Director of Public Prosecutions v Ryan, Terrence Peter

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised
(Not) Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MILDURA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Case No. CR-11-02182

CR-13-00444

CR-13-00501

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

TERRENCE PETER RYAN

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LACAVA
WHERE HELD:	Mildura
DATE OF HEARING:	15 April 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 April 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ryan, Terrence Peter
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VCC 400

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject: Multiple Charges of Theft, Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception

Catchwords: Aggregate Sentence

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:

Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr. D O’Doherty	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. F Andrighetto	Cynthia Toose

HIS HONOUR:

You fall to be sentenced on 105 charges of theft and 24 charges of Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception.
The maximum penalty for each offence that you have committed is 10 years imprisonment. In passing sentence upon you I have taken this into account.
3.You pleaded guilty to the 24 charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. Your pleas of guilty to these charges came late after a contested committal and just before the case was to be tried. Your pleas of guilty followed immediately after a failed application to have the indictment of those charges permanently stayed as an abuse of process of the court.
4.Section 5(2)(e) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘the Act”) provides that in sentencing you on the charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception I must take into account your pleas of guilty to those charges and the time at which you pleaded guilty. As I say, in your case your pleas of guilty came late but nevertheless I consider they have real value because your pleas of guilty have saved the time and costs of a further trial. The trial of the 24 charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception involved a large number of witnesses and estimates for the duration of the trial by counsel involved estimated the trial would take two to three weeks of court hearing time. It would also have meant that the various victims of those crimes would have had to give evidence. By your pleas of guilty you have averted all that happening and so in my opinion any sentence you receive on these charges must be reduced from that which you could expect had you again contested the charges and gone to trial on them and were convicted. This reduction in sentence is reflected in the sentence that I will shortly pass.
On 8 March 2013 you were convicted after a trial by a jury on 61 charges of theft contained in indictment B11498521.3. That trial lasted four days. You did not give evidence in this trial.
On 20 March 2013 you were convicted after a second trial by a jury on a further 44 charges of theft in indictment B11498521.4. That trial lasted six days. You gave evidence in this trial.
You cannot be punished by the imposition of a more severe sentence for having gone to trial on the theft charges. However, at the same time you cannot expect a reduction in sentence that would normally follow had you pleaded guilty to those charges.
The prosecution case on the charges of theft was that in each instance you stole money from a company New Age Building Products Pty Ltd (“the company”). The 61 charges of theft in indictment B11498521.3 covered a two (2) month period between 19 December 2007 and 29 February 2008. The total amount stolen by you from the company over that period of time was $24,852.00. The amount stolen on each occasion varied in amount from, for example, $680 (Charge 44) to $60 (Charge 51). Your modus operandi in each instance was the same.
The 44 charges of theft in Indictment B11498521.4 covered a further two (2) month period between 3 March 2008 and 6 June 2008. The total amount stolen by you from the company over that period of time was a further $18,105.00. The amount stolen on each occasion in that indictment varied in amount from, for example, $880 (Charge 44) to $90 (Charge 41). Again, your modus operandi in each instance was similar.
The total amount stolen by you involved in the 105 charges of theft was $42,957.00 over a six and a half month period.
The prosecution case which must be taken to have been accepted by the jury was that the company was formed as a partnership or a joint venture vehicle between yourself and Mr Douglas Chalmers. The company was formed in March 2005 and ceased trading in March 2009.
Shortly prior to the formation of the company you had operated another company which had a Doors Plus franchise in Mildura. That company failed and, as a result, you were made bankrupt. Because you were an undischarged bankrupt you could play no official role in the company but you could work for it. The arrangement you reached with Mr Chalmers was that he would finance the company operations and you would manage the company and be responsible for the keeping of its accounts and records and bring to the company many years of experience in the building industry from which you had made many contacts.
