DPP (Cth) v Politopoulos [2020] VCC 338

1. Each of these charges arises out of your conduct in deceiving the Commonwealth agency, Centrelink, to divert payments due to other people into bank accounts for your own benefit. You also obtained an advance on benefits in the names of each of those people.
2. Charge 1 arises from your conduct over an eight-week period in mid-2016. On 8 June 2016, you telephoned Centrelink posing as a man named Francis Dunlop who was in receipt of the Age Pension. You requested that his pension be paid to a bank account which was yours, and also requested an advanced payment. The Centrelink service officer processed your requests, and amounts totalling $4,352.15 were deposited into your account until Mr Dunlop attended a Centrelink office, reporting that he had not received any of his pension payments since June. It is not known how you obtained his personal identification details to deceive the Centrelink officer.
3. There is no victim impact statement from Mr Dunlop, but I note that he was at the time aged in his 80s, and clearly non-receipt of his pension was sufficiently serious for him to attend the Centrelink office in person to report and resolve the matter. I am satisfied the experience caused him considerable stress.
4. The next offending did not commence until nearly two years later. That gap coincides with a period of 20 months' imprisonment which you served from August 2016[1]. [I interpolate here, that I shall footnote some details, and section numbers and case references rather than reading them out in full.]
5. On 18 July 2018, you telephoned Centrelink posing as your uncle, George Politopoulos, who was in receipt of the Age Pension. You knew enough of his personal details to convince the Centrelink officer that you were him. You provided an explanation, untruthful, as to why you could not provide his Centrelink customer reference number. You arranged for his pension to be diverted into another bank account to which you had access. It was in fact a bank account of another victim of yours, although how you obtained access to it is unclear. Again, you requested an advanced payment of the aged pension for Mr George Politopoulos. and the officer approved that request.
6. You made four further contacts over the next few weeks, confirming when the next payments of benefits would be deposited, and about a month later called Centrelink again posing as your uncle and requested a change of bank account details to another account which was in your name. A total of $13,700.38 of Age Pension payments due to your uncle were deposited into the accounts to which you diverted it, and you took the benefit of that amount. Almost a year later, you contacted Centrelink, again posing as your uncle and asking for an advanced payment, but were told that all payments to George Politopoulos had ceased earlier that year when he was assessed as no longer eligible.
7. You subsequently gave as your reason for this part of your offending that you did not like your uncle.
8. Charge 3 arises from your deceptions leading to the diversion of Age Pension and Carer allowance payable to Mr Raymond Jeffree, who lived in your street. You had been inside his home and used that opportunity to obtain some of his details. On 28 August 2018, you telephoned Centrelink posing as Mr Jeffree, initially giving variations in spelling of his surname, but apparently convincing the Centrelink officer that you were him and you requested that his benefits be paid into a bank account in your name. You also requested an advance payment. Those requests were processed and approved. The following week, Mr Jeffree contacted Centrelink because his pension had not been paid into his bank account and the changes were discovered. A total of $1,389.45 of his benefits had been deposited into your account.
9. I gave leave under s.16AAA of the _Crimes Act (_Cth) for a victim impact statement to be tendered, written by his wife. It sets out that as you resided two doors away from their home, they knew you, and you had been into their home. I accept that as pensioners the initial absence of the payment and then learning how it had been achieved by you was very distressing to Mr Jeffree and his wife.
10. Charge 4 arises from a similar deception in relation to Ms Maree Colvin. In December 2018, you contacted Centrelink, and weaving a story in relation to having a first name that was male but often mistaken for a female name, you convinced the Centrelink officer to replace Ms Colvin's contact details with your own phone number. Surprisingly, that officer gave you Ms Colvin's Centrelink customer reference number. You then telephoned Centrelink again, presumably talking to someone else, and using the customer reference number you had obtained, requested a change of bank account for her pension payments, again to a bank account in your name. You also requested an advance payment which was also processed and approved. Payments were made over the next six months of Ms Colvin's pension into your bank account.
11. In June 2019, you telephoned Centrelink, again posing as the pension recipient Colvin, requested another advance payment, but were told there was no such entitlement until 20 June. You rang back on 20 June, and achieved that next advance payment. Again you wove a story about the first name and gender. You continued to receive payments of Ms Colvin's pension until

22 August 2019 which was shortly before your arrest. The total paid to you in respect of Ms Colvin's benefits was $17,484.90.

