DPP v Murphy [2025] VCC 1249

(a) Charge 1, spanned the period from 19 February 2021 to 17 December 2021 and involved 31 transactions totalling $12,820.15;

(b) Charge 2, spanned the period from 31 January 2022 to 22 December 2022 and involved 20 transactions totalling $34,628.72;

(c) Charge 3, spanned the period from 10 January 2023 to 22 December 2023 and involved 72 transactions totalling $79,807.11;

(d) Charge 4, spanned the period from 10 January 2024 to 26 April 2024 and involved 16 transactions totalling $20,831.74.

1. Your offending involved the creation of false documents to conceal your deception. These included invoices stating different balances to those which were, in fact, due and payable. You sent false invoices to clients to encourage them to make payments to ALG and would then pay some of the monies received from clients to yourself. You would then amend the invoices to show a lower balance than was actually the case and saved those amended false invoices to the ALG conveyancing system.
2. You had known and been a friend of Mr Andrews prior to working for him. Indeed, you had attended the wedding of Mr Andrews and Ms Taylor.[2]
3. In the course of the plea hearing, the Court was told by your counsel, Mr De Witt, that, in 2024, Mr Andrews offered you the opportunity to buy-in to his legal practice by purchasing shares in ALG for the sum of $470,000. You accepted this offer. You apparently obtained a $200,000 loan from a financial institution, SDK Finance, and paid $190,000 of the buy-in price to Mr Andrews. The balance of the purchase price was to be paid off periodically. Prior to entering into the agreement to purchase a share of the practice, you had been operating a business of your own, Murphy Family Conveyancing Pty Ltd. Unknown to Mr Andrews, Murphy Family Conveyancing Pty Ltd was experiencing financial difficulties.
4. The prosecutor, Mr Pickering, told the court that, on 22 April 2024, Mr Andrews received a telephone call from a representative of PWC stating that PWC had been appointed to act as the liquidator for Murphy Family Conveyancing Pty Ltd, which had been put into liquidation. In this conversation Mr Andrews was told that a letter had been sent to ALG on 3 April 2024 with a request that ALG provide the liquidator with information in relation to the agreement for the sale of ALG shares to Murphy Family Conveyancing Pty Ltd. The liquidator stated that, in response to that letter, PWC had received an email from you acknowledging receipt of their letter and stating that Mr Andrews and Ms Taylor were on leave until 16 April 2024 and seeking an extension of time until 19 April 2024 to respond. In fact, Mr Andrews and Ms Taylor were not on leave, had no knowledge of the correspondence from the liquidator, which you concealed from them, and you had no authority to respond to such correspondence on their behalf. When confronted with this by Mr Andrews on 22 April 2024, you immediately took sick leave and did not return to ALG until 1 May 2024. On that date you were placed on administrative leave by ALG. Following the conversation on 22 April 2024, your final act of obtaining a financial advantage by deception took place on 26 April 2024.
5. By letter dated 1 May 2024, Mr Andrews outlined his concerns about you having made misrepresentations to the liquidators without any authority, and inviting your response to what would amount to serious misconduct, the sanction for which could include potential instant dismissal.[3] On 2 May 2024, Ms Taylor advised that there were irregularities in transactions on the PEXA platform and, on that same day, in a conversation with Mr Andrews, you admitted that you had been stealing from ALG, and tendered your resignation.
6. Following your resignation, your access to all ALG's business accounts and the PEXA platform was revoked and an extensive audit was conducted to endeavour to establish the nature and extent of your offending. Once a preliminary investigation had identified your methods of misappropriation and that they involved quite a number of transactions, spreadsheets were provided to police in early May. Various conversations took place with you in relation to you repaying the monies. On 10 May you repaid a sum of $15,000 into the ALG trust account. Civil proceedings were instituted by ALG against you on 13 May 2024. An amount of $135,000 remained outstanding. You entered into a Deed of Settlement and, by email dated 10 June 2024, stated that you would be paying the balance of the monies in one payment, as your parents had obtained a loan to assist you. However, on 20 June 2024, you sent another email to ALG's solicitor stating that you needed an extension and were hopeful that it would be the next day or Monday when payment would be made. You followed this up with an email on 21 June 2024 stating that your parents' lender had accepted, but settlement would be pushed to the following week.
7. ALG's solicitor, Mr Kyle Ogden, responded that you had failed to honour the Deed of Settlement signed by you and that, unless you could provide genuine third party confirmation that the loan was taking place that day, then ALG would proceed to obtain Judgment against you. You responded that same day that you were just waiting for your parents to come back to you with the details. That email to Mr Ogden was sent by you at 2.26pm on 21 June 2024, however, there was no further correspondence from you offering to repay the balance of the money stolen by you.
8. You were served with a Statement of Claim on 27 June 2024.[4] Your counsel stated that, on 2 October 2024, judgement was entered against you in the sum of $141,683.34, which included indemnity legal costs.
9. Very soon after resigning your position at ALG, in June 2024 you obtained employment as a conveyancer with Shine Lawyers, in the same area, not far from where ALG conducted its practice. Your counsel stated that you consented to an order being made by the County Court to garnishee $488.00 per fortnight of your salary from Shine Lawyers. This became operative on 12 November 2024. Up until the date of the hearing, an amount of $9,308.31 has been repaid from your garnished salary. Taking into account the previous $15,000 repaid by you, only a total sum of $24,338.31 has been repaid, leaving the vast bulk of the money stolen from your employer still outstanding.
10. At the outset of the plea hearing an application to adjourn for a period of six weeks was made on your behalf. A letter was tendered from your mother, Joan Harper, dated 22 August 2025 in support of a six week adjournment so that your parents could obtain a loan to make full restitution to Mr Andrews.[5] I was told that your parents are in their seventies and both in receipt of a part age pension. Your father still does some part-time work. I considered that you had been given ample time to put in place arrangements for restitution. Further, instructions obtained from Mr Andrews were that he had no confidence that you would do so in the light of you not having honoured your promise to pay in accordance with the signed Deed of Settlement and your emails in June last year. Whilst acknowledging that restitution can be an important mitigating factor, this offer comes at a very late stage. The date for your plea hearing had been assigned four and a half months previously, on 4 April 2025. There is no clear guarantee that your parents' application for a loan would be successful and, given your failure to produce a loan from your parents in June last year, I determined that the application for adjournment should be refused and the matter should proceed. Your counsel maintained that you had decided that you did not wish to impose on your elderly parents last year, particularly as they had had some health issues, but this factor had never found its way into any email by you to the solicitor for ALG, as distinct from repeated promises to pay with delayed settlement.
11. On 25 October 2024, you were arrested and participated in a Record of Interview in which you made admissions to taking funds from your employer via the PEXA platform in your position as a conveyancer at the firm. You were asked your reason, apart from the financial gain, and you maintained that there was nothing else to gain from it and you had no drug or gambling problem.[6] You were asked what you did with the money and you responded "I didn't do anything extravagant. Couldn't - some of it helped pay my kids private school fees, yeah". You conceded that it would be fair to say that private school fees were quite expensive.[7] You agreed that what you were doing was wrong because it was not your money. You were asked whether you had any intention to pay back the money if you had not been caught or if they had not come to you, and you answered "most probably not, because then I'd have to explain to him what I had done".[8] You admitted to changing figures on invoices and that the false invoices would be kept on the system and that you were never questioned about it.[9]
12. The first filing hearing was held in the Magistrates' Court on 29 October 2024. There were three committal mentions which were adjourned, and on 4 April 2025 at a committal mention you indicated your intention to plead guilty and the matter proceeded by way of straight hand up brief to the County Court.
13. You are presently aged 44 years, having been born in March 1981. You come before the court with no prior criminal history. You met your husband when you were aged 22 years and have enjoyed a close and loving marriage for 21 years. You have 3 children, aged 15, 13 and 9 years.
14. In a plea on your behalf, a great deal of time was spent by your counsel, Mr De Witt, arguing that the principles of Verdins applied to reduce your moral culpability. Reliance was placed upon two reports authored by Ms Andrea McNeill, a psychologist with Ferrari Consulting Group Pty Ltd.
15. The first report, based upon a two-hour video link conference held on 23 January 2025 and dated 28 January 2025, had been procured because of your desire to make application for a Suppression Order due to what was described as your mental health destabilisation and continued high risk of suicide should your name and alleged offending details become public. You had stated that, as president of the local football club and your family's active involvement in it, you wanted to protect your children from experiencing shame, judgement and embarrassment and you reported a significant decline in your mental state since being charged, with symptoms that have been further exacerbated throughout the Court proceedings. You stated explicitly that, should your name and alleged offending become publicised you would attempt suicide and perceived a Suppression Order as affording a measure of relief.
    1. Although the author considered that your profile obtained on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory - Fourth Edition ("MCMI-IV") was of questionable validity because the elevated disclosure scale suggested potential over-reporting of symptoms, she considered the elevations to be reflective of a distressed state and legal circumstances. She made a formal diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and thought there also appeared to be "an indication of Borderline Personality traits", but further assessment was warranted. Her opinion was that you presented with current legal circumstances that have resulted in a destabilised mental state and a risk to self, on a background of "several years of mental health instability exacerbated by underlying Personality traits".[10] She considered that your risk of suicide was moderate to high, noting that your mental health had destabilised since your notification of criminal charges and proceedings. This report was successful in supporting your application for a Suppression Order in the Magistrates' Court, which was made on 12 February 2025 and expired on 12 March 2025.
    2. Ms McNeill reassessed you on 25 June 2025, again in a two-hour video conference. The purpose of her second assessment, at the request of your solicitor, was to address updates to circumstances that may be relevant to sentencing, such as any diagnosable condition related to your offending and whether this might impact on your ability to cope with imprisonment, any risk of deterioration in custody and treatment recommendations and prospects of rehabilitation. She embodied her opinion in a supplementary report dated 5 July 2025.[11] She noted that, since her earlier examination, you had commenced antidepressant medication, Sertraline 50 milligrams, in March 2025 with positive effects and had been engaging regularly with your general practitioner. You had seen a psychologist at Ferrari Consulting Group for six counselling sessions between 28 January and 18 March 2025, but had cancelled the seventh appointment and she noted that:

"A treatment summary advised Ms Murphy had engaged in a limited capacity with a preference to focus solely on her current crisis and risk to self. She had been unable to adopt any skills or strategies offered for distress tolerance".

1. She noted that you had reported that you are employed full-time as a paralegal at a law firm in Pakenham, but stated that you had experienced intense suicidal ideation and presented to a CATT team in March 2025 after a Herald Sun article revealed your offending. Following this, your antidepressant was increased by your general practitioner to 100 milligrams daily. Your mood was noted to be 7/10 and you considered the medication had improved your mental health stability. However, she stated that, although your psychological distress had improved significantly since January 2025, you still had elevated scores indicating severe depression and anxiety, moderate stress, and, overall, your total distress was still rated as extremely severe.
2. Ms McNeill then went on to administer the Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23). She stated "Ms Murphy's score of 1.83, which falls in the twenty-eighth percentile, is above the clinical cut off score, indicating a moderate probability of BPD symptoms. This is consistent with her heightened and excessive emotional response when feeling rejected, abandoned or unsupported, such as that shown in the death of her mother-in-law and the cessation of her relationship with her father-in-law".[12] Then, without listing the diagnostic criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder and relating what, if any, of those pertained to your situation, the author stated "Ms Murphy presents with symptoms consistent with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) referenced in the previous report (28/01/2025) as 'provisional'. This diagnosis is now considered confirmed." The author then went on to simply make the following statement, the symptomology of which was directly lifted from the DSM-5 Borderline Pattern Descriptor:

"Ms Murphy presents with features including a pervasive pattern of emotional and interpersonal instability, marked impulsivity and difficulties with self-image. Ms Murphy experiences intense and rapidly shifting moods, frequent feelings of emptiness, and a fear of abandonment that contributes to unstable relationships characterised by fluctuations between idealisation and devaluation. Impulsive behaviours, including self-harm, have been noted, particularly during periods of emotional distress, such as following the death of her mother-in-law and the rejection from her father-in-law. These features appear persistent across context, resulting in significant distress and impairment in daily functioning, aligning with the DSM-5-TR criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder".

1. What has been relied upon by the author in support of her diagnosis seems to be the following:

(a) "The cessation of her relationship with her father-in-law ... her mental health had destabilised significantly following the occurrence of perceived rejection/abandonment to the point she had self-harmed, sought medical opinion and commenced antidepressants. There is a clear indication that Ms Murphy's mental health had destabilised out of context to the circumstances".

(b) "She had inherent vulnerabilities associated with a sense of personal failure and a fear of rejection or abandonment. This fear may have been intensified by an ego-threatened state rooted in her Borderline Personality Disorder, which left her vulnerable to emotional dysregulation and poor decision making under stress".

