R v Barker

[2024] NSWDC 317

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Barker [2024] NSWDC 317

Hearing dates:

9 November 2023, 2 February 2024 and 23 May 2024

Date of orders:

23 May 2024

Decision date:

23 May 2024

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Scotting DCJ

Decision:

1.   Genevieve Astrid Barker is convicted.

2.   I impose a term of imprisonment of 2 years to date from today.

3. Pursuant to s 7(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the sentence imposed is to be served by way of an ICO. The sentence will commence today (23 May 2024) and expire on 22 May 2026.

4.   The offender must report to the Gosford Community Corrections Office on or before 4pm on 30 May 2024.

5.   The standard conditions of the order apply:

a.   the offender must not commit any offence; and

b.   the offender must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections Officer.

6.   The following additional conditions apply:

a.   the offender must receive treatment for her mental health as reasonably directed by Community Corrections.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Criminal Code (Cth)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525

Deakin v The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 367

Hili v The Queen (2010) 253 CLR 58

Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616

Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97

Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623

R v El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370

R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270

R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCA 17

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Genevieve Barker (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
J O’Sullivan (Offender)

Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
David Kelly Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s):

2022/213436

Publication restriction:

None

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Genevieve Astrid Barker (the offender) appears for sentence after pleading guilty in the Local Court to an offence that between about 29 May 2015 and 4 December 2020 she did obtain a financial advantage from the Commonwealth by deception, namely carer payments in the sum of $132,520.68 and a carer allowance in the sum of $21,838.87, contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

2. The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years imprisonment.

Approach to Sentencing

3. To the extent that I make findings of fact adverse to the offender, I am satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. To the extent that I make findings of fact favourable to the offender, I am satisfied of that fact on the balance of probabilities: R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 at [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

4. I must have regard to Part IB Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (the Act) in passing sentence and in particular the matters provided for in section 16A of that Act.

5. A court determining a sentence in respect of any person for a Federal offence must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances: section 16A(1) of the Act. The Court must take into account the matters listed in section 16A(2) that are relevant and known to the Court: R v El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370. The list of factors in section 16A(2) of the Act is not exhaustive and common law principles apply: Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616 at [15].

6. The offender entered an early plea of guilty in the Local Court. The plea of guilty has saved the need for witnesses to be called at trial and there is significant utilitarian value in the plea. By pleading guilty the offender has facilitated the course of justice. The plea also indicates remorse. The appropriate discount is 25%.

Facts

7. The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts. I have taken the entirety of the document into account in coming to an appropriate sentence. What follows is a brief summary of the facts relevant to the offender to permit an understanding of the sentence imposed.

Previous applications for carer benefits

8. Between at least 4 December 2008 and 14 November 2014, the offender lodged at least three claims for carer payment in respect of her sons, who were born in 1990 and 1992.

9. The offender was advised on numerous occasions in claim forms, letters and during interviews in the period, that a carer was required to provide constant care to the subject of the claim in his or her own home, except for up to 63 days per calendar year. She was also informed that her eligibility would cease if she did not provide care on more than 63 days in a calendar year and that she had an obligation to notify Services Australia of any change in her circumstances within 14 days of that change.

10. On 6 February 2013, the offender’s carer payments were cancelled after Services Australia received information from another source that her younger son resided over an hour away from the offender, that he was working and studying and did not require support. During a claim interview on 13 February 2013, the offender stated that her motivation for claiming the carer payment and carer allowance for her eldest son was that she could no longer receive benefits for the care of her younger son as he lived some distance from her, and she no longer provided the requisite level of care to him.

11. The offender’s carer payments were cancelled again on 14 October 2014 because Services Australia received information from the offender that her eldest son had travelled overseas for a period of more than 63 days. The offender was notified of the cancellation of her payments and the reason why. The offender had previously failed to notify Services Australia that her eldest son had left Australia for a period of more than 63 days.

Offences – false statements and omissions relating to the payment of carer payment and carer allowance

12. On 11 May 2015, the offender’s eldest son left Australia. At the time, he was in receipt of Disability Support Pension (DSP) payments from Services Australia. The offender was her elder son’s nominee for the DSP payments, so she received a copy of all correspondence sent to him in relation to those payments. The offender did not notify Services Australia of his departure from Australia, despite numerous interactions with Services Australia between 5 June 2015 and 27 November 2020, including the following.

