Director of Public Prosecutions v Galvin-Samie

[2022] VCC 691

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-21-00320

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

KRISTEL GALVIN-SAMIE

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE McINERNEY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 April 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Galvin-Samie
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 691

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:  Guilty plea – Theft – Possession of identification information – Obtaining property by deception – Rehabilitation

Legislation Cited: S 74(1), S 82, S 192C Crimes Act – S 6AAA, S 40, S 44 Sentencing Act

Cases Cited:Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214 – DPP v Tokava [2006] VSCA 156 – R v Merrett [2007] VSCA 1 – DPP v Milson [2019] VSCA 55

Sentence:260 days imprisonment (PSD) – 2 year Community Correction Order – $5,000 Fine – Disposal Order

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M. Cookson	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Ms K. Webster	Law and Advocacy Centre for Women

HIS HONOUR: 

1Ms Galvin-Samie's is before the Court, aged 36.  These offences took place some time ago now, when she was between 31 and 32, having been born in June 1986. 

2Mr Cookson appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and
Ms Webster appeared on behalf of Ms Galvin-Samie. 

3The charges involved in Indictment K11510460, to which Ms Galvin-Samie pleaded to on the 22 April 2022, involve the four charges on the indictment and two summary charges, one being Summary Charge 3, which was pleaded to last time by counsel on behalf of Ms Galvin-Samie, and Charge 18, which has been pleaded to this morning by counsel.

4Insofar as those charges are concerned, they are as described by the prosecution as serious and protracted. The first of them, a breach of s74(1) of the Crimes Act, for which a maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment, was of obtaining property by deception. 

5Perhaps by way of background, it is important to understand that
Ms Galvin-Samie is obviously a person of intelligence, albeit that her education ceased at Year 12, she went on to get some certificates, she went into the workforce.  She worked at various organisations in an administrative status, FleetPlus and ANZ.  She performed roles at fleet management of client relationship management, from the periods 01/09/14 through to 03/07/15. 

6She had access as part of that job to computers and obviously obtained the ability in regard to passwords, logins, to the extent that she was able to use all that experience, together with her criminal companions, to effect the criminality that has been described.  The criminality, as I say, was brazen and ongoing. 

7Charge one concerned a redraw of a loan held in the name of Ruth Lim.  The effect of that was that, Ms Galvin-Samie was able to steal $165,317 from that account the full details of this are set out at p12 of the opening. 

8It was brazen, it was substantial, and she attended indeed at the bank premises with a false identity, and was able, having executed a redraw on this particular account, to withdraw in cash $30,000.  She transferred to two accounts, $79,000 to an account which was conducted by a co-accused, Hughes (not in this particular matter, but person involved in these similar matters), and $56,000 to another account conducted by another co-accused, Pira. 

9As I say, it was brazen in the sense that she attended the branch of the ANZ with a Victorian licence and a Working with Children card, each of which had been altered, so that they showed her photo as the person on each card. 

10Once arrested, her home was searched pursuant to warrant, where she was living with her friend at the time, found there was a substantial amount of what is known as identity information, and that is the basis of the Charge 2, being the possession of identification information contrary to s192C of the Crimes Act.  The full details of that is set out in Schedule A to the opening, and there are 112 different identity documents that were in her possession at that time on
1 August 2018.  Those documents had been either utilised or were intended to be utilised in criminal activities.  The maximum penalty imposed by the Crimes Act for this offence is three years imprisonment. 

11The third charge concerned a breach of s82 of the Crimes Act, that is obtain financial advantage by deception, 82(1), for which the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.  Ms Galvin-Samie utilised an account in the name of Susan Marie Johnson.  Those details are set out at p13 of the opening.

12Susan Johnson, lives in Western Australia, she was a FleetPlus customer, at that time applied to FleetPlus for finance for a vehicle, and when she applied for that finance she included a scanned copy of Western Australian driving licence. It would appear that those identity documents were removed by Ms Galvin-Samie in order to effect the offending in this instance.  

13Ms Galvin-Samie sought a personal loan from Bank West by way of false representations. Once opened she then arranged for the proceeds to be paid out.  In order to do that, she actually attended on 31 July 2018, the Watergardens bank branch, Taylors Lakes, purporting to be Susan Johnson, producing a licence showing her image, and as a result of that opened an easy transaction account in the name of Susan Johnson and the personal loan of $40,000 were electronically credited to that account.

14On 4 August, a $10,000 cash withdrawal was made from that account by
Ms Galvin-Samie, and again on 4 August, a $15,000 cash withdrawal was made at another bank, those withdrawals being able to be obtained from the personal loan account. 

