterprise, the common purpose of which was to obtain large sums of money to be shared between the three of you.
15The following company names were utilised for the purposes of the deceptions:
· Approved Contractors AU Pty Ltd;
· 5 Star Roofing AU Pty Ltd;
· Four Seasons AU Pty Ltd;
· Commercial Metal Roofing Contractors; and
· ABC Roofing.
16Approved Contractors AU Pty Ltd (Approved Contractors) was registered with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) on 18 January 2020. The 100% beneficial owner of the business was listed as Joseph Ball. The business address was listed as 101 Collins Street, Melbourne. In fact, the business had no affiliation with that address. Approved Contractors would advertise on Oneflare, which was an online platform where customers could access particular businesses or tradespeople they might need.
175 Star Roofing AU Pty Ltd was registered with ASIC on 28 April 2020. The beneficial owner of the business was listed as one of the workers employed by you.
18Four Seasons AU Pty Ltd was registered on 21 May 2020 with the beneficial owner listed as Joseph Ball. It also advertised on Oneflare using the business address of 101 Collins Street Melbourne. Again, the business had no affiliation with that address.
19Commercial Metal Roofing Contractors was not listed with ASIC, however business cards which were located by investigators in that name listed its business address as 240 Plenty Road, Bundoora.
20ABC Roofing was not registered with ASIC, however on 4 February 2020 an account was set up under that business name with Oneflare using one of the names of the workers you employed. The recording of the phone call in which that account was established enabled investigators to establish that you, Michael Dooley, were the person who set up that account. It was closed on 12 March 2020.
21Investigators also identified 13 subcontractors who at various times were engaged by you to perform work related to these deceptions. All of these subcontractors knew you by alias names and by and large had little or no building or roofing experience. They would often work on roofs, some of which were double storey, with no fall protection. In some instances, those contractors were used to set up bank accounts and withdraw cash in an attempt to distance you from the proceeds of your crimes.
22To facilitate the resolution of this matter, many of the charges to which you have pleaded guilty comprise multiple incidents rolled-up into one charge. For example, the first charge to which you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley have pleaded guilty (attempt to obtain property by deception) on Indictment No. C2013732.3 comprises eight separate incidents where attempts were made to obtain a total of $36,164. Those eight incidents nicely illustrate the method employed in this joint criminal enterprise. I will detail each of those incidents to provide some sense of what was involved.
Charge 1 (Dooleys) – Incident one
23On 6 February 2020, Janet and Peter Doig, both 68 years of age, posted a job on Oneflare to have their leaking tile roof repaired. You, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley attended at the victim’s home in Sandringham with a worker you had employed, Bryan Comacho. You both got onto the roof and advised Janet Doig that there was a large hole that required urgent repair. You said you would quote for the whole job once the repair had been made. Mr Comacho then started to point the ridges on the roof.
24Shortly afterwards, you, Johnny Dooley spoke with Peter Doig and advised him that the roof was in a catastrophically poor state that required immediate repair. You said that the entire roof probably needed to be stripped and re-tiled but that you were prepared to point the ridges and re-lay the tiles for $11,500.
25Peter Doig conducted some checks and traced the listed address of ABC Roofing to a backpackers hostel in St Kilda. He also calculated that the cost quoted by you, Johnny Dooley, for the repairs was in excess of $400 per hour. Mr Doig had a heated conversation with you, Johnny Dooley, about those matters.
26You, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley later spoke with Janet Doig demanding payment of the $11,500, but she refused to pay without an invoice. Ultimately, the Doigs paid $650 to avoid you returning to the house and causing further damage. A legitimate roofing contractor was engaged and advised that the wrong pointing material had been used on the roof and it had to be removed in order to make the necessary repairs.
Charge 1 (Dooleys) – Incident two
27On 7 February 2020, either you, Michael Dooley or you, Johnny Dooley knocked on the front door of John Dempster’s residence in Hawthorn East and identified yourself as ‘Jack’. Mr Dempster was 88 years of age at the time.
28The victim was advised that you had been doing some repairs down the street and that you had noticed that some timber under the eaves of the house had come loose and you offered to fix it. Mr Dempster was aware that his gutters needed cleaning and asked if you could do that. He made an agreement for ‘Jack’ to clean the gutters and fix the loose timber barge board.
29On Monday, 10 February 2020 ‘Jack’ returned to the property with another male who identified himself as ‘Bryan’. ‘Bryan’ was either you, Michael Dooley or you, Johnny Dooley. A business card was given to Mr Dempster in the name of ABC Roofing.
30Once ‘Jack’ got onto the roof, he pulled off half of the barge board to show Mr Dempster that it was rotting. He claimed that the garage roof timbers were rotting and needed to be replaced. ‘Bryan’ said that they would have to buy replacement timber at a cost of $6,000, and that the whole job to repair the roof would cost $8,400.
31Mr Dempster attended at his local Commonwealth Bank to arrange payment, however his bank manager alerted him to the possibility that this might be a scam. Thanks to the intervention of the bank manager, Mr Dempster advised ‘Bryan’ that he would be arranging for another builder to conduct an inspection and provide a quote. ‘Jack’ and ‘Bryan’, that is, you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley, then left the property and never returned.
32Shortly afterwards, Mr Dempster was advised by a builder who inspected the garage roof that aside from the rotting barge board and cleaning the gutters, no further work was required.
Charge 1 (Dooleys) – Incident three
33On 25 February 2020, Barbara Carter, who was 73 years of age at the time, was contacted by a male identifying himself as Ahmad from ‘First Call Roofing Services’. Ms Carter had posted a job on the Service Seeking website to fix a rusted section of guttering on the upper storey of her Blackburn home. Ahmad attended at the property when the Carters were not at home and later supplied a quote over the phone for $650 to repair the guttering. It was agreed that he should attend on 2 March 2020 to carry out the repairs.
34The following day, you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley knocked on the front door and spoke to Barbara Carter’s husband Edwin, who was then aged 76, about the roof needing some repairs. Around 2pm that day you both spoke with Barbara Carter who assumed you were from First Call Roofing Services. She turned to one of you and said, “You must be Ahmad?” She believed that one of you nodded and shook hands with her. The other man then introduced himself as ‘Joe’.
35You, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley climbed onto the roof and told Ms Carter that the repairs were quite complicated and would cost $1,700. Ms Carter agreed, still believing that she was dealing with First Call Roofing Services.
36The following day one of your workers, Alexander Patterson, arrived at the Carters’ residence, stating that he was there to clean the gutters. Ms Carter responded that the gutters needed replacing, not cleaning. Mr Patterson then left and contacted you Michael Dooley and shortly afterwards stopped working for you.
37You, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley then attended at the Carters’ home, one of you pretending to be Ahmad. One of you requested that Barbara go to the bank to obtain the $1,700 for the job but she indicated that she would pay you only on completion. Later that day, one of you told Ms Carter that the problem was much bigger and that there was extensive rot to the fascia and behind. To take down and replace the fascia would require a special sliding scaffold and the cost of the job would now be $7,500.
38The Carters reluctantly agreed. Edwin Carter stated that the main guy was “very insistent” on needing $5,000 to get the scaffolding. Mr Carter withdrew the $5,000 and paid it, requesting a receipt or invoice.[4]
[4]The payment of this money is one of the incidents that comprise the charge 2 on the same indictment – a rolled-up charge of 6 incidents of obtaining property by deception.
39Barbara Carter then contacted Ahmad from First Call Roofing Services, believing that was the company she was dealing with. She was advised that Ahmad still believed he was to carry out the work on 2 March 2020. Ms Carter then spoke with one of you who maintained that you had made a valid contract with her husband to complete the job. The Carters then received an invoice via email for $7,500 which did not mention the $5,000 already paid.
40On 28 February 2022, subcontractors employed by you attended at the Carters’ residence and removed the guttering. The following day, one of you delivered some new guttering, however when the subcontractors returned they advised the Carters that the guttering was too short. Neither you, nor anyone employed by you, ever return to the property.
41On 1 March 2020, the Carters received an automated notice via email stating that payment for the invoice of $7,500 was overdue. The last they heard of you was on 6 March 2020, in the form of a letter of demand for payment of the invoice which purported to be from a solicitor.
Charge 1 (Dooleys) – Incident four
42On 27 February 2020, Ms Chwee Wong was weeding the front garden of her home in Malvern when she was approached by you, Johnny Dooley, identifying yourself as ‘Joe’ and stating that you could see a piece of cement which had come off her roof. You said that you were doing a job over the road when you had noticed the damage and offered to help her.
43Two further males then came over. One of those males was you, Michael Dooley, identifying yourself as ‘Luke’. The other male was identified as ‘Joe Junior’.