12. A victim impact statement from Ms Colvin's sister was prepared. She also holds Ms Colvin's power of attorney. I did give leave under s.16AAA for her sister as a member of her family to make a victim impact statement, but as I pointed out during the hearing, most of its content is not relevant to this charge as it refers to other intrusive behaviour of yours towards her sister, or is the opinion of its writer. Even without that statement, I am satisfied that by diverting Ms Colvin's pension for more than a year, you placed her under serious financial stress which caused her real anxiety.
13. Charge 5 is based on your diversion of $1,388.10 of Disability Support Pension payable to a Mr John Harris. It is unclear how you obtained information about him, although I note you had access to a bank account in his name. On

4 June 2019, you telephoned Centrelink posing as Mr Harris and requested a change of his bank details to your account, and also an advance payment. Both requests were processed. It is unclear how that came to an end, but it must have been discovered quite soon after the initial diversion, given that the total so diverted including the advance payment. There is no VIS from Mr Harris, but again I am satisfied that your offending will have caused him stress.

14. Charge 6 relates to your actions in diverting Disability Support Pension payments of Ms Kathleen Smith to one of your bank accounts. Ms Smith shares a home with Ms Colvin, and both of them had been befriended by you through attendance at the same church. Subsequently both obtained Intervention Orders against you, due to your intrusions into their home and repeated requests for money from them, but that is not the conduct the subject of any charge here.
15. On 3 June 2019, you had telephoned Centrelink posing as Katherine Smith but an account matching those details could not be found. Three weeks later you tried again, this time using the name K Smith, and changed the contact details to your own phone number and requested a change to your bank account for payments. You again wove a story as to having a name that sounded like the female name Katherine. You again requested an advance payment and that was again processed and approved. Ms Smith noticed at the end of the month that her benefits had not been paid into her bank account, attended a Centrelink office, and the change of banking details was found and of course disowned by her. A total of $3,087.30 of benefits for her had been deposited into your account.
16. When subsequently interviewed about this matter, you said you had not known whether Ms Smith was on Centrelink but telephoned at random to try it. You also explained that you thought Ms Smith and Ms Colvin had taken out an intervention order against you because, to quote you, 'They just got sick of me asking for money'. These comments suggest that you were well aware of their circumstances and deliberately took advantage of their generosity. You explained your obtaining of Ms Smith's payments as being due to you needing some money to gamble.
17. Ms Smith prepared a Victim Impact Statement with the assistance of her care coordinator, and I accepted it on that basis as being written by her, albeit with some assistance. She states that she first met you at a tram stop and helped you out with some money. She felt vulnerable as you had continued contact, and continued to ask for money, but she never expected you to take all of her money. Your offending has left her feeling frightened to help anyone else, and she has become anxious and frightened to trust in people she has not met before.
18. Charge 7 arises in relation to Disability Support Pension payments of a Mr Neil Gray, which you diverted to an account in your name. On 29 July 2019, you attended at a Centrelink service centre posing as Gray, and requested the change of bank account as well as an advance payment. The service officer processed both requests. The following day you telephoned Centrelink again posing as Gray and said you were following up on the previous day's visit and confirmed that the advance payment would also be deposited into your bank account. Two weeks later you again telephoned Centrelink posing as Mr Gray. Your initial attempt to change the bank account into which the pension would be paid on that occasion did not succeed, but later in the day another call made by you did.
19. Later that month, Mr Gray tried to withdraw cash from his own bank account but on finding there were insufficient funds, attended a Centrelink office and learned that his banking details had been changed. The total amount you obtained of Mr Gray's benefits was $2,568.40. When subsequently interviewed, you said you had found Gray's bank card in Richmond and used that to access his bank account details, and that the bank teller had given you Mr Gray's birthday and address. I am not in a position to know whether that was true or not.
20. There is no victim impact statement from Mr Gray, but again I am satisfied that you caused him stress and concern when he found his account did not contain his expected benefit.
21. The total amount you obtained through these deceptions was $43,970.68. Most of that was pensions or benefits due to the seven people I have named. The advance payments you requested in respect of each of them would have resulted in a debt for that amount raised against the recipient's account. Therefore, your dishonest conduct not only diverted payments then due to them but also incurred further debt for each of them.
22. Although an alert staff member at one of the Centrelink offices initially detected you using a false name on 11 January 2019, the investigation of all of these matters took eight months. Following detection of your offending, Centrelink reimbursed each of the seven individuals whose pensions you had obtained, and reversed any debts for the advance payments. Therefore the total of $43,970.68 was borne by the Commonwealth.
23. You were arrested and interviewed in relation to these matters on 6 September 2019 and have been remanded in custody ever since. Up to but not including today, that is 25 March, on my calculation that is 202 days which is six months and almost three weeks. That presentence detention will be deducted from the sentence I impose as time reckoned served.
24. While your interview did not reflect much in the way of remorse or contrition, you did admit a number of matters. After that you pleaded guilty to these charges and that was at an early opportunity.
25. I turn now to your personal circumstances.
26. You are now aged 58. I have been told very little about your personal circumstances other than that you are of Greek heritage. I gather that you grew up in Australia, although I am not sure whether you were born here or in Greece. I am told that your father is elderly and in ill health and lives in Greece, and that your mother died many years ago.
27. You have a brother in Melbourne who has operated a successful business and for many years has been a support to you including arranging a home held on trust for you so that you will always have secure accommodation. Your brother was not in attendance at your plea hearing, and did not provide any material to be tendered. I was told that he has reached the point of no longer offering his active support because of your ongoing offending.
28. I have no information about your education or whether you ever trained for any occupation. My impression, largely based on how you achieved these deceptions, is that you are intelligent, but I have no information as to whether you have put that intelligence to particular use, other than the achieving of the various deceptions that bring you before courts.
