Director of Public Prosecutions v Garth
[2025] VCC 912
•1 July 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-22-01985
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JARRAD GARTH |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE ELLIS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 10 June 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 1 July 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Garth | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 912 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Obtain property by deception – course of conduct comprising 193 particulars – prolific offending across 10 month period – offender repeatedly requested sums of money for false purposes – vulnerable elderly victim – no repayments made despite promises to do so – $198,670 transferred from victim to offender – offender spent money largely on gambling – relevant prior criminal history – offending objectively very serious – high moral culpability – stable personal background of offender – offender’s difficulties with gambling addiction, alcoholism and mental ill health – applicability of Verdins limbs 1-4 not established – offender continues to minimise role played in offending – limited insight demonstrated – moderate prospects of rehabilitation – procedural delay – community correction order and combination sentence not sufficient to meet sentencing objectives
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic)
Cases Cited:R v Harris [1961] VR 236; Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269
Sentence: Two years and two months' imprisonment, non-parole period of 20 months' imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr G. Buchhorn | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr S. Anger | Dribbin & Brown Criminal Law |
HER HONOUR:
Jarrad Garth, you have been found guilty at trial of one count of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 81(1) of the Crimes Act1958 (Vic).
This is a course of conduct charge.
This charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
Circumstances of Offending
The offending is laid out in a Summary of Prosecution Opening for Trial.[1] particularised to have taken place over the course of 10 months, between 5 February 2020 and 2 December 2020.
[1] The Director of Public Prosecutions, ‘Director of Public Prosecutions v Jarrad Garth: Prosecution Opening for Trial’ dated 16 August 2024.
The victim in this matter was Suzanne Margaret Reeves. At the time of the offending, she was aged between 68 and 69 years old. Ms Reeves was a pensioner at the time of the offending and lived in a retirement village called 'Westernport Gardens' on the Frankston-Flinders Road in Bittern.
Ms Reeves died on 25 May 2023, before this matter went to trial. She was cross- examined at a committal hearing.
Background
You and Ms Reeves were introduced by her son, Patrick Reeves, who you met at the Heritage Hotel in Balnarring in 2017.
After meeting in 2018, the two of you developed a friendship, discussing your various personal issues including the financial and marital troubles you were having.
In about 2018 or 2019, you were hired by Ms Reeves to undertake some gardening work on her property including constructing a fishpond.
10.In December 2019, Ms Reeves sold her property in Balnarring in order to resolve some personal financial difficulties. Following the sale the amount of $343,687.99 was deposited into her bank account. She moved into the unit at the Westernport Retirement Village.
11.As at 31 January 2020, Ms Reeves's savings account had a balance of $343,680.63.
The Offending
12.You maintained contact with Ms Reeves after her move to the retirement unit at the start of 2020. You contacted her every day or every second day. Initially this included you visiting Ms Reeves at her home three to four times per week. On regular occasions you would take a taxi from the Flinders Hotel in Flinders to Ms Reeves's home using the services of Mr Harjinder Singh Bath.
13.After restrictions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic commenced in March 2020, contact between you and the victim mostly occurred by telephone.
14.Throughout 2020 you asked the victim to borrow various sums of money from her.
15.You provided various reasons as to why you required the money, including to pay for rent, food and fuel; to fix your truck; to buy landscaping materials for your business; to help with legal fees relating to your child access case; and for other reasons.
16.When making these requests to Ms Reeves you represented to her that:
a. You would repay the money when you were able to do so; and
b. In relation to money needed for your landscaping business, the money would enable you to complete work, the profits from which would be used to repay Ms Reeves.
17.In early July 2020 you moved to New South Wales. You continued to request money from Ms Reeves after this move, including on the basis that the money was needed to assist your landscaping business.
Methods of Transferring Money
18.Ms Reeves provided you with money in four different ways.
19.Firstly, she gave you cash directly on some occasions when you visited her in the retirement village.
20.Secondly, Ms Reeves gave you money by depositing funds into your Westpac account. This became the main way that Ms Reeves gave money to you following the COVID-19 restrictions in March 2020.
21.Ms Reeves retained receipts for some of the larger deposits made into your bank account, including the following transactions:
(i)$2,200 deposited on 17 July 2020;
(ii)$4,600 deposited on 25 August 2020;
(iii)$4,700 deposited on 1 September 2020;
(iv)$3,200 deposited on 9 September 2020;
(v)$5,000 deposited on 15 October 2020;
(vi)$9,000 deposited on 21 October 2020;
(vii)$9,000 deposited on 2 November 2020;
(viii)$4,000 deposited on 10 November 2020;
(ix)$4,000 deposited on 17 November 2020; and
(x)$2,000 deposited on 2 December 2020.