1. There appears to be a great deal of speculation involved in the expression of opinion by Ms McNeill. Certainly, you have some documented mental health history prior to the offending, albeit limited. In her first report, Ms McNeill had noted that in 2020 you had said you had experienced extreme conflict with your father-in-law following the death of your mother-in-law, whom you had nursed with terminal cancer. This resulted in suicidal ideation and mental health follow up. You advised that this conflict remained current and unresolved, continuing to cause conflict with your husband's family.[13] Later in the report, the author noted that you had advised that you had cut your wrists after the conflict with your father-in-law and your husband took you to the local GP, but no stitches were required. The GP contacted the area Mental Health Crisis Assessment Triage Team and you completed a telephone assessment without further follow up. You had told her that you commenced Lexapro, an antidepressant, for several months, but then ceased it.
2. You told Ms McNeill that you had experienced intermittent suicidal ideation, which you had discussed with friends, and, at times, had driven to remote areas with intent to drive into a tree and that your husband would locate you and intervene. However, no suicide attempts were reported. This was simply accepted by the author without obtaining any collateral information from your husband or any other family members or friends. She then went on to state that you had advised that, in May 2024, after becoming aware of your current legal circumstances, you intentionally overdosed on various medications and drove to the house of your sister-in-law, who then called Emergency Services. You were transported to hospital via ambulance and remained there for 24 hours, having undergone a CATT Assessment on 15 May 2024, but had no further contact after 20 May 2024. This, of course, is after your offending had well and truly come to light. The author stated:

"It is noted in the CATT Discharge Report Ms Murphy presented an exaggerated version of events as destabilisation causal factors. This appears a reflection of the nature of her distress and destabilisation along with fear of exposure, driving a delusional presentation of facts which were likely driven by her level of shame and heightened anxiety".[14]

1. She noted that you obtained a Mental Health Care Plan in May 2024 due to "elevated risk to self and adjustment concerns pertaining to legal circumstances" but could not get into a public facility and, notwithstanding that you had private health insurance, ceased making any attempt to obtain a psychological appointment.[15]
2. I note that both in relation to the "exaggerated version of events" noted in the CATT Discharge Report and, also, the elevated disclosure scale suggesting potential over reporting of symptoms on administering the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory - MCMI-IV, Ms McNeill dismissed both of these as being reflective of your distressed state and legal circumstances, as distinct from any exaggeration designed to obtain a desired outcome, such as justification for your offending or the obtaining of a Suppression Order. Ms McNeill did not give any reason for her opinion on these factors.
3. In her second report Ms McNeill had stated:

"With regard to the description of mental health symptoms at the time of offending, Ms Murphy appeared uncertain and unable to provide a clear record of her experience during the period".[16]

Nevertheless, she seized upon GP records that gave a diagnosis of depression in 2020 with self-harm thoughts and commencement of antidepressant medication. I here interpolate that this medication was discontinued by you and the episode to which I have previously referred predated the commencement of offending by about a year.

"She exhibited minimal insight into her offending conduct and provided justification for her offending. She appeared unable to identify the precipitating factors relating to her offending behaviours. Specifically, she was unable to determine the relationship between her mental health and offending".[17]

1. I find the analysis of Ms McNeill leading to her diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder lacks a path of patent reasoning. She has focused upon two episodes of attempted harm or acting on suicidal ideation upon which she appears to have based her conclusion. The features with which she opines that you present and which she states contribute to unstable relationships and result "in significant distress and impairment in daily functioning" are simply not borne out by the evidence before the Court. You had a stable and loving childhood, you have a stable long term, supportive and loving relationship with your husband and your three children and you have an excellent work history (having worked your way up from a 20-year-old paralegal to a valued experienced conveyancing manager who was given significant responsibility). You gave a history of being involved in community sport until your thirties and, thereafter, through your children. There have been multiple testimonials tendered as to your significant community engagement as president of the Berwick Junior Football Club, together with letters from relatives and friends who attest to the close relationship they have with you. These include your husband, mother, cousin and friends of several years. The authors speak of your kind, compassionate nature, your connection with others and involvement in the community, how approachable and helpful and hardworking you are and, of course, the high esteem in which you were regarded such that you were made the president of the Berwick Football Club.
2. The evidence before the Court does not support Ms McNeill's assertion that you have demonstrated "a pervasive pattern of emotional and interpersonal instability". Your offending certainly shows no impulsivity. It was planned, careful and methodical, and there is no indication in your very stable childhood and ongoing loving family life with your husband and children and your friendships, that you have a fear of abandonment that contributes to unstable relationships. It is not true to say that you have suffered significant impairment in daily functioning. You have been a successful career woman, wife, mother and high profile community contributor, with many friends and supporters.
3. Following the conclusion of the plea hearing, in case I had missed some important information supporting Ms McNeill's diagnosis, I requested that defence provide copies of a number of documents which had been referred to and relied upon by her in her reports. These three documents were emailed to my chambers on 27 August 2025.[18] In chronological order, they are as follows:

(a) The first document is a discharge summary from Monash Health for a presentation at 12.55.43 on 15 May 2024. The history recorded was as follows:

"43F presenting with acute polypharmacy OD with acute SI in context of life stressors

> Kate is a lawyer and partner in a firm of 2 - last few months has experienced breakdown of personal/professional relationship and decided to recently end partnership (my emphasis). (I here interpolate that it is untrue that you decided to end the partnership. You were forced to resign because of your dishonesty.)

> Low mood and ++ stressors in context of this - nil formal previous Dx but had had Lexapro (Escitalo) prescribed to her during COVID in context of ?difficulties with father-in-law

> Was served process papers this AM by ex-partner informing of their intent to sue Kate

> ++ distress, overwhelmed and decided to on impulse OD on medications available to pt at home in attempt to end own life" ...

> "Nil previous SI, nil past Psych Hx or attempts

> "Feels safe at home and well-supported by partner and family."

The risk assessment noted that you had had one thought of suicide in the last 24 hours and that you had "nil immediate plan" and had not been taking a lot more risks lately. The history or previous attempts noted no formal diagnosis, but that you had previously been prescribed Lexapro by a general practitioner. The current stressors were said to be the upsetting events as noted above, job/unemployment, legal issues (my emphasis). Your general practitioner, friends, family and partner were said to be protective factors with your family being a strong protective factor.