29. I am told that you have been on a Disability Support Pension since 1983, which I calculate to be since you were aged 21 or 22. I assume that was because you have longstanding mental health problems, although a document records that the diagnosis of schizophrenic affective disorder was made when you were aged almost 30. I am also informed that you suffer from longstanding emphysema.
30. There have been no medical reports about you provided in this case.
31. At the start of the hearing, and before even arraignment occurred, I asked your lawyer whether an adjournment was going to be sought to obtain medical reports or other such material. I explained that in the current circumstances when future hearings in the court are so uncertain, I would not start the hearing if it was likely to be adjourned part heard for a lengthy time, such as the time usually required to obtain such reports. I then stood the case down for about 40 minutes to allow time for you and your lawyer to discuss whether to ask for such an adjournment. I was told after that time that you wished to proceed with the hearing on that day.
32. The only material produced about any professional assessment of you in the justice context was a report dated 4 December 2018 to the Magistrates' Court as to your suitability for CISP, that is the Court Integrated Services Program, if granted bail. That report set out that you reported being diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder approximately 20 years ago, and had a current diagnosis of schizophrenia and were receiving depot injection of medication fortnightly. You said you were compliant with treatment and recalled hospitalisations in the past under your local area mental health service.
33. The referral to the CISP assessor listed issues relating to alcohol, problem gambling, physical health, and anger management, but you denied any current or past problems with those. It was noted that your brother holds power of attorney for you, and owns the house in which you live. You were recommended for CISP if granted bail.
34. Your lawyer did not tell me what followed from that report, or any further engagement with CISP. I note that your offending in relation to Ms Colvin commenced in December 2018, so I infer that you must have been granted bail or otherwise sentenced and released at about that time or soon afterwards.
35. You have a long criminal history, starting with antisocial behaviour in your mid to late 20s. In January 1991, a suspended sentence was imposed for breach of an intervention order, criminal damage and recklessly causing injury when you would have been about 30 years old. I take that to be about or soon after the time when you were diagnosed with a schizophrenic disorder. The breach of intervention order matter seems to have returned to court over the following two to three years on several occasions.
36. You also faced courts for offences of dishonesty over many of the intervening years. I am not going to set out all of those details, but some are particularly relevant when I look at the manner of the sentence or the type of sentence and what has occurred since. In 1992, for burglary, theft, handling stolen goods and obtaining property by deception, as well as wilful damage and unlawful assault, you were sentenced to a suspended sentence. For further offences, particularly involving obtaining by deception, you were sentenced to a partially suspended sentence in 1995. Further charges of dishonestly have followed over many years, often attracting short periods of imprisonment, or relatively short suspended sentences, some of which were breached and restored but others not.
37. What is noteworthy is that in 2001 you were placed on a Community Based Order for 12 months, with the only program condition being to perform 50 hours of unpaid work. That was for offences of dishonestly including attempting to obtain property by deception and using and making false documents. I note that no other conditions were imposed on the CBO than the unpaid community work, and in particular none dealing with your mental health problems. You breached that CBO and were sentenced to four months' imprisonment but that was wholly suspended. Further offending followed in 2003 of similar nature.
38. In May 2007, you were sentenced to six months' imprisonment for a number of dishonesty offences, and a note of custody management issues included reference to your psychiatric illness, and that you were then on a community treatment order for schizo affective disorder. So May 2007 is the first mention in the criminal record of your offending of you suffering from a mental health disorder.
39. In July 2008, you were sentenced to an aggregate 15 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months, for dishonesty offences including again obtaining property by deception and making a false document. In 2009 for further similar dishonesty offences, you were sentenced to three months' imprisonment partially suspended for two years and it was noted that you were, 'Said to suffer schizophrenia'. From that I infer that that Magistrate had no evidence of that condition. In 2011, the suspended sentence was wholly restored and a 12-month aggregate imposed for further offending with a non-parole period of six months. You were before courts again in 2014 for dishonesty offences, again imprisonment was imposed, and a custody note about your being diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia and very poor lung capacity due to emphysema.
40. On 8 December 2016, you were sentenced to a total of one year and eight months' imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed at 12 months, this time not only for theft and obtaining by deception, but also on a charge of sexual assault. A custody note was again made that you were schizophrenic and should be assessed for antipsychotic medicine. It was also noted that you were an alcoholic, had a gambling addiction, emphysema and that all reasonable assessment and supervision was recommended. I was told by your lawyer that these offences arose out of an incident where you met a young disabled woman on a train, from whom you stole her wallet and bank card, and whom you also took to a nearby public toilet and sexually assaulted.
41. The last part was offending of a different character from any you had previously engaged in. I was also told that you did not obtain parole on that sentence.
42. When I take into account the presentence detention that was declared reckoned served, I calculate that you were arrested for those matters in about August 2016, which explains much of the gap in the offending that brings you before me, that is the period from late July 2016 until July 2018.
43. In acknowledging your long record of offending, your lawyer said that you do have a long history of befriending vulnerable people, gaining access to their houses or wallets, and from whom you then stole or obtained property by deception. As I read your criminal record, most of the previous charges were under state rather than Commonwealth laws, so it may be that you had not previously defrauded a Commonwealth entity, but had offended directly against the various people from whom you stole or obtained by deception.
44. It is clear from what the records show of your criminal history and from the nature and multiple instances of the offending before me, that you are entrenched in your readiness to obtain money from other people using whatever dishonest or deceptive methods you have to hand, or you had found worked, and that you have a complete disregard for the impact on those people even though many of them have been trusting and vulnerable.

