DPP v Hoblos
[2020] VCC 720
•27 May 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR-18-01938
CR-19-01705
CR-20-00595
CR-20-00596
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| RAMI HOBLOS |
---
| JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE COHEN |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 19 November, 16 December 2019, 27 February & 19 May 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 27 May 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Hoblos |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 720 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: Sentencing
Catchwords: Three sets of offending; Blackmail; Deceptions using other people’s identification information; Stalking & attempt to pervert the course of justice
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 s6AAA
Cases Cited:DPP v Felton 16 VR 214 [2007] VSCA 65; DPP v Hughes [2020] VCC 296; Turney v R [2020] VSCA 131; DPP v Rivette [2017] VSCA 150
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr F. Cameron (CR-18-01938) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr N. Howard (CR-18-01938) Ms C. Flocke | Giorgianni & Liang |
HER HONOUR:
1Rami Hoblos, I am to sentence you on three sets of charges to which you have pleaded guilty.
2In October last year, you were to stand trial on a charge of blackmail, but on the day that the trial was to commence you pleaded guilty to that charge. The maximum penalty for blackmail is 15 years' imprisonment.
3In February this year, on a separate indictment to which you had pleaded guilty late last year, I heard a plea on a charge of stalking and one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. You also agreed to have heard in this court, and pleaded guilty to three associated summary charges, two being of contravening conduct conditions of bail, and one charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. The maximum penalty for stalking is 10 years' imprisonment, the maximum for attempting to pervert the course of justice is
25 years' imprisonment, and on each of the summary charges, the maximum penalty is three months' imprisonment.4Shortly before I was to sentence you on all of those matters, I was advised that other charges pending in the Magistrates' Court were to be transferred to this court, and that you would plead guilty to them. It was appropriate that I delay sentencing so that I would have the totality of offending before me and be able to sentence on it as a whole.
5Last week you pleaded guilty to eight charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception, nine charges of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, one charge of possession of identification information, and one related summary charge which you agreed to have transferred to be heard with these, of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. The maximum penalty for obtaining financial advantage by deception is 10 years' imprisonment; for attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, the maximum is five years' imprisonment; for possessing identification information, it is three years' imprisonment; and for the summary charge it is three months' imprisonment.
6You have also admitted a prior criminal history to which I shall refer later.
7Circumstances of the offending for each set of charges were contained in prosecution openings marked as exhibits, and I shall only summarise enough of each to enable assessment of the nature and seriousness of your offences. However, some detail about a number of them is necessary in my view to achieve this.
Blackmail
8I shall first deal with the circumstances giving rise to the charge of blackmail. This charge arises out of your conduct over a period of about two weeks in July 2016. At that stage, you were aged 26. The victim of this offending was Mr Peter Russell, who at that time was aged 70, and still running his business in Preston and living nearby. He owned a number of high-end luxury vehicles, and had very recently purchased an orange Lamborghini which he was keeping garaged with some of this other vehicles at a friend's property out of Melbourne.
9On 12 July 2016, someone had broken into his home but stolen nothing. He had reported that incident to police. About a week later, he received a phone call on the telephone landline of his business, from a male caller who identified himself as a police detective, and informed him that the people who had broken into his house had been caught, and the “detective” asked to meet him at his home that evening. The prosecution claims that that call was made by you. Although Mr Russell waited at his house that evening for an hour after the agreed time, no-one came.
10On the afternoon of 25 July 2016, a five-page handwritten letter was hand-delivered to Mr Russell's store. It purportedly was from “Detective Miller from CIU”. It was contained in an Express envelope addressed to “Peter” at the store address. That letter set out in considerable detail, a number of matters indicating knowledge of Mr Russell's personal circumstances and movements. It says that the writer had contacted him, and organised to meet him at his house at 6 pm one night, but could not because, the letter claimed, the victim was being followed. The letter identifies specific luxury vehicles that the victim owned, including information about the orange one that had only been purchased a few days prior to arrival of the letter, as well as information about where Mr Russell drove those vehicles.
11It said that he was being targeted by a group of criminals, and offered to help him out of the situation, in exchange for a fee of $250,000. The letter instructed the victim to get a cheque for $250,000 from the bank straight away, offered to keep him alive and safe if he paid the money first, and concluded by saying: 'Don't make me do something I don't want to do' and, 'If you don't do what I asked of you, I will tomorrow morning come arrest you myself and I'm a harsh detective, I will bring you down.'
12Next morning, Mr Russell told a friend about this letter, and the friend took him to the police station, and the letter was handed in. While there, the friend attempted to call the phone number that had been provided in the letter, but the call was not answered. Later, the friend received a text message from the number in the letter asking, 'Who's this?' followed by, 'Or is this Peter?' and when the friend replied later that afternoon, that 'yes' it was him, and asked if it was possible to meet at the caller's office at police headquarters to discuss how to resolve the matter, the message that came back - which you accept was from you - said that, 'that had been a test because you knew that Peter did not have a mobile phone.' Your message proceeded to make various assertions, not all rational, but nevertheless by their content, intimidating. It purported to know more about the victim as the messages continued later that evening.
13Police investigation found that the phone number of the mobile phone from which the call to the victim's store had been made to arrange to meet at his home at 6 pm that night, was a phone number registered to your brother at the address where you also lived. Coordination of mobile phone tower information and another phone found on you subsequently, led the investigation to you for this offending. Handwriting analysis ultimately linked you with the five page handwritten letter in which the blackmail demand was made. It was not until many months later that you were charged with this offence.
14In assessing the seriousness of this offending, I take into account that the maximum penalty is 15 years' imprisonment reflecting an objectively serious form of offending. Your act of blackmail was having the handwritten letter delivered, but there was obviously at least the earlier step of making a phone call to the victim under the pretence of being a detective, and arranging to meet him, even though you did not arrive at his home. What is puzzling still to me is how you obtained the information you did about the victim's private circumstances, including where he garaged and drove his luxury cars, and the recent purchase of one. You have said on assessments that you were given this information by someone else, but that is so vague, and given the extent of false information and deceptions you have used over the years since, I am not satisfied that I can make any finding about the source of this information.
15The handwritten letter which you now admit was written by you, was not all coherent - indeed parts were quite incoherent. Nevertheless, some of its content was menacing and contained considerable intimidation, as well as a demand for $250,000, even if that too was not likely to be successful as you asked for a cheque.