22.Thirdly, Ms Reeves provided funds to you through giving money to your regular taxi driver, Mr Bath, who would then deposit the money into your bank account. This occurred on 11 August and 21 September 2020.
23.Mr Bath estimates that he deposited many thousands of dollars' worth of Ms Reeves' money into your Westpac bank account.
24.You paid $80 to Mr Bath for each occasion he collected money from the victim.
25.Finally, Ms Reeves gave you money by attending the NAB bank branch in Hastings and using real time gross settlement payment facilities, transferred moneys directly from her bank account into your account. This occurred on four occasions:
· On 9 July 2020, $3,000 was transferred into your Westpac bank account with an accompanying messaging stating 'trade works';
· On 14 July 2020, $15,000 was transferred into your Westpac bank account with an accompanying message stating 'financial support';
· On 30 July 2020, $5,000 was transferred to your Westpac bank account with an accompanying message stating 'lending son funds';
· On 6 August 2020, $2,750 was transferred into your Westpac bank account with an accompanying message stating 'financial support'.
Total amount of money lent
26.Over time Ms Reeves lost count of how much money she had given to you, but as a result of these transactions Ms Reeves had lent you at least $198,670 by 4 December 2020.
27.By 1 February 2021 Ms Reeves's bank account had a balance of $1,316.34.
Promises to repay money
28.Throughout 2020 Ms Reeves became concerned about whether you were going to repay the money. She inquired with you about whether you were earning money and going to pay her back.
29.In or about early May 2020, after several months of no repayments, Ms Reeves told you that she would not lend you any more money unless you acknowledged the amount of money you owed her.
30.On 6 May 2020 you wrote a note, signed it and gave it to Ms Reeves which stated:
I, Jarrad Garth of 500 Derril Road, owe Suzanne Reeves $50,000 which she has lent me over time. I will pay this money back over time each week as I can afford until the total amount is repaid.
31.After writing the handwritten note, you sent text messages to Ms Reeves approximately once per month purporting to confirm the amount of borrowed money. In each of the messages you reaffirmed your promise to repay the amount that you claimed you owed to Ms Reeves.
32.The last of these messages was received on 2 December 2020 and stated: 'I, Jarrad Garth, owe Suzanne Reeves $142,000 which I will pay back over time'.
33.On each of these occasions the amount of money referred to by you in the text messages was less than the amount of money that you had obtained from Ms Reeves as at that particular date.
34.The prosecution allege that you undervalued the amount of money you owed Ms Reeves. By December 2020 you had undervalued the debt by approximately $80,000.
35.Despite making representations that you would repay the money you did not make any repayments to Ms Reeves.
Your knowledge of inability to repay loans
36.A review of your bank account statements reveals that other than the deposits made by Ms Reeves you were not receiving regular or significant payments from any other source over the period of the offending, other than Centrelink unemployment benefits and occasional intermittent payments from other sources such as your superannuation.
37.Over the period of the offending, you were using the money in your bank account almost exclusively on betting and gambling services. These transactions often involved many hundreds of dollars. They would often occur on a daily basis and multiple times per day.
38.On most occasions, you spent the money deposited into your account immediately on betting and other gambling services.
39.On some occasions you would deplete the money in your bank account when using these betting and other gambling services.
40.You made no payments to Ms Reeves' bank account.
Arrest
41.Ms Reeves' children, Patrick Reeves and Amy Kitch, discovered the loans in February 2021 when they learned that the victim was very short of money. Ms Reeves revealed that she had lent the money to you with the purpose of assisting with your personal and work expenses. Your conduct was reported to the police by Ms Kitch on 3 March 2021.
42.You were arrested on 31 January 2022 in New South Wales, and you were transported to a police station in Coffs Harbour, where you gave a 'no comment' interview.
Trial
43.You pleaded not guilty to the charge and you were found guilty at trial on 7 March this year. I note that a significant time elapsed between your arrest and the trial, which would have been anxiety inducing for you.
Victim Impact
44.Ms Reeves passed away before your guilty verdict. However, in a statement from April 2021, she noted the significant emotional and financial impact of your offending. She states she felt 'preyed upon'. As a result of the money she lent you, she could no longer afford to live her life as she was, relying on her family for financial help.
