Director of Public Prosecutions v Versace

[2019] VCC 1913

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-17-01670

Indictment No. F12736206

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

TANYA VERSACE

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE TRAPNELL
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 April 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 November 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Versace
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1913

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence

Catchwords:             Sentence – Aggregate sentence on course of conduct offences – Obtaining financial advantage by deception – Theft – Breach of trust – Defrauded and stole over $1 million from family’s business over 6 years and 9 months – Engaged in 634 dishonest transactions – High moral culpability – Late plea of guilty – Sophisticated crimes to support extravagant lifestyle – No prior criminal history – Victim of domestic violence in the past – Good prospects of rehabilitation – 5 years 7 months’ imprisonment – 3 years’ non parole period

Legislation Cited:     Criminal Procedure Act 1958 s 159(3)(c) – Sentencing Act 1991 s 5(4) – Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 2012 s 44(2)

Cases Cited:Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354 – Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 – SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487 – Markovic v The Queen (2010) 30 VR 589 – R v Nixon (1993) 66 A Crim R 83 – DPP v Felton (2007) 16 VR 214 – R v Grossi (2008) 23 VR 500 – Saxon v The Queen [2014] VSCA 296 – DPP v Frewstal (2015) 47 VR 660 – DPP v Rivette [2017] VSCA 150

Sentence:                  5 years 7 months’ imprisonment with 3 years’ non parole period

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Mr S P Devlin	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J H McN Miller	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

1      Tanya Versace, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing two charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception and six charges of theft. The maximum penalty for both offences is 10 years’ imprisonment.

2      The prosecution filed a summary of prosecution opening dated 4 April 2019 which I have been told by your counsel I can treat as a statement of agreed facts.[1]

The facts

[1]     Exhibit P1.

3      In 1973, your parents, George Zukowski and Victoria Zukowski set up a pool plastering business. The business grew into all aspects of pool constructions, sales, maintenance and pool supplies. The business was operated by means of two companies, Fanissa Pty Ltd (Fanissa) and Victorian Pool Interior Supplies Pty Ltd.

4      Fanissa traded under three business names, PJ Pools and Spas, PJ Pool Plastering and PJ Pool renovations.

5      Your parents have three children. Peter, you and Michael.

6      In 1990, Peter Zukowski became a Director of Fanissa and was heavily engaged in the running of the business.

7      In 2005, you began working for Fanissa as the Office Manager. In this role you had control of the day to day running of the office administration including the accounts payable division.

8      In 2014, your parents, as part of a succession plan, decided that the control of the business would be passed to Peter and you. Fanissa engaged a business advisor, Peter Brien, to assist in the succession planning. This appointment was opposed by you.

9      By mid-2014, the company was struggling to pay its creditors and your father ploughed $450,000.00 into the company to keep it afloat.

10    In the course of reviewing the company’s position, Mr Brien discovered a number of accounting anomalies and reported these matters to your brother Peter. He approached you in relation to the anomalies and received what he considered to be unsatisfactory explanations. As a result, Mr Brien was engaged to do further investigations into the company’s accounts.

11    While these investigation was undertaken, new accounting processes were put in place. This led to arguments between you and Peter. You requested two weeks leave to start on 2 June 2014.

12    As part of the review of accounting matters, Peter began investigating internet banking transactions marked ‘Multipay’. He noted that on 6 May 2014 $4,500.00 had been transferred from Fanissa. The interrogation of this transfer showed that $2,000.00 of that transfer was a payment to Remco, which was a known supplier to Fanissa, and that this payment matched a corresponding Remco invoice. The remaining $2,500.00 was transferred into a bank account[2] in your name.

[2]     No. 733070597162.

13    The same investigation was undertaken for the period 6 February 2013 to 6 May 2014 and it was established that during this period $102,000 had been transferred from Fanissa to your personal bank account.

14    In early June 2014, your mother attempted to speak with you to obtain an explanation. You made denials and refused to talk to her. The matter was then reported to the Dandenong Police. An extensive investigation was conducted as a result you were charged with the present offences.