44‘Joe Junior’ got onto the roof and after inspecting it quoted Ms Wong $1,500 to carry out the repairs. It was arranged for the work to be done on Saturday, 29 February 2020. On that day, ‘Joe Junior’ and ‘Luke’ arrived at Ms Wong’s house to perform the work. You, Michael Dooley got onto the roof, removed some tiles, said that “it was all rotten” and told her that the timber was sagging and two of the rafters had rotted away and would require replacement. You asked for $2,000 cash for materials and Ms Wong gave this to you.[5]
[5]Eventually a total of $5000 was paid by Ms Wong. The payment of this money is one of the incidents that comprise charge 2 on the same indictment – a rolled-up Charge of 6 incidents of obtaining property by deception.
45You then made a phone call, after which the purported cost of the repairs was increased to $4,000 and then to $6,000. Ms Wong asked you for a receipt and you indicated that you would get one from your car. You then returned to your car and left. You never returned. Later that day, Ms Wong, having paid you $5,000, received an invoice via email for $6,000 from ABC Roofing.
Charge 1 (Dooleys) – Incident five
46On Wednesday 12 February 2020, Ms Margaret Sullivan, then aged 85 years of age, engaged you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley to carry out roofing works on her property in Hawthorn East. Two Commonwealth Bank cheques to the value of $4,800 were obtained from Ms Sullivan, presumably for roofing works. On 13 February 2020, one of the cheques, which was made out to cash, was deposited at the Commonwealth Bank in Sunshine where it was paid out in 48 $100 notes.[6]
[6]This payment likewise is one of the incidents comprising Charge 2 on the same indictment.
47On 14 February 2020, the other cheque, which was also made out to cash, was deposited at the Carlton branch of the Commonwealth Bank by a Matthew Davis into an account in his own name. Mr Davis told investigators that he was given the cheque by two males who stated they were from the UK that he had met in a pub. You, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley were those two males.
48You apparently told Mr Davis that you had problems with your banking and asked him to help you. You both met him at the bank and provided him with the cheque which he attempted to cash, however he was told that it would take some time to clear. Thereafter, Mr Davis received a number of calls from you seeking the money, however the cheque ultimately bounced due to insufficient funds in Ms Sullivan’s account.
49Ms Genevieve Baker, who held the power of attorney for Ms Sullivan, confirmed to investigators that Ms Sullivan has an acquired brain injury and underwent surgery at around the time of this incident. She never returned to the property and is in full-time care. One of your employees, Alexander Patterson, undertook some work on this residence over a period of days in February 2020. He quit working for you on 27 February 2020 and returned to the UK. At the time he was owed $1,700 in wages which he never received.
Charge 1 (Dooleys) – Incident six
50On the afternoon of 18 February 2020, Ms Margaret Rode approached the front door of her property in Carlton when two males who identified themselves as ‘Jack’ and ‘Josh’ called out to her from their vehicle. You, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley were those two males.
51You told Ms Rode that you had tried to contact her the day before about a problem with her roof which you claimed to have seen when working on the building next door. You showed her some wet rotting wood which you said came from the timber frame to which the gutter flashing between the two buildings was attached. You said that there was a significant gap which was allowing rain in but that you had covered the area with plastic sheeting.
52You offered to fix it straight away and to give her a good price for cash and suggested that she give you a $1,000 cheque so that you could get the materials immediately. You gave her a quote in the order of $2,000 but claimed that you could deduct 23% for GST if cash was paid.
53Ms Rode requested to speak to the owner next door. You, Michael Dooley purported to ring someone known as ‘Mark’ and handed your phone to Ms Rode so that she could speak with him. ‘Mark’ put increasing pressure on Ms Rode to get the work done urgently. He said the cost of the works would be $4000. Ms Rode then indicated that she would get an independent roofer to make an assessment at which point you both left.
54Ms Rode later spoke to the owner of the building next door and was advised that a roof leak had been fixed at those premises a couple of weeks earlier, but there were no indications of anyone working on the roof the day before she was approached.
55Interestingly, the piece of wood which you had shown to Ms Rode was retained by her and once it dried out, she realised it was a piece of bark.
Charge 1 (Dooleys) – Incident seven
56On 20 February 2020, David Frankel, who was then 70 years of age, was in the front yard of his property in Kew when he was approached by you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley. One of you introduced yourself as ‘Bryan’, claiming to have identified problems with Mr Frankel’s roof when doing work on the property across the road. You offered to have a closer look and, after inspecting it, indicated that you could use leftover materials to make the necessary repairs. Mr Frankel described the approach as “an aggressive sales pitch”.
57Mr Frankel gave you his email address and shortly afterwards received an invoice for $2,464 from ABC Roofing. He responded that he did not wish you to conduct the repairs and no payment was made. You never returned to the property.
Charge 1 (Dooleys) – Incident eight
58In February 2020, Sarah Murray and her sister Joanne Wilson were looking to get the roof of their property in Kew painted. On 7 February 2020, they posted a job on Oneflare. On 10 February 2020, you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley attended at their property and climbed up to inspect the roof. You, Johnny Dooley suggested that other work needed to be completed and stated that you could complete that work for an additional sum, however Ms Wilson did not agree and elected to only proceed with the painting.
59On 11 February 2020, Ms Murray was present when four males from ABC Roofing arrived, two of whom were you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley. That evening, when Ms Wilson returned, she found an unknown worker from ABC Roofing who had been left by himself to complete the job. She found mess everywhere, with paint splattered all over the deck, on the outdoor furniture and right up the concrete pathway. An indoor broom belonging to Ms Wilson and Ms Murray had been used to paint the roof and was left stuck in the gutter. The gutters themselves were full of paint. It appeared that the workers did not use any of their own equipment.
60You, Michael Dooley then attended and reassured Ms Wilson that the mess would be cleaned up. You, Johnny Dooley spoke with Ms Wilson on 12 February 2020 and blamed the young male for the damage and bad work. You said you would return at 5.30pm to rectify the problems.
61In fact, no one from ABC Roofing ever returned to the address. Ms Wilson and Ms Murray did not pay ABC Roofing any money, however they were left with damage to their roof and had to incur further cost to have the paint removed from their gutters.
62The total amount sought to be obtained in the eight incidents described above was $36,164.
Further offending also involving Joseph Ball
63You, Joseph Ball became involved in this joint criminal enterprise in early March 2020.
64What follows are some further examples which illustrate the manner in which all three of you carried out, or attempted to carry out, these deceptions:
Indictment No. L11697298.1 (Ball) – Charge 1 – attempt to obtain property by deception
Indictment No. C2013732.3 (Dooleys) – Charge 4 – attempt to obtain property by deception
65On 6 March 2020, Mr Tom Taylor engaged Approved Contractors to repair leaks in his roof after finding that company through Oneflare. You, Joseph Ball, you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley all attended at Mr Taylor’s address in Wheelers Hill, purporting to be from Approved Contractors.
66Two of you went up to inspect the roof and then advised Mr Taylor that there were significant issues that required repair. A verbal quote of $6,000 was provided. You, Joseph Ball wrote out the job details which were costed at $5,500. Mr Taylor became suspicious of the legitimacy of the company and indicated that he would have to consult with his wife before commissioning the work.
67He subsequently blocked incoming calls from Approved Contractors and engaged another company who advised that there was only one cracked tile which was replaced free of charge and resolved the issue.
Indictment No. L11697298.1 (Ball) – Charge 2 – obtain property by deception
Indictment No. C2013732.3 (Dooleys) – Charge 5 – obtain property by deception
68This is a rolled-up charge comprising seven incidents.
Charge 2 (Ball) Charge 5 (Dooleys) – Incident one
69On 3 March 2020 you, Michael Dooley, purporting to be ‘Ken’ from Approved Contractors, attended at the residence of Mr Nicol Michaud in Noble Park. You claimed to have noticed some rotting wood on his roof and offered to inspect it for him. Once you had done so you advised him that there was a possum nest and a leak in the roof which required repairs, and you provided him with a quote of $14,000.
70The following day you Michael Dooley returned to Mr Michaud’s residence with two other workers. You offered to reduce the quote to $10,000 if he paid by cheque and that amount was further discounted to $8,000 if payment was made in cash. Mr Michaud agreed to pay in cash.
71After the alleged works were completed, another male attended at the victim’s address and took the work contract from him, claiming that it would be returned once a copy was made. The contract was never returned and he did not hear from anyone associated with the company again. In total, the victim paid $8,000.
Charge 2 (Ball) Charge 5 (Dooleys) – Incident two
72In March 2020, Mr Alban Hale, who was then 93 years of age, needed to have his roof repaired after severe hailstorms had damaged it earlier in the year. Mr Hale was in the process of making a claim from his insurers for the damage.