45.Ms Reeves' two adult children have each prepared a victim impact statement. Her daughter Amy Kitch describes how your actions affected her relationship with her mother in her final years, and the wellbeing of Ms Kitch and her family. She states that your financial deception stripped her mother of her dignity and her financial stability and security. The emotional toll on Ms Kitch has been exhausting and overwhelming. She has experienced anxiety, frustration and helplessness. It damaged the relationship between herself and her mother leading to a period where they did not speak; a lost period of time that she will never get back. The guilt and grief of that reality weighs heavily upon her every day. Ms Kitch has had to manage the devastation that you left behind which has been overwhelming. At times she had to use her own money to cover Ms Reeves’ expenses because her mother had nothing left. Ms Kitch is angry and heartbroken.
46.Patrick Reeves notes that you were once a friend who he trusted, which makes your actions even more devastating. Ms Reeves placed her trust in you believing your intentions were genuine and Mr Reeves notes the emotional strain this caused her was immense. Mr Reeves notes that his mother spent her final years burdened by stress and worry, and a sense of betrayal, blaming herself even though she was the victim. Watching his mother go through this was heartbreaking. He describes the financial impact your offending had on his mother, that she lost a tremendous amount of money that she had worked hard for, money that was meant for her retirement, medical expenses and basic needs. The sense of betrayal that he carries with him, as did his mother, is immeasurable.
Prior Criminal History
47.You have admitted a prior criminal history. In 2004 you were fined without conviction for being drunk in a public place and discharging a missile to cause injury or damage. In 2017 you were fined without conviction for failing to store a firearm correctly and failing to notify change of details within 14 days. Significantly and relevantly, in July 2019 you were convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment with a 12-month community correction order for three charges of obtaining property by deception.
a)One charge related to conduct in 2016 in which you agreed to do landscaping work for a woman as part of your business, requesting upfront payment for materials and proposed labour. You did not carry out any work and provided excuses as to why you had been unable to do so. In total, $36,280 was paid to you. When interviewed, you stated you had a gambling problem.
b)A second charge related to conduct between September and October 2017 in which you responded to an online advertisement for a landscaping job with false claims that you were a business partner, and requested a cash deposit to commence works. You did some initial demolition work and then approached the victim with a full quote for the proposed work totalling $30,000, later revised to $39,000. You again requested cash upfront for materials and the victim gave you $13,000. You failed to do any work but eventually contacted the victim seeking more cash claiming the earlier amount had been spent on materials for a different job. You were then provided with another $12,000, however, still failed to do any work. In total you received $30,000 referable to this charge.
c)The third charge concerned conduct between September and December 2017 in which you agreed to do landscaping work for the victim. You were provided with $6,210 when you requested cash upfront to pay for the materials. Following payment of this money you failed to attend to complete the work and avoided the victim's calls, providing excuses for your non-attendance.
48.Clearly, your previous offending, which involved considerable dishonesty, is similar in nature to the offending here. In those cases, you purported to need money for your business purposes in order to carry out various works that you had quoted and were expected to undertake. At the time of the offending against Ms Reeves, you were under the community corrections order, which is an aggravated feature of the offending.
Nature and Gravity of Offending
(i) 'Course of Conduct' offending and assessing quantum
49.In deception offences involving financial gain, the quantum of money obtained is eminently relevant to an assessment of the objective gravity of the offence. At trial the Crown case comprised 193 separate transactions which occurred between 5 February and 2 December 2020, totalling $198,670, charged collectively as one 'course of conduct' charge. The prosecution's view is that on the evidence the jury could properly be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each of these transactions constituted an offence of obtain property by deception committed by you.
50.However, this was not necessary for the jury to make a finding of guilt. Rather, pursuant to s 4A of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), a jury may find the accused guilty of a course of conduct offence where they are satisfied that:
i.Each incident they find to be proved constitutes an offence under the same provision (in this case obtain property by deception contrary to s 81(1) of the Crimes Act);
ii.The incidents have occurred more than once[2] over a specified period (in this case the period spanning 5 February to 2 December 2020); and
[2] Emphasis added.
iii.The incidents when taken together amount to a course of conduct having regard to the time, place or purpose of commission and any other relevant matters.