Charge 1 Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception – $23,048.35 between 1 September 2007 and 2 May 2013

15    It was discovered that Fanissa had been paying for a website called ‘Versace.net’. This led to finding that Fanissa’s Amex credit card had been used to pay for goods and services not related to the company. These payments were for purchases of personal property and entertainment and not linked to permissible corporate expenditure. These transactions were linked to you, or to your home address at 37 Ferntree Gully Road, Oakleigh.

16    This is a course of conduct charge[3] comprising 33 incidents of the offence totalling $23,048.35 defrauded from the company by you over a period of some 4 years and 4 months.

Charge 2 Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception ­– $171,043.98 between 20 December 2008 and 31 May 2014

[3]     See Criminal Procedure Act 1958 s 159(3)(c) and Schedule 1, cl 4A.

17    The examination of the Fanissa accounts identified that the company had been invoiced and paid for works performed at your home. These works included the installation of a pool and renovations to your house. You, or on occasions your husband, Rocky Versace, would order the works. These payments were not authorised by the company.

18    Fanissa did have a commission scheme whereby employees were paid a commission if they sold or introduced a pool sale. The evidence from the Fanissa Directors, is that you had been paid some commissions but did not have any commissions due to set-off against personal expenditure on your house. Even if you were owed any commission, which is denied, the total amount of monies taken by you to pay for works at your house cannot be accounted for by a claim that you were owed commission over the period covered by this charge.

19    This is a course of conduct charge comprising 134 incidents of the offence[4] totalling $171,043.98 defrauded from the company by you over a period of some 5 years and 5 months.

[4]     There is no incident B122 in Schedule B to the Indictment.

Charge 3 Theft – $30,229.81 between 29 March 2010 and 30 June 2010

20    Further analysis of the company’s accounts disclosed the main process you adopted to steal from the company. You would legitimately pay a company creditor, but you would add an amount to the purported payment to the creditor and then transfer the excess over and above the genuine amount owing into your personal bank account.

21    For example, on 29 March 2010 you purported to pay Techcrete, a creditor of PJ Pool Plastering, $8,060.68. In actuality Techcrete was owed only $7,060.68. ANZ Banking records show that the ‘Multipay’ transaction transferring the $8,060.68 comprised two transactions, namely $7,060.68 and $1,000.00. Techcrete was correctly paid $7,060.68 to its bank account, however a further amount of $1,000.00 was paid to your bank account.[5] You thereby stole $1000.00 from the company.

[5]     No 59716216.

22    Using the same or similar processes you stole a total of $30,229.81 between  29 March 2010 and 30 June 2010 by transferring the company’s moneys into your personal bank account on 25 occasions.

23    This is a course of conduct charge comprising 25 incidents of the offence totalling $30,229.81 stolen from the company by you over a period of some three months.

Charge 4 Theft – $140,526.97 between 13 July 2010 and 30 June 2011

24    Using the same or similar processes you continued to steal from the company throughout the 2010/2011 financial year by transferring the company’s money to your personal bank account.

25    This is a course of conduct charge comprising 106 incidents of the offence totalling $140,526.97 stolen from the company by you over a period of just under twelve months.

Charge 5 Theft – $90,390.96 between 11 July 2011 and 29 June 2012

26    Using the same or similar processes you continued to steal from the company throughout the 2011/2012 financial year by transferring the company’s money to your personal bank account.

27    This is a course of conduct charge comprising 49 incidents of the offence totalling $90,390.96 stolen from the company by you over a period of just under twelve months.

Charge 6 Theft – $46,310.08 between 29 August 2011 and 13 February 2012

28    In relation to this charge you again used your position as the company’s bookkeeper to manipulate the company’s accounts in order to steal money. However, in committing this charge you stole by directing money into the ANZ bank account of your husband, Rocky Versace. You used the same or a similar method to steal the funds as before.

29    Rocky Versace had no access to the company’s bank accounts and during much of the offending period he was disabled after suffering a significant stroke on 11 July 2011.

30    This is a course of conduct charge comprising 29 incidents of the offence totalling $46,310.08 stolen from the company by you over a period of just under six months.

Charge 7 Theft – $249,948.99 between 10 July 2012 and 27 June 2013

31    Using the same or similar processes you continued to steal from the company throughout the 2012/2013 financial year by transferring the company’s money to your personal bank account.

