R v Vodopic
[2002] VSC 466
•17 October 2002
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1524 of 2001
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| TONI VODOPIC |
---
JUDGE: | COLDREY J | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 OCTOBER 2002 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 17 OCTOBER 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R. v. TONI VODOPIC | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 466 | |
---
SENTENCE – Kidnapping – Making and using a false document – Attempting to obtain property ($3 million) by deception – Offender masterminded operation – Victim imprisoned and subjected to physical and psychological trauma – Late pleas of guilty – Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Need for denunciation of kidnapping offence and specific and general deterrence – Principle of parity inapplicable – 10 years' imprisonment for kidnapping; 3 years for making and using a false document and 2 years for attempting to obtain property by deception – Total effective sentence 10 years with a non-parole period of 6½ years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr. B. Kayser | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr. S. Langslow | Stary Myall |
HIS HONOUR:
Toni Vodopic, you have pleaded guilty to the kidnapping of Dean Kenneth Reilly at Mitcham on 16 May 2000. You have also pleaded guilty to counts of making a false document and using a false document at Glen Iris on 16 and 17 May 2000 respectively. Finally, you have pleaded guilty to attempting to obtain property by deception at Glen Iris on 17 May 2000. All of these offences were directed towards obtaining $3 million from Dean Reilly. I must now sentence you for them. In order to place the offences in context, it is necessary to summarise the quite extraordinary facts surrounding their commission. Unfortunately, given the complexity of the events, this cannot be done briefly.
In approximately March of 1999, you contacted a solicitor, Michael Fetter, of Fetter Gdanski Solicitors, introducing yourself as an international commodities broker earning large commissions by facilitating the movement of oil from various world refineries to distributors. On your instructions two companies, Joton Australia Pty Ltd and Revo Holdings Pty Ltd, were incorporated. The former related to petrol transactions and the latter to a retail clothing business you subsequently established in Toorak Road, Toorak. According to documentation supplied to your solicitor, the source of supply of oil was to be a major oil supplier, Cargill International. The oil was to be delivered to Fletcher Challenge Fuels with deliveries to occur between January and April 2000.
On the basis that you had signed a contract with Fletcher Challenge, you persuaded a Dr Keith Robson, a property investor having a company named Tangalooma Nominees Pty Ltd, to provide the sum of $250,000 to cover the preliminary expenses of the fuel transactions. A contract was entered into between Joton Australia Pty Ltd and Tangalooma Nominees and the money was provided in December 1999. Dr Robson was to receive $50,000 profit for each of three shipments. Consequently, he would make a profit of $150,000 on an investment of $250,000, which money would also be returned to him. As part of the transaction Dr Robson required registered property mortgages, including one which was entered into over the home of your husband, Joseph Vodopic, at 5 Church Street Burwood. It appears that there was never any contract with Cargill International or Fletcher Challenge, and there were no deliveries of fuel. Indeed, your activities in relation to these purported transactions are the subject of fraud charges to be heard in the County Court later this year. I do not intend to attempt to unravel the detailed web of dealings involved. It is sufficient to note that throughout early May 2000, Dr Robson was pressing for payment of just over $406,000, owed to him under the terms of the contract.
On 11 May you rang your solicitor, Mr Fetter, informing him that you had deposited cheques of $343,000 and $450,000 into the Solicitor's Trust Account at the South Yarra National Bank branch. You instructed Mr Fetter to arrange settlement with Dr Robson. However, inquiries of the bank on 12 May indicated that the funds had not been cleared. Ultimately, these cheques proved to be valueless. By 15 May, having been faxed a solicitor's letter expressing concern at your conflicting instructions, you phoned Mr Fetter claiming that you were about to receive $3 million for petrol commissions and that these funds would be placed in the Solicitor's Trust Account via the Joton entity.
Although the material indicates that you had other financial difficulties, the trigger for what happened next was the pressing need to facilitate the overdue settlement with Dr Robson. Indeed, in the days leading up to 16 May 2000, you were desperate for money.
The material also indicates that, initially, your husband, Joseph Vodopic, was part of your endeavour to create a fuel importation business. However, he states that he was unaware of the ongoing dealings. In particular, he was not aware of the mortgage of his Burwood home. All of the documentary and other evidence indicates that you were the person in charge of these financial activities.