16Just as puzzling to me, were the communications through text messages afterwards. They reflected to me an element of fantasy or lack of reality in your thinking, including in the pretence of being a police detective, and together with other factors that led me to request a psychiatric pre-sentence report about which I will say more a bit later. However, that report did not reveal any psychotic or hallucinatory symptoms or traits, nor indeed any mental health disorder which could explain the aspects about which I had doubts, or which could have contributed to this offending. It seems that a need for money, due especially to your gambling habits, was the reason for this offending.
17You told Mr McKinnon who assessed you at the request of your solicitors, that you were sorry about what you called 'the blackmail thing.' I am sceptical about whether you felt genuine remorse for the victim and the scare and anxiety you caused. I take into account that it took three years for you to admit this offending, and even then you have not explained how you really came by the information you used.
18Although your blackmail demand did not succeed, was not competently executed, and was not particularly sophisticated, it involved quite a deal of subterfuge and the attempted disguising of your identity. It involved some real menace by showing that you knew about the victim's home, that it had been burgled (although you are not accused of burgling it yourself), and that you knew about his cars and his movements. It was confined to taking place over only a few days. It was unlikely to be successful once you demanded money by cheque, but it did take some time to investigate.
19It would have been frightening and menacing to your victim. I have read his Victim Impact Statement, and accept that he was extremely anxious and frightened at the time, and sought advice on increasing security at both his home and his business premises. He expresses the wish to move on, and I respect him for that.
20To the extent that placing this offending in a range of seriousness is of much usefulness, and views differ about that, I regard this instance of blackmail as well above the lowest possible level for this offence, but below the mid-range of seriousness.
Deceptions
21I move onto the next set of offending in time - the deceptions to obtain financial advantage, which are contained in the latest indictment (2020). These offences occurred over a period from January 2018 to March 2019, in which you engaged in extensive and persistent acts of deception, aiming to use other people's identity information to obtain money for yourself.
22Some arose from your dishonestly obtaining access and taking copies or details of personal information of people whose houses you had painted, and then using it to make multiple applications for loans, finance or credit cards, or using their credit or debit card details to purchase goods. From mid-2018 until March 2019, you also used personal and financial information of your father, your mother, and your uncle to similar ends. Finally, you used information belonging to an acquaintance whom you also used in the offending which led to you being arrested and remanded on 20 March 2019.
23Turning to the 18 charges on this indictment, I shall only summarise their details to explain the nature and extent of your offending. More details are in the prosecution opening that was made an exhibit. I shall not name the people whose personal information you dishonestly acquired and used, and the reason for that is to protect their privacy.
24In December 2017, you had painted the house of a man who held financial power of attorney for his father. Without permission, you recorded extensive personal information about the father in your mobile phone, and in January 2018 you started using that information to apply for credit cards and accounts with several financial institutions. You provided your own phone number and home address of your parents for those applications. You did not succeed on five false applications to four financial institutions, those being the subject of Charge 1, of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. In June 2018, you succeeded in making purchases from two businesses using the same man's debit card information, obtaining goods to the value of $7883. The shipping address was your parents' home and the phone number contact was yours. You sold one of those items for $3600. Those purchases give rise to Charge 8 of obtaining financial advantage by deception. Also in June 2018, you attempted to make four further purchases, totalling a little over $15,000, using this man's debit card details, but the purchases were declined. These are the basis of Charge 9 of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception.
25In early 2018, you and your brother painted a house at Sorrento, and you dishonestly photographed and recorded in your mobile phone, personal identification and banking information of the owner. On 16 April 2018, you obtained a credit card from Latitude Finance using that person's identity information, and used it for $471.95 worth of purchases before the card was cancelled. That is the basis of Charge 2, of obtaining financial advantage by deception. Over the following months, you made 16 more applications using the same person's identification, for credit cards and personal loans, one instance being an attempted purchase of a computer worth $4000 on her credit card, which was declined, and a further three applications were made in June and July 2018. These 19 acts of deception are the basis of Charge 3, of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. Although none were successful, the total you sought to obtain through these deceptions was more than $216,000.
26On 15 May 2018, you used the same person's credit card to purchase $1860 worth of mobile phone products. That gave rise to Charge 7 of obtaining financial advantage by deception.
27In February and March 2018, you and your brother were painting another house, and identification documents of the owner there were subsequently found in your mobile phone. Between 20 April and 12 July 2018, you made 13 separate applications for credit cards and personal loans using that person's identification. Those are the basis of Charge 4 of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. Seven of those applications were approved, but as you had used the earlier customer's house address, the credit cards were sent there and found by the first owner in her mail, and reported to police, before you could access the cards to use them. You made one further application using this dishonestly obtained identification after that, but this later application in July 2018 was refused. It also forms part of Charge 4. These deceptions attempted to obtain credit or loans totalling over $78,000.
28On 1 May 2018, you successfully obtained a loan of $40,000 using the same customer's identification, and the money was placed into an account controlled by you and to which you made no repayments. That is the basis of Charge 5 of obtaining financial advantage by deception.
29In May 2018, you attempted to obtain a credit card to the value of $4000 using your mother's identification details, but it was not approved. That is the basis of Charge 6 of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. Between 11 May 2018 and 18 March 2019, you used your mother's identification to apply for two personal loans and a credit card to a total value of $100,000. Those acts constitute Charge 13 of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. Between 1 February and 18 March 2019, you again used your mother's identification information to apply for a credit card with a $5000 limit from the NAB. The application was successful. That is the basis of Charge 17 of obtaining financial advantage by deception.
30On 10 July 2018, you used another man's credit card to buy a computer and mobile phone from a Harvey Norman store online. The manner in which you obtained that man's card is unknown. The purchase was originally accepted, but before the goods were shipped, the store's verification process detected an issue with the credit card. You contacted the store via email claiming to be the man whose credit card had been used, and demanded that the goods be sent, but the store refused. This conduct is the basis of Charge 10 of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception.
31Between 6 September 2018 and 10 March 2019, you dishonestly used your father's personal and financial details to apply for two credit cards and a personal loan, all from the Commonwealth Bank, to a total value of $30,000. None were successful. These are the basis of Charge 11 of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. Between 1 February and 12 March 2019, you again used your father's identification information to apply for credit cards, a SIM card and car insurance to a total value of just under $90,000. These are the basis of Charge 16 of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception.