32    This is a course of conduct charge comprising 101 incidents of the offence totalling $249,948.99 stolen from the company by you over a period of just under twelve months.

Charge 8 Theft – $304,036.67 between 3 July 2013 and 18 May 2014

33    Using the same or similar processes you continued to steal from the company throughout the 2013/2014 financial year by transferring the company’s money to your personal bank account.

34    This is a course of conduct charge comprising 157 incidents of the offence totalling $304,036.67 stolen from the company by you over a period of just over ten months.

35    You were arrested on 13 June 2014 and acting in accordance with legal advice you made a no comment record of interview. You were released pending further investigation.

36    On 2 March 2015, at the conclusion of the investigation, you were again interviewed and acting on legal advice made a no comment record of interview.

37    In summary, over a period extending from 1 September 2007 to 31 May 2014, a period of 6 years and 9 months, you defrauded or stole a total of $1,055,535.81 from your family’s business by engaging in 634 distinct dishonest transactions.

38    Your husband was initially charged with a lesser number of offences than you, largely involving offending relating to your home renovations and deposits into his ANZ Bank account. He was committed on a lesser number of these charges. These charges were later discontinued following a consideration of the extent of his medical condition.

39    Ultimately he pleaded guilty to one charge of theft of $948.00, which related to a false work expense claim. On 17 August 2018 his Honour Judge Mullaly convicted him and sentenced him to be released on an Adjourned Undertaking for a period of 6 months. Clearly, no question of parity arises in your case.

Victim impact

40    Mr Peter Zukowski prepared a victim impact statement dated 1 April 2019.[6] I have had regard only to the relevant aspects of that statement.

[6]     Exhibit P3.

41    He asks the question why you would steal so much from your own family. Your aged parents are now unable to retire because all their superannuation has been ploughed back into the company to keep it afloat. Your parents are extremely hurt by what you have done and as a consequence they have lost their sense of trust in people generally. Their separation from their grandchildren has affected them deeply. Your brother Peter feels ‘broken’. He feels your crimes have destroyed your family and they will never be the same again. I take the impact of your crimes on your parents and your brother into account in sentencing you

Offence seriousness

42    Taken overall your offending conduct is grave. Mr Miller of counsel, who appeared on your behalf, accepted the offending was ‘very serious’. Over a period of almost seven years you defrauded and stole from your family’s business over $1 million in gross breach of trust.

43    It appears your dishonest conduct progressed as you became more emboldened and you defrauded and stole more and more. For example, in FY 2008/09 you defrauded a total of $108,644[7] and in FY 2010/11 you defrauded and stole[8] a total of $143,842.[9] In FY 2011/12 a similar amount was defrauded and stolen by you being $141,412.[10] In FY 2012/13 this rose significantly to $257,269[11] and by FY 2013/14, in less than eleven months, your deprivations had risen to $322,092.[12]

[7]     Charges 1 & 2 (part).

[8]     The theft charges commence on 29 March 2010 (Charge 3).

[9]     Charges 1 & 2 (part) & Charge 4.The amounts for FY 2009/10 are $12,854.66 (Charge 1), $26,354.92 (Charge 2) and $30,229.81 (Charge 3) – making a total of $69,439.39.

[10]    Charges 2 (part), 5 & 6.

[11]    Charges 1 & 2 (part) & 7.

[12]    Charges 2 (part) & 8.

44    Moreover, I am satisfied that but for the discovery of your crimes, your offending would have continued undetected for some time. At any stage you could have desisted and sought to make amends, but you did the very opposite.

45    It is also clear you must have known the impact your offending was having on the family business and the effect this was having on your aged parents and on your brother. And yet you continued, unrepentant. The audaciousness of your behaviour is breathtaking. I find your moral culpability is very high.

46    The serious breach of trust you owed to the company that employed you in a trusted capacity and to the members of your family is a significant aggravating feature of these crimes.

47    Your crimes were relatively sophisticated, well planned and executed. The offending conduct was protracted and involved sustained fraudulent conduct on your part. Your motive for committing these crimes was to support your extravagant lifestyle. For example, you admit to owning about 50 handbags of which about five you consider to be ‘expensive’ and the most expensive cost about $5000.00.[13]

[13]    See the Affidavit of Tanya Versace sworn 12 September 2014 in Supreme Court proceeding no. SCI-2014-04664 (Exhibit P5) paragraph 32 and the photographs tendered as exhibit P4.

