R v Reddie; R v Linnen

[2017] NSWDC 228

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Reddie; R v Linnen [2017] NSWDC 228
Hearing dates:	2nd June 2017
Date of orders:	02 June 2017
Decision date:	02 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Ms Reddie - the matters which initially resulted in breaches of bonds. I impose fixed terms of imprisonment for those, for H567175881 three months imprisonment, for 567175882 one month imprisonment, and for 567175883 two months imprisonment. Those sentences are to be served concurrently. For the matters on the indictment I impose an aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of two and a half years with a head sentence of four years.. Mr Linnen - I impose a sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of nine months with a head sentence of 18 months
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Dishonestly obtain a financial advantage – Recklessly deal with the proceeds of crime – Breach of trust – Greed – Luxurious lifestyle
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Lauren Marie Reddie Scott Linnen
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G Jones – Offender Linnen Ms Carroll – Offender Reddie     Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecution – Crown George Sten & Co - Offender
File Number(s):	2016/876022016/87676

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: This Court often deals with pathetic people, people with terrible backgrounds, drug addicts, desperate people in poor health and with missing teeth, and people whose offending is related often to a need to obtain drugs. The Court does not often deal with offences where the proceeds of crime are spent on clothing by Hugo Boss and wrist watches made by Cartier. It is accepted, I gather, by Mr Jones and Ms Carroll, who appear for the offenders today, that this case is very much about greed rather than need.

2. There are two offenders who are husband and wife, Lauren Reddie and Scott Linnen. Ms Reddie worked for George Weston Foods, a reasonably large company employing about six and a half thousand people. Her job was in the controls and reconciliations team.

3. She hit upon a scheme to defraud her employer of significant sums of money. She used her husband, her co‑offender, who assisted her to obtain the proceeds of her offending. Although she has pleaded guilty to three counts on an indictment each of those counts covered multiple acts of criminality.

4. The offender’s scheme involved her in authorising payment from her employer which purported to be refund payments, or payments to companies, who supplied her employer, but none of these payments were supported by any invoices. Instead the payments were processed such that the money was paid into bank accounts opened by either her or her partner.

5. The first payment was made on 18 April 2013, and the final payment made on 7 January 2016. In total there were 65 payments made into 45 different bank accounts. 13 of those payments were made to accounts opened and controlled by Mr Linnen.

6. Ms Reddie has pleaded guilty to dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage, three counts of that offence. The first count covers around $67,000, the second count $65,000, and the last count more than half a million, $588,000, making a total of something in the order of $722,000. Most of that money has been lost.

7. Mr Linnen pleaded guilty to an offence of recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime. His offending occurred over a shorter period of time, 31 August 2015 to 30 March 2016, and involved around $530,000.

8. These sums of money are sufficient to demonstrate the gravity of the offences for which I must sentence the offenders today.

9. As I began these remarks on sentence there is nothing to suggest that this money was needed for any worthwhile purpose. The agreed facts contain this paragraph:

“The sums transferred into these accounts were spent on a variety of consumer goods, holidays, and other expenses. Hundreds of pages of social media postings from Ms Reddie’s Instagram account and bank records obtained by police depict a life of conspicuous consumption. By way of example, sports shoes, Hugo Boss clothing, Bose speakers, a Breitling wristwatch and a Cartier wristwatch were all purchased with the proceeds of this offending.”

10. Of course the principles of parity apply. I have to ensure that neither Mr Linnen nor Ms Reddie has any justifiable sense of grievance when he or she compares the sentence I have imposed upon his or her spouse. Clearly there are significant differences in their offending and their backgrounds, which are reflected in the sentences I will ultimately impose upon them.

11. I should indicate at this stage that both offenders pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and so the sentences I impose upon them will be 25% less than they would otherwise have been.

12. Mr Linnen has no prior convictions. The same cannot be said for Ms Reddie. She indeed was on a number of bonds for similar offending at the time she committed the offences for which I must sentence her. She has admitted those breaches and asks that I re-sentence her for three of those matters.

13. They all concerned a scheme whereby Ms Reddie made false claims to a health insurer. She was dealt with leniently by a magistrate for those matters but, as is clearly demonstrated, she failed to take advantage of the leniency that was offered to her.

14. Ms Reddie’s background is set out in a report by Dr Jonathan Adams, a forensic psychiatrist. Aspects of Dr Adams’ conclusions were challenged during cross-examination by the Crown, but Dr Adams’ opinion ultimately remained largely the same.

15. It is clear that Ms Reddie has a history of depression. That history has involved eating disorders, depression, and suicidal thoughts. Clearly Ms Reddie’s low self-esteem, evidenced in particular by her eating disorder and her desire for plastic surgery, have contributed to her offending.

16. Ms Carroll, who appears for Ms Reddie, does not suggest that her moral culpability has been reduced by her mental state, but her background and her personality assist in explaining her criminal behaviour, in particular her desire for a luxurious lifestyle.