The Defence Position
51.Mr Anger submitted on your behalf that given this definition of 'course of conduct', it would have been possible for the jury to convict you having been satisfied of the occurrence of only two offending incidents. As a consequence, it was argued that in the minds of the jury your offending may have related only to a handful of transactions totalling a few hundred dollars, as opposed to the full sum of almost $200,000 to which the broader allegations relate, possibly mitigating the objective gravity of your offending to a significant extent.
52.In this uncertain factual matrix, Mr Anger argued that as part of my sentencing exercise, I am to apply the standard of beyond reasonable doubt in relation to finding of facts capable of aggravating your offending, whereas matters that mitigate your offending are to be accepted if they are simply preferable on the evidence.
53.Credence is said to be led to these submissions from various bases at trial:
i.First, Mr Anger draws attention to the jury question asked on Tuesday 6 March 2025, namely: 'Does every transaction in the indictment need to pass the test of number two, Intention to permanently deprive'. It is said that this implies that at least for some of the jurors the verdict of guilty was premised on a lesser number of incidents than the total of 193 alleged.
ii.Secondly, he argues that given one of the recurrent false representations you are said to have made to the victim was that you would not be able to work to pay her back unless she gave you additional funds and that on the evidence of both Ms Reeves and Ms Kitch this particular claim was only made by you after a great deal of money had already been lent; then at least some jurors must have accepted that this false representation only became operative after you had already been lent, in the words of Ms Kitch, 'quite a lot of money'.[3] Mr Anger argues that while this threshold cannot be pinpointed with any accuracy, it does suggest that the finding of guilt was based on an appreciably smaller financial quantum than that charged.
[3] Transcript, DPP v Garth, Trial Day 2 (28 February 2025) 49 [19].
The Prosecution Position
54.The prosecutor, Mr Buchhorn, argued that the defence position constitutes an incorrect approach to assessing the implications of a jury verdict. He submitted that a sentencing judge is not required to determine the pathways a jury is likely to have reasoned along in returning their verdict. Rather, where there is factual ambiguity, it is the role of a sentencing judge to determine those facts independently so long as their findings are consistent with the fundamental facts the jury must have accepted in returning their verdict, as well as the evidence at trial, and facts about other matters relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion. Reliance was placed on the cases of R v Harris[4] and Cheung v The Queen to that effect.[5] This is how I must approach the sentencing exercise.
[4] [1961] VR 236, 237.
[5] (2001) 209 CLR 1, 51 [162]–[163].
55.In line with this approach the prosecution argues that I, as the sentencing judge, can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of one of three possibilities with regard to quantum:
i.Firstly, $198,670, based on all 193 transactions, given Ms Reeves' evidence to the effect that money was only ever given as a loan and that your personal circumstances remained unchanged in the lead-up to and throughout the offending, meaning you never meant to repay any of the money or at least knew you lacked the capacity to do so.
ii.Secondly, $171,340, based on the 142 transactions between 7 May and 2 December 2020, being the money obtained after 6 May 2020 when you first acknowledged the loans from Ms Reeves and promised to repay her in a handwritten note. Even if there was some doubt about whether or not you had the relevant intent to deprive Ms Reeves of the money and/or knowledge of your incapacity to repay it in the initial months of the charge period, Mr Buchhorn argues that this state of mind must certainly have crystallised by the time you signed this note, and neither it nor your personal circumstances changed from that time until the charge period expired.
iii.Thirdly, $142,000, comprising the undefined number of transactions which you acknowledged you had obtained from Ms Reeves as loans as at 2 December 2020 with a promise to repay. It follows similar reasoning to that underpinning the second possibility described. In acknowledging the debt that you owed Ms Reeves at the end of the charge period (regardless of how it was quantified), when read together with the initial handwritten note and other text messages, you are said to have stated that you would repay the money loaned to you in circumstances where you knew those representations were false.
56.The prosecution also disputes that the jury question relied upon by Mr Anger can be used to infer the jury was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any of the incidents alleged. Mr Buchhorn characterised this question as little more than a clarification of which evidence is referable to which element of the offence. On this I agree with the prosecution.
57.The prosecution also rejected the defence submission that the false representation on which the verdict turned was your claim that you required the money for work-related expenses. Mr Buchhorn argued that to characterise the evidence of both Ms Reeves and Ms Kitch as suggesting that the operative false representations only arise at some later point in the charge period when you started to discuss your work requirements, is to misconstrue it.
