Director of Public Prosecutions v Patrizia Dattilo
[2018] VCC 1165
•25 July 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-15-02229
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PATRIZIA DATTILO |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE DAVIS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 July 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 25 July 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Patrizia Dattilo | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 1165 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Perjury (13 counts) – civil proceedings – false affidavits of service – rolled up charges – multiple victims – persistent conduct over 15 months – significant harm to victims – acted at direction of husband – delay – no prior convictions – difficult family circumstances
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Alistair Mark Hewitt v The Queen (unreported, CCA Vic, 7 February 1985); DPP v Foster [2017] VCC 1397; Phillip Dunn v The Queen (unreported, CCA Vic. 17 July 1979); R v Abdulhamid Jamal Shamji (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (S.) 587; R v Kellow and Townsend (unreported, CCA Vic, 17 August 1979); R v Morgan (1995) 82 A Crim R 518; R v Schroen [2001] VSCA 126; R v Simmonds (1969) 53 Cr App R 488; R v Taylor [2006] VSCA 124; R v Westphal (unreported, Court of Appeal, 28 March 1996); Smith v The Queen [2014] VSCA 241
Sentence: Imprisonment for a period of three years wholly suspended for a period of three years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr J Saunders | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J Anderson | Slades & Parsons |
HER HONOUR:
1 Patrizia Dattilo, you have pleaded guilty to 13 charges of perjury. The maximum penalty for the offence of perjury is 15 years’ imprisonment.
2 All of the charges relate to your swearing affidavits of service when knowing, at the time that each of them was sworn by you, that they were false because you knew that none of the parties had been served with the documents referred to in the affidavits of service.
Details of the offending
3 The circumstances of your offending are set out in the summary of prosecution opening as well as in Schedules A-F attached to your plea indictment, and the relevant matters contained in Annexures 1-4 attached to Antonio Dattilo’s plea indictment. I sentence you on the basis of the facts set out in those documents. I summarise your offending briefly.
4 I have grouped the offences according to each victim and/or the related company, and I have set out the matters raised by the victims in their victim impact statements. Their statements reflect the combined impact of your conduct and that of your husband, Antonio Dattilo[1]. It is common ground that your role in the overall offending against these victims is much less significant than his and that the victim impact statements must be considered in this context. I will return to those matters below.
Victims: BPH Pty Ltd, Concetto Mancuso and Leilani Hannah
[1] I note that on 25 May 2017 Antonio Dattilo pleaded guilty to 11 charges of perverting the course of justice, 10 charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice, and 1 charge of perjury. The plea hearing for Antonio Dattilo was heard directly after the plea of Patrizia Dattilo on 3 July 2018, and Antonio Dattilo is to be sentenced later today on the charges to which he has pleaded guilty.
5 BPH Pty Ltd (BPH) leased a factory to a company of which Antonio Dattilo was the director. Antonio Dattilo’s company failed to pay rental due for two months. BPH then took possession of the factory, required Antonio Dattilo’s company to remove its goods and when it failed to do so, sold those goods at public auction for a total of $54,216.80. Antonio Dattilo disputed the value of the goods sold.
6 Charge 1 is a rolled up charge alleging that between 21 and 28 December 2011 you swore five false affidavits deposing to service of writs on BPH, Concetto Mancuso and Leilani Hannah[2].
[2] County Court proceeding no. CI-11-05849; CI-11-15877; CI-11-05878
7 In their victim impact statement, Concetto Mancuso and Leilani Hannah stated that they have each suffered great distress and anxiety as well as high blood pressure as a result of the offending and have lost nearly $100,000 and a great deal of time defending themselves even though they did nothing wrong. The lost income has set them back years in paying their mortgage. They have lost faith in the legal system, no longer feel safe from this kind of harm, or from either of you. They worry that this kind of harm could happen again.
Victim: Deacon Auto Sales Pty Ltd (Sandra Deacon and Barry Deacon)
8 Deakin Auto Sales Pty Ltd (DAS) operated a used car dealership. In April 2010, Antonio Dattilo contracted through one of his companies to purchase a Range Rover worth $55,000, requested modifications worth $4628, paid three instalments but then did not take delivery of the car. The car was resold for $55,000.