13. On 7 April 2015, Services Australia sent the offender a letter as her elder son’s DSP nominee, advising that a medical review of his disability was required. The offender had a number of interactions with Services Australia in relation to this letter. On 3 June 2015, the offender contacted Services Australia by telephone to advise that she was unable to provide specialist medical reports for her son due to physical, emotional, psychological and financial difficulties. She told Services Australia that her eldest son’s disability was manifestly evident and did not require a review, before requesting a further extension to carry out the review. Services Australia declined to grant an extension.

14. On 17 June 2015, the offender attended Services Australia in person, enquiring about applying for Disability Support Pension payments for herself. At that time, the offender advised Services Australia that there was “no decrease in the care she is providing”. Services Australia informed the offender that if she was granted the Disability Support Pension, she would no longer be entitled to receive the Carer Payment. She did not apply to receive the Disability Support Pension.

15. Between 12 December 2017 and 13 February 2018, Services Australia sent the offender three letters in relation to a possible transfer to the Age Pension. On 21 February 2018, the offender contacted Services Australia by telephone to indicate that she wished to continue receiving the Carer Payment and did not want to transfer to Age Pension payments. The offender failed to inform Services Australia that she had ceased providing care. On the same day, Services Australia sent the offender a letter indicating that her Carer Payment would resume, effective from 13 February 2018.

16. On 17 September 2019, the offender contacted Services Australia by telephone to advise that she would be travelling to Thailand from 18–24 October 2019. She asked whether she required “a clearance or something” and told Services Australia that both of her sons would be travelling with her. The offender was advised that, if they were travelling with her and if she was continuing to provide care, her payments would continue. The offender travelled to Thailand, returning on 25 October 2019. The offender’s eldest son did not travel with her.

Detection and investigation

17. On 7 July 2020, Services Australia received information that an immigration reference number match had been made with the Department of Home Affairs.

18. On about 1 December 2020, Services Australia’s Fraud Investigation Department commenced an investigation into the offender’s Carer Payment.

19. On 7 December 2020, Services Australia received movement records and passenger cards for the offender’s eldest son, which indicated that he had departed Australia on 11 May 2015 and as at 7 December 2020, had not returned.

20. On 12 January 2021, Services Australia sent the offender two letters indicating that she had been overpaid $134,056.63 in Carer Payment between 11 May 2015 and 25 November 2020, and $21,995.31 in Carer Allowance for the period 11 May 2015 to 2 December 2020.

21. On 14 May 2021, Services Australia sent the offender a letter, offering for the offender to participate in an interview regarding her Carer Payment and Carer Allowance debts. The proposed interview did not take place.

22. The offender fraudulently obtained a financial advantage in the total sum of $154,359.55.

Sentencing Assessment Report

23. The Court received a Sentencing Assessment Report dated 20 July 2023, which can be summarised as follows.

24. The offender resides alone in a privately owned property in Terrigal. She is divorced and has two adult sons. She has limited social support. Her relationship with her eldest son is volatile as a result of his mental health conditions, and her younger son resides in Canada. She avoids contact with the community due to her complex mental health condition. She has befriended someone in the community who regularly attends her home to offer support.

25. The offender reported that her relationship with her ex-husband was marred by domestic violence and sexual assault. The offender has also been physically and emotionally abused by her eldest son in the past. An apprehended violence order was lodged in 2010 and later dismissed.

26. The offender receives Age Pension payments.

27. The offender has no criminal history.

28. The author of the report stated that the offender was emotional in her interactions with Community Corrections and presented as a poor historian. She had trouble recalling events related to the offending. She told the author of the Report that she was unable to account where the money went and claimed that she had taken relevant steps to advise Services Australia of her changes in circumstances. She claimed that her poor mental health and hoarding issue affected her ability to manage her affairs. She reported that she believed she met the eligibility requirements for the Carer Payment, even though her son was not in her care. She admitted to having had ongoing financial stressors when she cared for her sons, which continue in the present. She stated that there are ongoing legal proceedings for outstanding utility accounts and her financial situation is such that she is only able to eat once per day. Despite this financial hardship, she claimed that she has initiated a payment plan to repay the money she obtained through the offending.