I should make it quite clear that you are not being sentenced for any of your alleged fraudulent activities. I have referred to a portion of them solely as the necessary background to understand what occurred next.
Dean Reilly and Peter Floyd operated a company known as SLC Australia, trading as Tecom Systems. It designed and manufactured electronic security devices. In mid-July 1999, the company was sold to American interests, but Mr Reilly and his partner continued to manage its operations. The sale of the business netted both men many millions of dollars. You had met Mr Floyd through the Ferrari Car Club which you had joined in 1997. The material before the Court indicates that you bought and sold Ferraris, and ultimately you purchased a Porsche. You also set up an up-market retail clothing store called Revo in Toorak Road, Toorak. Amongst the sources of money for these activities appears to have been mortgages on the home of your husband, Joseph Vodopic, and of his parents, Ivan and Marika Vodopic, and funds obtained from a business, Steadfast Automotive, an auto-electric business, operated by your husband. Some of these matters are the subject of your pending fraud trial.
You obviously enjoyed mixing in the company of wealthy and successful people and, during 1999, you told Mr Floyd, with whom you mixed socially, that you had gone into the petroleum importing business.
In March 2000, you had met Dean Reilly at the Marinello Ball at the Grand Hyatt, a function conducted by the Ferrari Car Club. In May 2000, faced with impending financial disaster, you decided that you would attempt to extort money from Mr Reilly, who was not your friend, but who you knew, because of your association with Peter Floyd, to be a wealthy man.
Between 12 May and 16 May, you made preparations to kidnap Dean Reilly. Included in them was the recruitment of your daughters, Stephanie and Jessica, to attempt to obtain some heroin.
Your daughters travelled to St Kilda on two occasions (on one of which you were driving), but their efforts were unsuccessful. You gave various reasons why you wanted the heroin, including that it was needed to cause a male person to make a phone call against his will to transfer money. You also spoke to your daughter, Jessica, of injecting that person in a car. Whilst you did not obtain any heroin through your daughters, it appears that you obtained it elsewhere.
You told your other daughter, Stephanie, that Dean Reilly owed you money. You said that you had given him $1m on behalf of two investors as part of an oil deal. You said the deal had fallen through and Mr Reilly was refusing to pay the money. This was, of course, quite untrue.
On a date which she places as 14 May, your daughter Stephanie, observed you preparing a document which read: "Attention Fetter Gdanski, I Dean Reilly agree to sign over the sum of $3 million to account number ... ." She could not recall the details of the account number but observed that the note also gave the reason for the handover of the cash as a fuel deal. Mr Reilly's name was written at the bottom of the page in such a way as to indicate that a signature could be appended above it.
During this period of time, posing as a friend of Mr Reilly's named Sharon, you obtained his mobile phone number from the receptionist at SLC. Later that day you rang him with the untrue story that you desired his assistance to hide a birthday present for Peter Floyd, namely a Ferrari wheel, at the company's Mitcham premises.
On 15 May 2000, you instructed your solicitor, Mr Fetter, that the delivery of fuel had gone to Mt Isa for Fletcher Challenge. You stated that you were chasing up the money for the Solicitor's Trust Account. All this was a fabrication.
By the evening of 15 May, it appears that both your daughter, Stephanie, and Joseph Vodopic were aware of your kidnapping scheme. According to Mr Vodopic, you told him that his assistance was required to recover a bad debt of $3 million. This was portrayed as an enterprise undertaken to assist two serious criminals, and if it did not go ahead both you and your husband, and his family, would be in danger. Mr Vodopic told the police that he was informed of a plan to get the person involved into a car, take him to "Uncle Tony's house" in Burwood and sort out the debt with him. Mr Vodopic indicated that it was not until you neared the scene of the kidnapping that he was given the name of Dean Reilly as the person involved.
In any event, on the morning of 16 May you, together with Joseph Vodopic and your daughter, Stephanie, drove in your Mercedes Benz sedan from your home at 5 Church Street, Burwood, towards Mitcham. In the car was a round piece of timber and some rope ties, both of which you had placed there. There was also a large, black, nylon sports bag effectively blocking the off-side rear doorway.