73On 30 March 2020, you, Johnny Dooley, purporting to be from Approved Contractors, attended at the victim’s residence in Camberwell and indicated that his insurance company had sent you to fix the roof. You, Michael Dooley and you, Joseph Ball were also present.
74Mr Hale was advised that $9,000 was needed to be paid upfront before the work could be commenced. He wrote out a cheque and handed it to you. Investigators later obtained CCTV footage from the Toorak branch of the ANZ bank depicting you, Joseph Ball attempting to cash that cheque. However, you left prior to the completion of the transaction after identification was requested by staff.
75Shortly after, a contractor engaged by you attempted to cash the same cheque. The bank staff became suspicious and sought confirmation from Mr Hale that he did in fact write the cheque. When contacted Mr Hale verified the legitimacy of the cheque and $9,000 was handed over to the contractor.
76The following day, one of you advised Mr Hale that the job was more complicated than first thought and that you required another $9,000 to complete it. Mr Hale and one of your contractors attended at the ANZ bank where he withdrew $9,000 in cash. You attempted to obtain a further $9,000 from the victim but he refused to pay and you never returned to conduct any further work. In total, the victim paid you $18,000.
Charge 2 (Ball) Charge 5 (Dooleys) – Incident three
77On 11 March 2020, Mr Rodney Carpenter, who was then aged 60, engaged Approved Contractors through Oneflare to conduct some repairs on his roof. All three of you, purporting to be from that company, attended at his address in Endeavour Hills.
78One of you borrowed Mr Carpenter’s ladder to access the roof and advised him that the state of the roof was “pretty bad” but that you would be able to fix it. You, Johnny Dooley, who identified yourself as ‘Steve’, directed one of the other accused, who also identified himself as ‘Steve’, to write out a contract for $2,500.
79The following day, all three of you returned to the house with two other workers to commence work. Mr Carpenter paid $2,500 to you in cash. You, Johnny Dooley then advised that there were further issues with the roof that had been discovered and which required immediate repairs at a cost of $4,000. Mr Carpenter stated that he felt pressured, but reluctantly paid the amount via bank transfer to an account in the name of Approved Contractors.
80You, Johnny Dooley then advised Mr Carpenter that there were yet again further issues with the roof. You warned that the roof could collapse within 6 months if it was not repaired now at a cost of $9,000. By this time Mr Carpenter had become suspicious and indicated he would have to consult with his bank. The three of you told him that you were going to lunch and you never returned.
81Ultimately, Mr Carpenter engaged a legitimate roofing contractor to repair the damage to his roof at a cost of $6,120. In total, he had paid you $6,500 to no avail.
Charge 2 (Ball) Charge 5 (Dooleys) – Incident four
82On 14 March 2020, you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley attended at the home of Helen and Norman O’Doherty in Kew.
83You claimed that you had been working nearby and noticed that there was a loose tile on their roof. One of you identified yourself as ‘Joe’ and offered to fix the tile for $60. The victims were then advised that there were further repairs required and you quoted $2,500 for the work. Mr O’Doherty agreed to have this work performed and you, Joseph Ball then attended and provided a work contract.
84The work was commenced but after less than an hour all three of you left, advising that you would return to replace the broken tiles. The three of you never returned to finish the work and the O’Dohertys had to engage another company to replace the broken tiles. In total, they paid you $2,500 but also had to pay an additional amount of $395 to have the works completed.
Charge 2 (Ball), Charge 5 (Dooleys) – Incident five
85On 20 March 2020, Mr Victor Seredin, who was then 76 years of age, was out walking when you, Michael Dooley called out to him from your vehicle. You identified yourself as ‘Joseph’ and told Mr Seredin that you had been working on a neighbour’s roof and needed to get something which had been left on his roof. You then attended at his address in Caulfield with you, Johnny Dooley, who identified yourself as ‘Mark’. Using Mr Seredin’s ladder, you got onto his roof and then advised that there were some issues that needed repair. All three of you attended the following day and Mr Seredin was provided a quote of $2,500. He stated that he felt pressured but agreed to have the work performed, and a contract was written out by you, Joseph Ball.
86You, Johnny Dooley pressed Mr Seredin for payment even though the work had not been completed. You then drove the victim to the bank to make a cash withdrawal of $2,500 for payment.
87In total, Mr Seredin paid you $2,500, however he had to engage a legitimate contractor to fix the ongoing leaks and the unsatisfactory work you carried out on his roof.
Charge 2 (Ball), Charge 5 (Dooleys) – Incident six
88Between 10–12 March 2020, Mr Joel Farrell engaged Approved Contractors through Oneflare to have some leaks in his roof repaired. You, Michael Dooley, identifying yourself as ‘Joseph’, together with you, Johnny Dooley and you, Joseph Ball, attended at Mr Farrell’s address in Ascot Vale, purporting to be from Approved Contractors.
89You, Michael Dooley advised Mr Farrell that it would cost between $600–800 to carry out the repairs. The following day he was told that further issues have been discovered which would cost $2,000 to fix. That quote was then increased to $9,000 and a request was made for payment prior to the work commencing. Mr Farrell agreed to pay 50% of the cost with the remainder to be paid upon completion of the work. He then transferred $4,400 to an account in the name of Approved Contractors.
90Four males who had been employed by you but were clearly unskilled commenced work, however Mr Farrell became suspicious of their legitimacy and when he challenged the workers they admitted that most of the work had not been done. A refund agreement was then written out and signed by Mr Farrell and one of those workers. A refund was in fact provided via bank transfer.
Charge 2 (Ball), Charge 5 (Dooleys) – Incident seven
91On 23 March 2020, Mr Gary Mitchell, who was then 76 years of age, engaged Approved Contractors through Oneflare to repair a leak in his roof. All three of you, together with another male, attended at Mr Mitchell’s address in Templestowe and inspected the roof. Mr Mitchell was advised that the repairs would cost $35,000, including gutter cleaning and repointing. The quote was reduced to $25,000 without the cleaning and repointing, to which Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Mitchell then transferred $25,000 to a bank account in the name of Approved Contractors.
92Over the next few days, several workers who were clearly unskilled attended at Mr Mitchell’s home to carry out the agreed work. Mr Mitchell and his partner became suspicious of the males and took a photograph of one of the vehicles which was later used by investigators. Ultimately, Mr Mitchell had to engage a legitimate roofing contractor to carry out the repairs to his roof at an additional cost of $3,500.
93The total amount obtained in the seven incidents comprising this charge was $66,900.
Indictment No. L11697298.1(Ball) – Charge 8 – obtain property by deception
Indictment No. C2013732.3(Dooleys) – Charge 11 – obtain property by deception
94This is a rolled-up charge comprising two incidents.
Charge 8 (Ball), Charge 11 (Dooleys) – Incident one
95On 2 May 2020, you, Johnny Dooley and you, Michael Dooley attended at the home of Mr Dennis Hourigan in St Kilda East. You claimed you had noticed that his roof required renovation work. The victim agreed to have the work completed. Two of your workers then purported to carry out works on the roof. You provided two invoices and Mr Hourigan wrote cheques in the amounts of $7,500 and $9,485 respectively. He also made an additional payment of $2,000 in cash to you.
96During the purported works, Mr Hourigan was advised that a deposit was required to hire a crane. Relying on that representation, the victim wrote out a cheque for $138,000, however no crane was ever used. The cheque was subsequently dishonoured.
97In total, Mr Hourigan paid $18,985 to you and a further $138,000 was attempted to be obtained from him. It should be noted that latter attempt is the subject of a separate charge, being Charge 11 on Indictment No. L11697298 and Charge 14 on Indictment No. C2013732.3. It should also be noted that the attempt is a continuing criminal enterprise offence.
Charge 8 (Ball), Charge 11 (Dooleys) – Incident two
98On 15 May 2020, you, Johnny Dooley, identifying yourself as ‘Jason’, attended at Mr Karl Lukacs’s address in Beaumaris. Mr Lukacs was 83 years of age at the time. You claimed that the roof needed replacing and offered to complete the work for $38,060. Mr Lukacs agreed and wrote a cheque for that amount which was subsequently deposited into a Bendigo Bank account.
99On 20 May 2020, police attended at Mr Lukacs’s address after a neighbour called to report a possible roofing scam. Police spoke to three of your workers, who told them that they were employed by a male known to them as ‘Jason’. ‘Jason’ was you, Johnny Dooley. In total, Mr Lukacs paid $38,060.
100Whilst the above examples sufficiently illustrate how these deceptions were carried out, I should also refer to two further charges involving larger amounts.