The discharge plan noted that "today's visit" from the process server included papers that your business partner had frozen all your bank accounts and there was a court case coming up on 21 May 2024. This was said to be the trigger for your overdose. You were asked whether you would "be talking to someone in M/H if none of this was occurring for [you]" and your reply was "No".

The discharge summary noted that you needed to be observed for 12 hours because of your Tramadol ingestion, but, if you lived with a responsible adult, you could go home that night. You were medically cleared without any prescription medication being noted. You requested to be discharged and this occurred just after midnight (at 00.45 hours on 16 May 2024).

(b) The second document is a letter of referral with an attached mental healthcare plan from Dr Hui-Qi (Angel) Liang at Langton Medical Centre in Dandenong to Ms Julie Brown, clinical psychologist, dated 21 May 2024. The reason for the referral was because of your recent overdose in the context of a life stressor, that your business partner in your law firm is suing you (my emphasis). It would appear that you had been treated by this practitioner since 1993 and there is no reference to any presentation for mental health issues in 2015 as mentioned by your counsel. It does mention that, on 2 April 2020, you were seen for depression and self-harm thoughts, but there is no further reference to any presentation for any mental health issues until the date of 15 May 2024 (that is, your presentation at Monash Health Emergency Department).

The mental healthcare plan gives a diagnosis of "anxiety and depression. Post OD with suicidal intent." The pre-disposing factor is noted to be "breakdown of personal/professional relationship with business partner in law firm" and the precipitating factor is noted to be "business partner is suing her and had frozen her assets". Your risk was noted to be moderately high, and the aim was to reduce anxiety, sleep better, monitor mood and self-harm risk. You were to be reviewed after six sessions with the psychologist. However, there has been no material tendered that you ever attended any treatment with Ms Julie Brown, psychologist, and no evidence has been tendered that you attended that general practitioner for further review. (I here note that this is a different practice from that of your current general practitioner, Dr Rohana Welikumbura, who provided a mental healthcare plan in January 2025 due to depression and entertaining ideas of harm).[19]

(c) The third document is headed "30/6/2025 - notes received from a Alessia Mattia - FCG treating psychologist". Alessia Mattia is the psychologist with Ferrari Consulting Group with whom you had had six sessions of counselling between 28 January and 18 March 2025. The notes record that you had another session booked, but cancelled it, and Ms Mattia is unsure why. Her notes go on to state:

"... she's been extremely emotional throughout all sessions however it hasn't felt meaningful on my end. She answers all questions and speaks openly about her struggles, however we've not managed to go beyond this by way of taking on any distress tolerance skills or coping strategies in general. ... She's also appeared dismissive of the impact of her past on her current mental health and functioning, and has voiced not being overly comfortable exploring these areas. (my emphasis) ... Overall Kate is obviously in the very early stages of treatment and has been difficult to engage in any work regarding coping skills - I think our time together was just being able to hold the space for her feelings towards her legal situation and the impact it's had on her and her family."

1. These three documents support my view that it cannot be shown on the balance of probabilities that you were suffering mental health problems as a causative factor of your offending. Notwithstanding that your counsel submitted that the passing of your mother-in-law, whom you had supported through palliative care until she died on 5 April 2015, "triggered a sharp deterioration in your mental health ... and ultimately deteriorated to the point of suicidal ideation", you did not seek any treatment for mental health. Certainly, there is mention that you presented to a general practitioner in 2020 with depression, but not that you had cut your wrists and the prescription of Lexapro is not noted. However, there is nothing to support your counsel's submission that "Between 2020 and 2024, Ms Murphy experienced ebbs and flows in the intensity of her mental health issues. She recalls periods where her mental health would stabilise before something trigged her again. She existed in a state of fear concerning this unpredictability."[20]
2. What the documents do make clear is that your presentation to the Emergency Department of Monash Health on 15 March 2024 following an overdose was directly related to what had transpired following your dishonesty being discovered, albeit that your history recorded on presentation is untruthful, namely that "last few months has experienced breakdown of personal/professional relationship and [you] decided to recently end partnership_"_ (my emphasis). Nowhere did you disclose that you had been stealing from your employer for over 3 years, that it had recently been discovered and that that was why the partnership came to an end. Furthermore, contrary to all the theorising by Ms McNeill, the notes made by Ms Mattia make it clear that you did not believe that anything in your past had impacted on your current mental health and functioning.
3. It was only when you presented to Monash Health on 9 February 2025 with suicidal ideation, albeit no plan or intent, that you revealed the background of legal proceedings where you had been charged with theft from your previous employer and the stress associated with the court case and potential media exposure. Your past history was recorded as:

"Seen by CATT 2020 briefly with superficial deliberate self-harm relating to relationship conflict. Another brief CATT episode in Sep 2024 after she took a superficial overdose in relation to being served with legal paperwork relating to current legal situation with ex-employer".

1. The diagnosis on 9 February 2025 was that it was a situational crisis with the main issue being about your charges and then potentially being reported in the media (my emphasis), but you denied an actual plan or intent and you were assessed as having nil acute risks. It was noted that you were engaged with your general practitioner and a psychologist and a mental health nurse, and you denied any acute risks and were happy to continue with those community supports.
2. These documents support a conclusion that the mental health issues relied upon by you are essentially reactive to your dishonesty having been discovered and the legal and reputational consequences that flowed from that, not due to longstanding unstable mental health or borderline personality traits or a disorder. Hence, although you have experienced some depression in the past, I do not accept that over the period of your offending you were suffering a mental impairment which had a realistic connection with or caused or contributed or was causally linked to your offending so as to attract the application of principles 1 to 4 in R v Verdins.[21]
3. At the plea hearing, Mr De Witt stated that you could not explain the reason for your offending. However, I note that there is a theme of grievance against your employer. This is mentioned briefly in your Record of Interview when you were asked about what had happened after you paid the sum of $190,000 to buy into ALG and you stated "he was keeping all the profit of whatever my percentage was".[22] Further, in her first report, Ms McNeill noted that you gave the following history:

"Ms Murphy expressed experiencing significant levels of stress and performance pressure, noting that there was high staff turnover due to frequent conflict with the employer and business owner. Ms Murphy expressed being significantly negatively affected at times, explaining, 'there were days he made me cry ... I felt he was pushing me in roles I wasn't employed to do. There were instances of verbal abuse ... he would swear at me'. Ms Murphy stated this behaviour was known to others, stating the employer's wife was the practice manager who would attempt to minimise and apologise for the employer's conduct".[23]

