DPP v Addison

Walker-Koronzcyck' $6,903.08 was drawn down on this account. 17. Charge 6 occurred on 3 May 2024. It relates to a fraudulent application to National Australia Bank ('NAB') for a credit card with a $4,500 limit in the name of 'Luke Philip-Forrester.' The card was issued and found in your possession but was never drawn down. 18. Charge 7 is a rolled-up charge relating to four fraudulent applications to Latitude Finance for credit cards for a total value of $28,600 between 5 May and 16 June 2024[3]. Each of the credit cards were used by you for multiple transactions between 12 May 2024 and 4 July 2024, as outlined in the Latitude Finance Records. 19. Charge 10 is a rolled up charge and relates to the various identification documents found in your possession either as a physical document or on your computer.[4]

1. The prosecutor Ms Hogg submitted that you obtained a significant financial advantage through your offending and while the primary victims are financial institutions the secondary victims are the persons whose online information and credit scores have been compromised by your actions. Ms Hogg submitted your offending falls in the higher range of objective seriousness based on the period you were offending and the high degree of planning and organisation required to commit such offences. Further in circumstances where you offended alone and your offending is both sophisticated and protracted your moral culpability should be considered as high.
2. Your counsel Ms Garde-Wilson submitted that the summary of prosecution opening was accepted. She noted your offending spans from February 2022 until July 2024 and involved a series of dishonest applications for credit facilities using identification details of numerous victims. Your offending included a fraudulent rental application to secure your accommodation - an apartment where you have lived for the past four years, fraudulent loan and credit applications to financial institutions and possession of a large quantity of identification documents belonging to third parties.
3. Ms Garde-Wilson conceded your offending was serious and sustained. She submitted that you accept this and do not seek to minimise the gravity of your conduct.
4. The charges to which you have pleaded guilty are serious as indicated by the applicable maximum penalties. In your case Charges 7 and 10 are rolled up charges. Charge 7 relates to four different loans you obtained in the amount of $28,600 over a 5-week period. Charge 10 relates to your possession of 98 identification documents relating to approximately 68 different people. When sentencing on a rolled-up charge, the court must consider all the circumstances of the offending, including the time frame over which it was carried out and the totality of the harm occasioned. A rolled-up charge is otherwise treated as a single formal charge.
5. Your offending involved $67,100 of financial advantage received by you and $71,284 worth of attempts. Your offending persisted for over two years and involved a degree of sophistication and know how. Your offending is clearly sustained and serious.

1. You were born in Holland. Within two years of your birth, your mother left your father for a man named Harry,[5] with whom she had your half‑sister, Lucy.[6] She later reconciled with your father. The relationship between your parents ended when you were about 14. Your younger brother was born during your parents' reunification. Your mother, now retired, worked as an oncologist. Your father operated a mix of legitimate and illegitimate businesses before migrating to Australia from Holland.
2. Harry had a son from a previous relationship. During the period in which your parents reunited, you were frequently left in Harry's care due to your mother's circumstances. Harry was a known drug dealer and a criminal figure in Amsterdam. His home was a drug house frequented by offenders, and you were deeply distressed by being left in what was clearly an unsafe environment. You would retreat to Lucy's bedroom.
3. Your attachment to both parents has been avoidant and emotionally distant. You described your mother as cold, insecure, and critical throughout your life. You acknowledged that your father had been involved in unlawful activity and that you were fearful of him. On one occasion, when you were 16, you discovered a concealed room in his home containing drugs and firearms.
4. You attended two Montessori schools in Holland. Despite abuse, you displayed no behavioural or emotional disturbances in primary school, although you did see a psychiatrist and engage in play therapy. As your parents were unaware of any abuse, it is possible you did experience difficulties that you cannot now recall. You were an average student.
5. After moving to Australia, you completed the final three months of Grade 6 in Red Hill and then attended secondary school for Years 7 to 9. You found the transition to school in Australia difficult given the different teaching styles and the fact that you were bullied due to your accent. You gravitated toward a drug‑using peer group and began using cannabis at 15. You later persuaded your mother to transfer you to a local public school, where your cannabis use intensified. Around this time, your father returned to Holland and your relationship with your mother deteriorated further. You ran away from home at one point and lived in a refuge. Your relationship with your mother has remained one of emotional detachment.
6. Your cannabis dependency increased in adolescence, as it allowed you to stop thinking and to sleep. Before turning 18, you also experimented with stimulants, including ecstasy and cocaine, mostly on weekends. You completed VCE with an ATAR of 86 and entered full‑time work as a personal assistant in a marketing and publishing company, rising quickly to a managerial role before your drug use became full‑time.
7. You began sexualising from a young age, and your appearance often attracted predatory men and drug users. Your cocaine and ice use escalated significantly at around 21. With the shift to ice, your use increased to multiple times per week and then almost daily. You left mainstream employment and, lacking funds to support your addiction, were pressured into sex work. After being coerced into sexual acts by your first escort employer, you remained in the industry for two to three years while using ice almost daily, before securing full‑time work at Gotham.
8. You have continued to work as an escort. Your use of ice, cocaine, and alcohol has been entrenched throughout your involvement in the industry. Your work extended off‑site and interstate. You tend to downplay the extent of the long‑term sexual violence and coercion you have experienced. Your history of chronic childhood abuse and the probable early objectification has significantly shaped your self‑perception. You have relied on dissociation and substance use to function within this environment.
9. Over time, you formed relationships with clients. These began with the men presenting as protective, providing you with drugs and money, before the relationships deteriorated into repeated sexual assaults. You have been raped on several occasions in the context of your work. From ages 24 to 28, you were in a drug‑fuelled de facto relationship in New South Wales, during which you were socially isolated. Your cocaine use escalated sharply during this period up to 3.5 grams per day, leaving you erratic, agitated, and increasingly unable to function. In contrast, ice stabilised your mood.
10. At around age 28, you returned to Holland and stayed with your father, who then learned for the first time of your abuse. You reported feeling a fleeting sense of connection with him at that time. Your mother continues to dismiss your disclosure. Your life history is difficult for you to recount, but it is clear you have used drugs daily or near‑daily for the past 11 years, interrupted only by periods of incarceration.