On arrival at the Mitcham premises, you contacted Mr Reilly by mobile phone, requesting him to come around the corner to pick up the Ferrari wheel. You asked how the wheel could be got into the building without Peter knowing and Mr Reilly suggested that it should be taken around the back of the factory. You had driven the blue Mercedes-Benz four door sedan to the premises, but you changed positions with Stephanie who, upon Mr Reilly getting into the back seat of the vehicle, drove the vehicle to the rear of the factory. You briefly alighted from the vehicle and there was some pretence that the car door locks were not functioning. In fact, the child-proof locks had been activated so as to keep Mr Reilly inside the vehicle. Mr Reilly was seated in the middle of the back seat with the large sports bag to his right and your husband to his left. You returned to the vehicle and instructed Stephanie to drive off.
Almost immediately Mr Reilly was held down and assaulted by Joseph Vodopic. He described himself as feeling panic stricken. At this point, according to Mr Reilly, you pulled out a needle and endeavoured to inject him with it. He managed to kick it from your hands. You also attempted to hit him with a piece of timber. This action appears to have been thwarted in the course of the struggle.
At a location which Mr Reilly places as Whitehorse Road, he managed to open the rear off-side window, and get his body half-way out of it before Joseph Vodopic pulled him back into the car, ripping his clothes. At one stage Mr Reilly asked you what this was about and you told him it had to do with the Remand Centre and the Men's Metropolitan Prison. You asked him whether he did the security for the prison and, having received an answer in the affirmative, you told him there were "two psychos" after him.
Later in the trip, Mr Reilly braced himself against Joseph Vodopic and kicked out with his feet against the rear off-side window. This caused the window and doorframe to bend at what he described as a 45 degree angle. Another struggle ensued with Joseph Vodopic assaulting Mr Reilly, including grabbing his testicles.
Whatever the precise destination you originally had in mind, the evidence indicates that there was a change of plan and, despite Joseph Vodopic's initial opposition, the car was driven to the home of his parents, Ivan and Marika Vodopic, at Walerna Drive, Glen Iris.
Initially all three of you remained in the backyard. Joseph Vodopic, who was obviously guarding Mr Reilly, told him he had previously been a professional fighter. You told Mr Reilly that he owed a debt of $3 million, a proposition which he flatly denied. You told him that you did not know the details of the debt. Your husband made a similar comment but, in effect, stated that he had to collect the money on behalf of crooks or mobsters because threats had been made to his life and that of his family.
In the course of the morning, you were observed to make a number of telephone calls on several mobile phones. One such call, early in the morning, was to your daughter, Jessica. You were obviously concerned that people may have seen Mr Reilly's attempt to escape from the Mercedes-Benz. Consequently, you told Jessica that if the police turned up on her doorstep, she should inform them that she was in a car with you and Joe on High Street Road, Blackburn, that she was yelling out "help", but that she was just joking around. Jessica agreed to do this.
In a file note dated 16 May, Mr Fetter records you informing him by telephone that you were at the office of Dean Reilly of Tecom in St Kilda Road and that he was to pay you $3 million in petrol commissions which he owed you. This money was to be deposited into the Revo Holdings account at the National Bank. Mr Fetter contacted that bank and was informed that no deposits had been made into the account.
When Mr Reilly denied owing the debt, you changed tack, suggesting, in effect, that it may be the debt of Peter (being Peter Floyd). You again contacted Jessica. You told her that you would ring her back and you wanted her to tell a person named Dean that he owed $3 million and if he paid it, Peter would be fine. Your daughter agreed to do this. She told police that this was because you were her financial support and she did what she was told. Mr Reilly's memory is that he was handed a mobile phone and was told, in effect: "Pay $3 million for Peter's safety ... ."
You showed Mr Reilly some information about Tecom bank accounts which appeared to approximate the moneys held in them and you attempted give Mr Reilly the impression that Peter Floyd owed debts and was clearing out. You even claimed to be calling the airport to see if he had left. Thereafter, your suggestion was that Peter owed the debt but, because he did not have the money, Mr Reilly would have to pay it. Both you and your husband told him that you did not require the money as you were both wealthy.