58.He submitted that taken as a whole, there is no 'rational reason' why the jury would have based their verdict on the work-related false representations when there are a number of others made from the outset of the charge period – for example, that you needed the money for legal fees, food, rent and truck repairs – on which the verdict could just as easily have been founded. As Mr Buchhorn outlined in written submissions: 'The prosecution case was put on the basis that [you] gave multiple reasons explaining why [you] needed the loans, [that you] did not use the money for the purposes as represented (as particularly shown by the spending on gambling services) and Ms Reeves relied on those false representations when lending the money to [you]'.[6] Again, I accept this submission.
[6] Mr Gregory Buchhorn, ‘Director of Public Prosecutions v Jarrad Garth: Outline of Prosecution Submissions for Plea Hearing’ dated 6 June 2025 (‘Exhibit A’) 8 [26].
59.In essence, Mr Buchhorn submits that all 193 transactions were instigated by you and based on representations you made, all of which were capable of proving the charge. As such he argues that 'it should be accepted that the jury approached its task consistent with how the case was put, and the fact-finding task on sentence should be approached in the same way'.[7]
[7] Ibid 9 [26].
60.I have considered this matter carefully. At a minimum you, yourself, acknowledged a debt owing to Ms Reeves of $143,000 in December 2020, purporting to be willing to repay that money in circumstances where you knew the representations you had made were false. Indeed I am satisfied that all transactions from at least May 2020 were dishonestly obtained based on false representations. You acknowledged at that time, a debt of $50,000, again promising to repay this. As the prosecution have submitted, the intention not to repay Ms Reeves and the inability to do so must have certainly crystallised by this point. Any further money obtained from this point would have been knowingly obtained dishonestly. Accordingly, I sentence you on the basis that at a minimum the 142 transactions from this point, amounting to $171,340, constituted the course of conduct offending.
61.In fact, I consider it well open to me to find that all 193 transactions are capable of proving the charge in the manner alleged by the prosecution, but for these purposes I sentence you on the basis that the offending involved at least the $171,340 obtained dishonestly by you from 6 May 2020.
62.Your offending was protracted, occurring over many months. You repeatedly requested money from Ms Reeves under false pretences. You preyed on a vulnerable victim in a time of great loneliness, perhaps also lonely for you too, and even when you had moved interstate you continued to seek money from her offering excuses and assurances to persuade her to loan you ever more money. You cultivated a relationship with her and exploited her sympathies for you to your advantage. I agree that your conduct ultimately became predatory. You have never made any attempts to repay the money even after an occasion where you clearly won money via gambling.
63.I agree that your moral culpability is high. You continued to request money from Ms Reeves, an older lady, knowing that you could not repay it, deceiving Ms Reeves as to its true purpose. Although gambling was your motivation for money, ultimately you obtained the money dishonestly for nothing more than greed.
Personal Circumstances
64.You were born in Victoria and are the middle child in a set of three siblings. You are now 43 years old.
65.You have described your childhood as ‘generally positive’, with your parents being in a stable relationship and giving you ‘significant autonomy’ to undertake a variety of activities.[8]
[8] Ms Jane Bidjossian, ‘Confidential Psychological Report – Jarrad Garth’, 23 April 2025 (‘Exhibit 2’) 2 [22].
66.You have a strong relationship with your father which further strengthened as you entered your teens and he reduced his working hours.
67.Your relationship with your mother was more complicated growing up, with you telling Ms Bidjossian in a psychological report tendered as Exhibit 2 on the plea that she had 'severe alcoholism', though I note you could not recall details as to the extent of her drinking.[9] You also recall instances of being physically disciplined by her.
[9] Exhibit 2 (n 8) 2 [23].
Education and Career
68.You describe a largely positive experience in both primary and secondary school with some bullying in primary school. Despite some academic challenges, you were able to successfully complete high schooling after which you began working as a landscaper.
69.You have approximately 20 years of experience as a landscaper and you eventually ran your own business, JRG Landscapes, with your then wife. While this was initially successful, your business eventually collapsed following your marriage separation and subsequent mental health deterioration.
70.You described this combination of events to Ms Bidjossian as feeling like 'the end of the world'.[10] Following this collapse, you began doing sporadic jobs while living with your parents. However, three of those contacts you obtained resulted in criminal convictions resulting in a custodial sentence, which I understand was a traumatic experience for you.
[10] Ibid 4 [42].
71.I understand that you continue to largely survive on unemployment benefits, citing your case's prominence in the media as a barrier to maintaining consistent employment. I note that your counsel in plea submissions refer to you completing some landscaping work in Portsea, however, details of this have not been clear.