9 Charge 2 alleges that between 26 September 2011 and 7 December 2011 you swore two false affidavits in Magistrates’ Court proceedings concerning service of a complaint on DAS[3].
[3] Proceeding no. B12595604.
10 Charge 3 alleges that between 11 November 2011 and 2 March 2012 you swore two false affidavits in Supreme Court winding up proceedings against DAS[4].
[4] Proceeding no. SCI-2011-6055.
11 In his victim impact statement, Barry Deacon stated that prior to the offending conduct he ran a successful business with his son, selling used Land Rover vehicles. However, his son was so distressed by the court proceedings initiated by Mr Dattilo that he left the business. Barry Deacon has been so distressed by the offending conduct that he could not work at night for fear that someone might walk into his premises. He felt isolated and withdrawn, lost trust in people and so no longer engaged with his clients. Before the offending, he managed to control his Type 2 Diabetes with diet and exercise alone. As a result of the stress caused by the offending, he has become permanently dependent on medication and also suffers from stress related skin irritations. He has been so adversely affected psychologically by the offending that he is planning to retire much earlier than he otherwise would have done. He also suffered financially as a result of having to defend himself against the allegations made by Mr Dattilo.
12 In her victim impact statement, Sandra Deacon stated that as a result of the offending, she suffers constant anxiety and is mistrustful of anyone she meets socially or professionally. As a result of her ongoing stress, her asthma is harder to control, requires more medication and greater medical expenses. She and her husband incurred legal costs exceeding $80,000 as a result of the offending.
Victim: Louisa Meagher
13 Antonio Dattilo contacted Louisa Meagher, a sex worker, in about May 2010 through her online advertisement. He received sexual services from her on a number of occasions. Your son was at the same school as the children of Gloria and Ross Ritoli. Antonio Dattilo developed a sexual interest in Gloria Ritoli. She rejected his advances. Ross Ritoli was informed of his advances and told him to desist. Antonio Dattilo then hired Ms Meagher to seduce Ross Ritoli and paid Ms Meagher $2300 in furtherance of this plan. Ms Meagher had a change of heart and reported this plan by text message to Ross Ritoli. When Antonio Dattilo discovered that Ms Meagher had changed her mind, he invoiced her for attendances and correspondence relating to legal matters concerning Mr and Mrs Ritoli and for reviewing documents exploring legal options.
14 Charge 4 concerns a false affidavit sworn by you on 22 September 2011 deposing to service of a complaint and two notices of defence on Louisa Meagher in Magistrates’ Courts proceedings[5].
[5] Proceeding no. B1204655.
15 Charge 5 alleges that between 25 October 2011 and 5 February 2012 you swore four false affidavits concerning service of documents in relation to Federal Magistrates’ Court proceedings on Louisa Meagher[6].
[6] Proceeding no. MLG.1585/11.
16 Charge 6 alleges that on 28 November 2011, you swore a false affidavit of service concerning service of a writ in relation to County Court proceedings on Louisa Meagher[7].
[7] Proceeding no. CI-11-05431.
17 In her victim impact statement, which she read out in court, Ms Meagher stated that she had no dealings with Antonio Dattilo of the kind alleged (which are referred to at the end of paragraph 12 above) and no notice of bankruptcy proceedings brought against her. She was astonished and distressed to learn that she had been made bankrupt for the amount of $63,413.17 in the Federal Magistrates’ Court and had been sued for over $600,000 in the County Court[8]. She started having panic attacks. Her friends did not believe her that it was possible to be made bankrupt as a result of fraud. Her relationship broke up. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and anxiety. She felt unsafe physically and took out intervention orders against Mr Dattilo. She was unable to get legal aid and spent $54,000, her entire savings, to have the bankruptcy set aside. She has left Melbourne but has been unable to undertake further studies because of her fear of strangers. The offending has taken away five years of her life, her trust, her love of life and her thoughts of a happy future. She now struggles emotionally and lives on a disability pension. She has been unable to seek compensation in relation to the offending, but cannot escape the consequences of that offending, as even when she applies for rental accommodation, her Federal Magistrates’ case file details show up on the relevant database.
Victim: Ross Ritoli
[8] On 29 November 2011, no appearance having been entered by Ms Meagher, Antonio Dattilo entered a default judgment in the County Court at Melbourne against Ms Meagher in proceeding CI-11-05431 in the sum of $633,471.07.