At a time which Mr Reilly places at about 6 p.m., you entered the house and went to a bedroom with two single beds in it. There, you asked Mr Reilly a number of questions. Mr Reilly described the relationship between you and Joseph Vodopic as you being the dominant partner and he being docile in your presence during normal conversation. He also described you as using the mobile phone on many occasions, but there was some doubt in Mr Reilly's mind as to whether all the conversations were genuine.
Having made the statement that the debt was Peter's, you asked Mr Reilly whether he would help you recover the debt. He responded that he was unwilling to do so, because he was unaware of any such debt. You also asked him why Peter had assigned the debt to him. Whether this approach was deliberately designed to make Mr Reilly confused, it certainly had that effect.
You next moved into a second bedroom. Mr Reilly described what then occurred as follows:
"I paced around the room for five or ten minutes before Joe told Toni to go into the kitchen and get my phone. I watched Toni walk out of the room. As I turned back toward Joe he was running toward me with a stereo speaker held over his head. I don't think he expected me to turn around. He swung the speaker at me but I moved and grabbed hold of it. I asked him what he was doing and his reply was, 'Peter has put a hit on you'. I then flew into a rage. Joe and I then started wrestling each other."
According to your daughter Stephanie, you were initially holding on to the bedroom door to prevent Dean Reilly getting out.
Joseph Vodopic told the police that you had directed him to knock Mr Reilly out.
The ensuing struggle was watched by Mr and Mrs Vodopic senior, with Mrs Vodopic collapsing in the hallway. The wrestling continued despite Mr Reilly yelling for Joe to stop and help his mother. He then describes you, your husband, your husband's parents, and your daughter Stephanie, all commencing to assault him. Mr Reilly said he was hit with all sorts of objects including vases, statuettes and the stereo speaker. This incident took place in the hallway between the two bedrooms. Joseph Vodopic sat on Mr Reilly's legs and at the same time was gouging his eyes. According to Mr Reilly's account of what occurred, you were trying to tie his legs together and failed to do so because of his kicking. Eventually Mr Vodopic senior tied his legs together. Mr Reilly believed that the objective was to kill him. You said that he should be put in the cellar and both you and your husband attempted to force him to drink a glass of water containing the drug Mogadon. He did not swallow any of the liquid, although his lips went numb.
Next, in this farrago of violence, grey coloured electrical tape was wrapped around Mr Reilly's eyes and mouth. He could not recall who had done this. According to his version of events, he was begging you at this stage to let him go because all he wanted to do as to marry his girlfriend. Not surprisingly, he described himself as being in pain. He stated that he had never been so scared in his life and, on a number of occasions, he thought he was going to be killed.
After the incident in the hallway, Mr Reilly was dragged towards the bedroom in which the initial discussions had occurred. He described his hands as being free and tearing the electrical tape off his face. In the bedroom, with Joseph Vodopic still on top of him, Mr Vodopic senior put a green coloured plastic bag over his head. He ripped this off. A hessian bag was then placed underneath his head by Mr Vodopic senior.
The involvement of the elderly Vodopics in the assaults on Mr Reilly may be explained by having to confront the unexpected violence occurring in their home which could have resulted in harm to their son.
Ultimately, Mr Reilly crawled from the bedroom and found himself sitting in the hallway opposite Joseph Vodopic. He recounts the following conversation having occurred:
"While sitting in the hallway with Joe I asked him why he was doing what he was doing to me. He simply said that he was scared that if he was unable to arrange the recovery of the debt, he would be killed but if I was let go I would go to the police and he would go to prison."
While this conversation was occurring, the other persons in the house, including you, were apparently clearing up the blood and debris. Subsequently, both Stephanie and Mrs Marika Vodopic cleaned and dressed Mr Reilly's wounds. There was also an effort made by Mrs Vodopic senior to repair his damaged clothing.
Although there may be inaccuracies in the times and sequence of the events that followed, given Mr Reilly's traumatised state, he described these ensuing incidents.
You drafted a letter with both your husband and daughter contributing to its contents. It was in the form of an indemnity and included such matters as Mr Reilly not contacting the police or a lawyer or talking to anybody about his experiences. Mr Reilly thought the letter was about seven pages long and he signed each page. Reference was then made by you about writing a second letter for "the others". Mr Reilly did not know who the others were and you did not enlighten him. He asked why another letter had to be written when your husband had already said that he could go after signing the first letter. He received no answer. During the course of preparation of this letter, you purported to speak to a number of people who were either Chinese or Japanese. You indicated that the group were in Geelong and that Peter Floyd was with them, but Mr Reilly was not permitted to speak to him at this time. You then made a number of other mobile phone calls before stating that Peter owed money and that the group in Geelong had told you that Peter had said that he, (Dean Reilly), was to pay his debt. You wanted him to write a letter stating he would be responsible for Peter's debt of $3 million but he refused. Mr Reilly did, however, say that if he had knowledge of the assigning of a debt of $3 million, he would pay it. You wrote several versions of this statement, none of which satisfied him and he declined to sign.
Mr Reilly then told you that if this was just about money, and it would ensure his release, he would write a letter to transfer the $3 million. Your husband said no to this saying that all three of you (that is, you, he and Stephanie), had enough money and $3 million was not the issue. You then wrote another letter which stated that you, Toni Vodopic, would pay the $3 million debt on behalf of Peter and Dean Reilly. You got Mr Reilly to witness this letter. Asked why you had written it, you said you would do it for Joe's life.
On one view this conduct may have been as part of the series of mind games you were playing with Mr Reilly or, alternatively, a sign of the scheme unravelling. By this time it was about 4 a.m. on 17 May. Mr Reilly asked all of you whether you intended to hurt him any further and was told that you would not. Stephanie also told him that, when it was all over, she would take him home.
You then spoke about calling the people from Geelong to the house to prove the debt. Not surprisingly, since this was all fiction, nothing further was done about that. At about this time you tore up the seven page letter and threw the pieces on the bed. Around 7 a.m. you had a further conversation with Mr Reilly in which he asked you what he had to do to get out of the house. You responded that all he had to do was pay the debt. Again he refused to pay the debt, but reiterated that, if it was money for his safety and not the debt, he would pay it. You then drafted two letters. One was addressed to your lawyer, Michael Fetter, and the other addressed to Mr Reilly's bank, the National Australia Bank. In the letters it stated that he would transfer $3 million from his bank account directly into another National Bank account. The letters included the name of Mr Reilly's personal bank manager, Mr Lee Cutts. Mr Cutts' name had been misspelt as Lee Curtis.
According to Mr Reilly, you rang the solicitor Fetter and read the contents of the two drafts outlining the transfer of the $3 million. You had purportedly rung him on a number of previous occasions during that night but I cannot be certain, on the evidence, that this was any more than mere pretence. Certainly Mr Fetter himself first records a phone contact with you on 17 May 2000 in which you indicated that Mr Reilly was paying from bank bills into the firm's trust account. This followed an earlier conversation in which Mr Reilly had spoken to a staff member from the National Bank who had informed him that she could not find a Tecom account with a $3 million balance. He then told her the money was to be drawn from the bank bills held with the Treasury. In his statement to the police, Mr Reilly commented that, at the time of the authorisation of the transfer of $3 million in bank bills, he thought that you were going to kill him.
On Mr Fetter's version of events, you were faxing an authority signed by Mr Reilly and Mr Reilly was faxing his own bank, the National Australia Bank, Bayswater Business Banking and, in particular, the manager, described as Mr Lee Curtis. Another phone call was made to Mr Fetter in which you said there had been an altercation between Mr Reilly and Mr Joe Vodopic. You asked him whether a letter could be signed by both parties agreeing not to proceed with any legal action against each other. According to Mr Fetter, he told you that Mr Reilly could sign a letter confirming that he would not take any civil action but could not contract out of any criminal action. Mr Reilly said this document, which you called the indemnity, was essentially a copy of the seven page letter that you had earlier ripped up. You recited it over the phone to Mr Fetter.
Throughout this whole period you had been in contact with Mr Reilly's partner, Peter Floyd. These calls commenced on 16 May when you rang to say that Dean, your husband Joe, you were going to his home to drop off the present. Later you rang Peter Floyd's receptionist stating that Dean and Joe had gone out looking at cars. By mid-afternoon, Peter Floyd rang your mobile inquiring after Dean, and you responded that Dean and Joe had gone off looking at something and then for a drink.
About 7 p.m. that evening, you again rang Peter Floyd telling him that the boys were not yet back, that they were out celebrating and that they had both had a lot to drink. You also asked, quite disingenuously, if he had received his present. You led him to believe that you were at the Revo shop.
At about 8.40 a.m. on 17 May, you rang Peter Floyd saying that you were on your way to work and that Dean had stayed overnight, sleeping it off. Some time after 9 a.m., you caused the documents to which I have referred, to be faxed.
What followed was a series of conversations involving Michael Fetter, Lee Cutts, and Peter Floyd. In summary, as a result of the crude nature of the handwritten document and irregularities within it, such as the misspelling of the bank manager's name and the use of a Tecom account rather than Mr Reilly's personal account, the bank contacted Mr Floyd who directed that no transfer of funds be made. This occurred about 12 p.m.
The transaction having been vetoed by Peter Floyd, the bank manager Lee Cutts was contacted. You dialled the number and listened in to the conversation. Mr C utts reiterated the current situation. The conversation was terminated by Mr Reilly before any further authorisation could be sought. There were several other phone calls between Peter Floyd and Mr Reilly in which, given his situation, Mr Reilly was guarded. Nonetheless, he did manage to make it clear to Peter Floyd that the transaction should not proceed.
No doubt in an endeavour to obscure the reality of the situation and to cover your own tracks, you suggested that the father of an ex-girlfriend was responsible for this extortion attempt. As part of the charade, you rang him several times, telling the bemused recipient of these telephone calls to "get the goons off" and "call it off, call it off, we'll pay." you also had Mr Reilly attempt to contact his former girlfriend. According to Mr Reilly, by this time you were panicking and stressed.
Some time after 1 p.m., Mr Reilly told you that he needed to go to hospital and asked if you and your husband would take him. Your husband responded by saying that he originally thought the debt was real but now realised it was nothing more than an extortion. You both agreed to take Dean Reilly to hospital. His mobile phone was returned to him and your husband dropped you off at the Burwood house. At this stage both you and Joseph Vodopic were crying. At Mr Reilly's request Joseph Vodopic drove him to his business where he picked up his wallet before travelling on to the Knox Private Hospital, arriving about 2.45 p.m.
Later that day, you rang Dean Reilly at the Knox Private Hospital to inquire about his well-being. There were also subsequent calls to Mr Reilly by Joseph Vodopic, which I need not detail.
In his statement, Mr Reilly told the police that until the very end when he observed your husband in tears, he did not think he was going to get out of the situation alive.
The injuries sustained by Dean Reilly included lacerations to the forehead and nose; abrasions to the forehead, both cheeks, the neck, the back, upper arms, hands, elbows and left leg. There was bruising to the right eye, gums, right thigh, both ankles and the back, as well as tenderness over the right clavicle and lumbar spine. An X-ray revealed no abnormalities and actual hospitalisation was not required, but Mr Reilly did need ongoing treatment, including physiotherapy, for neck and back problems.
Among the psychological effects of this incident which Mr Reilly has suffered are flashbacks, sleeping difficulties, feelings of insecurity, high levels of stress, and difficulty in trusting others. He regards himself as less outgoing, as needing to keep a low profile and as having a tendency to become reclusive.
It should be stated, and stated clearly, that nothing in this case reflects adversely upon Mr Reilly's integrity or business acumen.
In setting out this summary of events, I have basically relied upon the account given by Dean Reilly. That account essentially corroborates that of your daughters, Jessica and Stephanie, and husband Joseph. The latter two were to be Crown witnesses. Your own version of events is contained in an extensive record of interview. In it you attempt to shift the blame for what occurred onto others, including Joseph Vodopic. However, an examination of witness statements about the events surrounding and including these offences, unfortunately demonstrates you to be a glib and comprehensive liar. I am quite satisfied that you were the mastermind of this enterprise.
The offence of kidnapping is a serious one. In the present case the offence was planned in advance. Part of that planning involved the manipulation of your daughters over whom you had great influence. Initially, you utilised them in an effort to obtain heroin. Later, you used your relationship with them to secure their compliance in carrying out aspects of the offence itself. Further, you duped your husband, who was besotted with you, into acting as your enforcer.
The victim was a person targeted solely because of his wealth and with the object of obtaining a very large sum of money. For a period of almost 30 hours, Mr Reilly was subjected not only to physical trauma but to psychological pressure designed to break his will. No doubt that period of time constituted the most terrifying experience of his life.
Although there are some bizarre features about this offence, such as the lack of disguises, the use of your own motor vehicle, and the holding of the victim in the Vodopic family home, these factors did not make the kidnapping any less frightening for Mr Reilly. Indeed, those very features would have served to induce in him his expressed fear that he may have been killed.
The offence of kidnapping is, fortunately, rare. However, by the sentences imposed, the courts need to denounce its commission and to deter any persons who might be minded it undertake such criminal activity.
In your case there is also a need for specific deterrence to be given some weight. Whilst I take into account the fact that you ultimately released Mr Reilly and caused him to be driven to hospital, and that you eventually pleaded guilty, there has been no real expression of remorse on your part.
The other offences to which you have pleaded guilty, whilst also serious ones, may be seen as necessarily ancillary to the purpose of the kidnapping which was to obtain the $3 million. I intend to treat them in that fashion in passing sentence.
In the course of the plea, which, in the circumstances of this case, was extremely helpful, your counsel, Mr Langslow, referred to a number of matters personal to you which are pertinent to the sentence to be imposed.
You are presently aged about 40, the date of birth you gave in your police interview being clearly wrong. You were born in East Coburg. You informed Dr Justin Barry-Walsh, a forensic psychiatrist, who provided a report to the court on your behalf, that both your parents were dead and that you were one of eight children. According to what you told Dr Barry-Walsh, all your other siblings are married and successful and you are estranged from them. You alleged that you had been sexually abused by two brothers and your father from about the age of four to 11. Your assertion appears to have been the result of some form of recovered memory when you were aged about 15. Dr Barry-Walsh described your recounting of this history as somewhat contradictory and commented that it is now difficult to know where the truth lies. In your account to the doctor, you spoke of running away from home once when you were aged about ten and two attempts at suicide by overdosing when you were aged about 15.
You were educated at West Preston Primary School and Newlands High School before completing your education in Form 5 at Brunswick High School. You married at the age of 16 in 1978 at a time when you were pregnant to another person. You quickly had four children under the age of five. On your instructions, your relationship with your husband changed over time as he became increasingly involved in criminal activity and you became fearful of him. He was also unfaithful.
His criminal lifestyle culminated in his being charged with murder and you giving evidence at his trial in 1992. You spent a number of years in the witness protection program and I accept that this whole experience was a very frightening and anxious one for you. Giving evidence against your husband was, at the time, a courageous act on your part. During that period you also changed your name. In 1993 your eldest daughter was tragically killed in a car accident when aged 16. I accept that this had a devastating effect upon you. Your marriage ended after ten years. Your son is currently living with his father, and the material indicates that, whatever the relationship in the past, you are now on speaking terms with your first husband.
In about 1995 you met your second husband, Joseph Vodopic, who you married in 1997. During this marriage you involved yourself, to some extent, in your husband's automotive business and subsequently established the retail clothing store Revo, to which reference has been made.
You told Dr Barry-Walsh that at the time that you went into the witness protection program and you had to select another identity, you effectively lost your own sense of who you were. You also told him that in the past you had lied to escape reality. In the course of your interview, you sought to cast yourself as the powerless victim of events. In doing so you denied the frauds and minimised your role in the kidnapping. Dr Barry-Walsh found your explanations unconvincing and improbable when viewed beside the brief of evidence. In expressing his opinion he had this to say:
"The nature of her presentation on interview and a description of having uncertainty about her identity and a long-lasting sense of unhappiness combined with a history of repeated sexual abuse as a child are suggestive of significant personality dysfunction. This would explain her view of herself as a victim and may have some legitimacy contingent on the veracity of her account of sexual abuse when young. Further it was telling that she indicated that she escaped reality and lied about her childhood and this became a characteristic way of dealing with this area. Although she denied any further tendency to distort or otherwise evade unpleasant or difficult memories or situations by prevarication, it is possible that this has become an habitual way of acting for Ms Vodopic. Although speculative it would seem psychologically plausible that in an absence of a clear sense of who she is, with persistent distress and the experience from childhood of the rewards of manufacturing a false reality, Ms Vodopic has moved to a point where she is able to deceive even herself as to the reality of her situations, her intentions and the actions of herself and others. This may account for the poorly judged nature of her actions and her improbable explanations for her actions."