The arrangement which you made with Mr Chalmers could I think be best described as loose. Nothing was in writing and from the evidence that I have seen the company was hopelessly under capitalised. That in no way justifies or explains your offending. Mr Chalmers gave evidence in both trials. He had been a wheat farmer and an engineer at Boundary Bend. His plan was to sell up and invest his money in a business that would provide him with both a financial return and a new interest in semi retirement. In my assessment of him he was totally honest but very naive in the ways of business. He trusted you to operate the company and to take from it only $500 per week in wages only when the company could afford to pay you this agreed wage. He also trusted you to spend the company’s money on legitimate company business. He knew that you were an undischarged bankrupt when he entered his business arrangement with you.
It is not possible to say exactly how much money Mr Chalmers contributed to the company or how much he eventually lost. I am satisfied that any money that went into the company was contributed by him and I am satisfied that he used his own assets as security for finance facilities to the company and he lost that security. Mr Chalmers has filed a Victim Impact Statement in which he claims to have lost all of his money put into the company. That is probably the case but I cannot find that it was all lost because of your dishonesty and the fact of these offences. I think it was in part lost as a result of your offending but was also in part lost because of the hopeless way in which the company was operated.
15.The prosecution case was that the 105 transactions involving theft occurred when you either transferred money from the company account to your personal account or you withdrew money from the company account by use of an ATM card. The fact that the transactions had occurred was not in dispute and in each trial you signed an admission which attached in summary spreadsheet form details of the transactions involved. Mr Chalmers gave evidence in each trial which the respective juries must be taken to have accepted that each of the transactions was unauthorised.
16.You had a gambling problem which you have admitted on your plea. The prosecution case, which must be taken to have been accepted by the jury, was that you stole the money from the company to fund your gambling habit.
17.Evidence was lead that showed that on a number of occasions that you stole money from the company by means of electronic transfer from the company’s account to your account there followed a further transfer from your account to your TAB account within a minute or two. Other evidence was lead that showed you were gambling on race horses on a relatively large scale in terms of the number of bets placed and that you were unsuccessful and were losing money. The prosecution case was that you had only one source of funds to fund this gambling habit and that was the company funds.
18.You gave evidence in the second trial of 44 charges of theft. You did not deny that you gambled. You told the jury on the second trial that when you did so you used your own money or money given to you by your ailing father.
19.Your evidence was that any money you took from the company you believed in your mind you were entitled to take. You told the jury you were entitled to your wages and that fact was never in contention save that it was qualified by the evidence of Mr Chalmers that you were entitled to take wages when the company could afford to pay them. You told the jury that much of the company funds were expended on payments made to or for Mr Chalmers, a proposition rejected by him and probably rejected by the jury. You also told the jury that many of the transactions shown to have taken place by transfer of money from company accounts to your account represented repayment to you of expenses you claimed to have paid on behalf of the company when the company could not make those payments. You claimed you made those payments on behalf of the company from your own money or from money again given to you by your father. By this evidence you claimed you were entitled to do what you did and at no time did you act dishonestly. Your evidence was the payments or transfers of money to you from the company was recompense.
20.By the jury’s verdict it must be taken to have rejected your evidence. For what it is worth I agree with the jury’s verdicts. I found your evidence in the second trial most unconvincing and I do not accept a word that you have said. Throughout this whole matter you have not expressed true remorse for your actions but at every opportunity you have wanted to blame others for your conduct, most notably Mr Chalmers. You blame him for almost everything that went wrong with the company which as I say was obviously under capitalised and poorly run and managed by you.
21.The arrangement between yourself and Mr Chalmers was I think doomed to failure from the start primarily because the company was undercapitalised. But the company was also hopelessly managed by you and the financial records, such as they were, were almost non existent. The company did not have financial statements, there were no BAS statements lodged and nor were there any taxation returns lodged. Had there been even rudimentary financial records and controls in place this offending would have been made more difficult. The fact there were no financial controls in place made your offending relatively easy.