18 Charge 7 alleges that on 5 February 2012 you swore a false affidavit to the effect that you opened an envelope at a school and saw a letter containing a nasty message with contents known only to Gloria and Ross Ritoli.
19 In his victim impact statement, Ross Ritoli stated that, having met you and your husband through your son’s school, Antonio Dattilo stalked his family and hired a sex worker to cause him marriage problems. Mr Ritoli suffered fear and anguish seeing his wife’s anxiety and distress. He has lost trust in people as a result of the offending, no longer attends school functions, and tries to avoid meeting new people. He suffered financial loss in the order of $30,000 having to fight an intervention order obtained by you[9]. Costs of that hearing were awarded to Mr Ritoli but they have not been paid. Mr Ritoli was frightened that you and Antonio Dattilo continued with your behaviour over an extended period and abused the court process, and stated that it distressed him to feel unsure of what was coming next.
Victim: Rosa Fato
[9] Magistrates’ Court proceeding no. B13667556. The affected person was said to be Patricia Dattilo and the Respondent was Ross Ritoli.
20 Charge 10 alleges that on 18 November 2011 you swore a false affidavit concerning personal service on Rosa Fato with the complaint and two notices of defence in relation to Magistrates’ Court proceedings against her[10].
[10] Proceeding no. B12698756.
21 Charge 11 alleges that on 10 January 2012 you swore a false affidavit concerning service of a bankruptcy notice on Rosa Fato.
22 In her victim impact statement, Rosa Fato stated, relevantly, that the offending has affected her emotionally and financially since 2009. She was angry and distressed at being taken to court on the basis of false accusations. She was unable to concentrate at work and at home. She had to borrow money to defend herself against the allegations. She has become a depressed person as a result of the offending.
Victims: ADC Transport Pty Ltd, Lina Fato, Vince Fato and Maria Fato
23 Lina Fato and Vincenzo (Vince) Fato are your siblings. Maria Fato is married to Vince Fato.
24 Antonio Dattilo alleged that one of his companies loaned Lina Fato $35,000 over 7 years pursuant to a loan agreement, that she was in default of that agreement, and owed him interest on that amount. Lina Fato denied having borrowed or received such monies.
25 Charge 8 alleges that on 18 November 2011 you swore a false affidavit of service deposing that you personally served Lina Fato with the complaint and two notices of defence in relation to Magistrates’ Court proceedings against her[11].
[11] Proceeding no. B12732063.
26 Vince Fato and Maria Fato were directors of ADC Transport Pty Ltd (ADC). Antonio Dattilo alleged that one of his companies had business dealings with ADC giving rise to a debt of $44,675.20.
27 Charge 12 alleges that between 4 January 2011 and 8 February 2012 you swore four false affidavits concerning service of a statutory demand, consent of liquidator and other matters on ADC.
28 Charge 13 alleges that on 16 December 2011 you swore two false affidavits deposing to service of bankruptcy notices on Vincenzo Fato and on Maria Fato.
29 In her victim impact statement, Lina Fato stated, relevantly, that prior to the offending, she was part of a close extended family, had job security, two rental properties plus a share in the family home. She lived in Sydney and looked forward to being semi-retired by the time she was 55 years old. As a result of the offending conduct, she had to come to Melbourne frequently to attend numerous hearings, spent a great deal of money on legal fees and worried about losing her job because of the amount of time she was taking off work. Three years ago, she and her partner moved to Melbourne. They bought a small business and a house on the fringes of suburban Melbourne. She is now 55 years old and works about 70 hours per week in various jobs, trying to keep her head above water. Prior to the offending, she was a happy, forgiving and outgoing, optimistic person. Since the offending, she has become suspicious of people and hardly ever trusts them.
Victim: S.F. Cosentino Pty Ltd (Salvatore ‘Sam’ Cosentino)
30 Your sister, Rosa Fato, is the de-factor partner of Sam Cosentino, who is the sole director of S.F. Cosentino Pty Ltd (SFC). Although Antonio Dattilo’s company, R.E.D. Corp Pty Ltd, had no commercial relationship with SFC, Antonio Dattilo alleged that Sam Cosentino’s company was indebted to his company in the sum of $2,522,659.38.