Dr Barry-Walsh concluded:
"In summary beyond being reasonably confident that there is no major psychiatric illness accounting for Ms Vodopic's presentation and the likelihood that her presentation reflects in a general manner significant personality dysfunction, I can provide little in the way of psychiatric or psychological explanation for her predicament and current situation."
Your sojourn in prison has not been easy. A prison advocate, Ms Donna Williamson, of the Darebin Community Legal Centre, was called on your behalf. You have been her client since June 2001 and she expressed concern about what she perceived as your deteriorating physical and mental state since May of this year. Initially you had been placed in protection, presumably because of the evidence you gave a decade ago. In that situation you did not have access to education or employment programs, with horticulture being the only activity in the latter category. In more recent times, you have been placed in the management section of the prison where you have been able to work as "a painting billet", a job you have been allocated because you are considered to be a trusted prisoner. In that area also, you do not have access to education programs or any meaningful work. Apparently, your presence there is the result of allegations you have made about the conduct of a prison officer. The length of time you will be there is unknown.
I accept that you presently have some concerns for your safety in the prison, although it is difficult to judge how real those fears are, or how long you will remain under the present restrictive prison regime. Obviously, as long as that situation continues the serving of your sentence will be difficult.
During your time in the protection unit you assisted newly admitted inmates who were often bewildered and upset at their immediate predicament. This form of help was noticed by Ms Jean Cheshire, an Accredited Loss and Grief Practitioner, and in a letter written on your behalf, she described having been impressed by the caring way you helped women in distress. This is to your credit.
You have one prior conviction which relates to the theft of a T-shirt for which you were given a good behaviour bond in 1992. It may be regarded as of no significance in determining this sentence.
On the material before the Court, it is impossible to feel confident about your prospects of rehabilitation. However, you should certainly be given the opportunity to rehabilitate yourself.
I also take into account the delay of more than two years between the commission of these offences and the imposition of sentence. Whilst most of that delay was occasioned by your approach to the Court proceedings, I nonetheless make some allowance for it. I also give you credit for your plea of guilty which, although it was entered very late in the proceedings, spared a number of witnesses, including your daughter Stephanie, from the ordeal of having to give evidence in your trial.
It was submitted by Mr Langslow that, given what Dr Barry-Walsh described as a significant personality dysfunction, I should regard you as having a lessened degree of culpability for this offence. However, it is not suggested that you did not know either what you were doing or the wrongness of it. A personality dysfunction may explain why you embarked upon this course of conduct but can have little impact upon the seriousness of the crime itself.
It was also submitted that the principle of parity required that your sentence should not be markedly different from that imposed on your co-offender, Joseph Vodopic. On the count of kidnapping, he received a sentence of five and a half years. However, there are several factors which distinguish your case from his. First, the preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that you, not he, were the organiser of the scheme. Secondly, Joseph Vodopic pleaded guilty at an early stage in proceedings. Thirdly, he was sentenced on the basis that he would give evidence on behalf of the prosecution at your trial. On that basis alone he was entitled to a substantial sentencing discount. Fourthly, that sentence did not stand alone but must be seen as being tailored to a total effective sentence for the offences to which he pleaded guilty.
Balancing as best I can the principles of sentencing enunciated in the Sentencing Act, including punishment, denunciation, specific and general deterrence and rehabilitation, I have concluded that the appropriate sentence on Count 1, being the charge of kidnapping, is that you be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of ten years. On Count 2, making a false document, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for three years; on Count 3, using a false document, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for three years, and on Count 4, attempting to obtain property by deception, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for two years. All these sentences are to be served concurrently, making a total effective sentence of ten years. I fix a period of six and a half before you become eligible for parole. It is declared that the period of 874 days, inclusive of today's date be reckoned as the period of detention already served under the sentence. I direct that there be noted in the records of the Court the fact that such declaration is made and its details.
---
0
0
0