22.The matters concerning records of the company to which I refer have very little to do with your offending save that lack of them helped create the opportunity for you to offend and for you to give the most unsatisfactory evidence that you gave. These are not aggravating factors and I do not treat them as such. Much of your evidence where you blame Mr Chalmers has very little to do with the offences and your evidence where you sought to blame him for your offending, rejected as it was by the jury, could not have served to found some sort of legal entitlement to take the money that you did. Your evidence pretty much only served to establish a red herring. In my view the jury was right to see through your evidence and reject it.
23.In passing sentence upon you for the 105 charges of theft I am of the opinion that those offences are founded on the same facts or form and are part of a series of offences of the same or similar character within s 9 of the Act. On those charges I propose to sentence you to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment in place of a separate sentence of imprisonment on each charge. My reason for doing so is that your conduct in each offence was the same. You took money from the company which did not belong to you. You did so dishonestly because you knew that you were not entitled to do so. Your modus operandi in each instance was the same. Only the amount in each instance differed. In these circumstances, in my judgment it is appropriate that an aggregate sentence be imposed for these 105 charges of theft. I note that each of the 105 charges of theft is for a relatively small sum of money. Each charge falls well within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court.
24.
I turn now to the 24 charges of obtaining property by deception contained in Indictment B11498521.6. You pleaded guilty to each of these charges on
15 April 2013
.
25.Your offending in these charges in my view is much more serious. Your offending is summarised in a prosecution summary which was tendered in evidence on the plea and which was marked as Exhibit A. It was read to the court by the learned prosecutor and it is not necessary that I repeat it here except in summary form. These sentencing remarks should be read by reference to that document. The summary of offending was accepted by your counsel Mr Andrighetto, who appeared for you on the trials and in your plea, as accurate and as forming a proper basis upon which I can proceed to sentence you.
26.
The offending to which you have pleaded guilty, in time sequence, follows on from the offences of theft from the company in the other two indictments. The period of offending covered by Indictment B11498521.6 is between 18 July 2008 and
4 March 2009
. It covers approximately the last eight months of trading by the company when there must have been real concern as to whether or not the company was solvent, that is to say, able to pay its debts as and when they fell due for payment.
27.The company had acquired a franchise to sell Totalspan Sheds which are manufactured in Queensland by another company Totalspan Sheds Pty Ltd. Each charge in indictment B11498521.6 occurred in circumstances where you took money from a customer of the company on the basis that the company would use that money as a deposit or balance of purchase price to be paid to Totalspan Sheds Pty Ltd for the manufacture and delivery of a shed. In each instance you knowingly did not use the money for that purpose but paid the money into the company account where it was used for other purposes unconnected. By this means you were able to use genuine customers' money to prop up the bleeding financial situation of the company. In effect the customers' money was being used by you for the company in a sense like an overdraft. The summary also refers to the fact that the money was also used to fund your gambling habit although I note that you have not been charged with theft during the period of offending covered by indictment B11498521.6. The customers did not receive their sheds and when the company ceased to trade the customers did not receive their money back. They lost it all.
28.The total amount of the financial advantage gained by the company but lost by the customers by this means, and over the period covered by the charges, was $156,715. The amounts varied from customer to customer. For example $500 in Charge 19 to $21,193 in Charge 20.
29.Although falling towards the lower end for offending of this kind, this is nonetheless serious offending. Customers of business must be able to trust the people and the company that they are dealing with when handing over money before receiving goods. You breached that trust and let the customers down. Commerce cannot operate when customers are deceived into parting with their money in circumstances where the company knows that it cannot deliver what the customer thinks he or she has purchased because it is insolvent. For these reasons in offending of this kind the sentence impose should normally reflect proper application of the principle of general deterrence and the sentence must by its terms denounce the offending.
30.The prosecution tendered a number of victim impact statements on the plea. Exhibit B was a Victim Impact Statement from Douglas Chalmers. Exhibit C was a Victim Impact Statement from Bradley Garrigan. Exhibit D was a Victim Impact Statement from Joanne Conner. Exhibit E was a Victim Impact Statement from Graham Prestige. Exhibit F was a Victim Impact Statement from Rodney Higgins and Exhibit G was a Victim Impact Statement from Rodney Higgins' mother.