Indictment No. L11697298.1 (Ball) – Charge 4 – obtain property by deception
Indictment No. C2013732.3 (Dooleys) – Charge 7 – obtain property by deception
101That charge involved a deception on Mr David Turner. Mr Turner was 76 years of age at the relevant time.
102On 26 March 2020, Mr Turner was out walking when he was spoken to by you, Johnny Dooley, who identified yourself as ‘Joe’. You claimed that your company had been working nearby and noticed that there was a loose tile on his roof which you could fix for five dollars.
103All three of you attended at Mr Turner’s home in Glen Iris and began pulling back tiles on his roof. He was advised that there were some issues which required repairs and was given a quote of $970 to complete the work. Mr Turner agreed to have that work done. You, Johnny Dooley then advised there were further issues which would cost $16,000 to have repaired. Mr Turner reluctantly agreed to have that work done.
104The following day, you, Johnny Dooley advised of yet further issues which would now cost $68,000 to repair. Mr Turner felt pressured to continue the work because a lot of tiles and battens had already been removed from his roof. He again reluctantly agreed to continue.
105A few days later, you advised that asbestos had been located in the roof which would have to be removed by a special team. He was told that $60,000 would be needed to be paid as a bond which would be refunded in five days. Mr Turner said that he did not have that amount of money but agreed to pay $30,000 for the bond.
106In April 2020, you requested the original contracts for this work to be returned, stating that they needed to be redone. Mr Turner refused and one of you took them off his desk and tore the documents in half, however Mr Turner was able to retrieve them. The works were purported to have been carried out by some of your workers. In total, the victim paid $102,000 to a bank account in the name of Approved Contractors.
107I note that this offence is a continuing criminal enterprise offence.
108The second example involving a larger amount relates to:
Indictment No. L11697298.1 (Ball) – Charge 10 – obtain property by deception
Indictment No. C2013732.3 (Dooleys) – Charge 13 – obtain property by deception
109The victims were Mr Richard and Ms Dorothy Bower who were both 74 years of age at the time.
110On 14 May 2020, you, Michael Dooley, identifying yourself as ‘Jack Woodley’, and you, Johnny Dooley, identifying yourself as ‘Steve Collins’, attended at the Bowers’ home in Sandringham. You both claimed that you’d been working nearby and noticed that their roof needed to be retiled.
111After some discussion, Ms Bower wrote a cheque for $47,000 and the purported works were commenced by some of your employees.
112The following day, you both returned and advised that the cheque had been dishonoured. You then assisted Mr Bower to set up online banking for his account with Lloyds Bank. When logged in, the computer screen showed that Mr Bower had £180,000 in his account. He asked you to move away whilst he filled out the forms and entered his passwords. However, he had to briefly leave the room in order to use the bathroom.
113When he returned, you, Johnny Dooley sat up from the chair in front of the computer and turned it off, advising Mr Bower that the payment had been submitted. He was later notified that £80,000 (AUD $147,888) had been transferred to 5 Star Roofing in a Bendigo Bank account. Mr Bower queried this with you, Johnny Dooley and you advised him that $100,000 was required for a bond for a crane to lift the tiles, and the funds would be returned at the completion of the work.
114Mr Bower became suspicious and decided that he no longer wanted to proceed. You told him that it would take months for the money to be returned, so the works continued. On 20 May 2020, police attended at the Bowers’ residence after their daughter reported that her parents were being scammed. In total, the victims paid out $147,888; fortunately, however, I was told they were able to obtain a full refund from their bank.
115I note that this is also a continuing criminal enterprise offence.
Supplying identification information to commit indictable offences
116In addition to the deceptions, you have each pleaded guilty to four charges of falsely using identification information, being Charges 16–19 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 and Charges 19–22 on Indictment No. C2013732.3. To use two examples as to how these offences were committed:
Example 1 – Charge 17 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 (Ball); Charge 20 on Indictment No. C2013732.3 (Dooleys)
117Gijsbert Vel Tromp placed an advertisement for a labouring job on Gumtree during March 2020.
118In May 2020, one of you contacted Mr Vel Tromp, stating that you had work for him but that he needed to send an image of his learner’s permit so that he could be registered for insurance. Mr Vel Tromp forwarded an image of his Victorian learner’s permit as requested, but never heard anything further.
119Three vehicles were subsequently registered in Mr Vel Tromp’s name by you. He had no involvement with or knowledge of those vehicles.
Example 2 – Charge 16 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 (Ball); Charge 19 on Indictment No. C2013732.3 (Dooleys)
120Luke O’Connor was an Irish national who resided in Sydney but travelled to Melbourne in February 2020. Whilst in Melbourne, he misplaced his New South Wales drivers licence and bankcard. Three vehicles were subsequently registered in his name without his involvement or knowledge. All of those vehicles were used by the three of you in these deceptions.
Arrest
121On 15 July 2020, police attended at an address in Black Rock. Each of you was present at that location together with one of your contractors, James Crisp. The owner of the property told police that you had attended, advising that he had issues with the roof of his home. Each of you failed to provide your correct residential addresses to police and were arrested.
122The contractor, James Crisp, told police he had advertised for work on Gumtree and had been contacted by a male identifying himself as ‘Steve’ (which was you, Johnny Dooley) and commenced work with you on 13 July. He stated that he had followed you to the address in his personal vehicle and that all three of you were travelling in another vehicle.
123The keys to that vehicle were located in your, Joseph Ball’s, front pocket. A search warrant was then executed and investigators located identification belonging to you, Joseph Ball, and various bank documents, business cards and blank contracts for Commercial Metal Roofing Contractors. VicRoads transfer papers for the vehicle with Crisp’s personal details entered into the buyer’s details section of the document were also located.[7]
[7]See Charge 19 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 and Charge 22 on Indictment No. C2013732.3.
124Investigators discovered that all three of you were residing with your families in an apartment complex in Notting Hill. When search warrants were executed on those apartments, investigators located a substantial amount of property including luxury watches, designer bags and shoes, and cash. These items were the proceeds of crime and are the subject of Charge 15 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 (Ball) and Charge 18 on Indictment No. C2013732.3 (Dooleys). Further documentary evidence relating to the deceptions was also seized.
125You were each interviewed by police. You, Joseph Ball made a predominantly no comment record of interview. You, Michael Dooley made a no comment record of interview. You, Johnny Dooley denied involvement in the deceptions although you did identify yourself on various CCTV screen stills shown to you.
126Having set out such circumstances which I hope are sufficient to illustrate of the nature of your offending, I will now turn to each of the statutory considerations which must be taken into account pursuant to s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
Section 5(2)(a) – Maximum penalties
127The maximum penalty for the offences of obtaining property by deception and obtaining financial advantage by deception is 10 years imprisonment. In respect of attempting to obtain property by deception, the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment. Supplying identification information to commit or facilitate an indictable offence is subject to a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, and in respect of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, the maximum penalty is 15 years imprisonment.
128All parties accept that Charges 7 and 13 on Indictment No. C20113732.3 and Charges 4 and 10 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 are continuing criminal enterprise offences. That is so because s 6H of the Sentencing Act 1991 defines such an offence by reference to Schedule 1A of that Act, which includes the offences of obtaining property by deception and obtaining financial advantage by deception where the value of the property or the financial advantage obtained is $50,000 or more.
129There was some controversy as to whether Charge 14 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 11 on the Ball indictment – attempt to obtain property by deception – was a continuing criminal enterprise offence. Schedule 1A makes no reference to attempts. However, item 2 of Schedule 1A does pick up “any Schedule 2 offence within the meaning of the Confiscation Act 1997 where the value of the property in respect of which the offence is committed is $50,000 or more”.
130Item 5 of Schedule 2 of the Confiscation Act refers to “an offence of attempting to commit any offence in the circumstances referred to in item 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C… 3, 8, 9 or 10”. The offence of obtaining property by deception where the value of the property in respect of which the offence is committed is $50,000 or more is listed at item 2(f)(i). In my view, it follows that the offence of attempting to obtain property by deception where the value of the property obtained is greater than $50,000 is a continuing criminal enterprise offence.
131I note also that the continuing criminal enterprise offence provisions were considered by the Victorian Court of Appeal in the decision of Shiel v The Queen [2017] VSCA 359. That was an appeal against sentence where Charge 6 on the indictment – an offence of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception – appears to have been accepted as a continuing criminal enterprise offence. Although that issue was not expressly considered, no complaint was made in respect of the sentencing judge’s characterisation of that offence as a continuing criminal enterprise offence and the court appears to have proceeded on that basis.[8]
[8]The appeal against sentence was allowed on the basis that the sentences for the continuing criminal enterprise offences were automatically increased because of the higher maximum penalty.