31 Charge 9 alleges that on 19 November 2010 you swore a false affidavit concerning service of a statutory demand on SFC.
32 In his victim impact statement, Sam Cosentino stated that he has been a vegetable grower his whole working life. He was very distressed to learn from his solicitor of Supreme Court proceedings to commence the next day, and equally distressed, to receive a call from his bank manager telling him that his company was in liquidation. He was so distressed that he was unable to work for a few days. The offending has affected his company’s credit and he is still stressed and disappointed that he is unable to remove the winding up notice on his company.
Plea submissions
33 I turn to the plea made by your counsel.
34 The material tendered on your behalf includes a report from your general practitioner dated 9 February 2018 which noted that you were experiencing a range of psychological symptoms, including bereavement after your mother’s death, and for which you were referred to a psychologist, Dr Aaron Cunningham, for six counselling sessions.
35 Dr Cunningham provided a psychological assessment to your solicitor dated 28 June 2018[12]. He considered that, at the time of assessment, you met the clinical criteria for diagnosis of Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder requiring psychological treatment, which has begun. According to the history you gave him, your condition was precipitated by life stressors beginning in 2009 when there was legal action taken by your siblings, both in relation to the family business and to guardianship of your mother. In 2012, your mother was also diagnosed with cancer. You told him you were worried about your welfare if your husband is incarcerated as your wage just covers your rental payments. Your counsel invited me to ignore some aspects of his report (in particular those which recount comments which may appear to traverse your plea, and those which posit a causal connection between your psychological condition in 2009 and your offending). Dr Cunningham concluded that you have a number of protective factors in place, including no criminal history, being the main caregiver for your two children, being currently employed, being willing to engage with mental health support, and not presenting with an antisocial personality.
[12] It is unclear on the material before me whether Dr Cunningham provided six sessions of counselling. In any event, nothing turns on this.
36 The material tendered on your behalf also includes 4 reports[13] relating to your children. These reports confirm that your son has an Autism Spectrum Disorder, has an IQ in the High Average range, would cope best at school in an environment that is as predictable, structured and routine as possible, and that he may benefit in enrolling in a social skills group. A progress report for your son dated 20 March 2018 indicates that your son is working well in class, is doing well academically, manages public transport and is engaging with projects to be undertaken away from school.[14]
[13] Exhibit DM.
[14] Exhibit DO.
37 A letter from school-based psychologist Christine Dais, dated 26 July 2017, indicated that, at that time, your daughter presented with Adjustment disorder with feelings of sadness[15]. On 16 October 2017, Ms Dais reported to your daughter’s doctor upon completion of counselling sessions that therapy had focused on supportive psychotherapy and assisting her to develop greater social skills. Further sessions of counselling were recommended to support your daughter after the death of her grandmother.
[15] Exhibit DP.
38 Your personal circumstances are set out in Dr Cunningham’s report and I recount these briefly. You are 46 years old, the youngest of five children. You met Antonio Dattilo in Italy in 1994 and have been together for 25 years. You have a son aged 15 and a daughter aged 12. You completed Year 12, and have largely worked since then in retail, full time for six years, and then part-time since 2013. You spent the intervening 10 years caring full-time for your children. You were supported by the family importing business conducted by Antonio Dattilo.
39 You suffered financial pressures between 2009 and 2011 associated with family disputes and litigation concerning access to your mother, Angelina Fato and over the family home against which Mr Dattilo had taken out a mortgage to finance his business. The home was sold in 2011, and you did not receive a share of the proceeds due to the mortgage on the home. You then had to stay with friends until you were able to rent accommodation in 2012. There was a VCAT application by other family members for guardianship of your mother in 2011. You were your mother’s carer after she was diagnosed with cancer. She died in 2017. This badly affected your daughter, who had shared a bed with her since she was a toddler.
40 According to the submissions made by your counsel, you have been living in Point Cook for the last 5 years, paying rent of $1800 per month. Your children attend different private Catholic schools in Melbourne, but receive discounted fees. There are still school fees outstanding. The family budget is extremely tight. You work part time in Melbourne and take the children to and from school each day. You earned $35,990 gross in the last financial year. If you and your husband were both incarcerated, given the breakdown in relations with your family since 2009, and the fact that Antonio Dattilo’s extended family lives in Italy, there is no plan in place for the ongoing care of your children. Your son has special needs and benefits from a predictable routine, while your daughter has suffered from anxiety and received about 15 sessions of counselling at school until some time last year. You continue to receive counselling for anxiety and depression, particularly since the death of your mother.