48    Clearly, denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment must loom large in sentencing you. However, I am satisfied that specific deterrence and protection of the community need be given little, if any, weight in your case. I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being good.

Personal circumstances

49    You were born on 28 August 1971 and you are now aged 48 years. At the start of the offending, you were aged 36. You were born in Dandenong and you were brought up in the South Eastern suburbs of Melbourne. You were the middle child in a sibship of three. You described your upbringing as being ‘stable’.

50    You attended school in the Dandenong area, finishing year 12 at Cleeland Secondary College. You were a good student who did not struggle academically or cause trouble.

51    You have a work history in clerical and sales roles and you consider yourself to be a hard worker. Prior to your remand on these matters you were employed as an automotive broker.

52    You left your family home to live with your husband Rocky when you were 21. You have two children, Alexander, aged 21, and Isabella, aged 15.

53    You described your relationship with your husband as one where he was demanding and controlling of you. You were not short of money, but he was quite capable of running up large bills and expected you to pay them.

54    You suffered physical violence at his hands but you felt unable to leave the relationship. You believe that to a certain extent you were under his spell as he could be very charming and controlling. You and your husband have been  separated for over two years but divorce proceedings are unfinalised. You are uncertain regarding whether you would have been able to leave him had it not been for his arrest as part of this investigation. Your husband has been charged on two separate occasions in relation to breaches of family violence intervention orders put in place for your protection.

55    Knowing that you were going to be serving a term of imprisonment, you made arrangements for your children. In your view, your son Alexander has always been a responsible young man and has just started a new job in his area of expertise. He will be your daughter’s legal guardian. She is studying year 10, and is working part-time at Officeworks. You have arranged a rental property for your children to live in. Your youngest brother may move into the premises in order to help out.

56    Your counsel submitted that the effect on your children of your offending has been at the forefront of your mind throughout these proceedings. Isabella is at a  particularly crucial stage in her development, and it is very difficult for you to accept that you are not going to be able to be a full time mother to her for a significant period of time. You did not want your children present at the plea hearing supporting you because you found the process of explaining to them what was going on to be distressing.

57    You have had to vacate your home in Oakleigh, which has never been in your name. A bank has commenced legal proceedings to take possession of that property.

58    You are not prescribed any regular medications and you consider yourself to be in good general health. You have no history of illicit drug use or abuse or overuse of prescription or over the counter medications. You are a social drinker of alcohol.

59    You have no prior criminal history, no subsequent offences and no matters outstanding.

60    A psychological report prepared by Mr David Ball, a forensic psychologist and clinical neuropsychotherapist, dated 8 March 2019, was tendered on the plea.[14] He opined that your mental status examination was unremarkable. Unsurprisingly, you expressed concern for your children’s welfare whilst you are undergoing sentence for these offences.

[14] Exhibit A2.

61    There is nothing in Mr Ball’s findings that would enliven any Verdins principles. He concluded that you fail ‘to satisfy the DSM 5 diagnostic criteria for frank mental illness, personality disorder, mood disorder or substance use disorder. Rather, [you] presented as an intelligent and high functioning woman’.

62    I note Mr Ball’s observation that you appear to lack insight into the reasons for your offending in the present manner. He assessed your prospects of rehabilitation as being at a high level. He said:  ‘she presents as a woman who may have the capacity to rebuild her life with minimal external support or social scaffolding’.

63    I have had regard to the contents of the letter of support provided by Ms Tanya Murphy dated 5 February 2019.[15] I accept you had been living in an abusive and violent relationship with your husband, that you are socially isolated and you have great concern for the effect these proceedings will have on your children.

[15] Exhibit A3.

64    I have also had regard to the contents of the letter you wrote to me dated 6 June 2019 and filed with the Court after the completion of the plea hearing.[16] I am pleased to learn you are engaging in counselling sessions whilst in custody and that you are working through your emotional problems, particularly those related to your problematic relationship with your mother and the abuse you suffered at the hands of your estranged husband.

Mitigating circumstances

[16] Exhibit A4.