132In the result, I am satisfied that each of you has pleaded guilty to three continuing criminal enterprise offences. Through the operation of s 6H(c) of the Act, each of you is therefore a continuing criminal enterprise offender, the practical effect of which, by virtue of s 6I, is to render you liable to double the maximum penalty for those three offences. In respect of the two substantive offences a maximum penalty therefore of 20 years is applicable, and in respect of the attempt the applicable maximum penalty will be 10 years.
133Section 6J of the Act requires that your status as continuing criminal enterprise offenders be noted in the records of the Court. Shortly, I will make that declaration.
Section 5(2)(b) – Current sentencing practices
134In having regard to this consideration, I must bear in mind that “[e]xamination of sentences imposed in comparable cases may inform the task of sentencing but such examination goes beyond its rationale when it is used to fix boundaries that, as a matter of practical reality, bind the court”.[9]
[9]DPP v Dalgleish (2017) 262 CLR 428 at 453, per Gageler and Gordon JJ at paragraph [83].
135Ms Paganis referred me to one case which provides some comparative assistance – DPP v McDonagh [2020] VCC 760. The offender in that case was engaged in a remarkably similar series of deceptions involving 8 victims where the quantum was in the order of $342,000. He had no previous convictions and after a plea of guilty was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 months.
136Suffice to observe that your offending was objectively more serious, having regard to the number of victims, the greater sophistication and the larger amount obtained or attempted to be obtained.
Section 5(2)(c) – The nature and gravity of offending
137Ms Paganis submitted that this offending was objectively serious.
138In the case of you, Johnny Dooley and you, Michael Dooley, the total quantum for obtaining property by deception was $434,258; for attempting to obtain property by deception the total quantum was $180,264; and for obtaining financial advantage by deception the quantum was $75,580.
139The offending took place over a period of 5 or so months between February–July 2020 and consisted of 37 incidents involving 43 victims, not including the 4 victims of identification theft.
140In the case of you, Joseph Ball, the quantum for obtaining property by deception was $409,963, the quantum for the attempts was $144,100, and the quantum for the obtaining financial advantage by deception was $72,330. Your offending took place over a period of approximately 4 months and consisted of 26 incidents involving 31 victims, not including the 4 victims of identification theft.
141In her very helpful submissions, Ms Paganis emphasised the vulnerability of these victims, particularly as they were targeted in their own homes. Counsel also pointed to the elaborate and premeditated nature of what was done, involving as it did the use of false names, employees, business paraphernalia and other people’s bank accounts in order to distance yourself from the offending and conceal the proceeds of these crimes. Nor did the motivation for the offending appear to be anything other than enrichment well beyond mere subsistence.
142None of you took particular issue with those submissions as to the seriousness of this offending, and in particular it was acknowledged that it targeted and deceived vulnerable elderly victims for profit. However, all three of you have provided differing accounts as to how you came to be involved in this offending.
143In respect of you, Johnny Dooley, it was put that your wife and Joseph Ball’s wife were sisters and that you understood that Mr Ball had a building company. It was said that you were introduced to him and that he offered you work replacing battens in roofs. It was suggested that Mr Ball had accessed the Oneflare app to bid for jobs and directed you, Johnny Dooley, to various sites the subject of these charges.
144On behalf of you, Michael Dooley, it was suggested that you were introduced to Joseph Ball whom you understood could provide casual work by quoting for jobs through applications like Oneflare. Indeed, your assessing psychologist suggested that you had been “recruited” to engage in this offending.[10] It was further suggested that after starting with Mr Ball, the offending developed to include cold-calling approaches to a number of the victims.
[10]Ian Mackinnon, report 5 February 2022, p 7.
145You, Joseph Ball told your assessing neuropsychologist that you had set up a handyman business with the assistance of your father and that you were approached by Michael Dooley and Johnny Dooley to do work for them. You said that the Dooleys would do all of the meeting of customers and provide the quotes, and that when they had a job for you they would contact you and tell you where to go and what to do. Your counsel suggested that you agreed to allow your name to be used in relation to the companies that were registered and the banking transactions that were made.
146None of you gave evidence at the plea hearings and the evidence does not enable me to make findings about how you each became involved in this offending. By reference to the objective evidence, it is plain that you, Johnny Dooley and you Michael Dooley, each plays a principal role in carrying out these offences. However, as I assess it, the evidence with respect to you, Joseph Ball, suggests that your role was less prominent, though no doubt still important. Of course, objectively, you, Joseph Ball face less charges, involving less victims. I will deal with the contention that you, Joseph Ball should receive a lesser sentence than your co-offenders when I come to your personal circumstances shortly.
147More generally in respect of all of you, I note that it was not alleged, and you will not be sentenced on the basis, that any of you travelled to this country for the specific purpose of carrying out these offences.
148Although it was not controversial on the plea, I should make it clear that I agree with the prosecutor’s characterisation of this offending as objectively serious. By and large, your victims were very vulnerable and to their misfortune, very trusting. All three of you unhesitatingly exploited those vulnerabilities, utilising elaborate ruses to conceal your identity and your profits. Moreover, the overall amount of money obtained or sought to be obtained was considerable.
149As Maxwell P, with whom Buchanan and Neave JJA agreed, observed as to offending of this kind, in Koch:[11]
“While … the amounts involved are not determinative of sentence, they are – for good reason – of very great significance in determining the appropriate sentence. This is so, at least in part, because the quantum provides some real indication of the measure of loss and damage, both financial and psychological, caused to the victims of the frauds.”[12]
[11]Koch v The Queen [2011] VSCA 435.
[12]Ibid [58].
150These offences were not committed to simply get by. The ‘high end’ watches, designer bags, shoes and cash confiscated at the time of the arrests and the subject of the dealing in proceeds of crime charge, illustrate how you sought to enrich yourselves from this offending and highlight the true nature and gravity of that offending.
Section 5(2)(daa) – The impact of the offence on any victim;
Section 5(2)(da) – The personal circumstances of any victim; and
Section 5(2)(db) – Any injury, loss or damage resulting directly from the offence
151At your plea hearing, Johnny Dooley and your plea hearing, Michael Dooley on 6 April 2022, the following victim impact statements were placed before the Court:[13]
(a) Sandra Stein (and Susan Middleton) – relevant to one of the six incidents which comprise Charge 2 on Indictment No. C2013732.3 and one of the two incidents which comprise Charge 3 on that same indictment. Those statements have not been taken into account in respect of your, Joseph Ball’s matter.
(b) Barbara Carter – relevant to one of the eight incidents that comprise Charge 1 on Indictment No. C2013732.3 and one of the six incidents which comprise Charge 2 on that same indictment. That statement has not been taken into account in respect of your, Joseph Ball’s matter.
(c) Yvoenne Cutler – relevant to one of the two incidents that comprise Charge 9 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 and Charge 12 on Indictment No. C2013732.3.
(d) Alban Hale and his relative Evelyn Feller – relevant to one of the seven incidents which comprise Charge 2 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 and Charge 5 on Indictment No. C2013732.3.
(e) Alexander Gosling – relevant to all of the incidents which comprise Charge 14 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 and Charge 17 on Indictment No. C2013732.3.
(f) Owen Lockwood – relevant to one of the six incidents which comprise Charge 2 on Indictment No. C2013732.3. That statement has not been taken into account in respect of your, Joseph Ball’s matter.
(g) Gary Mitchell – relevant to one of the seven incidents which comprise Charge 2 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 and Charge 5 on Indictment No. C2013732.3.
(h) John Potter – relevant to one of the three incidents which comprise Charge 6 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 and Charge 9 on Indictment No. C2013732.3.
(i) David Turner – relevant to Charge 4 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 and Charge 7 on Indictment No. C2013732.3.
[13] Those statements relevant to Joseph Ball’s matter were tendered at the hearing of 21 March.
152Taken as a whole, the victim impact statements underline just how very vulnerable the people targeted by these deceptions were. Invariably, they were elderly, they felt keenly the need to have a sound roof over their heads and they were in no position to challenge your false representations as to the need for repairs and the costs of carrying out those repairs. As so many of them lament, their mistake was to trust that you were being honest.
153Now, their confidence in ordinary people to do the right thing has been severely shaken. Some still suffer from residual psychological fallout. A lot more time and expense was incurred to rectify the problems you caused. It follows that the cost of your offending was much wider than simply the quantum of the funds obtained, or sought to be obtained.
154Aside from the impact on individuals, it is not difficult to infer a wider chilling effect that your dishonesty has had on those in the community who might wish to use a local tradesperson, but may hesitate to do so when they reflect on the experience of these victims.