32Between 18 November 2018 and 18 March 2019, you dishonestly used personal and financial information of your uncle to obtain a Telstra SIM card valued at $30. That is the basis of Charge 12, obtaining financial advantage by deception. Between January and 20 March 2019, you used your uncle's identification information to apply for three personal loans with three different banks, totalling $90,000. These were not successful. They are the basis of Charge 15 of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception.
33The final person whose identification information you dishonestly used to obtain or attempt to obtain financial advantage, was an acquaintance whom you had offered to help with his MyGov account, and thereby obtained his personal information. Between 3 and 18 March 2019, you used his information to successfully apply for a credit card with a $10,000 credit limit, and for two SIM cards worth $60. Those are the basis of Charge 14, obtaining financial advantage by deception.
34Charge 18, the last on that indictment, relates to personal and financial information of another former customer of your painting services, and her daughter, which information was found on your mobile phone when you were arrested in March 2019. You had done a painting job for this customer in 2015. It is not alleged that you had used that information in any deceptive way, but having it in your possession without the owner's permission, gives rise to a charge of possessing identification information.
35There is also a summary charge related to the charges on this indictment. That is a single charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. You were on bail throughout the 15 month period of offending covered in this indictment, but the charge is based on your first attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception in January 2018.
36In assessing the seriousness of this offending, that is, the 18 charges on the indictment, and the summary charge, I take into account that although about half of the charges relate to unsuccessful attempts to obtain financial advantage by deception, your efforts were persistent and numerous and continued over a period of approximately 15 months. They involved multiple attempts at similar times using several people's identification information. It is an aggravating aspect that throughout all of this offending you were on bail for the blackmail charge, and yet you undertook this sustained offending which also involved obtaining personal information about other people and using it dishonestly to try to make money for yourself.
37These deceptions involved planning, in that you had dishonestly copied information of customers of your painting work and kept it in your mobile phone to use later, and then subsequently copied information of your mother, your father and your uncle.
38In relation to the information from painting customers, you were abusing their trust in you and your brother as tradesmen, who had given access to you to their houses. Only one of those people has provided a Victim Impact Statement, that is the owner of the Sorrento holiday home. I accept that she and probably each of the others was put to real inconvenience in sorting out the financial consequences of your misusing of their information, having to notify relevant financial institutions, deal with shops that might have had a claim in respect of goods purchased and then of course, replacing cards and other identification. I also accept there were feelings of insecurity about who else may have acquired their information and whether there were further dishonest acts by whoever was committing the offences - and that turned out to be you - that they would have to cope with in the future. It must be noted that you continued to use some of that information well after one of the victims had discovered that you had been doing so with her information, and well after some of the identification or credit or debit cards were cancelled.
39There was also the acquaintance who had trusted you when you offered to help him fill in the MyGov account, and you clearly betrayed that personal trust by using the information you gained that way. You also pressured him to take blame for you in a different matter, which I shall explain shortly.
40Insofar as you did achieve some financial advantage from your deceptions, the victims of those deceptions are also the financial institutions and the traders whom you deceived.
41That you also used your parents and uncle in similar ways, reflects a particularly worrying aspect to your nature or personality, in that you continued to live in your parents’ home and to look to family for support, while carrying out these deceptions.
42As I have said, many of your deceptions were unsuccessful. Many were also poorly disguised, in that you used your own phone number as a contact, and your address for some applications or deliveries. However, what you lacked in competence and sophistication, you made up for in ambition, in that overall you tried to obtain more than $700,000 by deceptions using dishonestly obtained identification information of other people.
43The only reason for any of this offending seems to have been your wish to obtain money, and predominantly that was to pay off debt from gambling and using it for further gambling.
44I regard the sustained and persistent deceptions over this period, overall, as being well into the mid-range of seriousness for such offending.
45Although not formally designated “rolled-up” charges, many of the charges reflect multiple acts by you of deception. I take into account Court of Appeal decisions discouraging aggregate sentences in these types of circumstances,[1] and for that reason, have imposed individual sentences with some cumulation.
Stalking and Attempt to Pervert Course of Justice
[1]DPP v Felton 16 VR 214; [2007] VSCA 65; Turney v R [2020] VSCA 131; DPP v Rivette [2017] VSCA 150
46The final set of charges arises from events in March 2019. The background to them was that between September 2018 and mid-February 2019, MM had hired you to do work at her home, initially painting and ultimately various other handyman jobs around her house. Over that time, the relationship developed into you becoming quite good friends, and MM began to confide personal information to you in relation to her previous marriage, and about another domestic relationship she had had. Although she felt that you wanted the relationship between you and her to become more than just friendship, she says that she told you more than once that she wanted to just be friends, and not to take it any further. I realise that you have - sorry have we lost someone, or only - it may be at this end…
47Can people hear me? Just nod if you can still hear me? Nobody is nodding. All right, I have dropped out.
48Mr Hannan is back. Mr Hannan, can you hear me? Thank you. We are waiting for Ms Flocke, and then when she is there, I will check with Mr Hoblos if he can hear and see me again. Ms Flocke, can you see and hear me now? All right, now. I have been able to see your client at the prison throughout, but he did not respond when I asked if he could hear me. Mr Hoblos, can you now hear and see me?
49OFFENDER: Yes.
50HER HONOUR: Good thank you. I am sorry to everybody for that. The system just has a habit of doing this. I have now got to pick up on where I was up to when you dropped out.
51I think I had just moved to the final set of charges arising from events in March 2019 and explained that Mr Hoblos had been painting and then doing handyman work over a series of months for MM, and this led to a friendship and she confided personal information. She says she had not wanted it to go further than just friendship, and told Mr Hoblos that although he has told others it was a relationship including a sexual relationship.
52On 1 February 2019, you, Mr Hoblos attended her premises for the purposes of doing painting work. At the time you were on bail for the other offending - or at least for some of the deceptions - and it was a condition of your bail on the deception charges that you were to notify the informant for that offending if you were required to enter a house for the purposes of painting. You failed to notify the informant that you needed to attend MM's house to perform painting works, and that is the basis of one of the summary charges of contravening a condition of bail without reasonable excuse. That is summary Charge 6.