Relationships
72.I note that you were with your ex-wife for eight years and have three children together who are now aged between 11 and 15 years old. You have described the breakdown of your marriage and subsequent separation as 'deeply traumatic'.[11] I understand that following your incarceration on previous matters in 2019, you have had limited contact with your children and have been unable to re-establish the contact due to the prohibitive costs of obtaining legal assistance. This would have been a very difficult experience for you.
[11] Exhibit 2 (n 8) 4 [44].
73.You identify your parents as a significant source of support, and somewhat confusingly refer to your partner, Ms Zammit, who has written you a very kind character reference, as your roommate in Ms Bidjossian's report.
74.You are said to have experienced ongoing issues with respect to poor liver function and bowel problems. You have undergone medical testing to determine the source and extent of those health issues. You have recently had some polyps removed but there is no evidence of malignancy. I take your physical health into account.
Mental Health
75.Ms Bidjossian describes a history of depression and anxiety following your marriage breakdown in 2019 which has been corroborated with various medical records. You have also disclosed to her two suicide attempts over the past eight years, and one inpatient stay for mental health reasons in 2023, however, she notes that this was not independently verified.
76.You have engaged sporadically with mental health supports over the last six years. You told Ms Bidjossian that you previously engaged with a psychologist for six months in 2019, however, were unable to provide details or corroboration of this at that time. You are taking a daily antidepressant and anti-anxiety medication and have consistently taken this since 2018. Ms Bidjossian says you feel like you have 'frozen in time' and that the ongoing court proceedings have compromised your 'ability to progress in life'.[12]
[12] Exhibit 2 (n 8) 6 [69].
Gambling, Substance & Alcohol Use
77.You have a well-documented history of addiction, which both the prosecution and defence have mentioned as contributory to your offending.
78.You self-report using cannabis from your teenage years, daily use reported between the ages of 15 and 28, but you note you reduced your consumption from the age of 28 and ceased completely by your mid-30s, however, resumed cannabis use following your parents' relocation interstate in 2018 due to stress. You acknowledge the negative impact of this substance abuse on your former marriage, telling Ms Bidjossian that it caused strain in your relationship and contributed to your eventual separation.
79.It is at that period in 2018 that you began using cocaine two to three times a week as a 'mental blocker'.[13] This frequency of use continued for around a year, however, you found the cost prohibitive and so stopped.
[13] Ibid 6 [78].
80.Gambling has been a significant issue for you for two decades and it is not in issue that the vast majority, if not all, of the money dishonestly appropriated from the victim was lost on gambling. Your gambling largely centred on horse racing, and troublingly, you seem to attribute some blame to the victim in this matter for your gambling behaviours, telling Ms Bidjossian that Ms Reeves 'allowed [you] to gamble at her home'.[14] This demonstrates a lack of accountability in that it was your choice to engage in gambling, and Ms Reeves not permitting it in her house would have likely resulted in you gambling elsewhere, considering the pervasive and ongoing nature of your addiction. You state that you ceased gambling activity in 2021 and undertook formal self-exclusion measures and completed online gambling cessation courses.
[14] Ibid 8 [102].
81.You have also had an ongoing issue with alcohol lasting up until now, drinking daily by the age of 22 with your use escalating to an average of '12 to 15 cans per day',[15] causing ‘significant issues in your life' including experiencing 'blackouts'.[16] Notably, you began bringing beer with you to work and consuming alcohol on the job.
[15] Exhibit 2 (n 8) 6 [74].
[16] Ibid 6 [73].
82.In Ms Bidjossian's report, you report having made a conscious effort to reduce drinking over the previous month and are attempting to limit your drinking to only weekends. You have not attended any formal rehabilitation programs, however, state that you completed some alcohol, drug and gambling-related courses whilst previously in custody, though you were unable to provide details of these.
Application of Principles in R v Verdins
83.Your counsel submits that all six principles espoused in R v Verdins[17] are enlivened in light of Ms Bidjossian's opinion that at the time of your offending your mental health was in a significantly deteriorated state. Your depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms, coupled with your ongoing substance misuse, contributed to poor judgement and impaired capacity to navigate complex social and financial situations. She says: 'In summary, Mr Garth's offending can be understood as a product of intersecting vulnerabilities, chronic mental health symptoms, substance and gambling disorders, emotional dependency and impaired decision-making'.[18]
[17] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’).