29. The offender’s health records provide diagnoses of anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and Depression, as well as a hoarding condition. Her history of trauma had a profound effect on her formative years and she acknowledged that her mental health continues to effect numerous domains of her daily functioning and social life. She is compliant with her current medication regime.

30. The offender has significant barriers related to completing everyday tasks as a result of her trauma. The offender expressed remorse for the offending. She was assessed as at a Medium/Low risk of reoffending. She was assessed as unsuitable to undertake community service work. Community Corrections requested that her General Practitioner complete a medical assessment to assess whether she would be able to undertake community service. Her General Practitioner deemed her unfit to do so, given her low threshold for stress, which in turn exacerbates her mental health condition.

Offender’s Case on Sentence

31. The offender was called to give evidence and was cross examined.

32. She gave evidence that she had seen many doctors including Dr Furst, and that she had told the truth on those occasions. The offender gave evidence that she was “so sorry” for what she had done and had contemplated self-harm. She has repaid about $13,000 to Services Australia from her ongoing payments.

Report of Lee Knight

33. The offender tendered the report of forensic mental health nurse, Lee Knight, dated 8 November 2023, which can be summarised as follows.

34. The offender is 71 years old. She was born in Papua New Guinea and emigrated to Australia when she was 10 years old. She is the youngest of three sisters. Her father died, aged 70, from cancer when she was 13 years old. Her mother died at age 70 from cardiac issues when the offender was 35 years old. Her eldest sister died from bowel cancer in her sixties. Her other sister lives in Lismore.

35. Her father was a geologist and dentist. She reported having had a good relationship with both parents while they were alive. Her family was not well off, but her sisters did attend a private boarding school in Queensland. The offender did not attend this school, but rather attended a primary school in Papua New Guinea. She attended Erina High School and described herself as a “good student”.

36. The offender reported that she suffered some physical abuse from her father who would allegedly hit her with a belt when she was “naughty”. She stated that she believes she struggled with dyslexia as a child. Upon leaving high school, she was employed in a fruit shop. She was then employed by the Department of Education as a human resource officer for teachers and later to issue licencing bonds. She set up her own business as a valuer, which she ran between 1979 and 1993.

37. She married a man from Papua New Guinea when she was 17 years old. They separated after three years. At around age 35, she commenced a relationship with her sons’ father. They were together for six years, separating in 1997 due to his involvement in a cult and his sadistic ritualistic sexual abuse of their sons. Her ex-husband was abusive and required her to be “perfect” and would call her “fat, ugly and stupid”. She suffered a head injury after being punched in the head in a domestic violence assault in 1988.

38. The offender is currently single. Her son eldest son lives in Canada and is an artist. Her younger son is a scientist and lives in Sydney. She does not have any contact with her younger son.

39. The offender gave a history of being isolative, staying in bed, having a poor appetite, dry mouth, increased heart rate, tightness in her chest, increased breath rate and excessive worry pertaining to her younger son.

40. She was admitted to Gosford Hospital Mental Health Unit in 2006 for a week, after experiencing increased stress and anxiety in addition to her background of prior trauma. She was prescribed an antidepressant at that time.

41. She has attended group therapy at Erina for a number of years and has been seeing a psychiatrist at a community health centre for the past seven years. She last saw this psychiatrist in February 2023.

42. She has also been seeing a social worker for several years. She initially saw her weekly, but the frequency of these sessions is now dependent on her needs.

43. She has a history of trauma, reporting to Ms Knight that her sons were the victims of “satanic, ritualistic abuse” allegedly perpetrated by paternal family members. She alleged that her ex-partner was a member of a cult, which was called “Unicorn”. She was told by a friend that her sons were sexually abused by cult members. She told Ms Knight that the cult has links to the police. She also told Ms Knight that her son had been assaulted by police officers, for which there was supposed to be court proceedings that never eventuated.

44. Ms Knight found the offender to be a poor historian who provided a confusing account of her psychiatric history. She told Ms Knight that she believed that her elder son had to “flee to Canada” when he was 18 years old from “bikies” who were grooming him and had accused him of stealing money from their tattoo parlour. She stated that she was his main carer when he was in Australia and that he suffered from major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation.