15The fourth charge involves a charge of theft, an offence under s74(1) of the Crimes Act, and relates to an offence on 17 October 2018, the theft of the sum of $55,000 belonging to Kate Stewart.  This was also effected by attending the bank.  In late March, Kate Stewart had a purse stolen, inside her purse was a driver's licence and other forms of identification, including an ANZ bank card. 

16On 17 October 2018, Ms Samie attended the Box Hill branch, produced a driver's licence in the name of Kate Stewart, but with her image, and completed a withdrawal slip in regard to that account, which she was apparently able to be effected because though Ms Stewart had closed her account in January 2018, there was a mortgage offset account still operative in that name, to which Ms Galvin-Samie was able to obtain access. 

17She then completed further transfer slips, transferring $25,000 of the mortgage offset account opened that day in the false name of Brooke Johnson, and CCTV footage captured her making those transactions, wearing a blonde or brown coloured wig, with dark clothing, with her left hand bandaged. 

18She ultimately, on that day, attended the ANZ branch at Docklands, produced a fraudulent driver's licence number in that name, that is Brooke Johnson, the account that she'd opened.  She requested to withdraw a further $25,000, the teller became suspicious and started asking questions, and by the time he returned, she had left. 

19As I say, all of those sophisticated procedures which enabled her to commit those four crimes were brought about by pretty amazing skilled criminality by her and her companions.  It is important to make the point, however, each of these charges for which she faces, and the summary charges, are not charges of which her respective criminal associates are charged.

20I should say that the security systems in place at the respective bank branches mentioned clearly left much to be desired.

21A warrant was subsequently issued on 1 August 2018, when her premises where she was living, which were premises rented by Wan Wyles, who was a friend of hers, at 47 Dingo Street, Point Cook, were searched and all of the identity materials that I have indicated were obtained.

22There are two summary charges to which you also pleaded guilty.  There was a disposal order sought, which I have signed.  There was no issue with that.  As has been confirmed today, the pre-sentence detention to date is 260 days, approximately eight and a half months.

23The prosecution opening was tendered as Exhibit A, and the facts therein were accepted by Ms Webster as the facts upon which I am to sentence her client.  When one understands the full modus operandi of Ms Galvin-Samie and her friends, I was staggered, to say the least.  I think I remarked on it being the type of behaviour that could make up a film script.  However, each of those fellow criminals have been dealt with in regard to their own individual charges. 

24Insofar as the plea put by Ms Webster, she relied in particular upon the support of Ms Galvin-Samie's family, both her mother and partner were present in Court, and are present here again.  In particular, the circumstances as set out in both Exhibit 2, which is the Odyssey House support letter of Senior Therapist Wilson, and the further letter tendered today of Senior Therapist Smithers, dated 17 May 2022, which is Exhibit 9, talk of the steps taken by Ms Galvin-Samie as to her rehabilitation. 

25I am not quite certain why she was discharged initially from Odyssey, where she has been for a long period, nearly 20 months now.  However, as a result thereof, it was something to do with, I'm told, a relationship for which was a breach of the rules entered into while she was in Odyssey.  As a result, bail was revoked on 16 June, and she was re-bailed from 8 September. 

26One of the fortunate things that had occurred is that, during the period in prison, she had gone through a cleansing period in regard to drugs.  What was described thereafter was the ongoing treatment that she's had at Odyssey House, which started on 9 September 2020.  The first stage involved being within the house when in circumstances where she could not leave the house, where she was not receiving visits, and she was subject to random testing. 

27The second stage thereafter is more open, in the sense that she's still a resident undergoing therapy, treatment and education, has restrictive movements by way of residency and where she could work.  Family visits could only take place because of the Covid restrictions and the medical situations in the presence of therapists.  That period ended in about January 2021.  However, she continued to stay on thereafter at Odyssey by way of undergoing an individual treatment plan. 

28She completed the final stage of the Odyssey program by September 2021.  Since that time, she has been residing in voluntary circumstances at Odyssey.  She hopes to become, and is training to become a counsellor.  She will eventually reside outside of Odyssey and continue with her therapy. 

29She has been nominated by Mr Wilson to study certification four in regard to being a therapist.  Full details of such Odyssey program are recorded in Exhibits 2 and 9. In addition to that, she has sought the independent support of a psychologist, details of which are set out in Exhibit 7. 

30It is not put to the Court, that is Mr Harvey's report, to establish in any way a Verdins type argument.  What is put to the Court is that she has effected quite a remarkable rehabilitation subsequent to his spate of very serious criminality.