Section 5(2)(e) – Whether the offender pleaded guilty and the stage in proceedings at which he indicated an intention to do so
155In the case of you, Michael Dooley, and you, Johnny Dooley, as I have indicated you were arrested on 15 July 2020. You have each remained in custody in respect of these matters since that time. In November 2020, you, Johnny Dooley pleaded not guilty at a committal mention hearing and you were committed for trial in this court. You, Michael Dooley proceeded to a contested committal which was heard on the 1 and 2 June 2021, after which you pleaded not guilty and you were likewise committed to this court for trial.
156Throughout the latter part of 2021 a number of case conferences were conducted in this court, after which you entered pleas of guilty. Although your pleas of guilty were not entered at an early stage in the proceedings, there was a good deal of complexity associated with these allegations that explains that delay. In any event, for reasons that I will explain below, the fact that each of you has pleaded guilty is very significant.
157In the case of you, Joseph Ball, you were also arrested on 15 July 2020. On 30 July 2020, you were released on bail in respect of these matters, however that bail undertaking was revoked on 11 August 2020 and you have remained in custody since that time.
158You waived your right to a committal hearing in the Magistrates’ Court and according to the prosecutor you indicated through your legal representatives from an early stage in the proceedings that you would be prepared to enter a plea of guilty, as it was described, “to the Crown’s bottom line in whatever form that took”.
159Although you entered a formal plea of guilty on 6 December 2021, I will treat your plea as having been indicated at an early stage. Again, for reasons I will explain, your plea is particularly significant.
Section 5(2)(f) – The offender’s previous character; and
Section 5(2)(d) – The offender’s culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence
160I will now turn to the personal circumstances of each of you.
Johnny Dooley
161You were born in December 1987 and are now 34 years of age. You were 32 at the time of this offending. Importantly, you have no previous convictions either in this country or in the United Kingdom.
162You were born in Hackney in central London and attended primary school in Harlesden. I was told, however, that you did not attend secondary school but that you were desultorily home schooled until you were 14 or so. In consequence, you struggle with numeracy and literacy.
163Your parents separated when you were young and you were largely raised by your mother. You are the fourth-eldest of five siblings. Your three sisters are raising families in the UK and you have two brothers who work as builders on their own account, also in the UK. Both of your parents were of Irish background and are part of the travelling community in the UK.
164From the age of 14 onwards, you generally worked on a cash-in-hand basis performing labouring jobs on building sites. You married in 2009 and there are two children of that relationship aged 11 and 6. You described yourself as being extremely poor when living in the UK. Your wife returned to the UK after you were arrested and has raised your two children as a single parent since that time. She lives periodically either with your mother or your mother-in-law.
165In support of your plea, a number of personal references were relied upon. They were from your wife, your mother, your sister, your oldest brother, your youngest brother, an aunt, and a very close friend. You clearly come from a close-knit supportive family who sorely miss you. Each of the testimonials emphasises that you have not been in trouble with the law in the past and that you are regarded as a hard-working family man. I am satisfied that you have felt, and continue to feel, acutely the enforced separation from your wife, children and extended family.
166You arrived in this country with your wife and two children on 29 January 2020 on a tourist visa. I was told that your plan was to assess employment opportunities with a view to emigrating if the prospects seemed good. You instructed your counsel that you had saved a modest amount of money to fund this trip but the costs you incurred exceeded expectations. You decided therefore to look for work and your father provided the contact details of a relative, Michael Dooley, who you were told might assist in finding you work. You had not previously met Michael Dooley.
167You, Johnny Dooley were assessed for the purposes of your plea by Ms Gina Cidoni, psychologist. She administered some tests to determine your intellectual functioning, although it was not possible to complete all of the subtests ordinarily required. She formed the view, however, that your intellectual functioning was low, likely in the borderline range. On the basis of all of the psychological tests she administered, she diagnosed you as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, persistent depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and cannabis use disorder (in enforced remission).
168When you were 17, you were involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in which you were struck by a truck whilst crossing a road. Ms Cidoni formed the view that the trauma you suffered at that time had a lasting impact on your ability to cope with stress and function normally. It was suggested that injury had the capacity to impair your judgement and your ability to reason and make rational decisions.
169Initially, Mr Kelly submitted that your psychological condition was such that it should reduce your moral culpability for this offending, however, after discussion during your plea hearing, reliance on what is sometimes described as limb 1 of Verdins[14] relating to reduced moral culpability due to impaired mental functioning was not pressed. However, “[r]eliance [on] limbs 4 and 5 [was] maintained”.[15] To ensure that I have not misunderstood your counsel’s argument, I take this submission to encompass limb 3 as well as limbs 4 and 5 of Verdins.
[14]R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269.
[15]Johnny Dooley, further plea submissions, paragraph [8].
170The relevant considerations therefore are:
“3. Whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of sentence or both.
4. Whether specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration likewise depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms of the condition as exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of the sentence or both.
5. The existence of the condition at the date of sentencing (or its foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal health.”[16]
[16]Verdins [32].
171In respect of general deterrence, it seems that it is not necessary to establish a causal or realistic connection between the impaired condition of the offender and the offending in order for general deterrence to be moderated or eliminated. However, it is not enough to simply identify an impairment. What is required was articulated in DPP v O’Neill [2015] VSCA 325 per Warren CJ, Redlich JA and Kaye JA as follows:
“Clearly, there must be an established evidentiary basis for moderating the principles of general deterrence in a particular case. For that to occur, it is not sufficient that the offender suffer from a particular mental impairment. There must be proper, and informed, consideration of how that impairment might have either materially diminished the capacity of the offender to reason appropriately at the time of the offence concerning the wrongfulness of his or her offending, or of how the offender’s condition might make the full application of the principles of general deterrence repugnant to the underlying sense of humanity which guides proper sentencing.”[17]
[17]At paragraph [59].
172Whilst I accept that you may have been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for some years, in the absence of further evidence I am not persuaded that the nature and severity of your symptoms were/are such as to justify a moderation in general deterrence. When one has regard to the frequency of the offending, the methods employed in the offending, and the period of time over which you offended, I cannot be satisfied that your psychological condition materially diminished your capacity to reason as to the wrongfulness of your actions or that the full application of the principles of general deterrence would be repugnant to the underlying sense of humanity which guides the proper exercise of sentencing discretion.
173In respect of specific deterrence, I do accept that the need to emphasise that sentencing purpose is somewhat moderated by the fact that you lack any previous criminal convictions. I do not understand, however, that your condition is such as to in some way impair your capacity to learn from the experience of incarceration. It follows that whilst the emphasis on specific deterrence will be moderate, it will not be reduced by reason of your psychological condition.
174As to whether the sentence will weigh more heavily upon you, in her report Ms Cidoni stated:
“His time in prison has had a sobering effect upon him. His high symptom presentation indicates the experience has not eased his mental state where symptoms are pronounced and depression has worsened.”
175I do accept that your PTSD, particularly in combination with your depressive disorder and anxiety disorder, has meant, and will mean, that imprisonment will weigh more heavily upon you than in a person without those conditions. It seems to me that the fifth limb of Verdins has been properly engaged and will moderately mitigate your sentence.
176More generally with respect to your time in custody, I note that you have undertaken such rehabilitative and vocational courses as you can, although the opportunity to do so has been extremely limited because of the restrictive conditions which were imposed to deal with the pandemic. Nevertheless, your prospects for rehabilitation, having regard to your family support and lack of prior convictions, appear to be reasonably good.
177The entirety of your time in custody has coincided with the pandemic. In consequence, the conditions under which you have served your pre-sentence detention have been far more onerous than would ordinarily be the case. I accept Mr Kelly’s submission that those harsher conditions should be reflected in an amelioration of the sentence ultimately imposed.
178Your plea of guilty, as I indicated, is extremely important. As I have also indicated, whilst your plea was not entered at the earliest possible opportunity, this was a complex matter where you participated appropriately in the case management process which I take to have facilitated the course of justice. Importantly, your plea has also obviated the need to call a large number of elderly witnesses at trial.
179Mr Kelly submitted that the plea was demonstrative of remorse and on the strength of the personal references to which I have already referred and the attitude you have displayed during the case conference process, I am prepared to accept that is so.
180I will also make various orders for compensation to a number of your victims. I have been advised that you consented to the restraint of the property seized at the time of your arrest and have relinquished any claim in respect of that property. It follows that the sale of the property seized, which appears to be of considerable value, may now be applied to meeting those compensation orders.
181Your attitude and cooperation with respect to that matter further supports your counsel’s submissions as to remorse and that you have facilitated the course of justice. That is so because your cooperation has contributed to the fact that there seems to be some realistic prospect of victims recovering some of the monies lost. That is an important matter which I have taken into account in your favour.