53On Friday 15 March, you attended MM's house and during time spent with her, you advised her that your parents had passed away three weeks prior, which was false, and mentioned getting a tattoo of her face on your body. She felt this behaviour was strange.
54Then, between approximately 3 pm on the following afternoon, Saturday 16 March, until approximately 2 pm on Monday 18 March, you sent her 30 text messages. Initially in these, you identified yourself as her former husband, but when she knew from the content that it was you, you then confirmed this in the last few messages, which you sent on the Monday morning.
55The content of the messages was threatening, intimidating and designed to cause mental harm to her, and arouse apprehension in her to fear for her own and her children's safety. The content purporting to be from her former husband, included information to let her know she was being watched. It included the following: “I'm going to get you back” – “I've been watching u and ur man that u had over last night” - “I'm going to get u, then ur kids - ur man - my eyes are on u, ur on ur own now.” A message threatened to wait until she went to sleep and then to come to choke her. Another message; to put the pillow on top of her head and punch it like he used to do, so no-one hears. Also a message said the sender was going after her kids, having seen where she dropped them off as he had been watching for a while. These also said the sender was watching her home - if he did not get her or her guy today, then the kids.
56After she messaged you that she knew it was you, you confirmed that. You said, 'This is Rami' and then told her to go to the police station and you would catch her as she could not hide from you. The messages had various other taunts about what would happen if she went to the police.
57MM did call the police, who came to her home late on the evening of 18 March 2019, and took a statement from her concerning your behaviour. She stated that the text messages had left her feeling disgusted and disappointed and angry.
58All of this conduct of messaging her is the subject of the charge of stalking, which is Charge 1 on that indictment. As you were then on bail in relation to other matters, that is the basis of the summary charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, Summary Charge 4.
59As I have said, the messaging that constitutes the stalking was committed during an almost two day period leading up to approximately 2 pm on Monday 18 March 2019 when MM indicated to you that she knew it was you and you then responded in a taunting manner.
60Later that same afternoon, you called an associate, Mr Aymen Helal, and arranged to meet with him at a basketball court at around 5.30 pm. It is
Mr Helal whom you had offered to assist with putting his information into his MyGov account, and then used it to obtain by deception.61When you and he met later at about 5.30 pm, you asked him to do a small job for you in exchange for $5000 cash. You asked him to go to a police station and tell the police that he was using a phone that was yours to harass some people. Despite Mr Helal repeatedly refusing, he apparently felt intimidated enough by you, apparently knowing that you had previously been in prison, and he eventually agreed to participate as you requested. You then told him the story he was to tell police and went with him to Frankston police station. During the course of the journey there, he was recording you in the van.
62At approximately 8.30 pm you and he attended the front counter of Frankston Police Station. You told police that he attended at your house and confessed to sending a series of text messages to MM whilst pretending to be you. However, when Mr Helal was interviewed about the text messaging to MM, the police produced the actual text messages he was supposedly confessing to sending, and caught him out in a series of lies. He then admitted to fabricating his story at your urging and for a promised payment of $5000.
63You were then arrested and interviewed by police whilst still in attendance at Frankston Police Station for stalking.
64Police obtained a Personal Protection Intervention Order against you, which listed MM as a protected person. You were then released from custody on bail, with your bail conditions being identical to those in the Personal Protection Intervention Order, which included that you were not to contact the victim, MM, by any means.
65Nevertheless, within hours, on the Tuesday morning, you sent MM an email purporting to be from your sister's email address, in which you claimed to be your sister, asking MM not to go to police, and sending further false information, and saying that you, Mr Hoblos, had been set up. A second email to MM a couple of hours later, again purporting to be from your sister, sought to deny that you had been responsible for the earlier email contact from your sister.
66About 5 pm that day, MM attended Frankston Police Station and made a statement in relation to the two emails that she had received from you earlier that day. Those emails are the basis for Summary Charge 3, of breaching a bail condition.
67On 20 March 2019, you attended Frankston Magistrates' Court in relation to the Personal Protection Intervention Order, and at that stage you were arrested by police and taken into custody for interview in relation to the emails. Police checks in relation to the email address showed it had been created the previous morning, after you had been released from Frankston Police Station.
68You were remanded in custody on 20 March 2019, in relation to the matters concerning MM, and have remained in custody ever since. You were also remanded, as I understand it, on that date for the deception charges, or most of them. The total of pre-sentence detention is 434 days, and that will be deducted from your overall sentence. Although originally on bail for the blackmail charge in relation to Mr Russell, when you pleaded guilty to that charge, that bail was revoked and you were remanded also on that charge. However, as I have said, I am not going to distinguish the number of days that apply to that charge. Your total pre-sentence detention will be deducted from the overall sentences I impose.
69In assessing the seriousness of this offending, that is, the offending of stalking and attempting to pervert the course of justice, and the related summary charges, I take into account the substantial maximum penalties for stalking (10 years) and for attempting to pervert the course of justice (25 years)..
70In relation to the stalking, it occurred over a little more than two days, and did not involve actual violence or being in the close vicinity of MM, although you did threaten actual violence to her and to her children. She realised, apparently reasonably quickly, that it was you and not her ex-husband sending these texts, and she told police that she felt disgusted, disappointed, and angry. I take that to mean those feelings, rather than fear, but objectively, you sent multiple messages trying to threaten and intimidate her, and that was vindictive and nasty of you.
71I was told that you sent the emails as if from your sister hoping to vindicate yourself, or re-establish yourself in her eyes. How it was to do that, I do not understand.
72As there was no physical approach to make these threats and they lasted only about two days, this did not approach the most serious level of this offence of stalking, but it certainly requires, in my view, imprisonment to adequately denounce it, punish you for it, and deter you and others from engaging in this type of conduct.
73The attempt to pervert the course of justice used another person, Mr Helal, over whom you apparently held enough power of persuasion to intimidate him into taking the blame for your offending against MM. I do not overlook that he was apparently offered a substantial sum of money to do it too. I now know that at the same time you were abusing his trust by using his personal information that you had acquired when helping him to deal with the MyGov site in order to perpetrate a deception to obtain money. Your plan to pervert the course of justice did not work because he was not able to convince police that he had really sent the messages, so the attempt did not last for long. I accept that you did not cause physical harm to get Mr Helal to falsely confess to your crime. However, you obviously thought you could deflect blame from yourself by having him make a false confession to your offence, and that was both dishonest and aimed at undermining the course of justice; the course of justice by which police would have investigated, identified you and charged you with that offence.