45. The offender’s account of her sons’ abuse was corroborated by her elder son, in a telephone conversation with him. Her psychological history, account of the alleged abuse of her two sons and history of extreme difficulty with raising her sons, who both had behavioural issues, was corroborated by letters provided to Ms Knight by the offender’s General Practitioner, social worker and psychiatrist.

46. The offender’s eldest son told Ms Knight that his mother has always “hoarded” and would “breakdown” if they moved or disposed of any of her belongings. He reported that his mother had not told him about the offending, and he had been told by a family friend. She is on high doses of antidepressant medication. She has asthma and is prescribed salbutamol and Seretide inhalers. She is otherwise generally healthy. She reported a poor appetite.

47. The offender described herself as a non-smoker and denied all illicit substance use or dependence either currently or historically. She does not currently consume alcohol. She consumed two or three glasses of wine per night when she was 38 years old but ceased doing so after 12 months.

48. The offender told Ms Knight that she has been “working hard” on her physical and mental health over the last 8-10 years, and that she was “a different person”. She reported that she becomes easily overwhelmed and can feel “trapped and claustrophobic” when she feels cognitively overloaded. She is retired and in receipt of the Age Pension. She owns her own home and does not have a mortgage. She is currently in the process of renovating her home after it sustained some damage. She has few social supports, with no family living nearby. She had three close friends, but two of them died in 2023.

49. Ms Knight opined that the offender meets diagnostic criteria for Generalised Anxiety Disorder and an associated depressed mood with suicidal ideation. She expressed suicidal ideation to Ms Knight but stated that she would never act on this ideation because of her sons. She denied having considered a plan or method. The offender scored 99 out of 100 on the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-R, which is not indicative of significant cognitive decline. Ms Knight also opined that the offender may hold some persecutory beliefs related to police corruption and her sons’ abuse and stated that she will need to continue to be reviewed over multiple sessions to determine if she has a low-grade psychotic illness. Ms Knight recommended that the offender engage in ongoing psychological treatment.

50. The offender commenced psychological treatment with Crosbi Knight on 8 October 2023 and has had a number of sessions with her. Crosbi Knight reported that she concurs with Ms Knight’s diagnoses of Generalised Anxiety Disorder and depressed mood. Crosbi Knight has also queried a psychotic illness, a diagnosis of which would require assessment over several sessions.

51. She expressed remorse to Ms Knight for the offending behaviour. She told the Ms Knight that she is in the process of repaying the debt to Services Australia, despite her financial struggles.

Psychiatric Report of Dr Richard Furst

52. The offender also relies on a psychiatric report of forensic psychiatrist Dr Richard Furst dated 19 April 2024. The following is a summary of this report.

53. The offender is 71 years old. She is divorced and lives by herself in Terrigal. She has two sons aged 33 and 31 years. Her parents are deceased. She has two older sisters, one of whom is now deceased.

54. I will not repeat matters of history that I have already referred to.

55. Dr Furst states that there were no clear indications that the offender suffered from mental illness in the 1980s or 1990s when her two sons were born. The offender however reported that she was “stressed” in relation to raising her children. She reported that her former husband, whom she was married to for three years, was violent towards her and had sexually assaulted her.

56. Her former husband was running a fruit shop in the mid-1990s and then “disappeared” to Wales. Her two sons were intelligent, but both had behavioural and emotional problems. The offender reported that she had attended groups for domestic violence-related stress in relation to her son’s aggressive behaviour towards her.

57. The offender claimed that her sons were the victim of “ritual abuse” at the hands of her former husband and other people from early childhood. Dr Furst commented that the basis of these assertions was unclear. She suspected that both her sons had been sexually abused and that her eldest son disclosed having been abused from the age of five years. Her sons were very attached to her, including being reluctant to leave her when she took them to school in the 1990s.

58. The offender was admitted to the psychiatric inpatient unit at Gosford Hospital in 2006 when she felt overwhelmed looking after her sons. She was stressed, anxious and depressed. She was prescribed antidepressant medication that she took over the following one to two years.

59. The offender was under the care of a psychiatrist at Charlestown and was then under the care of Dr Slowiacek at St Leonards in relation to her own condition and the treatment of her sons. Her sons were prescribed antipsychotic medication. The offender also reported that her youngest son was thought to have oppositional defiant disorder, diagnosed in his teenage years and Asperger Disorder which was diagnosed some years later.