31.I have read each of these documents in detail and I have taken them into account in passing sentence as I must. Not only has each of these persons (save for Mrs Higgins) suffered financial loss at your hands but what comes through from each statement is a feeling of anger and betrayal that each of them feel because you breached the trust that they each placed in you. You are described in one of the statements as a conman who repeatedly lied. In my assessment of you that is certainly the way you came across in the witness box but you were unable to con the jury. That I suspect is because much of your evidence defied common sense.
32.I turn to your background which is unremarkable. You are aged 48 and are married but estranged from your wife. You continue to live under the same roof with her and your three daughters aged 22, 21 and 16. Your daughters fortunately still support you and two of them were in court for you on your plea. You were also supported by your elderly mother and your brother. I was told and accept they will be there for you when you are released from prison. That is to your credit because the court can have some comfort that in the circumstances here the family will assist you in your rehabilitation when you are released. Your father died in 2010 from complications from a farming accident. I was told and accept you had a close and loving relationship with him.
33.You were educated locally at Merbein South Primary School and Irymple Secondary College to Year 11 level. You excelled at sport and represented your school in a number of sporting endeavours especially football and cricket.
34.After you left school you completed an apprenticeship as a diesel mechanic, a career you later abandoned to become a bricklayer from which you gained experience of the building industry. Later you worked in sales for ten years and later joined a company with others selling second hand building materials used for restoration of period homes. Later you operated Doors Plus which was a financial disaster for you and your family. Because of secured debt you lost the family home and you were made bankrupt. Then followed your business venture with Mr Chalmers.
35.To your credit you have always been in worthwhile employment and I accept you have worked hard to support yourself and your family who you clearly love and are devoted to. As I see it you have not lead a lavish lifestyle and the money you stole from the company and the money you obtained for the company did not go on high living. Your offending was not motivated by greed but a bad gambling habit. That explains your offending. It does not excuse it.
36.I admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1 a reference from your uncle, Mr Ian Ryan, one of the most senior and respected members of the practising legal profession in Mildura. I have taken what he said about you into account. He makes the point of the impact which your father had upon your life and how after his bad farming accident and period of disability resulting in his death in 2010 you suffered greatly because your father had effectively guided your life up until that point. It is important I think to appreciate that your gambling habit is not a habit of longstanding. But it did get out of hand in the years before your fathers death which coincided with the period of operation of the company. I accepted into evidence an affidavit from your accountant Mr Wilkie. I have not taken it into account in passing sentence. That is because it deals with factual matters decided by the jury and it is not relevant to sentencing. I was told by your counsel it was tendered at your insistence. I was also told you think you should not be sitting in the dock alone. I infer you believe Mr Chalmers should be in the dock with you.
37.I have made my own assessment of Mr Chalmers which I have earlier referred to. That you insist on seeking to blame him for your problems is not to your credit and I place little store in your evidence two days ago from the witness box that you regret your actions. I am not satisfied you are genuinely remorseful. I am satisfied you regret the trouble and consequences that your offending has caused to you and your family.
38.I heard evidence from a number of witnesses who all speak well of you. Mr Lyall Massey gave evidence of your involvement over a long period with the South Mildura Football Club where you have contributed as a player, coach, official and in numerous fund raising endeavours. I accept this evidence. You have been particularly helpful it seems as a coach especially of juniors and assisted with single parent families. That is especially praiseworthy as I suspect that as the father of three daughters they were not all that enamoured with their father spending so much time at the local football club. You are a life member of the South Mildura Football Club and I accept life membership is not handed out readily but has to be earned. In making you a life member I am sure the football club was recognising your contribution to it. That is a contribution from which the community benefits and that is to your credit.
39.Andrew Shaw gave similar evidence of your involvement in similar capacities with the East Mildura Cricket Club where you are also a life member.
40.I accept that up until this offending you have led a blameless life without prior conviction and that you have made and continue to make even since this offending real contributions to the community at large, all of that is very much to your credit and I have taken all these factors into account in passing sentence.