1. Under s.16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the court must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence. That principle includes that the sentence should not be any more severe than would adequately take account of all sentencing purposes and principles.
2. Under s.16A(2), I must take into account various matters if relevant in your case. [I shall not mention each subparagraph or case names but will footnote them in the revised reasons as I have already mentioned.]
3. First, I must take into account the nature and circumstances of the offence[2]. In doing this, I must assess the objective seriousness of the offending and your role and level of personal blame. I have already described the circumstances of each offence and your role and where known, the impact on the person whose benefits you diverted.
4. Fraud against a Commonwealth entity is a serious offence, as is reflected by the maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment which applies to each charge here. Courts have repeatedly stated[3] that in most instances where the deception is deliberate, and sustained, a term of imprisonment will be warranted to adequately convey to the community at large that offending of this type will not be tolerated and will attract serious punishment. That principle is the principle of general deterrence. The sentencing purpose of general deterrence is of paramount importance in sentencing on such matters.
5. You appear to have devised and carried out each of these offences yourself. The amounts obtained by you were not large compared with many other instances of this type of offending, but there were several features which in my view make it considerably more serious than the monetary sums reflect.
6. They were clearly not spur of the moment or impulsive, brief acts of dishonesty. You maintained your deceit and intention to defraud for each of the seven recipients' benefits until such deception was discovered. In two instances, that was for about 12 months.
7. There was clearly some preplanning involved as you obtained information about individuals and also enough information about how Centrelink operates to know what types of requests can be handled by telephone enquiries and with what degree of private information of the client or benefit recipient they can be achieved. You were brazen enough to pretend to be each of those other people, and quite cunning if not sophisticated, in changing contact details, deflecting questions about why you did not have a client reference number, and also you wove false stories in respect of some of the accounts which were in female names and pretended that you had a similar sounding male name.
8. You followed up with later calls or enquiries in relation to some - on occasions because an officer had not immediately agreed to your request, or to change bank accounts, or the check when payments were due, or to make a further request for an advance when that might be able to be obtained. As at

July 2019, you were pursuing multiple deceits at the same time, trying to obtain the benefits of four or five other people while also receiving your own disability support benefit.