31Tendered as Exhibit 3 was a letter from her employer as a traffic controller, which is very positive.  There is confirmation from VCAL TAFE of her undergoing the particular course that I've indicated. In particular,
Ms Webster relied upon the letter of apology, Exhibit 4, which was tendered.  I should read that because it is of substance.  It's dated 16 April,  she states:

“…I stand here before the court utterly sorry for the pain that I have caused.  I realised while in treatment the abusive pain I have suffered impacted my behaviour.  In August 2019, I got clean for two weeks and reached out to multiple people.  I started to realise if I did not change I would die or end up in gaol.”

32This of course, with people addicted to drugs is the ultimate conundrum.  People are told to give up drugs because of the effect on their lives, and the options are really three, you either if you don't, end up at the end of a lane dead with an overdose, in gaol, or you, unfortunately, somewhat rarely, effect total change by giving up drugs.

33As she said: “Every day I have been clean.  I've had to live with the guilt and shame for the impact of my actions...  I am truly remorseful.” 

34This Court has heard a lot of similar statements from people over many, many years.  It was as a result of the proposition of being clean from drugs, I indicated that I would not be prepared to accept that, given the experience of the Court without confirmation.  That not in any way was to undermine the letter in support from Odyssey, but simply to ensure that this Court was in no way misled. 

35Tendered today, Exhibit 8, is a summary of urine samples taken for the period of nearly one and a half years, from Ms Galvin-Samie, while at Odyssey House, being 35 urine sample tests.  In that period, on not one occasion has she tested positive.  Also tendered today was an email from her solicitors, indicating that during last Christmas, around that period when there were difficulties with COVID, and at times she could not stay at Odyssey, testing was done outside Odyssey and equally, negative readings were obtained. 

36Ms Webster put to the Court that such demonstrates that she had in fact effected rehabilitation.  Rehabilitation from the scurge of drug addiction, this Court knows, is not easy.  Ms Webster put to me that I should accept as set out in her letter, Exhibit 4, that the remorse is genuine and that she is effecting appropriate change in her life and rehabilitation. 

37Ms Webster submitted to me that this, in the circumstances, was a valuable plea.  She also relied on the amelioration of sentence that is appropriate by way of Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169. Insofar as her background, Ms Galvin-Samie comes before the Court at 36 with no prior criminal convictions, albeit a proven charge of theft in 2013, when she was 27.

38Since the charges occurred, she has apparently pleaded guilty to a number of similar crimes which were heard in the Magistrates' Court, but those are not priors, and they are crimes that occurred prior to her being arrested and placed in custody for these charges. 

39As I have said, Ms Galvin-Samie has served pre-sentence detention of 260 days, by way of the two periods, as detailed.  During that time, she has had to endure the difficulties within prison of COVID and its effects within the Corrections system.  Ms Webster also relied upon the support of her family and the exhibits as to that, tendered as Exhibit 5, the excellent employment reference to which I have referred, and the fact that she has stable accommodation at Odyssey House.

40It was accepted by the prosecutor that the principles of Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214, insofar as part of her bail conditions were such, need to be taken into account, given the regimen enforced at Odyssey, the need to abide by lawful instructions, and the restrictions imposed by Odyssey upon residents. Those matters need to be taken into account.

41The learned prosecutor also indicated it was necessary for this Court to take into account the motivation as to these crimes, being to obtain drugs.  However, also tied up, seems to be an affliction with gambling.  Within the house, there was online betting undertaken and drug taking with her companions in crime, albeit not specifically for these charges.

42Predominantly, what was put to me by Mr Webster was the exquisite balance that must be effected between the need for an appropriate sentence, given this type of criminality, as against the effect of the steps taken to date as to her rehabilitation and the importance of rehabilitation in sentencing.  In this regard, I refer to DPP v Tokava [2006] VSCA 156, where the President stated at [21]:

'A sentencing judge should be astute to investigate whether a non-custodial disposition is to be preferred, even in a case of a serious offence, if in the long term the community interest will be best served by that course.

43His Honour came to this issue again in R v Merrett [2007] VSCA 1, [49], when he said:

'…the sentencing Court looks to the future as well as to the past.  There is a very great benefit to the community at large, as well as to the individuals themselves and their immediate families, if future criminal activity can be avoided.  It is important that this Court, by its own sentencing decisions, recognise and reward efforts at rehabilitation, just as we should support trial judges who do so.  It is important to reinforce in the public mind the very considerable public interest in the rehabilitation of offenders.  The preoccupation with retribution which characterised much of the public comment on sentencing is understandable, but it focuses on only one part of what the sentencing Court does.'