[18] Exhibit 2 (n 8) 14 [161].
84.In furtherance of this submission as to the application of Verdins, reports from Dr Aaron Cunningham[19] and Dr Paul Duffy[20] from August and September 2019 respectively are relied upon. Dr Cunningham considers that you developed an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and that you experienced significant symptoms of depression and anxiety. GP Dr Duffy considered that in June 2019 you had been experiencing an episode of severe depression marked with anxiety. Your counsel submits that there is an overwhelming inference that the conditions described in those reports were still present at the time of the offending. However, I note that Dr Duffy describes that the depression and anxiety with some paranoid features was in relation to significant life events and pending court proceedings. This obviously relates to your legal proceedings from 2019. It is difficult to say how prevalent these features were once the stressors of pending court proceedings were no longer operative, and you had been released from custody.
[19] Dr Aaron Cunningham, ‘Confidential Psychological Assessment: Jarrad Garth’, 15 August 2019 (‘Exhibit 9’).
[20] Dr Paul Duffy, ‘Medical Report: Jarrad Garth’, 10 September 2019 (‘Exhibit 8’)
85.Whilst there is evidence that as at 2019 you were experiencing depression and anxiety, and had been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, it is unclear whether those symptoms persisted beyond your period of incarceration. It may be that some of the symptoms improved. There is no evidence as to what the state of your mental health was in 2020. For the most part, I agree with the prosecution submission that there is no evidence that at the time of the offending you were experiencing impaired mental functioning which contributed to your offending conduct, nor is there any evidence about the nature, extent and effect of any impaired mental functioning and the offending such that it reduces your moral culpability. Even accepting that you may have experienced PTSD following your release from custody, it is difficult to see how this reduced your moral culpability for the offending against Ms Reeves given that at the time you were misusing substances. Your mental health issues, assuming that they were to some extent present, may have contributed to the cycle of alcohol abuse and excessive gambling. However, the reality is that your gambling addiction no doubt played a significant role in your quest for money from Ms Reeves; indeed it was likely the primary motivator.
86.So it is therefore difficult to disentangle your mental health issues from your substance abuse and the motivating feature of gambling addiction. Had you been experiencing PTSD as a result of your time in custody, it is difficult to comprehend that you would go on to offend in a similar way to that for which you were sentenced to imprisonment. In essence, I agree with the prosecution submission that the material does not provide a cogent evidential foundation establishing a contributory nexus between any impaired mental functioning and your offending conduct. It is not clear from any of the material how your mental health was likely to have affected you at the time of the offending such that your impaired mental functioning thus reduced your moral culpability. Rather, it seems that at the very least your gambling addiction and substance abuse were the principal contributory factors to your sustained and protracted offending.
87.I also accept the prosecution submission that there is little to support the contention that you are not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence or that your mental impairment affects your ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct so as to moderate the need for specific deterrence.
88.In essence, I am not prepared to accept that Limbs 1 to 4 of Verdins are enlivened here.
89.According to Gregory Lane who conducted a Mental Health Advice and Response Service review, you have reportedly been diagnosed with acute stress reaction in December 2023 according to the Victorian Public Mental Health database.
90.Ms Bidjossian opines that jail would likely be more onerous for you given that your history of depression and anxiety, coupled with psychosocial stressors, suggests a heightened vulnerability to psychological deterioration in a custodial setting. The limited access to consistent mental health support may significantly impair your ability to cope, potentially leading to further emotional destabilisation.
91.Whilst this may be the case, the reality is you have not been engaging in any sort of mental health support at present in any event, though you reportedly intend to engage with a private psychologist in Balnarring. You are said to be adherent to anti-depressant medication.
92.Ms Bidjossian considers that incarceration is likely to heighten your sense of isolation, which may have a significant adverse impact on your mental health. She opines that given your existing symptoms of depression, anxiety and emotional stagnation further social disconnection may intensify feelings of hopelessness. The custodial environment is said to potentially limit opportunities for therapeutic engagement, thus compounding psychological distress and undermining capacity for rehabilitation.
93.The prosecution submits that the evidence does not support the notion that incarceration will seriously affect your mental health. Rather, as per Ms Bidjossian's report, the custodial environment may result in a significant impairment in your mental health. Whilst this submission has some merit, I am prepared to accept that your mental health issues, in particular your PTSD, may worsen whilst in custody and there is a significant risk of this, particularly in light of your acute stress reaction some 18 months ago. However, I give this limited weight.