9. These were not just deceits against a very large and impersonal government agency. Although many people consider social security fraud as victimless crime, it is not that, because ultimately the whole Australian community is indirectly affected by such fraud, both through government finance considerations, and because public confidence in the social security system is undermined.
10. However, as well as defrauding the whole Australian community in these ways, you in fact targeted seven individuals, some of whom you knew personally having befriended some for this purpose, and one being your uncle and another a neighbour. You knew they were all vulnerable in different ways. While they eventually received reimbursement from the Commonwealth, in the short term they were denied the money payable to them, and in some instances they became anxious on finding that that money was missing from their accounts and that there was not enough money to make withdrawals that they needed to make. Most people in receipt of these types of social security benefits are heavily dependent on them for their day to day living expenses. You undermined their expectations and sense of security, such as it is, about receiving such benefits from the system. [4]
11. Further, there is nothing to indicate that you engaged in this offending out of need for basic living expenses. I am told that you had accommodation supplied to you, through your brother and a family trust. You were in receipt of your own disability support pension for more than 20 years. You apparently wanted more money because you gambled, and your other explanations to investigators included that you wanted some of it to give away or to spent it on a lady friend. That may or may not have been true, but none of those purposes reflects the type of need which leads some people to commit such offences.
12. Therefore, although the total value of the offending is not nearly as high as in many other cases that come before the courts, your culpability, that is your blameworthiness, is higher than that of many others who commit social security fraud, and in my view, considerably higher than the amounts that were taken, reflect.
13. Further, somewhat surprisingly for someone acting on your behalf, your lawyer told me that your history of offending includes targeting and befriending vulnerable people and obtaining access to their homes, information about them or directly their purses or wallets in order to directly or indirectly steal from them.
14. So, all of those matters go to your role and the nature of the offending.
15. I do take into account that each of the offences was of a similar nature and achieved in very similar manner and although there was almost a two-year break between Charge 1 and the rest of the offending, for much of which you were in prison, all of the offences were, in my view, to be taken as part of a course of conduct consisting of a series of criminal acts of very similar character[5].
16. The principle of totality means that I should assess the overall seriousness of the total offending, and considerable concurrency in the sentences on each will be warranted, although there should be some cumulation to reflect the seven individuals whose payments you diverted. So, although the Commonwealth bore the loss, there were separate victims of each of the seven offences.
17. I have already mentioned the victim impact statements[6] on behalf of three of the victims, and will not say further about them, or the expected impact on recipients of social security payments being entirely diverted for the periods they were[7].
18. I must take into account the degree to which you have shown contrition[8]. Frankly, I find little, if any, expression of contrition, except that some may be reflected through your having pleaded guilty to these charges and I will say a little more about that shortly.
19. I do take into account that there has been some repayment of moneys[9], whether or not that was voluntary. I am told that after the 2016 offending, a demand for repayment of that amount was made on you, and that repayment was commenced by way of deductions from your ongoing Disability Support Pension. A total of $2,852.72 was deducted up to September 2019 when you were remanded in custody. While those deductions were being made, you were offending again. I am satisfied that at least Charges 5, 6 and 7 and quite possibly all of Charges 2 to 7 were being committed while deductions for repayment of the offending under Charge 1 were being made. I therefore do not consider that the fact of repayments reflects any contrition by you, but I have taken into account that there has been that partial repayment.
20. I must take into account in your favour that you have pleaded guilty to these charges[10]. From the chronology, I take the plea to have been indicated at an early opportunity, and as no application for bail was made following your arrest last September, it is consistent with your acknowledging your responsibility for this offending from the time you were charged. By saving the need for a trial, you showed a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. It has also been of considerable utilitarian value[11] as it has spared your victims and the family members or other carers or people supporting them, the inconvenience and stress of giving evidence in court. Given the age and vulnerability of the seven victims, this deserves tangible reduction in your sentence.
21. Next, I must take into account your character, criminal history, age, means and health[12]. I have already said that you are now aged 58. I have already referred to your prior criminal history, and insofar as that is to be taken as reflecting your character, it reflects entrenched disregard for the law, for other people's property, and the impact of your deceptions on them. That there was no one to speak of any good qualities in your character or past is sad, but I can only judge you on what evidence or information is before me.
22. I am told that you have long been diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizo affective disorder, although as I have already said, no medical report was produced and I have no evidence of that mental health diagnosis. It is consistent with what appears in custody notes as part of your prior sentences since May 2007. I am surprised that there have been no mental health assessments prepared for previous cases, if not for this one, but I cannot speculate on what might have been in any such assessments were they before me. It is also rather surprising if such a diagnosed condition was not made known to courts before 2007, and that there was no condition for assessment for treatment for a mental health disorder under a CBO imposed in May 2001. Nevertheless, as I say, I can only go on the materials I have.
23. I am prepared to accept that you have been diagnosed with that mental heath disorder. However, I have no evidence about if or how it might have been effecting you at the time of the offending for which I am sentencing you, or indeed while you have been in custody. I would need evidence of your condition and any impact it had or is currently having on you, before applying any of the principles set out in Verdins' case or similar authorities in mitigation of your sentence. Having offered you the opportunity to adjourn the hearing for some medical material or assessment of you to be obtained, and having been told after consultation with your lawyer that you wanted to proceed with the plea hearing, I cannot speculate on what a psychiatric assessment or information about compliance with medication might have disclosed.
24. In accepting that you do suffer from a longstanding mental health disorder, I have taken into account that it gives some context to your criminal history, and life history to the minimal extent that I know of it. However, there is nothing to explain why you committed these offences, apart from you telling police of wanting money for gambling or to give away, or to spend on a lady friend.