60. She reported that she suffered from symptoms of panic and intense anxiety from around 10 to 15 years ago, her main worry being the welfare of her sons.

61. The offender engaged in counselling with Ms Purna Kalra, social worker, who she saw between June 2015 and July 2022. She also saw Dr John Bardon, psychiatrist about five years ago who prescribed antidepressant medication which the offender has continued to take in recent years.

62. The offender has no history of excessive drinking or illicit drug use.

63. She has no major medical problems but has a history of asthma.

64. The offender reported to Dr Furst that due to increases in the cost of living, she could only afford one meal a day over the last 18 months.

65. She has engaged in counselling with Ms Crosbi Knight since 8 October 2023 who has been seeing her on a regular basis for the last six months.

66. During the assessment with Dr Furst, he stated that the offender was both intelligent and lucid. She was not psychotic and did not present with features of a major mood disturbance. She remained anxious and felt guilty about the trauma she reported was suffered by the sons and was tearful when thinking about her sons.

67. Dr Furst considers the offender to meet the diagnostic criteria for anxiety disorder and hoarding disorder. Her primary psychiatric symptoms relate to persistent anxiety and the longer-term effects of being a mother of two boys who were sexually abused during childhood which made her feel both responsible and guilty for their plight. The offender has manifested symptoms and signs of chronic anxiety and has required longer-term psychological therapy and management with antidepressant medication, which Dr Furst opines is consistent with an anxiety disorder.

68. The offender also has related obsessive and compulsive behaviours in the form of hoarding, avoidance, and trauma related symptoms. Her hoarding disorder is characterised by persistent difficulty in discarding items regardless of their actual value due to a perceived need to save such items and the associated distress of discarding them.

69. Dr Furst states that the offender was chronically anxious, was hoarding possessions of little value at her home and was emotionally vulnerable throughout the period of her offending conduct. He considers the reasons for her offending to be unclear, but that it was likely the offender was in a vulnerable emotional state and sought the extra money as a way of making her lifestyle more comfortable and less stressful by obtaining items that she ultimately hoarded.

70. The offender was clearly aware that her actions were both wrong and deceptive during the extended period of her offending. She reported to Dr Furst that she was “mortified” when she was alerted to the offending conduct and made arrangements to repay the monies that she had wrongfully taken.

71. Dr Furst opines that, if given a custodial sentence, the offender’s history of depression, anxiety and her age would place her at increased vulnerability compared to other inmates and would be more onerous for her. She would be more vulnerable to the effects of stress in the jail environment, the effects of being “stood over”, intimidated, threatened, or assaulted by other inmates. Dr Furst considers this stress would probably increase the offender’s risk of relapsing into more acute phases of anxiety and depression.

72. Dr Furst considers the offender to have good prospects of rehabilitation and is at a relatively low risk of reoffending.

Consideration

Nature and circumstances of the offence

73. The offence was constituted by a series of criminal acts occurring for about five and a half years. The offender claimed carer payments and allowances for her son, who resided overseas in the offence period. In the relevant period, the offender failed to inform Services Australia that she was no longer providing care and also informed Services Australia on four occasions that she was still providing care.

74. The offender received a total amount of $154,359.55 by deception.

75. Social security fraud impacts the integrity of the entire system and increases taxes for honest taxpayers. It is difficult to detect and requires significant expenditure to investigate.

76. The offender suffers from a complex mental condition, which has caused her to be socially withdrawn and impacts her ability to adapt to changing circumstances. I am satisfied that there is a casual connection between her mental condition and her offending conduct. In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that her moral culpability for the offences is reduced to some extent.

77. I have taken into account the maximum penalty for the offence.

Contrition

78. The offender expressed remorse to the author of the SAR, Dr Furst and to Ms Knight. The offender has stated that she wants to repay the money to the Commonwealth. I anticipate that her mental condition would make it difficult for her to make those types of arrangements.

Deterrence

79. General deterrence is a very important consideration in sentencing for social security fraud matters. The system depends on the honesty of claimants. It is easy to commit these types of offences and they undermine the efficacy of the system.