1. In her second report, Ms McNeill recorded that:

"She noted that she had been 'promised' a range of financial advancement incentives that had not materialised. She reported feeling frustrated and disillusioned and taken advantage of' by her employer. Her employer had purchased another office, and she felt left in charge without any financial or formal status recognition, explaining 'I was just left to run everything'".[24]

Ms McNeill went on to repeat the history that you had endured excessive mistreatment from your employer, but, nevertheless, decided to buy into the practice. She then noted:

"Ms Murphy stated that once the partnership was consolidated she felt 'nothing changed' and 'things didn't go to plan'. Recalling, she continued to do the same role with the same responsibilities and title. She denied feeling disgruntled about the lack of acknowledgement, given that she was now a partner".[25]

However, this was followed up with a claim that you continued to experience aggression and hostility from your employer and would be asked to send negative emails to clients on his behalf.[26]

Then, came a telling piece of history. Ms McNeill recorded:

"Ms Murphy acknowledged that she now recognises a reciprocal dynamic in which she believes her employers took advantage of her, and she, in turn, took advantage of them".[27]

1. I have no doubt that you do suffer depression, anxiety and stress and that you have been very distressed, but my overwhelming impression from the evidence before me is that this is caused by the offending and subsequent legal situation in which you have found yourself.
2. Although I have found that limbs 1-4 of Verdins are not applicable in the sentencing process, I do accept that you have experienced depression, anxiety, stress and distress reactive to your offending and your legal situation. You are a person who has never had any contact with the criminal justice system and a person who suffers anxiety and depression in custody is likely to find it a more burdensome experience than someone who does not, particularly noting that it is a completely and utterly unfamiliar experience for a person of former good character like yourself. I note however, that you have disengaged from your limited psychological treatment with Ms Alessia Mattia albeit that you have been assisted by antidepressant medication in the lead up to your hearings in the criminal jurisdiction.
3. Ms Murphy, I believe you are in no doubt as to the gravity of the offending for which I must sentence you. In the email you sent to your victim's solicitor, Kyle Ogden, on 20 June 2024, you stated "My stress levels are through the roof and I'm worried of [sic] the further repercussions". In an email sent to Mr Ogden on 21 June 2024, you stated "I do not want to go to jail".[28]
4. This offending involves a serious and protracted breach of your employer's trust. You were a valued and competent conveyancing manager and knew that your transactions on PEXA and your work, generally, were not scrutinised. You were so highly regarded that, at some stage during the period of offending, you were offered the opportunity to buy shares in AGL. The trust that Mr Andrews reposed in you was backed up by the friendship you had had with him even before commencing your role at AGL. Further, your counsel conceded that, at some stage while you were committing the offences, you had become aware that Mr Andrews suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a consequence of having been engaged in military service for Australia. Mr De Witt also conceded that, during the period of offending (possibly during 2023), you had become aware that Mr Andrews had been diagnosed with cancer. Hence, your offending involved a terrible breach of trust in your professional capacity, as well as a breach of the friendship of some years with Mr Andrews.
5. Your offending did not involve an isolated error of judgement on your part but, rather, a series of calculated and persistent acts of dishonesty over a period of three years and two months whilst you were a trusted employee. There was no regularity in the amounts which you misappropriated which might have attracted the attention of your employer. Most of the amounts comprised a few hundred dollars, but there were multiple appropriations of sums over $1,000, many of them close to $2,000; two over $2,000 and one which comprised $14,000 (which forms part of Charge 2).
6. The portion of your offending which related to misappropriated funds of clients was reimbursed personally by Mr Andrews, with interest. He had to suffer the professional embarrassment of contacting those clients to inform them of your offending. He also had to provide details of your offending to the Legal Services Commissioner, Professional Standards and the firm of accountants who acted as trust account auditors (even though it was ultimately established that you had not misappropriated monies from the firm's trust fund).
7. Apart from the serious breach of the trust reposed in you by your employer, your conduct undermined the confidence that members of the community should be entitled to have when they entrust sums of money, often very large, to solicitors for important property transactions. Although you transferred the stolen money into bank accounts in your own name, the calculated course of conduct over such a long period, involving deliberate acts of dishonesty and falsifying of documents to conceal your deceptions, are aggravating factors. The difficulty in detecting such fraudulent activity is another reason why these offences are so serious.
8. Even after Mr Andrews confronted you about the liquidation of your conveyancing company on 22 April 2024 and you placed yourself on sick leave, you committed a further misappropriation on 26 April 2024, four days later. Understandably, your access to the firm's system and all its records was ceased so that no further misappropriations by you became possible.
9. The higher courts have repeatedly emphasised that, in sentencing for your style of offending, there needs to be a predominant emphasis by courts on denunciation and general deterrence. The latter means that, in sentencing you, this Court must send a clear message to others who might be minded to breach their employer's trust, as you did, that they will meet with appropriate punishment.
10. It is plain from the Victim Impact Statement filed by your victim, Mr Andrews, together with letters from his treating psychologist and general practitioner, that the impact of your offending upon him has been profound. He states that he already suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of his military service and was physically vulnerable from treatment for cancer. Your betrayal caused him to experience an extra layer of intense psychological distress. He and his wife had to spend hundreds of hours auditing thousands of legal files, trust account records and other office documents in order to work out the nature and extent of your offending. This caused an enormous emotional and financial burden. This burden was made worse by having to embark on civil proceedings to attempt to recover the stolen funds and, when you ultimately agreed to a settlement, you defaulted.
11. Apart from Mr Andrews having to repay clients and provide all relevant material to professional bodies, he stated that other consequential harm occurred. After the breach of the contract for purchase of shares in the practice by Murphy Family Conveyancing Pty Ltd (personally guaranteed by you), the liquidators of your conveyancing company instituted legal proceedings against Mr Andrews' family trust to recover that portion of money which you had already paid in order to buy into the practice. Although this proceeding was ultimately settled through mediation, Mr Andrew's family trust incurred $160,000 of legal costs. I here interpolate that these proceedings by the liquidator are not actually a consequence of your criminal offending. However, in the light of his declining health, Mr Andrews was ultimately forced to sell the practice for significantly less than it was worth due to the loss of goodwill and client confidence created by your offending.
12. Mr Andrews is now 61 years of age and had hoped to retire free of debt and with the security of savings. He states that you have destroyed the financial stability of himself and his wife and have deprived him of the secure retirement for which that they worked for decades.
13. Attached to the Victim Impact Statement is a letter from Mr Andrews' general practitioner, dated 2 July 2025. Dr Atkins states that he has read Mr Andrews' Victim Impact Statement and its contents confirm his own observations, namely, that Mr Andrews has required medical support in managing profound anxiety with other debilitating consequential symptoms. He states that there is no cause for these other than Mr Andrews' unsurprising psychological reaction to the circumstances.
14. Also attached to the Victim Impact Statement is a report dated 5 July 2025 from Ms Knapp, Mr Andrews' treating psychologist. She writes of Mr Andrews' vulnerability due to his cancer diagnosis and treatment while you were stealing from his legal practice, and how he had been devastated by the betrayal. She states that his Post-Traumatic Stress symptoms have been exacerbated and he suffers severe depression and high levels of anxiety and agitation, and other distressing consequential symptoms. Further, Mr Andrews is emotionally overwhelmed and distressed by the impact of the offending on his wife's emotional health. She stated that Mr Andrews had described himself as an "emotional wreck" after having been betrayed by you, a trusted family friend and work colleague. She opined that, "As with most veterans and police who suffer PTSD, letting people in and trusting people is hard and to have to 'let this person in' only to have her 'stab him in the back' has left him 'gutted'."
15. In arriving at the sentence which I intend to impose, I have taken into account the following matters in mitigation:

(a) When challenged by Mr Andrews with an allegation of dishonesty, in a telephone conversation on 2 May 2024, you admitted that you had been stealing from AGL and its clients, albeit that you did not reveal the nature and extent of all of your offending at that time. When interviewed by police on 25 October 2024, you made general admissions as to your dishonesty and gave some examples to describe the system that you had used to steal money and acknowledged that you had paid the misappropriated funds into your Westpac bank accounts. You were unable to state when you had commenced offending, but did not take issue when police put to you that it was 19 February 2021. You were unable to comment upon the individual dates, sums and client names involved in your fraudulent transactions.

You pleaded guilty on 4 April 2025 at a committal mention and the matter proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief to the County Court. You are entitled to a discount for the utilitarian benefit of your pleas of guilty at an early stage, having spared the victims having to give evidence and the time and cost of a trial.

(b) Your counsel submitted that you have demonstrated true remorse, as evidenced by your admissions, plea of guilty, repayment of a small portion of the stolen money, and the testaments to your remorse in Ms McNeill's report, letters from referees and a letter of apology to the court dated 13 August 2025.[29]

I accept that you have shown some remorse, but not full and total contrition, given the multiple criticisms of Mr Andrews' character and conduct to which I have earlier referred in these sentencing remarks. These indicate an attempt to justify your actions. I acknowledge that in Ms McNeill's second report, she noted that, ultimately, you did concede that you had placed your employer "in a difficult position" and put him through "a lot" which was "not fair" and had betrayed him, acknowledging that, in spite of conflict, you were friends.[30] This expression of remorse was made in the context of a report which you knew was to be used at the plea hearing in mitigation of sentence. The same applies to your letter to the court dated 13 August 2025. Generally speaking, expressions of remorse in this context will be afforded little weight. However, I have allowed some discount on your sentence attributable to some remorse given your early admissions and pleas of guilty, even though your expression of it seems to have only come after some delay.

(c) You have made some attempt at restitution by paying an initial $15,000 to Mr Andrews which apparently helped him to reimburse some of the clients whose money you had stolen. However, your subsequent failure to honour your promise to repay, as contained in a signed Deed of Settlement, and multiple subsequent broken promises contained in the emails to Mr Andrews' solicitor, resulted in Mr Andrews having to institute legal proceedings. Following the entry of judgement, you agreed to part of your wages at Shine Lawyers being garnisheed to offset the debt. However, this is a relatively small amount of less than $500 per fortnight and the amount outstanding is still substantial. Nevertheless, you are entitled to have the restitution which you have made taken into account in sentencing.

(d) Although I have rejected that you suffered a mental impairment which was causally related to this offending, I nevertheless take into account as part of your personal circumstances that you seem to have limited coping skills when stressful circumstances occur. This was demonstrated when your father-in-law severed his relationship with you and the rest of your family following his wife's death. You apparently suffered reactive depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation, which manifested itself, again, when you presented to Monash Health Emergency Department in 2024 and earlier this year (even though those two emergency presentations were due to the stressful consequences of your offending, particularly the criminal proceedings against you).

I have expressed my view about the inadequacy of Ms McNeill's report in terms of her diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder and I also have reservations about you having suffered depression and anxiety of any significant magnitude that contributed to your offending. I do not find that there is cogent evidence to support that these were enduring conditions during the time of your offending, given your high level of functioning in the family, at work and in the community. I accept that you have suffered anxiety and depression reactive to your offending and being charged. However, your mood has improved with some limited counselling and the prescription of antidepressant medication by your current general practitioner, with which you have been compliant.

I note that a Mental Health Advice and Response Service review conducted on 27 August 2025 by clinician, Gregory Lane, in association with an assessment for your suitability for a Community Correction Order, states that, at present, you have a "mild to moderate mental health problem", you have no current self-harm or suicidal ideation plan or intent, have identified protective factors and are future focused, are prosocial in attitude, and have appropriate insight and judgement into your mental health. Indeed, he stated that you showed no signs of "hopelessness, helplessness or worthlessness". Although you stated you were anxious about the prospect of going to prison, you had "prepared [yourself] practically" for that event. This is a stark contrast to Ms McNeill's assessment of you in her second report that you are a "persistent risk to yourself with enduring suicidal ideation without plan or intent" and that you stability could "rapidly deteriorate during heightened crises and stressful instances".[31]

The court acknowledges that a person with mental health problems by way of depression and anxiety, even if they are reactive to their own offending, carries a greater burden when serving a term of imprisonment than those who do not have such mental health problems. This factor, together with your lack of familiarity with the prison system, is likely to make your term of imprisonment more onerous than for someone who does not have such problems. Hence, I consider that, in sentencing you, it is appropriate to give some weight to limb 5 of Verdins.

Whether limb 6 of Verdins should apply is less clear, even though you currently do not appear to be at "heightened risk" if incarcerated, as Ms McNeill opined. In her second report, Ms McNeill stated:

"Should Ms Murphy be incarcerated, she will warrant immediate and ongoing risk management pertaining to self-harm and suicidal ideation. This could be expected to intensify upon initial incarceration and, with appropriate psychological and psychiatric management, to dissipate as she adjusted to her new surroundings. Her level of risk will fluctuate without notice and be crisis oriented."