25. I am told that the depot injections of medications described in the CISP assessment had ceased by the time of most of the offending, that is Charges 2 onwards. I am told that you were under a medication regime prescribed and supervised by another GP at another clinic for the period between your last release from custody in 2018, and your present remand in September 2019. I am told that you were compliant with that medication. As I have said in describing your offending, you were capable of planning and carrying out successive deceptions on Centrelink officers, following up for further changes or advance payments, and weaving excuses for apparent discrepancy of gender. You sustained some of these deceptions over many months. Those features do not suggest psychotic disordered thinking, and I have no evidence of a connection between your offending and your underlying mental health disorder, nor the effect of medication or lack of medication on your thinking or ability to concentrate and follow through on your plans.
26. You are presumably on medication prescribed while you are in custody, although again I have no evidence of that. There is nothing to suggest that your mental health is being exacerbated or is likely to deteriorate while you are in custody.
27. Also without medical confirmation, I am told that you suffer from emphysema. Your lawyer told me at the very end of the hearing last week, that you are particularly concerned in the current circumstances of a global pandemic related to the respiratory illness known as COVID-19, that you are vulnerable in prison to contracting this virus, and think you are particularly susceptible and likely to be badly effected if you do contract it.
28. As I mentioned before I commenced sentencing reasons, on Monday of this week, the Court of Appeal expressed the expectation that issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic will arise in relation to sentencing decisions in all courts, but the situation is uncertain and rapidly evolving and without material concerning the impact of the virus on the Corrections system, the Court of Appeal was hesitant to express a general statement of principle. It did accept that the situation is causing additional stress and concern for prisoners and their families as it is for every member of the community[13]. The extent that it is to be taken into account will be a matter to be resolved on the particular facts of any individual case.
29. I have taken into account that due to what I am prepared to accept is diagnosed emphysema, even though I do not have medical information confirming it, that you are particularly worried about contracting that virus, and that that is weighing more heavily on you and making your experience of imprisonment more onerous than were you otherwise healthy. However, I have no evidence about your condition or any likely impact on you were you to contract this virus. There is no present information available to me or as far as I know in the public domain, that there has yet been any person in the Victorian prison system who has been diagnosed with that virus. I cannot speculate on how much more at risk your health might be than any other prisoner on the information I have. It may even be that you are as well, if not better isolated from the virus in prison, in particular if there are no other people diagnosed with it in the prison where you are being held, but I do not make that finding either because, again, I have no information sufficient to make such a finding.
30. I am not prepared to find that the current crisis in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic is sufficient reason to warrant your immediate release from custody, or to outweigh all other sentencing factors, but as I have said, I accept that it is causing you added concern and I have moderated your sentence to an extent to take that into account.
31. The nature and extent of this offending requires, as I have already said, general deterrence to be an important sentencing purpose[14] as well as adequate punishment. Specific deterrence[15], that is the sentencing purpose of discouraging you from further offending is of equally high importance in my view, due to the multiple instances of similar offending over this period, that is the period of the charges with which I am dealing and your long history of offences of deception and dishonesty and even further because I am told that many of the prior offences included your selection of vulnerable people from whom to steal or whom to defraud.
32. At your age, rehabilitation[16] is not usually a significant sentencing purpose and apart from pointing out that you have not been able to access any programs to address gambling problems while you have been in custody and that you do not acknowledge that you abuse alcohol, so no other available programs would be of use. There is nothing to indicate that you are committed to trying to substantially change your life or change your ways when released from prison.
33. Finally, I must have regard to current sentencing practice for offences of this type. In doing so, I must take into account Australia-wide practices to apply consistency in sentencing on Commonwealth offences of which these are instances, as a yardstick[17]. The prosecution brought several cases to my attention including the Court of Appeal of Victoria case of Milne. The prosecution submitted, however, that circumstances of your case are unique and not readily compared with any of those other cases. I have considered the cases brought to my attention, but in any event no two cases are ever identical and there are features that make the circumstances of yours quite different from each of those other cases.
34. Under s.17A(1) of the Crimes Act, a court must not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless having considered all other available sentences, the court is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. It was conceded on your behalf that the circumstances here and your prior criminal history mean that imprisonment is warranted but I was asked to take the time you have so far spent in custody, namely just over six months, as sufficient, or alternatively with little further time required.
35. I was also asked to consider making the sentence one of time served to be followed by a community corrections order. For reasons already outlined, I consider that the seriousness of the manner in which you offended makes you more culpable than many other offenders against the welfare system who have received no more than a few months' imprisonment as their sentences. I was not prepared to order a community corrections order to follow imprisonment. First, because as this is a Commonwealth sentence, s.44 of the Sentencing Act Vic) does not enable that to follow a sentence of up to 12 months' imprisonment [18]. I consider that a longer period than you have already served in prison is required.
36. I am satisfied not only that no other sentence than imprisonment would adequately meet sentencing principles, but also that some further time in prison is required than you have already spent. As I have already said, I have taken into account as a significant mitigatory factor, that you pleaded guilty to these charges and did so early, that the total amount obtained by deception was moderate, that is $43,900, and as I have also said that due to the most unusual health crisis that is prevailing throughout the world but in particular taking into account the state of Victoria and with it the Victorian prison system, that you are feeling more concern at present due to your health and susceptibility to the COVID-19 virus.
37. I turn now to impose the formal sentence. I will not ask you to stand,