I also refer to similar principles set out in DPP v Milson [2019] VSCA 55, [71].

44It is also appropriate to take into account the comments by her psychologist as set out in Exhibit 7, that Ms Galvin-Samie has shown good insight into her condition, criminality, and the need to change her lifestyle. 

45As to the prosecution response to the submissions made by Ms Webster, it was pointed out to the Court, as I have said, the protracted and significant offending.  Although in the end, the prosecution conceded, given the excellent steps taken as to her own rehabilitation, you might actually call them remarkable in the circumstances, that a combined sentence was in range for this offending, it was put by the prosecution the gaol aspect was a matter for me.  I think as I have said once already that left this Court in a very exquisite position.

46In the end, I have FOUND, given Ms Galvin-Samie's background, her age, and the remarkable steps she has taken as to rehabilitation, that the appropriate sentence is indeed a combined sentence. 

47I have further FOUND that in all the circumstance, the period served to date, that is eight and a half months, or 260 days, would be sufficient for the imprisonment aspect of such order. I intend to pass a combined order under s44. Such order, pursuant to s40 of the Sentencing Act, will apply to all of the four charges in the indictment and the two summary charges.

48The community correction order will be for a period of two years.  It will include the conditions that have been suggested in the CCO report but, in particular, supervision, assistance with drug and alcohol, gambling, reoffending.  There will be a work component over the period of two years and that work component will be one of 200 hours. 

49Before I ask you, Ms Webster, to seek your client's formal consent to entering into such combined community correction order, which given that the imprisonment aspect of it will be the period that she's already served, so that will apply as from today, I should also indicate that by way of additional punishment, I intend to impose a fine of $5000. 

50I am prepared, in the circumstances given her current employment, to grant a stay of 12 months in regard to the time.  But I indicate that any application seeking a longer stay would have to be made personally to me. 

51I declare pursuant to s18 that the 260 days served to date be deemed as service of this sentence. 

52MS WEBSTER:  I do already know, Your Honour.  There will be consent to the order.

53HIS HONOUR:  She consents to that?

54MS WEBSTER:  Yes.

55HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I have signed the disposal order, Mr Prosecutor.  Pursuant to s6AAA, of course, in the particular circumstances of this case, complying with the wishes of Parliament is very difficult. All I think I can say is that had she not pleaded guilty, she certainly would not have got a combined order as I have granted.  Mr Prosecutor, is there anything else I have to attend to?

56MR COOKSON:  I will just confer with my notes, Your Honour, but I do not believe so. 

57HIS HONOUR:  Right, well will just go through the formalities then.  Sorry,
Ms Webster?

58MS WEBSTER:  Sorry, Your Honour, can I just clarify that the combination of the imprisonment and the CCO and the fine applies to all charges as an aggregate sentence?

59HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

60MS WEBSTER:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

61MR COOKSON:  No further matters, Your Honour.

62HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I found albeit there are individual charges, all comprised similar offending which allows an aggregate sentence.  We will just prepare the document.  While it is being prepared, Ms Galvin-Samie, I do not have to tell you how close you went to getting further gaol.  These are very serious charges. 

63Because of the excellent steps you have taken over the last 20 months in your rehabilitation, and the somewhat remarkable steps insofar as ridding yourself of drugs, which were the major motivation behind these crimes, the Court has decided to give you a chance, that is not to impose further imprisonment upon you other than the eight and a half months you have already served. 

64However, it should be very clear to you that there would not want to be one more mistake, and I mean one.  So, it is necessary for you to comply with all of the provisions because the most important matters in these orders are the therapeutic conditions, in order that you continue to effect the rehabilitation that you have already demonstrated.

65OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

66HIS HONOUR:  You understand that?

67OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

68HIS HONOUR: I should add that during the plea I addressed the issue of parity with counsel. This concept, I accept, is very difficult to apply here given the different charges laid, albeit the use of the same modus operandi. For example, the sentence of Judge Mason concerned Hughes, a slightly older person, who had the sole care of a 6 year old child albeit with drug issues.

69The Pira case was heard in the Magistrate’s Court, and appealed to this Court and dismissed, there being no transcript and hence no reasons of sentence to peruse. In the end I effected parity as best was possible and sentenced on the facts surrounding this case.

70HIS HONOUR:  You can come out of the dock.

71MS WEBSTER:  Your Honour, may I approach Ms Galvin-Samie?

72HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

73MS WEBSTER:  That has been signed by Ms Galvin-Samie, Your Honour.

74HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  Yes, good luck, Ms Galvin-Samie.  We do not want to see you within the Courts again.  Yes.

‑ ‑ ‑