R v Murphy

[2009] NSWDC 58

CITATION:	R v MURPHY [2009] NSWDC 58
HEARING DATE(S):	18 December 2008 19 December 2008 6 March 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	6 March 2009
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	In each matter sentenced to concurrent periods of imprisonment consisting of head sentence of 2 years and a non parole period of 12 months. Ordered to be served by way of periodic detention.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - Sentence - Obtain financial advantage by deception - Breach of trust - Previous convictions for similar matters.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900
PARTIES:	The Crown Katrina Murphy
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 2004/11/0506
COUNSEL:	A Seeto (The Crown) G Brady (Offender)
SOLICITORS:	NSWDPP Nyman Gibson Stewart

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Katrina Murphy appears for sentence today, having pleaded guilty at an earlier time to three offences of obtaining financial advantage by deception. These offences were committed some time ago, in 2001. The reason for the delay in dealing with the matter is quite simple, Ms Murphy did not appear at her trial when required to do so in 2004. A warrant was issued for her arrest and it was only recently executed.

2 Ms Murphy’s offences were committed in a remarkably simple way. She was connected with the payroll of Ord Minnett Cash Management Trust. It was her job, along with others, to ensure that the employees were paid. To do that she had to engage in some electronic banking, transmitting to Westpac details of who was to be paid and how much. On each occasion she simply altered the electronic banking records so that payments were made to her bank account, for employees who no longer worked at Ord Minnett. By that remarkably simple means she obtained, as far as count one is concerned, $7,255.79 cents; as far as count two is concerned $5,238.16 cents; and as far as count three is concerned $6,679.50 cents.

3 That money was repaid some time ago, shortly before Ms Murphy absconded. It is not a matter of mitigation however, that the company bears no loss. It would have been a matter of aggravation if the money continued to remain unpaid when the offences were committed so long ago.

4 This is not Ms Murphy’s first breach of the criminal law in this manner. In 1996 she was dealt with for a number of offences of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception and on each she was put on a good behaviour bond under what was then s 556A of the Crimes Act for two years.

5 It is to be noted that the way in which she committed her earlier offences in 1996 bore some striking similarities to the way she committed her offences for which she is to be sentenced today. That is, she was a payroll officer who simply altered the payroll records so that her bank accounts were credited with money that should have been paid to others.

6 I received a number of references concerning Ms Murphy. One can only assume that…