Mr Politopoulos, as we are connected by video-link.

38. Vasilios Politopoulos, on each of these seven charges, you are convicted.
39. On Charge 1, you are sentenced to five months' imprisonment commencing today that is 25 March 2020.
40. On Charge 2, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment commencing 25 July 2020.
41. On Charge 3, you are sentenced to four months' imprisonment commencing 25 April 2020.
42. On Charge 4, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment commencing

43. On Charge 5, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment commencing 25 April 2020.
44. On Charge 6, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment commencing 25 May 2020.
45. On Charge 7, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment commencing 25 June 2020.
46. That creates a total sentence of 19 months' imprisonment. I order that after serving nine months of this sentence you be released on recognisance to be of good behaviour for 10 months, with a security of $1,000.
47. I declare 202 days of presentence detention reckoned served, that is on my calculation almost six months and three weeks. So, you will be due for release in a little over two months and one week's time.
48. I must explain recognisance release to you. It is the Commonwealth's version of what used to be in Victoria, either a suspended or partially suspended sentence. In this case, it is the equivalent of a partially suspended sentence. You have been sentenced to a total of 19 months' imprisonment. You will only have to serve nine months of that actually in prison provided after your release you do not commit any breach of the sentence in the following 10 months. After that nine months of which, as I have said, over six and a half months has already been served because I have declared it reckoned served, you will be released from prison. However, for the following 10 months you must be of good behaviour, and if you commit any further offence in that time that could be punished by imprisonment, then the balance of your total sentence - the total sentence of 19 and the balance is 10 months - is likely to be ordered to be served, but that will be up to a court to decide. Do you understand that?
49. OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
50. HER HONOUR: All right, I formally direct pursuant to s.17A(2)(b) that these reasons be entered in court records.
51. I move then to the vexed question of whether I should specify what is referred to as "the discount for the plea of guilty". I was urged by the prosecution to do so. I have on other occasions expressed my hesitation to do so when sentencing in a purely Commonwealth matter, and whether that interferes with or is inconsistent with the instinctive synthesis that must be applied in deciding a sentence.
52. However, I am prepared in this case to state that had there not been pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a total sentence of 28[19] months' imprisonment with recognisance release after 18 months.
53. Finally, I make a reparation order in favour of the Commonwealth for the balance of the amounts that you dishonestly obtained. The total for that I understand to be $41,117.96. It will no doubt await your release from prison and whatever Commonwealth benefit you might be on for the Commonwealth to work out what repayments to seek.
54. MR BAYLISS: Yes, Your Honour.
55. HER HONOUR: All right, now, I am just going to pause and let everybody check details. I am going to go through one by one. Am I correct in calculating the presentence detention to be 202 days?
56. MR BAYLISS: Yes, Your Honour.
57. MR DEPASQUALE: Yes, Your Honour.
58. HER HONOUR: All right, now, as to the structure of the sentence, if you want me to repeat any of those details, I will. I have obviously imposed a separate sentence on each charge with its specific commencement date and the commencement dates achieve the cumulation I was intending. I get it to a total of 19 months but I will give you both a couple of minutes to check that.
59. MR DE PASQUALE: Yes, Your Honour.
60. HER HONOUR: Yes, I think I used the word surety. I mean the security bond.
61. MR DE PASQUALE: The recognisance, Your Honour, yes. The recognisance amount, yes.
62. HER HONOUR: Yes. Yes.
63. MR DEPASQUALE: Sorry, Your Honour, I missed that amount.
64. HER HONOUR: A thousand dollars. Mr Politopoulos. I meant a, they call it a recognisance bond. You do not have to pay that amount but if you breach the bond, if you are not of good behaviour for that 10 months after your release then you might have to pay the $1,000.
65. OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
66. HER HONOUR: All right, now, that document I believe has been forwarded to the prison for you to be able to sign. Has it reached you?
67. OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
68. HER HONOUR: All right, well just before you sign it, has everybody checked the wording of that?
69. MR DE PASQUALE: Yes, Your Honour.
70. MR BAYLISS: Yes, Your Honour, I received a copy.
71. HER HONOUR: Yes, all right, well, I sign that but that has not - and

Mr Politopoulos signs a copy too, is that right or?

72. MR DE PASQUALE: Your Honour, it should be two pages, the first is the order which Your Honour does sign, that is correct and then the recognisance on the second page is something that ‑ ‑ ‑
73. HER HONOUR: Could I see that please? That is that, sorry. All right, so,

Mr Politopoulos, you have signed that and could a person in the room who has seen, could I ask an officer in the room to witness that underneath.