182Beyond those considerations is the fact that you have entered this plea at a time when this court faces the daunting challenge of dealing with a large number of criminal trials which have been delayed because of the pandemic. Your reduction in sentence will be all the more pronounced because of that fact.[18]
[18] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169, [39] per Priest, Kaye and T Forrest JJA.
183Those matters taken together require a very significant reduction in the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.
Michael Dooley
184You were born in November 1985 and are now 36 years of age. You were 34 at the time of this offending. You also have no previous convictions either in this country or in your country of birth, Ireland.
185You grew up in Killarney in the south-west of Ireland as the middle child of five siblings. Your parents provided a caring home environment. You described them as “honest working-class people”.
186It seems that during your primary schooling you were the victim of a distressing sexual assault. You could not settle back into your schooling and ultimately dropped out of secondary school at a very early stage. You started your working life cleaning and assisting other staff in a local hotel. At around the age of 18 you started an apprenticeship with a builder, learning such skills as carpentry and bricklaying. Thereafter, you continued to work in the building industry although there were times when you were unable to find work because of the periodic downturns in that industry in Ireland.
187Your assessing psychologist, Mr Ian Mackinnon, who provided a report of 5 February 2022, noted that you suffered quite serious injuries in two separate traumatic events during your working life. When you were 18, you were physically assaulted by a group of men and suffered injuries that required hospitalisation. When you were 24, you fell off some scaffolding and suffered a back injury which continues to trouble you.
188You have a history of substance abuse. In your mid-teens you commenced using drugs such as MDMA, amphetamines and cocaine. Into your 20s and early 30s you habitually abused cannabis, cocaine and stimulant prescription medications.
189You were married at the age of 18 in 2004 and there are 4 children of that relationship aged between 5 and 13. Your marriage has been unstable, not least because of your substance abuse.
190In 2018, you made the decision to come to Australia in the hope of finding better work and educational opportunities. You and your family arrived in Australia in January 2019 on a study visa which entitled you to work 20 hours per week. You enrolled at the Australian College of Agriculture and Horticulture in order to study a diploma of Agribusiness Management. You rented an apartment and obtained some casual work as a labourer.
191I was told that the costs associated with relocating to Australia and studying were far greater than you anticipated. The resulting financial problems provided the setting in which you committed these offences.
192After your arrest, your wife and children returned to Ireland where they now live in impoverished circumstances. They are dependent on social security and the five of them currently reside in a caravan. Medical reports provided by a paediatrician who has treated three of your children for conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder and autism spectrum disorder confirm your family’s difficult current circumstances.
193I should indicate at this point that I accept Mr Patton’s submission that you, like Johnny Dooley, feel acutely the fact that your family is in those difficult circumstances and that you are not able to assist them.
194In his assessment of you, Mr McKinnon formed the view that you suffered from complex PTSD arising from various traumas you experienced in the form of a sexual assault, a physical assault and a serious work accident.[19] In addition, your mental health has declined in the wake of persistent substance abuse. In that respect, I note that you were sentenced on 23 February 2021 for possession of cocaine. That offence was committed during the period in which you committed these offences.
[19]It was not suggested that the principles in Verdins’s Case were engaged in your circumstances.
195I should emphasise that subsequent matter does not in any way aggravate the sentence that must be imposed for this offending. Despite that substance abuse, your assessing psychologist put your prospects for rehabilitation as good and opined that you do not pose a significant risk of reoffending.[20]
[20]Report of Ian Mackinnon, 5 February 2022, p 8.
196All that I have said with respect to Johnny Dooley’s plea of guilty, and the very significant reduction in sentence that should flow from that plea, applies equally to you. Likewise with respect to your facilitation of the course of justice by cooperating with the process leading to the realisation of seized property to compensate victims.
197Similarly, with respect to the circumstances in which you have served your pre-sentence detention, you have been subject to the same restrictive conditions necessary to deal with the pandemic. You have also completed some rehabilitative and vocational courses, although the opportunity to undertake such courses has been limited.
198Mr Patton adopted Mr Kelly’s submissions generally but emphasised that the principle of totality would require careful application in this sentencing exercise. I accept that is so.
199I should indicate that I have determined to treat you equally with Johnny Dooley for the purposes of imposing sentence. You both play a prominent role in this joint criminal enterprise, you both have no prior circumstances and your personal circumstances are not materially different.
200One point of difference might be thought to be the finding in Johnny Dooley’s case that imprisonment will weigh more heavily upon him than a person of normal health. To the extent that that finding mitigates Johnny Dooley’s sentence, I have decided to accord you the same benefit. There is a risk, it seems to me, that to distinguish between you on that basis alone, and impose a longer sentence on you, might give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance. In my judgment, fairness dictates that you receive the same sentence.
Joseph Ball
201You were born in March 1991 and are now 30 years of age. You were 28–29 years of age at the time of the offending.
202You were born and raised in Surrey in the south-east of England. You were the oldest of four children. Your mother gave evidence on your plea and it is clear that you come from a loving and caring family. She suffers from Parkinson’s disease but nevertheless was determined to travel to Australia with your father to support you as best she could. Your mother stated in her evidence that she knew as you were growing up that there was something wrong with you, however you were never assessed or treated by a psychologist.
203You were, however, assessed for the purposes of your plea hearing by a neuropsychologist, Mr Martin Jackson. He administered a large number of psychological tests and found you to have a full-scale IQ score of 65, which he explained was in the extremely low range and is characterised as a mild intellectual disability.
204He provided a number of specific examples to illustrate your low level of intellectual functioning.
205He assessed your vocabulary and reading to be in the borderline range and at best equivalent to Year 7 high school.[21]
[21] Report of Martin Jackson, 14 September 2020, p 11.
206He stated:
“His verbal intellectual abilities (vocabulary, general knowledge and verbal abstract reasoning) and perceptual intellectual abilities (attention to visual detail, construction and visual logical thinking) were all in the extremely low to borderline range with extremely low performances in the areas of verbal abstract reasoning, visual logical thinking and construction. His immediate memory span was in the extremely low range, whilst his working memory span and sequencing span were low average. Mental arithmetic was in the borderline range and he could only do single step calculations. Processing speed (psycho motor speed and visual matching speed) were consistently in the borderline range.”[22]
[22]Ibid 12.
207And further:
“Overall, the majority of Mr Ball’s executive skills were in the extremely low range, including planning, organisation, verbal abstract reasoning, visual logical thinking, concept formation and flexibility of thinking. He is very concrete and inflexible. The exceptions were letter fluency (low average) and mental arithmetic (borderline). There was no evidence of a disorder of impulse control.”[23]
[23]Ibid 10.
208Consistent with that disability, you struggled a great deal at school and could not cope with your school work. After primary school you stopped attending school altogether. You spent the next five years or so at home being home-schooled irregularly. You did not start work until you were about 16 years of age and only then assisting your father or friends of your father as a carpenter’s labourer.
209Your medical history is complex. When you were 19, you developed a severe form of pneumonia requiring you to be hospitalised for 7 weeks including a period in intensive care. That illness left you with a heart condition for which you are medicated and from which you developed a very low immune system.
210You also suffer a condition, as yet not definitively diagnosed, where you are unable to grow body hair. Over many years you were given testosterone tablets and injections with uncertain results. I note that it is not suggested that you have any issues with alcohol or illicit drugs.
211You met and married your wife in 2014 and lived with her in a mobile home on your parent’s property. There are no children of the relationship. You and your wife have undertaken IVF treatment in the UK and you say you came to Australia for a holiday in 2019 but decided to stay once your wife had formed the view that the IVF options in this country appeared to offer better prospects.
212A clinical psychologist, Ms Carla Lechner, in a report of 31 August 2021, considered you to be cognitively, socially and emotionally immature. Your presentation was very much consistent with the intellectual disability identified by Mr Jackson. Essentially, you have not functioned in the community independently, and have always required the support of others, mainly your parents or your wife, for tasks such as managing your finances. You were noted to suffer from symptoms of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression “reactive to being in prison and separated from [your] family”.[24] Clearly, you have found the experience of prison distressing.
[24]Report of Carla Lechner, 31 August 2021, p 6.
213I have taken into account the personal references which were tendered on your behalf. They were from two of your grandparents, both parents, two sisters, your brother, and your wife. You clearly come from a caring, close-knit family who miss you a great deal. It seems to me that the very strong family support you have, taken together with your lack of prior criminal history, augurs well for your rehabilitation.