94.A number of character references have been tendered on your behalf from your parents, sister, partner and a friend. You are described by your parents as a good worker who takes pride in his completed work. You are said to show kindness and care towards your extended family. Your sister describes that you spiralled into depression following family separation. Your partner describes your caring nature and your willingness to help others. She refers to what she believes to be a considerable change from the person she understood you once were, to the man you are now, describing you as withdrawn and reclusive, a shell of your former self. She considers that there is 'something that you are ashamed of and regret deep inside'. [21]
[21] Character reference of Mary Grace Zammit dated 7 May 2025 (‘Exhibit 3’).
95.You have reportedly expressed the deep regret for your part in the hurt caused to Ms Reeves and her family. Having said that, you have also reportedly referred to it as a 'toxic friendship' and that it was 'a mistake to accept or ask to borrow money', referring to 'poor choices' that you regret.[22] This suggests a degree of being unwilling to accept responsibility for your own behaviour and any remorse expressed must be looked at through the prism of you maintaining you are not responsible, or worse, apportioning blame to others.
[22] Ibid.
96.Indeed this is reaffirmed in Ms Bidjossian's report. She notes that you 'expressed difficulty fully understanding the legal implications of [your] actions', suggesting limited insight.[23] You maintain that you did not intend to 'deceive or defraud' despite a guilty verdict reflecting the determination that you did. [24]
[23] Exhibit 2 (n 8) 9 [115].
[24] Ibid 9 [106].
Prospects of rehabilitation
97.You are described by both Ms Bidjossian and Corrections as a medium risk of re-offending. You have spent time in custody for dishonesty offences and you committed this offending whilst on a Community Correction Order. You appear to have learnt little from your time in custody and continue to minimise your offending. In light of that, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be at best moderate. If you cease gambling and get the supports you need, then your prospects improve considerably. You at least have the support of Ms Zammit and your family which also enhances your prospects. Further to that, some years prior to this offending you had managed to effectively run a landscaping business, and you have some capacity and reportedly the talent to return to this.
Delay
98.I note there has been a considerable delay between the relevant offending and sentence. Whilst a portion of the delay reflects your decision to take this matter to trial, some of the delay can be attributed to events outside of your control.
99.The defence submits that a discount should be applied to your sentence in light of this delay, and the extent to which this has adversely impacted on your mental health and your ability to work. I take into account the impact that delay has had on you.
Sentencing Purposes and Principles
There are a number of basic purposes for which a court may impose sentence, namely, just punishment, both specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In determining an appropriate sentence, I am required to take into account these objectives, as well as various other matters including the gravity of the offending, your culpability, the impact on the victim and your personal circumstances.
The sentence I pass must balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the community's interests in ensuring that as far as possible you are rehabilitated. I am to have regard to the principles of parsimony, and I do so.
General deterrence looms large here. Other members of the public must understand that preying upon an older and vulnerable person and taking a considerable amount of money through dishonest means in similar circumstances will not be tolerated. Furthermore, specific deterrence is very relevant here given your prior criminal history.
I take into account current sentencing practices, though these are but one factor for consideration and no two cases are alike. Both your counsel and the prosecution have drawn my attention to a number of cases, and I have had regard to each of them. For the avoidance of doubt, I do indeed denounce your conduct.
Sentencing submissions
Mr Anger submits that this matter can appropriately be dealt with by way of a community correction order alone. The prosecution submits that the only appropriate penalty to reflect the gravity of the offending is a head sentence with a non-parole period. You have been assessed as suitable for a community corrections order, either alone or in combination with a period of imprisonment.
Imprisonment of Last Resort
The starting point is that the law says that a court must always regard imprisonment as a disposition of last resort, and may consider, even in cases of serious offences, that a community corrections order is a punitive disposition which is capable of addressing all relevant sentencing considerations.
However, having considered all of the material before me, I consider that no sentence other than a custodial one, would adequately reflect the gravity of the offending and take into account the various sentencing considerations, even in light of your personal circumstances. I have also given careful thought as to whether a combination sentence might be open. Although you are assessed as suitable for a community correction order, consideration of all relevant matters leads me to conclude that a combination sentence too would be inadequate here.
Sentence
On Charge 1, obtaining property by deception, you are convicted and sentenced to two years and two months' imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 20 months' imprisonment.
I note that there is no pre-sentence detention, and I note that there are no ancillary orders.
- - -
0
3
0