41 Your counsel relied on Dr Cunningham’s opinion that you do not have a personality disorder, are open to engaging with mental health support, and are not likely to reoffend, but that any term of imprisonment would be more onerous on you because of your distress at not being able to care for your children.
42 In relation to the gravity of your offending, your counsel made a number of submissions which may be briefly summarised as follows. You should be sentenced on the basis that you acted on the direction of Antonio Dattilo and in support of him in circumstances where you did not get any material benefit as a result of the offending. Each of the charges (apart, perhaps, from Charge 7, where it is impossible to determine to what end the affidavits were to be put) relates to conduct taken in civil and not criminal proceedings and is less serious because there was no risk of wrongful imprisonment of the victims. The type of perjury involved is limited to perjury concerning the service of documents. For these reasons, your offending is much less serious than that of Antonio Dattilo.
43 In mitigation, your counsel relied on your plea of guilty which, while relatively late (25 May 2017), resulted in your pleading to lesser charges and avoiding a trial which may have lasted three months. Your plea is said to have utilitarian benefit, and some remorse is to be inferred from it.
44 Your counsel also relied on delay, some of which, but not all, is properly attributable to you. You were not charged until 2014. On 14 December 2015, you were committed to stand trial. On 25 May 2017, you indicated your intention to plead guilty. During the periods of delay for which you were not responsible, you have had to live with the anxiety as to what is to happen to you. You have not offended further.
45 Finally, your counsel submitted that your offending may be dealt with through the imposition of either a wholly suspended sentence or a Community Corrections Order (CCO). In this regard, he relied on the fact that you have no prior convictions, an excellent work history, and have been a carer for your mother and provider for your two children. Your offending occurred in the context of acute family and financial stresses.
46 In particular, he submitted that if you were to be imprisoned, in circumstances where Mr Dattilo is also imprisoned, the hardship to your children would be sufficient to constitute the exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the mercy discretion. This is because your children wholly depend on their two parents; there is no available alternative caregiver due to family estrangement; your son has special needs; your daughter has suffered some emotional problems; there has been a delay of 6 years since the most recent offending and you have been in a state of uncertainty about your future and that of your children.
Prosecution submissions
47 The prosecution submitted that the maximum sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence of perjury. It was conceded that out-of-court perjury is less serious than in-court perjury, and that perjury committed in relation to civil proceedings is less serious than that committed in criminal proceedings. It was submitted that your offending was grave, premeditated conduct which persisted over 15 months and that your moral culpability is high. Your offending conduct contributed to the very significant adverse impact on the victims, both psychologically and financially, of the offending conduct of Antonio Dattilo. The prosecution relied on your statement to Dr Cunningham that you did not read the affidavits you “signed for your husband” and submitted that this demonstrated your willingness to understate your offending and shows a complete lack of remorse by you.
48 It was submitted by the prosecution that the only sentencing option was that of an immediate term of imprisonment.
Legal principles
49 On the authorities[16], perjury is a serious offence because it strikes at the heart of the administration of justice: justice cannot be administered unless people speak the truth on oath. Perjury may lead to unjust results and thereby to a decline in community confidence in the reliability of the courts. Given the difficulties of detection and proof, denunciation and general deterrence must be given emphasis in fixing a sentence for perjury and the offence normally attracts custodial punishment. The maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment for this offence reflects Parliament’s assessment of the seriousness of such an offence.
[16] See, eg, Alistair Mark Hewitt v The Queen (unreported, CCA Vic, 7 February 1985); DPP v Foster [2017] VCC 1397; Phillip Dunn v The Queen (unreported, CCA Vic. 17 July 1979); R v Abdulhamid Jamal Shamji (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (S.) 587; R v Kellow and Townsend (unreported, CCA Vic, 17 August 1979); R v Morgan (1995) 82 A Crim R 518; R v Schroen [2001] VSCA 126; R v Simmonds (1969) 53 Cr App R 488; R v Taylor [2006] VSCA 124; R v Westphal (unreported, Court of Appeal, 28 March 1996); Smith v The Queen [2014] VSCA 241.