80. General deterrence can be afforded less weight when the offender suffers from a mental condition because they are not an appropriate person to be made an example of. This is such a case. There is a causal connection between her offending conduct and her mental condition. I accept that her judgement was adversely impacted by her mental condition and that she would have found it difficult to extricate herself from her predicament, by reason of her tendency to procrastinate and withdraw herself.

Character, antecedents, age, physical and mental condition

81. The offender is presently 71 years of age. She has no criminal history. She was a person of good character up until the beginning of the offence period.

82. The offender has a long history of volunteering for charities and undertaking community work.

83. The offender suffers from asthma. She has several factures in her back and has been experiencing ongoing pain for several weeks. She is due to be investigated for osteoporosis and is using a walking stick to assist her.

84. The offender has a complex mental condition. She is socially withdrawn and engages in hoarding. She is the victim of substantial domestic violence and has borne the burden of caring for her sons as a result of their own experiences of abuse. She suffers significant psychological symptoms that cause her to isolate herself and make her vulnerable to being overwhelmed by stressors. She has been treated with high doses of anti-depressants for some time. She has just started to see a psychologist regularly. I am satisfied that she would find a sentence of full-time imprisonment to be extremely difficult. The type of treatment required for her mental condition is more readily available in the community, and she has established some comfort and rapport with her treating psychologist.

Prospects of rehabilitation

85. The offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are linked with her ability to engage with more intensive mental health treatment. She has recently demonstrated an increased capacity to engage with such treatment.

Comparable sentences

86. I have regard to the comparable sentences referred to me by the parties and I note the limitations of that exercise: Hili v The Queen (2010) 253 CLR 58 at [18].

Penalty

87. I have had regard to s 17A Crimes Act 1914 and I am satisfied after considering all other available sentences that no other sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate, for the reasons I have set out in this judgment.

88. Genevieve Astrid Barker is convicted.

89. I impose a term of imprisonment of 2 years to date from today.

90. Section 20AB Crimes Act 1914 provides that a Court sentencing a Federal offender may impose a sentencing alternative available to a State offender if the Court is otherwise empowered to do so. In the present case, based on the term of imprisonment I have imposed, an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) is an available sentencing option that I must consider.

91. I have had regard to s 66 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and I am satisfied that it is appropriate to order that the sentence be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO), for the following reasons.

92. This is a case in which community safety is best achieved by the rehabilitation of the offender by requiring her to undertake treatment of her mental condition in the community: R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCA 17 at [32] (Howie J). The offender’s mental condition has made it difficult for her to seek treatment in the past, so it will be necessary to make it a condition of the ICO that she accept that treatment. She presents a very low risk of reoffending because Services Australia is well informed about her past and current circumstances. Having reached the age of 71, it is very unlikely that she will take up other types of offending.

93. The severity of the offender’s mental condition and its direct causal relationship with the offending conduct, means that general deterrence, retribution and denunciation can be given less weight.

94. An order that the sentence be served by an ICO will make the offender accountable for her actions. An ICO is a sentence of imprisonment that will significantly impact on the offender’s freedom and will reflect the seriousness of the offending conduct and the harm done to the community.

95. Out of the two options of sending her to prison or imposing an ICO, I am satisfied that the protection of the community will be best achieved by the offender serving the sentence in the community by way of an ICO: Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 at [51].

96. Pursuant to s 7(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the sentence imposed is to be served by way of an ICO. The sentence will commence today (23 May 2024) and expire on 22 May 2026.

97. The offender must report to the Gosford Community Corrections Office on or before 4pm on 30 May 2024.

98. The standard conditions of the order apply:

1. the offender must not commit any offence; and

2. the offender must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections Officer.

99. The following additional conditions apply:

1. the offender must receive treatment for her mental health as reasonably directed by Community Corrections.

100. If the offender fails to comply with the conditions of this order, sanctions may be imposed by the Commissioner of Corrective Services or the State Parole Authority. Those sanctions may include a formal warning, imposing more stringent conditions, or a revocation of this order. If the order is revoked, the offender may be required to serve all or some of the period of the sentence in full time custody.

101. The offender must attend the Criminal Registry to confirm her residential address so that a copy of the order can be posted to her.

**********

Decision last updated: 30 July 2024