214In his submissions on your behalf, Mr Pearson relied on Mr Jackson’s opinion that you are easily led and lacked the cognitive capacity and executive skills to think of, manage and run a criminal enterprise of this scope. Although you understand the difference between right and wrong, it was suggested that at the time of the offending you perhaps did not have a sophisticated appreciation of the level of harm that you were causing your victims, nor did you appreciate the likely consequences for yourself. Having spent nearly two years in jail, I am satisfied that you do now have some appreciation of the sort of harm that you have caused.
215Mr Pearson submitted that your moral culpability should be reduced by reason of your disability, as should the need to emphasise both general and specific deterrence. He also suggested that imprisonment for you is more burdensome, having regard to your intellectual disability, your compromised physical health, and isolation from your family.
216Like Johnny Dooley and Michael Dooley, you have served your pre-sentence imprisonment under the restrictive prison regime necessary to deal with the pandemic. Indeed, you have been all the more vulnerable because of your compromised immune system. I have also taken into account the fact that you have received some threats after media coverage of your first plea hearing and you have since needed to go into protective custody.
217In addition, save in respect of one item over which your wife may have some claim, you have facilitated the course of justice by cooperating with the confiscation process and waiving any potential claim you might have had over seized property, which will in turn be applied to compensate the victims.
218Having regard to, among other things, the matters raised in your mother’s evidence and the personal references, I am satisfied that you are remorseful and that your plea of guilty is a circumstance which should significantly reduce the sentence that would be otherwise be imposed. That is so essentially for the same reasons I have explained in dealing with Johnny Dooley and Michael Dooley, but perhaps all the more so given your earlier plea.
219Having regard to Mr Jackson’s opinion that your low intellectual functioning inhibited your appreciation of the harm that you were helping to cause, the prosecutor Ms Paganis acknowledged that there appeared to be some connection between your intellectual deficits and your offending. That being so, she quite fairly accepted that there was a proper basis to engage the first principle articulated in Verdins, the effect of which was to reduce your moral culpability.
220It was not conceded that specific and general deterrence should also be moderated, however if there was to be some moderation, that should be tempered, it was submitted, by the serious features of your conduct bearing in mind that your offending was not simply an impulsive exercise of impaired judgement on a single occasion.
221It was also accepted, as I understood the prosecution position, that imprisonment would be more burdensome for you than a person of normal capacity.
222In analysing the submissions as to your intellectual disability, I should say that I am satisfied that there is a sound basis on which to reduce your moral culpability and moderate the emphasis on specific and general deterrence. Your deficits are significant, in particular your capacity to plan, organise and reason abstractly. I accept that your appreciation of the level of harm you were causing was not sophisticated. Although I do not, for reasons I have explained above, make any findings as to how you or your co-offenders started this offending or the precise role each of you played, I do proceed on the basis that you, Joseph Ball appear to be less prominent in this joint criminal enterprise than Johnny Dooley and Michael Dooley. Certainly, you are to be sentenced for less offending.
223Further, as an intellectually disabled offender, you present as a less than ideal vehicle for general deterrence, even allowing for the fact that your offending was repeated over a duration of four or so months. Likewise, emphasis on specific deterrence will be moderated.
224Prison has been, I also accept, particularly burdensome for you.
225Your counsel did seek to argue that the majority of victims with whom you were involved fell into what he described as the “relatively low value range” ($1,000–$10,000) or “medium value” ($10,001–$50,000).[25] I did not find this argument persuasive.
[25] Further Outline of Submissions for Plea (Joseph Ball), 21 March 2021.
226Whilst the individual sentences I will impose will differ according to the gravity of each offence, in order to impose a sentence which will punish you, Joseph Ball “to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances”,[26] I must have regard to your overall criminality in this joint criminal enterprise, which is plainly considerable.
[26] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(1)(a).
227That said, I will impose a lesser sentence on you than on your co-offenders. I will do so for four reasons.
228First, you face less charges, involving a lesser number of victims and a somewhat lesser quantum of monies obtained or attempted to have been obtained.
229Second, your intellectual disability is a circumstance which mitigates your sentence for the reasons I have explained.
230Third, and I do not regard this consideration as being as influential as the other two considerations, you were less prominent than your co-offenders in the offending in which you were involved.
231Fourth, you indicated your intention to plead guilty at a very early stage in the proceedings.
The purposes for imposing sentence
232The purposes of the sentences that will now be imposed on you, Johnny Dooley, on you, Michael Dooley, and, to a lesser extent on you, Joseph Ball, will be to punish you, to deter others from committing similar offences, to denounce what you did to these victims, to protect the sort of vulnerable members of our community upon whom you preyed, and, to the extent possible, to facilitate your rehabilitation. Of those purposes I must particularly emphasise the need to deter others.
233To achieve those purposes, there was not, and there could not be, any argument that what you have done deserves anything other than substantial terms of imprisonment.
Sentence
234Taking all relevant matters into account, you will each be sentenced as follows.
235On Charge 1 on Indictment No. C2013732.3 (the Dooleys’ indictment), being one rolled-up charge of attempt to obtain property by deception, you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley will be convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
236On Charge 2 on the same indictment, being one rolled-up charge of obtaining property by deception, you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley will be convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment
237On Charge 3 on the same indictment, being one rolled-up charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception, you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley will be convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
238On Charge 4 on the same indictment and Charge 1 on Indictment No. L11697298.1 (the Ball indictment), being one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception, you, Michael Dooley, you, Johnny Dooley and you, Joseph Ball will each be convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
239On Charge 5 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 2 on the Ball indictment, being a rolled-up charge of obtaining property by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 months.
240On Charge 6 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 3 on the Ball indictment, being one charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 months.
241On Charge 7 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 4 on the Ball indictment, being one charge of obtaining property by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 months.
242On Charge 8 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 5 on the Ball indictment, being one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 days.
243On Charge 9 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 6 on the Ball indictment, being a rolled-up charge of obtaining property by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
244On Charge 10 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 7 on the Ball indictment, being one charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months.
245On Charge 11 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 8 on the Ball indictment, being a rolled-up charge of obtaining property by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.
246On Charge 12 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 9 on the Ball indictment, being a rolled-up charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 months.
247On Charge 13 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 10 on the Ball indictment, being one charge of obtaining property by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.
248On Charge 14 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 11 on the Ball indictment, being one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 months.
249On Charge 15 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 12 on the Ball indictment, being a rolled-up charge of obtaining property by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 months.
250On Charge 16 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 13 on the Ball indictment, being a rolled-up charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 months.
251On Charge 17 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 14 on the Ball indictment, being a rolled-up charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 months.
252On Charge 18 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 15 on the Ball indictment, being one charge of knowingly dealing in proceeds of crime contrary to s 194(2) of the Crimes Act 1958, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 months.
253On Charge 19 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 16 on the Ball indictment, being a rolled-up charge of using identification information to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 months.
254On Charge 20 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 17 on the Ball indictment, being one rolled-up charge of using identification information to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 months.
255On Charge 21 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 18 on the Ball indictment, being one rolled-up charge of using identification information to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 months.
256On Charge 22 on the Dooleys’ indictment and Charge 19 on the Ball indictment, being one charge of using identification information to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, you will each be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 month.
257On Indictment No. C2013732.3, being the Dooleys’ indictment, I will order that 3 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1, 6 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, 9 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 5, 9 months of sentence imposed on Charge 7, 3 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 11 and 9 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 18 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 13, and that all other sentences or part sentences be served concurrently. That renders a total effective sentence of 57 months or 4 years and 9 months. I will fix a non-parole period of two years and nine months.
258On Indictment No. L11697298.1, being the Ball indictment, I will order that 9 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, 9 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 4, 3 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 8, and 9 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 15 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 10, and that all other sentences or part sentences be served concurrently. That renders a total effective sentence of 48 months or 4 years. I will fix a non-parole period of two years.
259I will, pursuant to s 6J(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, declare that you, Michael Dooley and you, Johnny Dooley have been sentenced as continuing criminal enterprise offenders in respect of Charges 7, 13 and 14 on your indictment, and that you, Joseph Ball have been sentenced as a continuing criminal enterprise offender in respect of Charges 4, 10 and 11 on your indictment. I will cause that declaration to be noted in the records of the Court.
260I will declare pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 that you, Johnny Dooley and you, Michael Dooley have served 671 days by way of pre-sentence detention and that you, Joseph Ball have served 659 days by way of pre-sentence detention. I will cause those declarations to be noted in the records of the court
261I will further declare pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991 that but for your pleas of guilty you Michael Dooley and you Johnny Dooley would have been sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of seven years with a non-parole period of five years. But for your plea of guilty, Joseph Ball, you would have been sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of six years with a non-parole period of four years. I will also cause those declarations to be noted in the records of the court.
262Finally, I will make the compensation orders sought by the prosecution.
2
8
0