74Offences of this nature, that is, attempting to pervert the course of justice require a sentence to send the message to others tempted to engage in this type of conduct that they will attract stern punishment, and to reassure the community that the integrity of the justice system will be protected.
75In relation to the summary charges related to this indictment, I regard as particularly concerning that within hours of being bailed on conditions requiring you not to have contact with MM, you set about breaching that condition by further deceit. You used your sister's name to set up an email address and pretended to be her, to try to defend yourself to MM.
76This is another example of you abusing the loyalty and support of your family, as well as another example of your preparedness to engage in deceptions to try to get your way and to deflect blame from yourself. This conduct reflects that you had little remorse for what you had done to MM at the time, nor for your deceptions of your family members.
77You have pleaded guilty to all of these charges and are entitled to some leniency for doing that. Except in relation to the blackmail charge, you indicated your intention to plead relatively early, and in doing so, saved the time and cost of contested hearings and inconvenience, and in relation to some of these charges, stress to witnesses.
78Your pleas of guilty also reflect you taking responsibility for your offending. I am not convinced that they reflect unconditional remorse in your case, but do accept that you regret the position in which you find yourself now, and do feel some regret for the concerns you have caused your family and for some of the disturbances you have imposed on other victims.
79You are said to express remorse to Mr McKinnon. I do not doubt he has recorded that you expressed remorse, but for reasons I have just explained, I am not satisfied that it was true remorse.
80You are said to have expressed remorse for your stalking of MM, and that your offending reflects your personal disappointment in her rejecting your overtures for a closer relationship. However, you made intimidating threats to her while pretending to be her former husband, and even after an intervention order and bail conditions prohibited you from further contacting her, you breached those to try to convince her that you had not been at fault. So I am not convinced of, as I say, unconditional remorse on your part for the offending against her.
81I do, however, as I have said, accept that there is real utilitarian value in your having saved the time and cost of hearings and stress to witnesses having to come to give evidence, and that applies also for the blackmail charge, even though you left it till the first day of trial to decide to plead guilty.
82I shall tell you after I have imposed your sentences, what they would have been if you had been found guilty on the same charges after a trial.
83I turn now to your personal circumstances. I am sorry, I am just checking as to how we are going on the timing with this link. Could that be checked and if there is any chance, extend it. I will keep going in the meantime, but have that checked. It should be all right, I hope.
84I turn now to your personal circumstances. You are aged 29 and will turn 30 next week. You were raised by your parents with one older and one younger sibling, in a family environment which you describe as average, with no dramas, and you were still living within that family household until you were remanded into custody for these matters. You had, apparently, previously lived separately in what was a rather tumultuous relationship, but that was, as I understand it, prior to the 2018 offending.
85You completed primary school and left secondary school in Year 11, apparently expelled. You completed Year 12 at TAFE. You then undertook and completed an apprenticeship in painting and decorating, and worked in that field for a number of years.
86You have said at times that you worked for your brother, but told Dr Wareing that it was your painting business, and that you chose to sell it in January 2019. Whatever the truth of that, I accept that over the years you have worked most of the time in the painting field, whether for others or yourself. Indeed, your work painting people's houses, clearly links with almost all of this offending, except the blackmail. I am told that you hope, on release from prison, to find work in the building industry, rather than confined to painting houses.
87You say that although you smoked cannabis and use Methylamphetamine and cocaine and ecstasy in your early 20s, it was only occasional, and that you have not used any illicit substances over the last three years. When you said three years, you were conveying that to Mr McKinnon in November last year. You seem to have told Dr Wareing in March this year that you first smoked Methylamphetamine in 2017, so that would have been after the blackmail offending, but you had tried other drugs before that. You do not claim to have had a dependence on drugs, although I note from Dr Wareing's conclusions that he diagnoses a substance use disorder and he says substance use problems were perpetuated by increased anxiety and social withdrawal due to your financial problems arising from your gambling.
88You do admit to a long standing problem with gambling - that you started gambling about age 18 and it became problematic in 2014 in the context of business earnings becoming inconsistent. You then started gambling money you did not have, and accrued significant gambling debts at Crown Casino. You were apparently attracted to the environment there, and that of course is a well-known aspect used by institutions such as that casino to attract people who like the environment and the entertainment as well as the company and the gambling itself.
89Your gambling escalated in 2016, and I take it that that situation continued up to the time of your arrest. You borrowed from family and friends to repay debts.
90I take that to be the motivation to try to blackmail Mr Russell, and then when you set about the systematic deceptions using other people's identification throughout 2018 and into March 2019, until you were caught and remanded in custody.
91You have admitted a prior criminal history. Although some matters were not prior to the earliest of the offending that comes before me, I need to take them overall into account because they are relevant in considering the totality of the time you will spend in prison and of your offending over a number of years.
92At age 18 you were found guilty of burglary and going equipped to steal, and received a good behaviour bond without a conviction. Aged 20, you were before a Magistrates’ Court for multiple charges of driving whilst disqualified or suspended and speeding, and a community based order (CBO) was imposed. Later the same year, you were convicted on more dishonesty charges, including obtaining by deception, as well as driving whilst disqualified, and you were sentenced to two months imprisonment but that was wholly suspended and you were also placed on a CBO for 12 months. Conditions included community work, and also assessment and treatment for drug addiction and mental health problems. In August 2012 you were dealt with for failing to comply with the CBO, but the original order was confirmed.
93You would have been aged 22 at the time you first served any time in prison, and that was when the two months suspended sentence was restored. In January 2015, you faced Melbourne Magistrates Court for multiple charges of dishonesty, from burglary and theft to obtaining property by deception, and also for driving whilst suspended. An aggregate sentence of six months’ imprisonment was imposed, only one month of which was initially to be served with the balance suspended.
94The blackmail offending occurred in 2016, but you were only charged with it in October 2017, and because you were disputing that charge until October last year, it does not appear as a prior offence, in formal sense, to the offending in 2018 and 2019. Nevertheless it is relevant in my overall view of the nature and development of your offending.