50 In sentencing you, I must have regard to the nature and gravity of the offence; your culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence; your personal circumstances; the impact of the offence on any victim of the offence; the personal circumstances of any victim of the offence; and any injury, loss or damage resulting directly from the offence. The only evidence before me in relation to the last three of these factors is the victim impact statements.
Sentencing reasons
51 There are a number of aggravating features to your offending. The conduct was premeditated and planned. It involves 13 counts, of which 6 are rolled up counts (Charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 12 and 13). It occurred over a period of some 15 months (between 19 November 2010 and 2 March 2012). There were multiple victims of your offending, and each of them has given a statement to the effect that your conduct, in combination with that of Antonio Dattilo, has had a very adverse psychological and financial impact on them. Even though your conduct was limited to actions taken outside the courtroom, which were taken at the direction of your husband, the service of proceedings had a critical role to play in permitting the litigation which then followed. For this reason, the swearing of false affidavits of service is to be treated as a considered attack on the proper functioning of the legal system, which relies on persons telling the truth when swearing affidavits. Whilst I accept that your role was a limited one in the sense that you acted at the direction of Antonio Dattilo, your conduct constitutes an attack on the integrity of the justice system. Your offending was sustained, lasting over a period of 15 months. It was directed against a number of victims, and caused them financial and psychological harm. You must have known that your conduct would cause them harm and yet you persisted in it. To this extent, your conduct is deplorable, and is to be denounced and punished in a way that will deter you and others from committing perjury.
52 That said, however, I sentence you on the basis that the charges to which you have pleaded guilty are less serious than those for which Antonio Dattilo is to be sentenced in terms of the maximum penalty referable to them and that you acted at his direction in carrying out your offending. For these reasons, the sentence imposed upon you is substantially less than that to be imposed today on Antonio Dattilo.
53 I accept that the context of your offending was that your family was suffering financial difficulties as a result of the failure of Antonio Dattilo’s business.
54 I accept the matters put on your behalf by way of mitigation, namely, the utilitarian value of your guilty plea and the fact that it demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility by you, although I note that apart from the acceptance of responsibility which inheres in your plea of guilty, you have expressed no remorse for the serious impact of your offending on the victims.
55 I also accept that during the periods of delay for which you are not responsible, you have suffered uncertainty about your future and that of your family. I note that you have no prior convictions and no pending matters. I note your personal circumstances and those of your family as outlined above. I consider that your prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable. I note that there has been no further offending by you.
56 However, I consider that your offending conduct is so serious that the relevant sentencing principles cannot be properly achieved by the imposition of a CCO. Rather, I consider that your offending warrants the imposition of an immediate term of imprisonment. As your offending comprises a series of offences of the same character over a 15 month period, I consider that it is appropriate to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment. This means that I will sentence you to one term of imprisonment and not separate sentences of imprisonment in relation to each or any two or more of the charges to which you have pleaded guilty. I propose to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of three years.
57 Given the timing of the offences, it remains open to me to suspend all or part of this sentence if I am satisfied that it is desirable to do so having regard to the matters set out in s 27(1A) of the Sentencing Act1991. I have had regard, relevantly, to the need for denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and to the prospects of your re-offending during the operational period of the sentence. I have had particular regard to your personal circumstances, in particular: that you are estranged from your own family; have no other family support here; have one child with special needs and a second with a psychological condition; are likely to be the sole carer and breadwinner for your children in the likely event that your husband is imprisoned on the charges to which he has pleaded guilty; and that for these reasons imprisonment will be more burdensome for you than for other offenders.
58 Would you please stand. On Charges 1-13, you are sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years. In all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to wholly suspend the sentence for a period of 3 years. This means that although you have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, you will not have to serve it now. However, if you commit another offence punishable by imprisonment, whether inside or outside Victoria during the period of 3 years, then you will have breached this sentence and will be brought back before the court. If that occurs, unless you can demonstrate exceptional circumstances, it is highly likely that you will be ordered to serve the original sentence in prison.
59 I indicate pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to an aggregate sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.
0
6
0