1. A psychiatric report from Luke Armstrong dated 18 March 2025 was tendered at your determination hearing. In the opinion of Mr Armstrong you present as a clinical example of a significantly damaged personality. In his view, your exposure to early abuse, in addition to dysfunctional parenting attachments prevented your normal development, especially regarding a normal self-image and related capacity to properly develop within relationships and vocation.
2. Mr Armstrong noted that you were abused from age eight to 11. Your experience of family was also distressing and destructive to the development of a stable identity. Your mother was described as a cold, detached and unstable figure and you feared your father. To cope with your exposure to child abuse Mr Armstrong opines that you have learned to dissociate from a young age.
3. Additionally, in Mr Armstrong's view you began self-medicating mental health disturbances in your mid adolescence through your daily use of cannabis. You have developed a drug dependency through your 20s and 30s and replaced cannabis with cocaine, ice and alcohol at various times, invariably you have returned to regular daily ice use. Mr Armstrong found you to be in active addiction and suffering a stimulant use disorder.
4. Mr Armstrong was also of the view that you suffer from a severe borderline personality disorder. Your drug abuse is entwined with your personality making it appropriate to describe you as a dual diagnosis client.
5. It was the opinion of Mr Armstrong that despite your street wise veneer you are a significantly disturbed and vulnerable individual. The very nature of the sex work, given the fact that it is defined by sexual predators, drug abuse and other forms of abuse, has and continues to expose you to physical and psychological harm.
6. Mr Armstrong opined that your offending reflects your slow mental health deterioration over time along with your entrenched addiction. He considered despite your offending and prior convictions you are a vulnerable offender. The experience of multiple mental health disorders brings about complexities which would make imprisonment more arduous for you compared to a prisoner who does not present with a dual diagnosis. Further, given the unpredictable and conflictual nature of the prison environment it is likely to have a destabilizing effect upon you given your personality disorder. This is because of your difficulties in emotional regulation and potential to become easily overwhelmed. Consequently, Mr Armstrong opined that your mental health would tend to deteriorate over time in custody.
7. I accept the opinions of Mr Armstrong regarding the state of your mental health.

1. Your counsel submitted your childhood experiences of deprivation, abuse and neglect enliven the Bugmy principles in your case. The prosecution did not dispute that Bugmy had general application, however Ms Hogg submitted in the absence of a causal link between the offending and your personal circumstances it would be inappropriate to reduce your moral culpability.
2. On my assessment an examination of your personal history reveals that you suffered significant instability, childhood abuse and deprivation. As a child you were exposed to serious dysfunction within your family, abuse, to criminal behaviour and to drug use. In the opinion of Mr Armstrong this prevented you from developing a normal self-image, or a stable identity and has led to your significantly damaged personality. In my view Bugmy does have general application in your case. I accept that your experiences mitigate the sentence because [your] moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way.[7]

1. Your counsel, Ms Garde-Wilson submitted that you pleaded guilty at an early stage in proceedings. The charges against you were first issued in the summary stream and you had indicated a plea at a very early mention. Your case was uplifted to this court and at a filing hearing you indicated a plea and the matter proceeded by way of straight hand-up-brief. In the circumstances I consider your plea has utilitarian value in that you have spared the victims the need to give evidence, and the court the time and cost of a trial. Further your plea is evidence of your desire to facilitate the course of justice. I propose to allow a significant discount for your plea of guilty.

