Mundy v The the King (No. 2)

[2022] NSWDC 757

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Mundy v R (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 757
Date of orders:	19 October 2022
Decision date:	19 October 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	At [12]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	MundyvR [2022] NSWDC 316
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Claudette Joan Mundy (Appellant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation:	Matilda Bogart (solicitor for the Appellant (ALS)) Ella Gordon (solicitor for the Respondent (CDPP))
File Number(s):	2022/00059046
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Local Court Jurisdiction: Criminal Date of Decision: 01 March 2022 Before: Dick LCM File Number(s): 2022/00059046

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. Claudette Joan Mundy appeared in the District Court of New South Wales in the Bega sittings commenced on Monday May 23, 2022. She was there appealing from the orders of the magistrate imposed in Bega on March 1, 2022. The matters were reached by me on Thursday June 9, 2022 and after hearing evidence on that day, I delivered judgement: Mundy v R [2022] NSWDC 316.

THE PROCEEDINGS TO DATE

2. I have had the benefit of reviewing my judgement where I noted the facts and circumstances upon which the charges that she faced were brought. I commented in that judgement upon the significance of the misconduct and noted the matters that were required for consideration by force of s 16A(2) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

3. I provided a brief summary of the facts which are more fulsome in the document included in the Crown bundle marked Exhibit A in the proceedings. I do not propose to revisit that document; it will remain on the Court file as part of the evidence before me and is available for review if another Court or judicial officer requires access to it.

4. The orders made included that she will be released from custody to a staff member of Katungul Aboriginal Corporation on 5 July 2022 to be taken directly to “The Glen” a residential rehabilitation facility at Wyong Creek. She was there to reside from that time forward and participate in the 12-week residential rehabilitation program, not to leave or cause her discharge during that program. She was to comply with the reasonable directions and was not to leave the centre unless in the company of staff or an officer of New South Wales Corrective Services and she was not to possess or consume any alcohol or illicit substances or prescription medication other than that which was prescribed for her, and she was required to submit to alcohol and drug testing via Australian Federal and New South Wales police if requested to do so by member of those police forces. I explained those conditions to the appellant.

THE CURRENT PROCEEDINGS

5. The matter was adjourned and brought back today for a final disposition. I have now Exhibit 2 which is a document from the Glen. This incorrectly specifies that she was admitted to the centre on 9 February 2022 and thereafter completed the program on 11 October 2022. The error is as to the date of admission. She was released from custody and entered the Glen on 19 July 2022, not the date specified in that document. This is acknowledged by the appellant and the Crown does not cavil with that fact.

6. A certificate was issued confirming her successful completion of the alcohol and other drugs rehabilitation program dated 11 October 2022. The document is unsigned by the Community Corrections Officer whose name appears on the document and the Crown does not challenge the document. It is admitted in the proceedings accordingly.

7. According to the letter from the Senior Intake Officer, the residential rehabilitation program includes group counselling, one to one counselling sessions, anger management, relapse prevention, parenting programs, work programs, sports programs and nightly AA and NA meetings. She participated in one-to-one tutoring and has shown a huge growth within the sessions. She participated well in all aspects of the program.

DISPOSITION

8. It is now appropriate to finally dispose of the matter in light of the rehabilitation that has been achieved by access to the program. Accordingly, I propose an adjustment to the aggregate sentence imposed by the magistrate with the variation of conditions to ensure that she meets the obligation to pay reparation of $25,000 which the magistrate ordered. Also, she should continue to accept supervision and obey reasonable directions and attend mental health and alcohol or drug treatment as directed. The Crown correctly points out that these conditions will remain extant for a period of two years and cannot be extended notwithstanding that she is subject to be of good behaviour for a period of five years.

9. The four offences carried a maximum penalty, each of 24 months imprisonment with a fine represented by 120 penalty units which equals $26,440. The magistrate imposed an aggregate sentence of 24 months imprisonment suspended after nine months pursuant to s 20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 subject to conditions to be of good behaviour for five years and accept the Community Correction Services supervision, to obey all reasonable directions and attend the mental health and alcohol or drug treatment as directed; the magistrate ordered reparation of $25,000

10. The appellant according to her solicitor appearing today has entered into an arrangement with Centrelink for the payment of the reparation. I do not have the details of the current arrangement but it is required by force of the provisions governing the outcome of the proceedings that the reparation be paid within the two year period and whatever arrangement is in place might well need adjustment to accommodate that obligation.

11. I brought to account in my decision the constraint she has experienced by her participation in the program. It equates to what is now described as quasi custody.

ORDERS

12. I allow the appeal from each of the sentences and the aggregate sentence. I confirm the convictions in each case. I vary the sentence imposed by the magistrate. I confirm the aggregate sentence of 24 months. I order that the sentence is suspended after serving 7 months. That period expired on 30 September 2022.

13. The order is made pursuant to s 20(1)(b) Crimes Act. The appellant is to submit to the condition that she will be of good behaviour for a period of 5 years; that will operate from today; she is to accept the Community Correction Service supervision and obey reasonable directions and is to attend mental health and alcohol or drug treatment as directed; that obligation is for a period of 2 years from today. I confirm the reparation order of $25,000 imposed by the magistrate; that is to be paid within 2 years from today.

**********

Decision last updated: 10 October 2023