R v Misso - [2022] VSC 64

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0256

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
JAMES MISSO	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 February 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Misso
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 64

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of Guilty – Obtaining financial advantage by deception (8 charges) – Attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception (7 charges) – Obtaining property by deception (2 charges) - Possession of identification information – Possession of equipment capable of being used to make identification documentation – Recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime - Possession of an Australian travel document – Possession of a drug of dependence – Total quantum $418,497 – Relevant prior history – Need for denunciation and general deterrence – Need for specific deterrence and protection of the community – Applicability of R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 – Applicability of Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 – Evidence of some remorse – Poor prospects for rehabilitation – Imposition of aggregate sentence of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr L Cameron	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Nathwani	Haines & Polites Legal Practitioners

HER HONOUR:

James Misso, you have pleaded guilty to 17 charges of attempted and completed deception offences, four associated charges of possession of identification equipment, possession of identification information, possession of an Australian travel document and recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime as well as one charge of possession of a drug of dependence.

Your offending was serious, subsisting over months and exhibiting a level of sophisticated planning, execution and scale. You obtained seven loans and one credit card by deception, with a total value of $144,247. You obtained two items of property by deception, with a total value of $55,050. You attempted to obtain a further nine loans and one credit card by deception, to a total value of $219,200. Twenty one individuals and six corporate entities have been victims of your behaviour.

Summary of offending

In general terms your modus operandi was to obtain, by means that remain unknown, the identification information of real people. You would then conduct an online credit check on the website ‘getcreditscore.com.au’ using that information. Where an individual had a suitable credit rating, you would make subtle online changes to their history. On many occasions you changed the addresses of individuals to a common physical address or a PO box location.

Then, in an individual’s name, you would open online accounts with various companies, such as utility and telecommunications companies, to obtain associated services and legitimise the changes you had made to their history. The creation of such accounts altered the credit profile of the individual and you would then lodge finance applications with banks and similar financial institutions in the name of that individual…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Misso

Details

AGLC: R v Misso [2022] VSC 64
Case: [2022] VSC 64
Decision Date: 18 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Misso involved the defendant who faced multiple charges including obtaining financial advantage by deception, attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, obtaining property by deception, possession of identification information, possession of equipment capable of being used to make identification documentation, recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime, possession of an Australian travel document, and possession of a drug of dependence. The total financial gain from the offences amounted to $418,497. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and the prospects for rehabilitation.

The court had to consider the principles set out in R v Verdins and Worboyes v The Queen. The former case emphasised the importance of specific deterrence and protection of the community, while the latter focused on the totality of offending and the need for denunciation. The defendant had some prior criminal history and demonstrated limited remorse. Additionally, the evidence suggested that the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation were poor. The court also had to weigh the defendant's personal circumstances against the broader societal impacts of the offences.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged the severity and extent of the offending but also considered the defendant's limited remorse and poor prospects for rehabilitation. The court determined that the offences warranted a significant period of imprisonment to achieve the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for four years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months. This decision balanced the need for punishment with the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation and the protection of society.

Orders