95Following your arrest and release on bail for the blackmail charge, you next came before Sunshine Magistrates' Court in April 2018, on charges of aggravated burglary, possession of a prohibited weapon, impersonating a police officer and stating a false name. That, as I understand it, was the offending for which you were arrested in September 2016 in a vehicle in which police found the notebook which contained writing ultimately assessed as likely to be the same as the writing in the blackmail note. You were sentenced to an aggregate 79 days imprisonment, which was time reckoned served, as well as a CCO commencing 9 April 2019. There do not appear to have been treatment or remedial conditions imposed on that CCO, but there was community work.
96I understand that you also served a term of imprisonment after that, and that on being released you found that the woman with whom you had been living in what is described as a tumultuous relationship, had stripped your home with her, of furniture and taken two vehicles causing you loss. It is in the context of that, that you sought friendship and for it to become a romantic relationship, with MM.
97The latest set of charges before me, casts some further light on your ongoing criminal offending between the blackmail incident and your stalking of
MM, because it shows that throughout 2018 you were repeatedly attempting and sometimes achieving fraudulent obtaining of financial advantage by deception, taking identity information of some three former clients of your brother's painting business, and of an acquaintance, he is the fourth person, and also from mid-2018 until March 2019, taking and dishonestly using information of each of your parents and your uncle. It would seem that you were continuing in this deceptive conduct right up to when you were arrested for stalking MM.98On arrest for that, you were found in possession of identification details of not only persons whose houses you had painted in 2018, and of your parents and uncle, but also of a client and her daughter whose house you had painted back in 2015. This reflects that you had taken that information some three years earlier, and that is even before the blackmail incident. Although there is nothing to show you had used that information you took in 2015, you had apparently kept it.
99I find this pattern of conduct not only reflective of dishonesty, but of you having no concept of barriers between what is personal in people's private lives, and what is open to you to access. You did not see yourself prevented from using any of it in attempts to obtain financial advantage for yourself. However much financial strain you were under, this lack of respect for barriers, and willingness to use other people's personal information dishonestly is, in my view, of great concern.
100The fact that you were not particularly successful in your attempts to gain money through those deceptions, does not reduce the seriousness of the dishonest conduct. Indeed it shows a willingness to continue trying, and in my view, reflects a real risk of you being tempted to try this type of behaviour again in the future, unless you have all need for extra money well in hand, and that will mean eliminating gambling.
101Therefore, although you did not have a significant amount of prior similar offending in a formal sense for the types of offences for which I am to sentence you, and of course, none for the specific offences of blackmail, stalking or attempting to pervert the course of justice, the common features of your offending over some two to three years, means that specific deterrence is a very important sentencing purpose.
102Even before I knew the details of the offences on the latest indictment, I considered that your lack of insight into your offending conduct might reflect an underlying psychiatric condition, so I requested a psychiatric assessment through Forensicare. As I have already said, a report was prepared. That was in mid-March of this year, by Dr Neil Wareing, a consultant psychiatrist, who assessed you by video link from the prison on that occasion.
103I have already set out some of the information he reports that you told him. It includes some matters reflecting your lack of reality about situations, including that you told him about your relationship with MM as being a sexual one. You told him you had no history of involvement with mental health services, and although you do get a bit depressed and anxious in prison, you said it got better and that you have not really talked to anyone when you have had problems.
104Notwithstanding your denial of a history of substance abuse, Dr Wareing concluded that you do qualify for the psychiatric diagnoses of gambling disorder and amphetamine-like substance disorder. He said there is also a history of problematic cannabis and hallucinogen use, although he did not relate hallucination to any of your offending. He said there was a history of various depressive and anxiety symptoms at different times, but these did not meet criteria for any formal psychiatric diagnosis.
105Dr Wareing thought it possible that methamphetamine use had a disinhibiting effect in relation to behaviours associated with the stalking charge. I note that the timing of that offending in March 2019, is within the three year period that you told Mr McKinnon you had not been taking drugs.
106Dr Wareing recommended formal drug and gambling counselling as well as consideration of participation in a gambler's anonymous group. He thought the main risk factors for you reoffending are substance abuse and gambling, and he felt meaningful activity including employment and supportive relationships, would be positive influences if you could achieve them on your release.
107Nothing in Dr Wareing's report activates what are known as “Verdins principles”, that is nothing in his report is evidence of mitigating mental health conditions for your sentencing, and it was not suggested by your lawyer that it is.
108There were two earlier reports obtained by your solicitors from a psychologist, Mr McKinnon. Those did not, in my view, shed any light on underlying psychological conditions that may have distorted or influenced your thinking, leading to your offending.
109If your thinking at any of these stages was disordered, it was due to drug abuse although as I have pointed out, you claim to not have had a drug use problem and not to have used for three years before you saw Mr McKinnon.
110Mr McKinnon was of the opinion that you are a person easily led by others, but I find it hard to see how, in light of the offences I am dealing with, anyone else influenced you to engage in any of the offending for which I am to sentence you.
111I was urged to find that you have good prospects of rehabilitation, and to take those into account as a positive sentencing factor, and with the purpose of re-establishing you in the community for your own, your family's and ultimately the community's, benefit. You do have the painting trade to which to return, and it may well be you find other fields you prefer in the building industry. Prospects of employment are usually a positive and protective factor on someone's release from prison, but I am more guarded about them in your case, as you have previously used your work as a painter as a means of acquiring information to use dishonestly for your own benefit. Further, it was your work for MM that led to the ultimate offending against her. Nevertheless, I do accept that you are likely to obtain employment on your release, and that that should keep you occupied. Provided it is limited in its access to people's personal information, it should be a positive factor.
112You still have support from your family, at least your mother, sister and brother, who have apparently continued to visit you until prison visits were stopped, and you can live with them on your release. Again, this would usually be a positive and protective factor, but in this case you have previously used each of your family members for your deceptions in one way or another, and while I accept that they will continue to offer you support, and indeed, to live in their household, I am not as confident that they are as positive a sentencing factor and rehabilitative factor as they might otherwise appear.