74. PRISON OFFICER: Yes, Your Honour.
75. HER HONOUR: Thank you. If you would sign at the bottom as the witness just because you have been present for Mr Politopoulos signing of it.
76. PRISON OFFICER: Yes, Your Honour.
77. HER HONOUR: Thank you and insert today's date, 25 March 2020. I have not seen the copy that was sent through, so I do not know if it had the date inserted and that will, you will have that

Mr Politopoulos and presumably your lawyer will forward you a copy of all paperwork for this.

78. MR BAYLISS: Yes, Your Honour.
79. HER HONOUR: However, the original will need to be scanned and emailed back to the court. We are operating in unusual times and normally this would be done in person in the courtroom but we will need a copy of that signed document back.
80. OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
81. HER HONOUR: And the structure works for the Commonwealth?
82. MR DE PASQUALE: Correct. Yes, it does, Your Honour.
83. HER HONOUR: And can I just confirm that the, as I understand it, because I am in Victoria I declare the 202 days reckoned served as I would for a Victorian sentence ‑ ‑ ‑
84. MR DE PASQUALE: Precisely, Your Honour.
85. HER HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ and that will be taken off and notwithstanding what I have said are the commencement dates.
86. MR DE PASQUALE: Correct.
87. HER HONOUR: That will be deducted administratively as they say, notwithstanding the commencement dates ‑ ‑ ‑
88. MR DE PASQUALE: Correct, Your Honour.
89. HER HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ that may follow it.
90. MR DE PASQUALE: That is all correct, Your Honour.
91. HER HONOUR: Thank you. All right, I am always uncertain with the structure of Commonwealth sentences. Mr Bayliss.
92. MR BAYLISS: Yes, Your Honour.
93. HER HONOUR: Have you anything to add?
94. MR BAYLISS: No, Your Honour. Thank you, Your Honour.
95. HER HONOUR: Have you checked it?
96. MR BAYLISS: Yes, Your Honour.
97. HER HONOUR: And it does add to the right?
98. MR BAYLISS: It does add up, Your Honour, on my calculation.
99. HER HONOUR: All right, and the recognisance release date is after every sentence has commenced. So, it does not suffer one of the many vices or pitfalls ‑ ‑ ‑
100. MR DE PASQUALE: Correct.
101. MR BAYLISS: Yes, Your Honour.
102. HER HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ one can fall into with Commonwealth sentencing. All right, in that case that can be confirmed, thank you.
103. MR BAYLISS: Thank you, Your Honour.
104. HER HONOUR: I will sign off on that and people can get there - or I think it goes into the system but if you want a copy it can be obtained here.
105. MR BAYLISS: Thank you, Your Honour.
106. MR DE PASQUALE: Thank you, Your Honour.
107. HER HONOUR: All right, I think that is all I need to explain to you,

Mr Politopoulos and I expect your lawyer to communicate with you and explain anything further about the sentence.

108. OFFENDER: Thank you, Your Honour.
109. HER HONOUR: All right, so the total is 19 months. You will be released after nine months and in fact because you have served six months and almost three weeks of that you will be released in a little over two months and one week, from now. But for the next 10 months, you have got to be very careful to stay out of any temptation to offend again or you will have breached the recognisance conditions and you can be brought back before the court and required to serve the rest of the sentence.
110. OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour, I understand.
111. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. I hope for everybody's sake that your fears about your health do not come to fruition and indeed that the whole of Victoria sees an end very soon to this totally frightening situation. All right, we can now disconnect the video link.
112. OFFENDER: Thank you.
113. HER HONOUR: So, I have signed that order. I have signed the reparation order and I have signed the recognisance order. I repeat for everybody here, I am adjourning now wishing everybody good health.
114. MR DEPASQUALE: Thank you.
115. MR BAYLISS: Thank you, Your Honour.
116. HER HONOUR: I am really not in a position to know if I can go ahead with the sentence on Friday. I think at the moment. Adjourn sine die, thank you.

[1] Sentence imposed 8/12/16 at Ringwood Magistrates' Court; 135 days PSD reckoned served.

[2] s16A(2)(a)

[3] R v Milne [2001] VSCA 93; R v Purdon (NSW CCA, 27 March 1997, unreported)

[4] s16A(2)(c)

[5] S 16A(2)(c)

[6] s16A(2)(ea)

[7] s16A(2)(d)

[8] s16A(2)(f)

[9] s16A(2)(f)(i)

[10] S 16A(2)(g)

[11] CDPP v Thomas; CDPP v Wu [2016] VSCA 237

[12] s16A(2)(m)

[13] Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60, [48]

[14] s16A(2)(ja)

[15] s16A(2)(j)

[16] s16A(2)(n)

[17] Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520;R v Pham [2015] HCA 39

[18] Atanackovich v R [2015] VSCA 136

[19] Corrected to this as initially misspoken.