Given your unfamiliarity with a prison environment and your lack of development of "distress tolerance skills or coping strategies" referred to in the summary of your treating psychologist, Ms Mattia,[32] there probably will be some increase in your anxiety and depression if imprisoned, and some weight should be given in sentencing to limb 6 of Verdins' case.

(e) You have already suffered some form of extra curial punishment as a result of the online Herald Sun article published on 13 March 2025 with a heading "Audit Reveals Years of Alleged Fraud by Berwick Junior Football Club President Kate Murphy". Although the content of the article actually identified that you had been accused of embezzling more than $150,000 from your former job at a Pakenham law firm, apparently many who saw the headline believed that you, as President of the Berwick Junior Football Club, had stolen funds from the football club itself. Your whole family were heavily involved with that club, for whom your children played, and your children and you were apparently the recipients of nasty remarks and social exclusion. You subsequently resigned as club president. Some allowance for this extra-curial punishment should be made in the sentencing process.

(f) Your counsel stated that the finance institution, SDK, which had made a loan of $200,000 to you for the purpose of buying into AGL, apparently obtained satisfaction of that debt by winding up your business, Murphy Family Conveyancing Pty Ltd, and, in March 2025, sold the family home, which you and your husband had purchased and in which you had lived in for 18 years. This caused you and your husband and three children to find rental accommodation.

Your counsel stated that you still owe money for this debt. You feel enormous guilt and shame for what you have put your husband and children through. Your husband, in a letter to the court, stated that should you receive a custodial sentence, the impact on him and the children will be immense, as he is a tradesman who commences work most mornings at 5.00am or 5.30am, and he would not be able to get the children to school. Further, in the event that the family were to lose your income from your current conveyancing position, he expressed fear that he will not be able to provide for the children and may need to move in with your parents.

Your counsel made plain that the sale of the family home was not as a consequence of the offending for which I must sentence you. He did not elevate any potential family hardship in the event of your incarceration to exceptional circumstances. However, I accept that, whilst in custody, you are likely to feel extra anxiety about the welfare of your family and how they are coping because of their reduced circumstances without your income.

(g) Prior to the commencement of this offending on 19 February 2021, you had led a blameless life for 40 years. You are entitled to have the court take into account your former good character, as attested to by the many references in Exhibit "6", to which I have referred earlier in these sentencing remarks. In his written submissions, your counsel stated that you had held various roles with your local football club where your children now play and, over the three years in which you served as president before standing down earlier this year, you had contributed 15-20 hours of voluntary work each week. Also, you volunteer at your local park run every few weeks as a time-keeper.

The fact that you had, for so long, led a decent, law-abiding life and had contributed to the community and have no prior convictions, is of relevance in sentencing in that the offending seems to be out of character for you. I do give it some weight, particularly in relation to assessing your prospects of rehabilitation. However, the mitigatory weight to be afforded to your otherwise good character has to be balanced against the lengthy period of offending and the number of transactions, and the fact that this type of offending against an employer necessitates emphasis in sentencing upon denunciation and general deterrence.

(h) Your counsel, Mr De Witt, has submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent, given your lack of prior offending, lack of alcohol, drug or other addictions, prosocial lifestyle with supportive family and friends, and a good work history. However, these factors existed prior to your offending, and the reasons for your offending have not been made clear - save for suggesting in a general way that there was financial pressure of some unexplained type, with expenditure of some of the stolen money on private school fees for your children. In subsequent written submissions, Mr De Witt suggested other family expenses during the offending, but those had not been identified by you at any earlier time. Mr De Witt made clear that it was not suggested that the offending was motivated by poverty.[33]

You have engaged in some post-offending treatment for your anxiety and depression by taking antidepressants and attending six counselling sessions. The limited counselling sessions have been primarily focused on helping you navigate your way through the stressful process of being before the courts on these serious criminal charges, rather than addressing any factors which may have led to your offending, which remain something of a mystery.

The prosecutor, Mr Pickering, in further written submissions filed on 28 August 2025,[34] states that you told Mr Meyer, who assessed you for suitability for a Community Correction Order, that you now "actively avoid being in positions of financial control ... and have 'learnt' from the experience and pro-actively avoid recidivism". However, according to further written submissions filed by your counsel,[35] you have not been in any position of financial control in an organisation since this offending. Hence, as Mr Pickering submitted, you have not had any opportunity to "pro-actively avoid recidivism". Moreover, following your conviction for these offences, it is unlikely that you will be given an opportunity to be in a position of financial trust again. Given that factor, the assessment by Ms McNeill and Mr Meyer that your risk of re-offending is low is not as meaningful an indicator of your rehabilitative prospects as it might otherwise be. However, I accept that being charged for this offending and now known as a criminal has been a confronting lesson for you to undertake and hopefully it will act as a deterrent to future offending. I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as reasonable and have taken this into account in the sentencing process.