113I am obliged to the extent I can, to take into account current sentencing practice. It was submitted by both sides that cases of blackmail are difficult to find and those that there are seem difficult to compare with what you did. I have looked at the summaries from the Judicial College of Victoria case notes about sentences involving blackmail. It is interesting that quite a few are coupled with charges of stalking, although in your case, the blackmail was in 2016 against one person and the stalking in 2019 against a different person. To the extent that they have been useful, I have taken them into account in deciding on your sentence for that charge.
114There are few sentences in this court for stalking, and I found none of useful comparison.
115There are many cases of attempting to pervert the course of justice, which normally requires a sentence of imprisonment to convey general deterrence and adequate denunciation. I take into account that you did not attack or intimidate witnesses, but I do consider that you used Mr Helal shamelessly, and your emails after you were bailed to MM, were at least an attempt to put matters in a different light with her, and it would seem, at least partly to try to persuade her not to report your earlier texts to police.
116Each charge of obtaining by deception carries a 10 year maximum penalty. More than half of the charges are for attempting to obtaining financial advantage by deception and they carry a five year maximum. However, some of the attempts I find more serious than some of the instances in which you succeeded. I have analysed the role you played and how extensive your deception was, and how many attempts at deception fall within each charge, so that the maximum penalty as an objective reflection of seriousness does not always reflect what I have regarded as more serious instances of offending. For example, you successfully obtained about $400 on a credit card, whereas you only attempted to obtain more than $200,000 under one charge in applying for repeated loans and credit cards.
117I have not applied an aggregate sentence due to Court of Appeal constraints on doing that for this set of charges, but I have allowed considerable concurrency where the basis of the activity or the person from whom you obtained the information was the same.
118As for the unusual charge of possessing personal information, that is Charge 18 on the most recent indictment, I have noted that there is a sentence imposed for that charge by Judge Mason[2] in which he was also dealing with a range of other deception charges. I took that into account in deciding on your sentence in this case. It was a sentence of three months against a maximum of three years’ imprisonment, for possessing personal information of another person.
[2]DPP v Hughes [2020] VCC 296
119Overall I have moderated your sentence to take into account the totality of your offending with which I am dealing here, as well as the offending that occurred in between the blackmail conduct, and the two further sentences of imprisonment after that, before you commenced the deceptions that are also being dealt with here. In talking about totality, I have taken into account the overall total period you are likely to spend in imprisonment, and for the total criminal activity in which you engaged, but also keeping in mind that although not a youthful offender, you are of an age where too heavy a sentence might be crushing and destroy your prospects of rehabilitation.
120Finally, I have also taken into account that since mid-March of this year, during which time you have been in custody, the prison system has been subject to restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic which is impacting the whole State and indeed the whole world. I take into account that there have been restrictions that prevent personal family visits, that have caused cessation of programs within the prisons, and which will have led to more restrictive conditions on you causing your experience of imprisonment over the last two months to have been more onerous. I also accept that there has been concern that if the virus were to enter a prison, the risk of it spreading is greater than in the outside community, as isolation of prisoners is difficult to achieve in the setting required by health experts.
121I have moderated your overall sentence to an extent due to these conditions, which are at present continuing, but you do not seem to fall into a category of particular risk or vulnerability to that virus. Further, as the risk of that virus spreading in the general community has now been so greatly reduced, although not extinguished, and with the absence of any cases in prisons, for which the community should be thankful, in my view, the degree to which your sentence should be moderated to take these matters into account is limited.
122To achieve adequate general and specific deterrence on all of the sets of charges, I am satisfied that no sentence other than imprisonment is required on each set of charges.
123As I am sentencing on all three sets of charges I am satisfied that no sentence in total other than a head sentence with a non-parole period would be appropriate.
124Mr Hoblos, I am now going to sentence you, but as I said at the beginning, you can remain seated for this because you are appearing by video link.
125In matter CR 18 01938 on the charge of blackmail, you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment. That is the only charge on that indictment.
126On that matter, I state for the purposes of s.6AAA that if you had not pleaded guilty but been found guilty after a trial, the sentence would have been two years' and 10 months with a non-parole period of two years.
127I am not setting a non-parole period now because I will at the end of all these matters. On that matter I was asked for a disposal order which was not opposed and I will make it.
128In matter CR 19 01705, on Charge 1 of stalking, you are sentenced to six months' imprisonment. On Charge 2, of attempting to pervert the course of justice, you are sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. I direct that three months' of the sentence on Charge 1 be served cumulatively on the sentence on Charge 2, making a total effective sentence on the indictment of 12 months' imprisonment.
129On the summary charges relating to this indictment: On Summary Charge 3 for breaching a bail condition, and this is the one breached less than a day after it was imposed, I sentence you to one month imprisonment. I direct that that sentence be served cumulatively on the total effective sentence imposed on the charges on this indictment, and on the other sentences imposed today.
130On Summary Charge 6, also of breaching an earlier bail condition, you are sentenced to one week imprisonment. On Summary Charge 4, of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, you are convicted and no further order is imposed. That will fall to be served concurrently, because I do not impose any cumulation.
131That means on the matters in CR 19 01705, the total overall sentence is 13 months' imprisonment. Under s.6AAA but for the pleas of guilty I would have imposed on the charge of stalking, nine months' imprisonment. For attempting to pervert the course of justice, 13 months' imprisonment; On Summary Charge 3, two months' imprisonment, and a total effective sentence for these matters of 19 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.
132On the most recent indictment, which apparently needs to be recorded in two court files, they are the two CR 20 file numbers, 00595 and 00596, you are convicted on each charge and sentenced as follows:
133On Charge 3, 12 months' imprisonment. That will be the base sentence on this indictment.
134On each of Charges 1, 5 and 15, four months' imprisonment;
135On each of Charges 2,6,7,8,9,14,16 and 17, two months’ imprisonment;
136On Charge 4, six months' imprisonment;
137On each of Charges 10, 11 and 18, three months' imprisonment.
138On Charge 13, five months' imprisonment.
139On Charge 12: seven days’ imprisonment.
140I direct that three months of the sentence on Charge 4, two months of each of the sentences on Charges 1,5,13 and 15, and one month of each of the sentences on Charges 7,8,9,10,11,14,17 and 18, be served cumulatively on each other and on the sentence imposed on Charge 3.
141That makes a total effective sentence of 31 months' imprisonment on this indictment.
142On the related summary charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to one week imprisonment which will be served concurrently.