41.Dr Brian Murphy gave evidence. He is a general practitioner in this town and he has known you for 33 years. He is your general practitioner. He gave evidence of treating you for anxiety in 2007. Fortunately you told him of your gambling habit and you sought his help. He referred you to Kay Tulloch, a gambling counsellor. He also referred you to a clinical psychologist, Carmen Jewell. Dr Murphy gave evidence of having been aware the company was in liquidation and that because of this he assessed you as exhibiting signs of stress and panic. As may be expected he opined your stress levels have increased as this court proceeding approached.
42.Dr Murphy did say that you will find gaol difficult but in my assessment no more so than any other prisoner. I cannot find on the evidence that you will find a term of imprisonment more difficult to serve than any other prisoner. You are not being treated for depression or any other form of mental illness and you are not medicated. I accept from time to time you suffer anxiety. Mr Andrighetto specifically did not argue that any of the principles in Verdins have application here in forming an appropriate sentencing disposition.
43.I accept that your incarceration will be difficult for your family especially your daughters and I have taken all that into account.
44.Ms Kay Tulloch gave evidence of counselling you for your gambling addiction. She said she has had 18 pre-arranged sessions with you as well as about 30 sessions over the phone. She is on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week to assist people such as yourself with gambling problems. She said when she first consulted with you, you were incredibly stressed which lead to gambling. She said that after her sessions with you, you have made progress. She said there have been times of relapse but you have adopted relapse prevention strategies which basically involve you doing other things instead of gambling. Walking and exercise is one such strategy which you have embraced. Running is another as is golf which you now pursue with the assistance of your brother. Ms Tulloch said you have improved with help and you have shown a desire to do something about your gambling problem. All that is to your credit. Ms Tulloch also gave evidence of her concerns that at times she was concerned you would self harm such were your levels of anxiety. I intend to bring this matter to the attention of the correction authorities.
45.It is to your credit that you have taken steps to do something about your gambling habit. My assessment of you is that you are unlikely to re-offend in this way especially if removed from a position of trust. Since the company closed its doors you have been working for Chubb maintaining fire extinguishers in buildings. You have not re-offended. I think you can continue to make a worthwhile contribution to society especially if you can beat your gambling addiction once and for all. That is still very much a work in progress but the court should do what it can so as to ensure that you completely rid yourself of this habit.
46.Mr Andrighetto did not submit that an appropriate sentence here was a non custodial sentence. He asked me to have proper regard to the application of the principle of totality in sentencing especially having regard to the number of charges which you have faced. In passing sentence I have done so.
47.Although not argued by your counsel, I have also taken into account the delay involved in bringing this matter to trial. The offending mostly occurred in 2008 and 2009. You were not interviewed by police until 26 May 2010 about 14 months after the company ceased to trade. The committal was not held until November 2011. The trial followed 15 months later. I accept that having these matters hanging over your head for so long through no fault of your own has been stressful for you and your family. I have taken delay into account in arriving at an appropriate sentence. Importantly, you did not re-offend during the time of the delay and I am satisfied you have taken positive steps during the delay to change your life and end your gambling habit.
48.Mr O’Doherty, who appeared to prosecute on the plea and at trial, submitted an appropriate sentence was a term of imprisonment with an immediate custodial element. He submitted on instructions an appropriate head sentence was in the range of 3 to 5 years imprisonment with a non parole period of 18 months to two (2) years. I reject that submission as to appropriate range as too high.
49.In arriving at an appropriate sentence I have had regard to current sentencing practices for offending of this kind. Sentencing Snapshots numbered 137 and 138 respectively, published by the Sentencing Advisory Council, deal with sentencing trends for the offences of theft and obtaining financial advantage by deception. Between 2007 and 2012 the median principle imprisonment length for theft was two years meaning half the sentences were more than two years and half were below. During the same period the median principle imprisonment length for obtaining financial advantage by deception was also two years meaning half the sentences were more than two years and half were below. Those snapshots are the current sentencing statistics of the higher courts, namely the Supreme Court and County Court. As I have said earlier, all of these charges could have been heard in the Magistrates’ Court where the median sentencing range would be lower.
50.In passing sentence I have taken all of these matters into account. Having given this matter a lot of consideration and even though it was not a disposition adverted to by your counsel on your plea I have decided to suspend part of the sentence that I will shortly impose which will not exceed three years in length. In my judgment the length of the overall sentence I will impose adequately addresses proper application of the principle of general deterrence and manifests proper denunciation of your offending. In my view the sentence I will pass also properly reflects the gravity of your offending.
51.Because of you have no prior convictions and have taken appropriate steps to address your gambling habit I doubt you will re-offend again in this way. The sentence I will impose is designed to ensure your complete rehabilitation which is not only in the interest of you and your family but also very much in the interests of the community as a whole. In these circumstances I am of the view a partially suspended sentence is appropriate.
52.On the charges on indictments B11498521.3 and B11498521.4 you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 6 months imprisonment.
53.Dealing with the charges contained in indictment B11498521.6:
54.
On Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
55.
On Charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
56.
On Charge 3 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
57.
On Charge 4 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
6 months.
58.
On Charge 5 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
9 months.
59.
On Charge 6 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
60.
On Charge 7 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
61.
On Charge 8 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
62.
On Charge 9 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
63.
On Charge 10 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
5 months.
64.
On Charge 11 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
5 months.
65.
On Charge 12 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
15 months.
66.
On Charge 13 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
67.
On Charge 14 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
68.
On Charge 15 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
6 months.
69.
On Charge 16 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
70.
On Charge 17 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
5 months.
71.
On Charge 18 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
72.
On Charge 19 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
1 month.
73.
On Charge 20 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
5 months.
74.
On Charge 21 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
75.
On Charge 22 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
12 months.
76.
On Charge 23 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
3 months.
77.
On Charge 24 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
1 month.
78.Pursuant to s 16 of the Act I direct that 3 months of the sentences imposed on each of Charges 4, 5 and 15 and 6 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 22 and 2 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 20 and 1 month of the sentence imposed on Charge 17, together with 3 months of the aggregate sentence I have imposed on the charges contained in Indictments B11498521.3 and B11498521.4 cumulate upon the sentence imposed on Charge 12 in Indictment B11498521.6. This makes a total effective sentence of three years imprisonment.
79.Pursuant to s 27 of The Sentencing Act I suspend part of that total effective sentence, namely 21 months being satisfied that it is desirable to do so in the circumstances, for a period of two years.
80.Mr Ryan, the purpose of imposing an effective term of imprisonment of three years is to reflect the gravity of your offending and to deter others who might be minded to offend as you have. The purpose of partially suspending that sentence is to enable you to complete your commitment to a full rehabilitation outside of prison. The effect of the sentence I have imposed and the orders that I will sign is that you will be taken from the court today and you will serve 15 months of the sentence I have imposed in prison after which you will be released into the community. If you commit another offence punishable by a term of imprisonment in the period of two years after your release from prison you will be brought back before me and, absent exceptional circumstances, you will be ordered to serve that part of the sentence that I have suspended, namely 21 months. Do you understand that?
81.For the purposes of s.6AAA of The Sentencing Act 1991 I state I have imposed sentences being terms of imprisonment for the charges contained in indictment B11498521.6 and I have reduced the overall sentence I would have imposed on those charges but for your pleas of guilty. Had it not been for your pleas of guilty to those charges I would have imposed a total effective term of imprisonment of four and a half years and I would have fixed a non parole period of three years.
82.For the purposes of s 18 of the Act I declare there has been no pre-sentence detention under the sentences imposed this day.
83.The prosecution seeks an order for disposal of the company computer used by you. The application was not opposed and I have signed the order sought.
84.Any matters arising out of that, Mr O'Doherty?
85.MR O'DOHERTY: No, Your Honour.
86.
MR ANDRIGHETTO: A custodial issue, Your Honour. I have a letter from
Dr Brian Murphy recommending that he receive some assistance through medication and I tender that for Your Honour to bring to the attention of the authorities.
87.HIS HONOUR: Yes, well I'll do so. My Associate will provide that to the corrections authorities.
88.MR ANDRIGHETTO: Thank you, Your Honour.
89.HIS HONOUR: Could you remove Mr Ryan please?

---

[2013] VCC 400

17 April 2013