1. The Court was never told when you had commenced your business, Murphy Family Conveyancing Pty Ltd, what earnings you had made from that business, and how it came to be placed in the hands of a liquidator not very long after you had committed to an agreement to buy a share of ALG's business. No details were provided as to the nature and extent of indebtedness or as to the value of the family home and what encumbrances were upon it prior to you taking out the $200,000 loan from SDK Finance.
2. In your letter of apology to the Court you offer no explanation for your offending, and, as previously stated, Ms McNeill had recorded that you "appeared unable to identify the precipitating factors related to [your] offending behaviours".[36] When assessed for a Community Correction Order, you mentioned to Mr Meyer that you reported "some depression, at the time, which impacted [your] offending". I here note that the offending spanned 3 years and 2 months and there is no objective evidence that you attended for any mental health treatment during that time or that your daily functioning was impaired. I have been unable to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you suffered any mental health impairment at the time of offending which was causally connected to it. I have also previously mentioned the evidence of some grievance you had against Mr Andrews which you seemed to use to justify your behaviour. Even were it true, this could never be an excuse for you helping yourself with such regularity to monies that were due to ALG or ALG's clients. Nor could any financial pressure in your private life justify or excuse you going back time and time again to steal from your employer and the clients of ALG.
3. There is no real explanation as to why you offended in this dreadful way, which involved such a breach of trust to your employer and a friend. This is a very unsettling and concerning fact. Moreover, your offending only came to an end after Mr Andrews learned of your cover-up of the appointment of a liquidator having been appointed to Murphy Family Conveyancing Pty Ltd, rather than because you voluntarily desisted. These factors, along with the period of offending, the large number of transfers and the cover-up of your offending for so long, together with the devastating impact upon Mr Andrews, cause me to conclude that the sentence of last resort, a term of imprisonment, must be given for at least some period. This is necessary so that members of the community know that courts take such offending very seriously, and other would-be offenders are given a warning, and that victims, like Mr Andrews, might feel some vindication for the wrongdoing to them.
4. Having said that, I accept that your offending has resulted in a spectacular fall from grace of someone who was regarded as a decent, family-oriented and community-oriented person, who had the respect and support of family, friends, and the extended community. I have no doubt that you have felt the destruction of your good reputation very keenly, and the distress that you have experienced through now being known as a criminal has been very real. I note that you had tried to cover it up when you presented to Monash Health Emergency Department on 15 May 2024, claiming that you had decided to leave the firm because of conflict with your employer.
5. According to the history taken by Ms McNeill, you seemed to be aggrieved that the consequences of your dishonesty did not end simply with your employer taking civil proceedings against you, ostensibly oblivious to the ethical obligations of the principal of a firm who has discovered financial misdeeds by an employee of his business. Nor did you acknowledge your dishonesty to Shine Lawyers prior to commencing employment with them in June 2024. They only became aware of the situation because you were arrested at their legal premises and because of the ensuing publicity by the Herald Sun.
6. However, by the time you re-presented to Monash Health on 9 February 2025 with suicidal ideation, you gave an honest history that your mental distress was due to having been charged in relation to this offending and your fear of publicity. Although you sat in court and permitted Mr De Witt to advocate at extraordinary length that your conduct was due to long-term serious mental health issues and, in particular, a borderline personality disorder, when assessed yesterday by the Office of Corrections for suitability for a Community Correction Order you identified to the mental health practitioner, Gregory Lane, that you had "experienced stress, distress, social exclusion, worry and uncertainty secondary to [your] offending behaviour (my emphasis). [You] acknowledged that [your] offending behaviours had negatively impacted [your] victims, [your] husband and children. [You] reported that [you had] experienced a reduced appetite and issues initiating and maintaining [your] sleep pattern. [You] denied experiencing any physical health or cognitive issues that impact [your] ability to attend to [your] activities of daily living." The latter is of course in stark contrast to the "significant distress and impairment in daily functioning" alleged in Ms McNeill's report in July this year.[37]
7. I consider that the intense shame you have felt from having committed this offending, and particularly the impact that it has had and will continue to have upon your family, has taught you something with which you are learning to live, so there appears to have been some progress in your thinking since this offending. Certainly, you have complied with anti-depressant medication which has helped you, albeit that you have disengaged from psychological counselling.
8. Weighing up all of the factors, although I consider that some term of imprisonment is warranted, I have concluded that the appropriate sentence is such a term combined with a Community Correction Order with some unpaid community work and mandated treatment conditions for your depression and anxiety as well as any programs to reduce offending which may be considered suitable.
9. In determining the length of the term of imprisonment, I am conscious of how anxious you will be about being removed from your family into a totally unfamiliar prison environment. I am also conscious that your three children and your husband are going to suffer further through your absence, and that you will worry about their welfare. I consider that some mercy for them is warranted in determining the term of imprisonment which I impose.
10. Noting that all four charges upon which you must be sentenced are rolled-up charges involving multiple transactions and comprise a series of offences of the same or a similar character, I consider it appropriate to impose an aggregate sentence by way of imprisonment, together with a Community Correction Order.
11. On Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 112 days, and you are also ordered to undertake a Community Correction Order for a period of three years.
12. The terms attached to the Community Correction Order are as follows:

(a) you must not commit, whether in or outside Victoria, during the period of the order, an offence punishable by imprisonment

(b) you must comply with any obligations or requirements prescribed by the regulations

(c) you must report to and receive visits from the Secretary during the period of the order

(d) you must report to the Community Correction Centre specified in the order within two clear working days after the order coming into force

(e) you must notify the Secretary of any change of address or employment within two clear working days after the change

(f) you must not leave Victoria except with the permission, either generally or in relation to a particular case, of the Secretary

(g) you must comply with any direction given by the Secretary that is necessary for the Secretary to give to ensure that you comply with the order.

1. In addition, the following conditions apply to the order:

(a) over the period of the order you must perform 400 hours of unpaid community work

(b) you must undergo assessment and treatment for psychological conditions of anxiety and depression

(c) you must undergo any program that is recommended to address factors relating to your offending behaviour.

1. I direct that 50 hours of any mental health treatment undertaken by you during the term of the order be credited towards the hours of unpaid community work required to be performed by you under this order.
2. Ms Murphy, you must understand that I cannot make a Community Correction Order unless you consent to it, bearing in mind that it will commence upon your release from custody after serving the sentence of 112 days. Are you prepared to consent to such an order?

HER HONOUR: Ms Murphy, you must understand that in the event that you contravene the Community Correction Order, unless you have a reasonable excuse, that, in itself, is an offence which is punishable by three months' imprisonment. Should that occur, it is likely that you will be returned to the court and face the risk that the Community Correction Order will be set aside and, instead, you will be sentenced to a term of further imprisonment. Do you understand that?

HER HONOUR: Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act I state that, had it not been for your pleas of guilty, the total effective sentence imposed would have been three and a half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.

[2] Answer to question 46 in Record of Interview conducted on 25 October 2024, Exhibit "9".

[4] Exhibit "D" contains the email chain referred to.

[6] Answer to questions 156 and 157 in Record of Interview, Exhibit "9".

[7] Ibid. Answer to questions 162 and 163.

[8] Ibid. Question and answer 169 in Record of Interview.

[9] Ibid. Questions 202 to 210 and answers in Record of Interview.

[10] Page 11, paragraph [127] of report dated 28 January 2025, part of Exhibit "2".

[20] "MFI-1", page 4, paragraph [28].

[21] (2007) 16 VR 265.

[22] Exhibit "9", Record of Interview, question 154 and answer page 20

[30] Report dated 5 July 2025, page 6, paragraph [74].

[31] Exhibit "2", second report, page 11, paragraph [114].

[32] Notes of Ms Mattia provided to Ms McNeill, dated 30 June 2025 - part of Exhibit "11".

[33] "MFI-C", page 3, paragraph [20].

[36] Report dated 5 July 2025, page 8, paragraph [93].

[37] Part of Exhibit "2", supplementary report dated 5 July 2025, pages 11-12, paragraph [115].