143That means the total sentence in these two CR 2020 numbers is 31 months' imprisonment;
144I make the disposal order - I was intending to make the pre-sentence detention declaration here, but I think it is best left till the end.
145For these matters under s.6AAA I state that but for the pleas of guilty the total effective sentence for these matters would have been three years and nine months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months.
146Now, overall I direct that 12 months of the sentence imposed in CR 18 01938, that is the blackmail matter and, nine months of the sentence imposed on CR 19 01705 matter which is the stalking and attempt to pervert the course of justice and breach of bail, so 12 months from the blackmail matter, nine months from the stalking and attempt to pervert the course of justice matter, be served cumulatively on each other and on the total effective sentence on the latest indictment in the 2020 CRs.
147Now overall as I calculate it, that makes a total of sentences of 52 months’ imprisonment or four years and four months. I set a non-parole period of three years and I declare 434 days of presentence detention as reckoned served. That is a little over one year and two months, which should be deducted administratively from both the head overall sentence and the non-parole period.
148Now, I add, although it is beyond my control or anything I am allowed to take into account, but I have also heard in some other matters, that there may be some administrative remissions being granted for conditions arising out of the COVID-19 restrictions. Those are administrative actions. I cannot take them into account, but they may ultimately impact on Mr Hoblos's overall time to serve in prison.
149Now, I think there was one other disposal order and that was on the last of the indictments, is that right? I am a bit afraid we are going to run out of link time.
150MR HANNAN: There is a disposal order on that indictment, Your Honour.
151HER HONOUR: Sorry, are we running out? You are able to extend it? That is excellent. My associate has been able to extend it a little. Sorry, the disposal order was - one was for the blackmail matter and one was for?
152MR HANNAN: One was for the blackmail and one was for the fraud matter, the phone that was seized.
153HER HONOUR: Fraud, yes. That is presumably for the mobile phone that had all the information in it?
154MR HANNAN: Correct. That had all the credit card information, yes.
155HER HONOUR: The personal information of the individuals and their credit cards and copies of driver's licences and things.
156MR HANNAN: Yes.
157HER HONOUR: Yes. I am prepared to make those orders. I did not hear any objection to them, Ms Flocke and it seems to follow given how they were used. All right now, is there anything I haven't covered and do you each want time to do the arithmetic?
158MR HANNAN: Your Honour, can I just - I didn't write down the - make a note of the non-parole period.
159HER HONOUR: Three years.
160MR HANNAN: The arithmetic I consider to be correct, Your Honour.
161HER HONOUR: All right, that's promising.
162MR HANNAN: I just have, though, and I haven't come across this before, I am a little unsure whether Your Honour can cumulate a total effective sentence of an individual indictment. That is, as opposed to individual charges. Your intention is very clear, that you intended to cumulate nine months of the - I will call it the stalking indictment as a whole.
163HER HONOUR: Yes. And 12 months of the blackmail one. Well, the blackmail one is easy to solve, if you're right about that. I must admit it is so long since I have done this and I hadn't had the chance to try to look back as to how I had done it.
164As it has turned out, the matter with the most charges and mot complicated cumulations and concurrency issues, becomes the highest total effective sentence so it is the base.
165What I can do if you are saying that it is a more appropriate way to do it is that I can direct that 12 months of the charge of blackmail in matter CR 18 01938 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed in CR 20 - those matters.
166MR HANNAN: Yes.
167HER HONOUR: Then the - it is a bit more complicated for the stalking and attempt to pervert the course of justice matters, partly because they are two separate matters and partly because I felt that the breach of bail condition was so glaring, that it should stand separately and be cumulated. I suppose what I can do is divide - I hadn't turned my mind to it, so you had better give me a moment to do that.
168MR HANNAN: You could split that cumulation up as between the stalking and the ‑ ‑ ‑
169HER HONOUR: What I think I can do is direct that three months of the sentence on the charge of stalking, Charge 1 on that other indictment, so three months on the charge of stalking, five months on the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, and one month on the Summary Charge 3, be served cumulatively on each other and on the sentence imposed for blackmail and on the sentences imposed in matter CR 2020 et cetera.
170MR HANNAN: Yes Your Honour.
171HER HONOUR: Does that solve it?
172MR HANNAN: I think it does, and I don't know whether it was invalid to begin with - but I just haven't come across it before, Your Honour.
173HER HONOUR: I think I have cumulated, but only between two indictments and not three with summary charges. Anyway, Ms Flocke, do you want to be heard on that or any other aspect of the technical way I have gone about constructing the sentence? Ms Flocke?
174MS FLOCKE: Sorry Your Honour. I forgot to take myself off mute.
175HER HONOUR: Yes, okay.
176MS FLOCKE: No, I don't wish to be heard, Your Honour.
177HER HONOUR: All right, look once those are entered, copies will be sent to you, but given the time of day it is going to take some time to enter them. If there is nothing else to be raised, I will sign off on those orders and they will be sent to all of you. I will sign off on the disposal orders.
178Ms Flocke, are you able to gain ready access to discuss this with your client, or do you want to be left on this set-up if we all leave it, so that you can briefly explain it to him.
179MS FLOCKE: If Your Honour would allow me to speak to him briefly, I would be very grateful.
180HER HONOUR: I will do that. I will ask Mr Hannan that you and your instructor leave the WebEx meeting as I am about to do. It is because of ‑ ‑ ‑
181MR HANNAN: Yes.
182HER HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ the awkwardness of the distance with these remote hearings. Normally I would like to let a lawyer explain to the client who has just been sentenced, about the matter, but to do so with what confidentiality there can be.
183Mr Hoblos, the overall net effect is I have imposed a total of four years and four months with a three year non-parole period. You have done a bit over one year two months of that, meaning the non-parole period and it also comes off the head sentence.
184What the administrative officials do within the prison system about any other remissions is entirely up to them, so it may be a few more days come off or more than a few more days, but that is the sentence you are looking at.
185OFFENDER: Yes.
186HER HONOUR: I will now leave the meeting and ask the prosecution to, and leave Ms Flocke to be able to talk in confidence to her client. Thank you.
187MR HANNAN: If Your Honour pleases.
188MS FLOCKE: If Your Honour pleases.
‑ ‑ ‑
5
4
0