1. You are currently engaged in the Motivating Affect Self Control program through Odyssey House. For the last year you have been working with a psychologist which has enabled you to work on your mental health and reduce your substance use significantly. You are halfway through this program, and it is hoped this will be ongoing in some capacity whilst you are on the DATO. You have stable accommodation and good social supports. You have consciously set about removing anti-social peers from your friendship circle. In the past you have successfully completed corrections orders, particularly when you have felt supported. In my view this all bodes well for your future reformation.

Matters relevant to the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Determination Hearing

1. Your counsel, Ms Garde-Wilson, submitted that the court should impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. You have a drug dependency that contributed to the commission of the offending; you have been found suitable for a DATO by the Drug Court case manager and clinical advisor; the prosecution concede a sentence of four years or less would not be manifestly inadequate; you present with genuine prospects of rehabilitation; and a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order can provide the intense treatment and supervision you require.
2. The prosecution does not oppose the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order and submit that it is open to the court to impose such a sentence. Ms Hogg noted that each of the criteria were met and the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court reports have found you to be a suitable candidate.
3. The purposes of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are to facilitate your rehabilitation, take account of your drug and alcohol dependency, to reduce the level of criminal activity associated with drug and alcohol dependency, and to reduce your health risks associated with drug or alcohol dependency.[8] Importantly, if I am considering making such an order, I must regard your rehabilitation and the protection of community from you, achieved through your rehabilitation, as having greater importance than the other sentencing purposes such as denunciation and general deterrence. The principles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation and community protection remain important sentencing considerations.
4. My decision to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case has been informed by the assessment reports provided from the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court clinical advisor and case manager. Both have assessed you as suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
5. Clinical advisor Nicky Luo reported that you present with a long history of methamphetamine dependence, with heavy daily use prior to arrest, alongside intermittent use of cannabis, cocaine, MDMA and other substances. You scored 30 out of 44 on the DUDIT which indicates that you were likely to have been heavily dependent on drugs over the 12 months prior to your arrest. You have a complex trauma history involving longstanding sexual violence and coercion, and psychological assessments indicate a diagnosis consistent with Stimulant Use Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder. Although you have minimised some aspects of your substance use and psychological distress, you have shown positive engagement in therapy, including the MASC program, and have been abstinent while in custody. You also present with various physical health concerns including anaemia, psoriasis, and chronic pain.
6. Ms Luo's report concluded that you are motivated to change and would likely benefit significantly from the treatment and supervision available through the DATO program. You identified personal goals including improving your health, rebuilding family relationships, achieving stability, and returning to prosocial activities. Ms Luo considered you suitable for a DATO, noting that your rehabilitation prospects would be maximised with a structured, individualised treatment plan incorporating detoxification, possible residential rehabilitation, continued psychological intervention, structured AOD counselling, medical follow‑up, and vocational support. It is recommended that standard DATO conditions be imposed, including mandatory engagement with detoxification, medical, psychiatric, and psychological treatment as directed.
7. Case manager Lauren Coligan noted that you presented with a history of methamphetamine and cannabis use linked to mental health difficulties and periods of instability. You have experienced both successful and unsuccessful community corrections orders, with non-compliance in earlier years associated with unstable accommodation and personal distress. More recent engagement, including a successful order in 2023 and participation in Odyssey House's MASC program, demonstrates improved insight, stability, and reduced substance use. You currently reside alone in stable housing, maintain positive social supports, and demonstrate reflective insight into your offending, its drivers, and the lifestyle changes required to avoid reoffending.
8. In Ms Coligan's assessment you are motivated and willing to comply with the structure and treatment requirements of a DATO. You articulated a strong understanding of the order, expressed desire for rehabilitation, and identified the support and accountability provided through the Drug Court as beneficial. Protective factors include your stable accommodation, engagement with psychological support and the MASC program, pro-social friendships, and clear future goals around employment and a more stable lifestyle. A noted concern is your uncertain income during Phase 1 of a DATO, as you report variable earnings and reluctance to use Centrelink, prompting the recommendation that you provide a clear financial plan before sentencing. Overall, Ms Coligan concluded that you are suitable for a DATO, conditional upon providing an income plan, and recommended the order include curfew, residential, and driving-prohibition conditions.
9. The criteria for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are set out in s 18Z of the Sentencing Act 1991.
10. First the dependency criteria. I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are dependent on drugs or alcohol.[9] I have already outlined your substance use, which you have reported to multiple assessors for the purpose of this hearing. Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that on balance, the dependence criteria is established in your case.
11. Second the contribution criteria. I may only make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case if I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your dependency contributed to the commission of the offending.[10] The degree of contribution is not stipulated in the relevant legislative provision. Accordingly, in my view I must take a commonsense approach to this criterion to determine whether on balance I am satisfied that your substance use dependency played a role in the commission of your offending. It is accepted that you were drug affected at the time of your offending given your consistent daily use of methamphetamine. Accordingly, I am satisfied of the contribution criteria in your case.
12. In all the circumstances, I have concluded that I would otherwise impose a sentence not exceeding four years' imprisonment, and I have determined that it is overall, appropriate to place you on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.