65    Your counsel relied on the following mitigating circumstances:

(a)     Plea of guilty;

(b)     Prior good character;

(c)     Good prospects for rehabilitation;

(d)     First time in custody;

(d)     Victim of family violence; and

(e)     Hardship to family falling short of being exceptional.

66    You first indicated an intention to plead guilty at a very late stage in the proceedings on 18 January 2019, three days before the trial was listed to commence. I accept that your plea has utilitarian benefit, particularly in light of the likely length and complexity of any trial. It also indicates an acceptance by you of responsibility for your offending conduct and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.

67    I accept that, whilst you are undoubtedly regretful for the situation in which you find yourself and the effect this has had, and will continue to have, on you and your children, there is insufficient evidence before to make a finding in your favour that you demonstrate true contrition and remorse beyond what is inherent in the guilty pleas themselves.[17]

[17]    See Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354, 364–365 [32]–[38] ((Maxwell P, Harper JA and T Forrest AJA).

68    I accept that you are a person of otherwise good character and you are entitled to a measure of leniency on that account.[18]

[18]    Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267, 278 [36] (McHugh J); SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 493–4 [24]–[31] (Ashley, Redlich & Priest JJA).

69    I also accept you have probably leaned your lesson and you are unlikely to re-offend. You also appear to be taking positive steps towards your rehabilitation whilst you are in custody. Accordingly, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being good. Moreover, I consider I need give very little, if any, weight to specific deterrence and protection of the community in sentencing you.

70    I also take into account this is your first time in custody and you are understandably concerned for the welfare of your teenage daughter whilst you are serving your sentence. As your counsel properly conceded, this is not an exceptional circumstance warranting separate consideration;[19] however, I take into account that separation from your daughter and your concerns regarding her welfare will increase the burden of imprisonment on you.

[19]    See Markovic v The Queen (2010) 30 VR 589.

71    Whilst you have been a victim of domestic violence in the past, there is no causal link between this and your offending conduct. It appears the investigation of these offences and you and your husband being charged has proved to be the catalyst for you to leave the abusive relationship you were in. Nonetheless, I do take this factor into account as part of your general circumstances.

72    There has been some delay in finalising these proceedings which is through no fault of yours. You have had this matter hanging over your head for some time and I accept this has caused you a degree of stress and anxiety. I take the effect of this delay into account in your favour.

Application of sentencing principles

73    I have had regard to current sentencing practices in relation to the charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and theft. I was particularly assisted by the document headed ‘Fraud Sentences Involving $1 Million +’ provided by the Crown.[20] However, it is fair to say many of the cases detailed in that table are far more serious example than yours.

[20]    Exhibit P6.

74    It is difficult to gauge more than a very general yardstick from so called ‘comparable cases’, given the wide range of offending conduct which can constitute these offences and the myriad of personal circumstances pertaining to individual offenders. Nonetheless, to the extent that I have been able to gain any assistance from comparable cases, I have sought to do so in your case.

75    The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence, both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors. In general terms, these include the seriousness of the offence, your culpability for it, the effect of the offence on any victim and your personal circumstances.

76    I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure that, so far as is possible, you are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

77    As I earlier observed, general deterrence and denunciation are very important sentencing considerations for offences of this kind. Whilst just punishment, general deterrence and denunciation must be given significant weight in my instinctive synthesis, I am of the view that in your case, specific deterrence and protection of the community need be given very little, if any, weight. Moreover, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being good.

78    Ms Versace, I have formed the view that a sentence of imprisonment is the only sentence appropriate to achieve the purposes for which this sentence is imposed.[21] I will accede to your counsel’s submission and fix a non-parole period that is longer than I might otherwise have imposed.

[21]    See Sentencing Act 1991 s 5(4).

79    Moreover, I am of the opinion that in this case it is appropriate for me to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for the six theft charges on the indictment. I will impose discrete sentences of imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2 and make orders for cumulation that take account of the overlapping nature of the charges and the application of the totality principle.

80    I do this is for the following reasons:

(1)     The theft charges comprise two or more offences which are founded on the same facts and form part a series of offences of the same or a similar character.[22]

[22] Ibid s 9.

(2)     Overall, the offences constitute a continuum of offending against the same victim, using the same or a similar modus operandi and were committed by you in similar circumstances and while the same motive persisted throughout the offending period.

(3)     In my opinion, the structure of the theft charges on the indictment is somewhat arbitrary for the purposes of a plea hearing. The only significant distinguishing feature between Charges 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 is the financial year in which the unauthorised transactions the subject of each charge occurred. This offending could easily have been charged as a single course of conduct charge committed over the period 29 March 2010 to 19 May 2014.

(4)     Charge 6 is a little different from the other theft charges in that there the stolen funds were deposited into a bank account in your husband’s name rather than a bank account in your name. However, in my view this makes little difference to the application of principle in this area of sentencing law and practice, because the method adopted by you was the same as that used in committing the other theft charges. If not strictly ‘founded on the same facts’, Charge 6, with the other theft charges, certainly ‘form, or are part of, a series of offences of the same or a similar character’.

(5)     Accordingly, in my opinion imposing an aggregate sentence on the theft charges conforms with the rationale underlying the introduction by the legislature of this sentencing option, which was to provide ‘a more flexible and pragmatic option than imposing an individual sentence for each offence’.[23] In my opinion the imposition of an aggregate sentence on the theft charges in the present circumstances does not ‘conflict with other well-established principles of sentencing practice’.[24]

(6)     Initially I thought that because the theft offences are course of conduct charges, and therefore effectively rolled-up counts, it was not open to me to impose an aggregate sentence in respect of them.[25] However, s 9(4A) of the Sentencing Act 1991[26] expressly permits the imposition of an aggregate sentence of imprisonment ‘in respect of convictions for offences that are the subject of a rolled-up charge or a representative charge’. While strictly the theft charges are course of conduct offences and not rolled-up counts, I can see no reason in principle to treat them any differently when it comes to the exercise of my discretion to impose an aggregate sentence on the theft charges in this case.

Stand up Ms Versace

[23]    Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 7 June 2006, p 1775 (Mr R Hulls).

[24]    R v Nixon (1993) 66 A Crim R 83, 85–86 (Legoe J). See also DPP v Felton (2007) 16 VR 214, 229 [44] (Kellam AJA, Buchanan and Eames JJA agreeing); R v Grossi (2008) 23 VR 500, 510-11 [40]–[42] (Redlich JA, Vincent and Neave JJA agreeing); Saxon v The Queen [2014] VSCA 296 [29]–[31] (Weinberg JA, Santamaria JA agreeing); DPP v Frewstal (2015) 47 VR 660, 668–70 [35]–[45] (Maxwell P diss.); DPP v Rivette [2017] VSCA 150 [85]–[86] (Ashley and Priest JJA);.

[25]    See DPP v Felton (2007) 16 VR 214.

[26]    Introduced by the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 2012, s 44(2).

81    Ms Versace, the effect of my decision to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment on you in respect of Charges 3 to 8 (inclusive) is that you will receive the one sentence in respect of those six theft charges. This does not affect the overall sentence I impose on you in any way. I will impose separate and discrete sentences of imprisonment on the two obtaining financial advantage by deception charges (Charges 1 and 2) and then make orders for cumulation that reflect my assessment of the totality of your offending conduct in the total effective sentence I impose on you. I will then fix a minimum non-parole period which is the period during which you are not eligible to be released on parole. Whether or not you are released on parole at the end of that period will be a matter for the Adult Parole Board to decide.

Do you understand what I have explained to you.

On Charge 1 (obtaining a financial advantage by deception) you will be convicted and sentenced to be imprisonment for 6 months.

On Charge 2 (obtaining a financial advantage by deception) you will be convicted and sentenced to be imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months.

On Charges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (theft) you will be convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 5 years.

I order that 2 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1, and 5 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively with the aggregate sentence imposed on Charges 3 to 8 (inclusive) and with each other, making a total effective sentence of 5 years and 7 months’ imprisonment.

I order that you serve a minimum of 3 years’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.

I declare 211 days (not including this day) as the period of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as already served under this sentence and I direct that the fact that declaration was made and its details be noted in the records of the court.

Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I state that the sentence I would have imposed on you but for your pleas of guilty is a total effective sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.