17. Her offending involved a significant breach of trust. Although many offences of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage involve a breach of trust it is certainly not an element of the offence. There were, as I have already mentioned, multiple acts of criminality covered by each count on the indictment.

18. It is an aggravating factor, of course, that she was on bonds for similar behaviour at the time of her offending, although, given that I am going to re‑sentence her and will impose a sentence accumulative on the sentence I impose for the matters originally dealt with by way of bonds, I will not increase the sentence I would otherwise have imposed upon Ms Reddie to take account of the fact that she was on bonds at the time of her offending.

19. Ms Reddie’s crimes occurred over a significant period, almost three years. She had many opportunities to reflect upon what she was doing, but she continued until she has become responsible for causing a significant loss. I accept that the major depression from which she suffered might reduce, perhaps to a small degree, the importance of general deterrence in the sentence I will ultimately impose, but there is no doubt that personal deterrence is of high importance in any sentence I impose upon Ms Reddie.

20. I would not wish it at all to be thought that general deterrence is not an important matter in this sentencing exercise, it clearly is. The ease with which Ms Reddie was able to commit her offences, and the financial rewards it brought her, described by Mr Linnen as like “winning the lottery”, are such that many people might be tempted to do what Ms Reddie has done. They must know that should they be detected they too will go to gaol for a significant period of time.

21. Mr Linnen’s background is set out in the psychological report. His parents are referred to in that report, his mother being nurturing and caring, and his father having a hard work ethic. Sadly his father was killed in a work accident when Mr Linnen was only 17 years of age. Quite understandably he was deeply emotionally affected by that experience.

22. He shares something in common with his wife, namely a desire for the nice things in life. At one stage he declared himself bankrupt after reckless spending on designer brands and shopping that made him feel good. He moved from the United Kingdom, where this occurred, to Australia in 2013, ultimately meeting his co-offender in early 2015.

23. It is important to understand the nature of the offence that Mr Linnen has pleaded guilty to, recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime, although, as Mr James his counsel recognises, it was a high degree of recklessness involving an enormous sum of money.

24. The suggestion was made in some of the material tendered to me that Mr Linnen’s behaviour was out of character. That has to be looked at in the light of both the offender’s previous spending habits, as revealed in the psychological report, but perhaps more importantly the length of time over which his offending occurred. If it was something that was out of character then his out of character actions occurred over a lengthy period.

25. Mr Linnen works in the building industry. It is important to emphasise that there was no evidence to suggest that he was in any way involved in the substantive fraud committed by his wife, but when she spoke to him about dealing with the large sums of money which she was receiving, telling him that it was a different form of criminal offence to the form of criminal offence that she was actually committing, he went along with it and assisted her by allowing her to put the proceeds of her offending in his bank accounts, and then benefitted through some of that money being spent on him.

26. Ms Carroll accepts that her client should receive a sentence of full time custody. I have taken account of the helpful comparative cases which Ms Carroll provided. Of course no two cases are identical but I have been able to take into account the differences and similarities in the cases to which Ms Carroll referred in coming to the appropriate sentence to impose upon her client.

27. Mr Jones submitted that a sentence of two years or less could be imposed which could be suspended. I agree with the former submission but not the latter. In my view nothing less than full time custody in Mr Linnen’s case, as well as Ms Reddie’s case, is sufficient to reflect the objective gravity of his conduct.

28. It is clear that the amount of money involved is a significant aspect in determining the appropriate sentence to impose upon an offender for an offence of recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime.

29. It is clear also that the motivation for that offence is important too. Those factors are two, amongst others, which have led to me determining that nothing less than a full time custodial sentence is appropriate.

30. I will deal firstly with Ms Reddie and begin with the matters which initially resulted in breaches of bonds. I impose fixed terms of imprisonment for those, to commence today 2 June 2017, for H567175881 three months imprisonment, for 567175882 one month imprisonment, and for 567175883 two months imprisonment. Those sentences are to be served concurrently.

31. For the matters on the indictment I will impose an aggregate sentence. Were I not to have done so I would impose the following sentence: on count 1, two and a half years imprisonment; count 2, two and a half years imprisonment; count 3, three and half years imprisonment. Instead I impose a sentence consisting of a non-parole period of two and a half years with a head sentence of four years, to date from 2 September 2017. The non-parole period will expire on 1 March 2020, which is the first day on which Ms Reddie is eligible to be released to parole.

32. In Mr Linnen’s case I impose a sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of nine months, to commence today on 2 June 2017, with a head sentence of 18 months. Mr Linnen is to be released to parole on 1 March 2018.

33. As is obvious, I have found special circumstances in each case. In Ms Reddie’s they result to this being her first time in custody and her psychological background. In Mr Linnen’s case they relate to this also being his first time in custody, and his need to be assisted in the community upon his release from custody to rehabilitate himself.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 August 2017