1. In relation to the charges of attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception, obtain financial advantage by deception, use false document and possess identification documents you are convicted and you are placed upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. That order will commence today.
2. Ms Luo will be your Clinical Advisor and Ms Coligan will be your case manager. You will also be assigned an AOD counsellor. Your treatment team is listed on your individual treatment plan and you will be given a copy of that document shortly. Lauren Colligan who is one of the case managers from the Drug Court team is here in court today, you probably recognise her, and also Stephanie from VLA. VLA and OPP are part of the Drug Court team and you will see representatives from both of those organisations in the review hearings.
3. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order has two parts: there is a treatment and supervision part and a custodial part. The treatment and supervision part has two parts, so the treatment and supervision part has two parts and these parts are as follows:
4. There are core conditions - these are that:

(a) You must not commit, whether in or outside of Victoria, another offence punishable by imprisonment during the time of the order;

(b) You must attend Drug Court when required to do so;

(c) You must report to the Melbourne Drug Court House within two clear working days after the order is imposed,

(d) You must report to and accept visits from the members of the Drug Court;

(e) You must undergo treatment for alcohol and drug dependency as specified in the order or by the Drug Court;

(f) You must give notice of any change of address, at least two clear working days before the change, to a specified Drug Court officer;

(g) You are not to leave the State of Victoria without the permission of Drug Court; and

(h) You are to obey all lawful instructions and directions from the Drug Court team.

1. Those core conditions will operate for 2 years or until further order.
2. The program conditions are as follows: you must

(a) comply with the individual treatment plan dated 24 February 2026

(b) submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed;

(c) submit to detoxification or other treatments specified in the order as directed;

(d) attend vocational, educational and employment programs as directed;

(e) submit to medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment as directed;

(f) reside at an address in St Kilda Vic 3182;

(g) You are to comply with a curfew that you remain at your address between the hours of 9.00 pm and 6.00 am;

(h) you are not to drive a motor vehicle;

(i) You are not to use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation;

(j) You are to abstain from alcohol; and

(k) You are to do, or not do, anything else that the Drug Court considers necessary or appropriate concerning

(i) your drug and alcohol dependency, and

(ii) the factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.

1. These program conditions will operate for two years or until further order.
2. The custodial part of the DATO is the term of imprisonment that I consider appropriate, and it is a term of two years imprisonment and it is made up as follows.
3. Charge 1, using a false document, you are convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
4. Charge 2, obtain financial advantage by deception, you are sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.
5. Charge 3, obtain financial advantage by deception, you are sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
6. Charge 4, attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception, you are sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
7. Charge 5, obtain financial advantage by deception, you are sentenced to tenmonths' imprisonment.
8. Charge 6, obtain financial advantage by deception, you are sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
9. Charge 7, obtain financial advantage by deception (rolled up charge) you are sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.
10. Charge 8, attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception, six months' imprisonment.
11. Charge 9, attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception, six months' imprisonment.
12. Charge 10 (rolled up charge) possession of identification documents, six months' imprisonment.
13. Twelve months on Charge 7 is the base sentence and I make the following orders for cumulation. On Charge 2, two months, Charge 3, two months, Charge 4, one month, Charge 5, two months, Charge 6, two months, Charge 8, one month, Charge 9, one month and Charge 10, one month. By my calculation that comes to a total effective sentence of two years and that is certainly my intention.
14. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act[11], if you had not pleaded guilty and been found guilty after trial I would have imposed a total effective sentence of three years and four months with a non-parole period of 26 months.
15. I make the forfeiture and disposal orders as sought by the Crown. They were not opposed.

[7] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 [40].

[8] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 18(1).

[9] S 18Z(1)(c)(i) Sentencing Act 1991.

[10] S 18Z(1)(c)(ii) Sentencing Act 1991.

[11] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA.