//
[2026] ACTSC 62
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-03-17
Taylor J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: DPP v Ryan-Garnsey Citation: [2026] ACTSC 62 Hearing Date: 3 March 2026 Decision Date: 17 March 2026 Before: Taylor J Decision: See [167] - [176] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Fraud – Obtaining Property by Deception – Remorse and Rehabilitation – Early Guilty Plea – Partly Suspended Sentence – Good Behaviour Order – Compensation as condition of good behaviour order Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 33, 52 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 326 Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 57 DPP v Henry [2023] ACTSC 384 DPP v Librando [2024] ACTSC 100 DPP v Singh [2024] ACTSC 202 R v Dotta [2021] ACTSC 150 R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20; 367 FLR 122 R v Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446 R v Raftery [2022] ACTSC 77 R v Woodman [2001] NSWCCA 310 Parties: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Matthew Sean Ryan-Garnsey (Offender) Representation: Counsel H Wagner (DPP) S Baker-Goldsmith (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Tim Sharman Solicitors (Offender) File Number: SCC 326 of 2025 Introduction
The offender, Matthew Sean Ryan-Garnsey, has pleaded guilty to and will be sentenced for the following offence: (a) Obtaining property by deception (CC2024/8085) contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (maximum penalty: 1,000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both).
Pursuant to pt 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) the offender has asked for the following offence to be taken into account in making a sentence-related order for the principal offence (CC2024/8085): (b) Obtaining property by deception (CC2024/8104) contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (maximum penalty: 1,000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both).
Agreed facts
CC2024/8085 and 8104 – Obtaining Property by deception
In January 2021, the offender met the victim, [victim 1] while he was posing as a reality television producer and victim 1 was a French citizen on a bridging visa.
The offender convinced victim 1 that his associate, ‘Ivan Koch’ from the Department of Home Affairs, could assist victim 1 in obtaining permanent Australian visas for her and her partner, [victim 2]. The offender used the alias of ‘Ivan Koch’ to communicate with victim 1 by email and persuade her to transfer sums of money to a bank account controlled by the offender. When victim 1 became suspicious of ‘Ivan’, the offender used another alias, ‘Lisa from accounts’, to keep victim 1 engaged.
Between 10 January 2021 and 18 July 2021, the offender obtained $38,133 from victim 1’s personal and joint accounts and $3,390 from victim 2’s personal account. The total amount of money fraudulently obtained by the offender was $41,523.
On the night of 8 January 2021, victim 1 was working at [redacted], Fyshwick in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), as an [redacted]. The manager of [redacted] told victim 1 to speak with the offender, who she was introduced to as 'Matt'. The offender was at [redacted] purportedly to recruit people for a new reality television show he was producing about [redacted].
Victim 1 spoke with the offender about the reality television show but told him she couldn't move from the ACT where she was a student, as she was in Australia on a student visa.
The offender told victim 1 that he had a friend named 'Ivan Koch’ who worked at the Department of Home Affairs, who owed him a favour and could help organise a permanent Australian visa for her. Victim 1 told the offender that she was ineligible for a permanent visa. The offender explained that ‘Ivan’ would be able to obtain one for her.
'Ivan' was a fake identity created by the offender, to deceive and defraud victim 1 over an extended period. The offender used the identity of ‘Ivan’ and later 'Lisa from accounts' to add legitimacy and in furtherance of the fraud.
Victim 1 was interested in the proposition and exchanged phone numbers with the offender. The offender provided his personal phone number. The offender told victim 1 he would speak with ‘Ivan’ and would then provide victim 1 his email if he agreed to the request.
The offender later sent victim 1 a message with the email address 'ivankoch11@hotmail.com’ to contact ‘Ivan’. The offender told victim 1 that ‘Ivan’ had agreed to help her, but that she could only contact him by email.
On 10 January 2021, victim 1 sent an email to ‘Ivan’ and started making enquiries about obtaining a visa. ‘Ivan’ wrote to victim 1 stating that he worked for the Department of Home Affairs and could organise a 'Sponsored Investor Visa' for victim 1 and her partner, victim 2. ‘Ivan’ stated: The fees are usually $7715 and like I said take between 11 and 23 months. I'll put them both thru for 12k for you. That way your saving money and also getting full visa for both you and your de facto and within 6 weeks.
Victim 1 exchanged several emails with ‘Ivan’ before she eventually decided she wanted to go ahead with purchasing the visas. On 11 January 2021, victim 1 asked ‘Ivan’ for the bank account details for the transaction.
‘Ivan’ replied stating the account details were: [redacted] (the receiving account)
‘Ivan’ further stated, “I'll be seeing Matty tomorrow night in the city and I'll give him the copy of receipt for you and he can give you the original when he goes to Canberra this Friday.”
On 11 January 2021, victim 1 transferred $6,000 via electronic funds transfer (EFT) from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 15 January 2021, victim 1 transferred the remaining $6,000 from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 15 January 2021, victim 1 sent a text message to the offender to organise a time to meet to collect the receipt mentioned by ‘Ivan’.
On 16 January 2021, the offender attended CMC and provided victim 1 with the receipt. The cash receipt was written on page 71 of a cash receipt book and was for the amount of $12,000 for “fees associated with visa app, which are refundable in total if not supplied as discussed.
On 18 January 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent an email to victim 1 requesting a further payment. ‘Ivan’ wrote to victim 1 that victim 2’s visa would cost an extra $1,630 “because he was a partner on the original stay” on victim 1's visa, which required extra work.
On 18 January 2021, victim 1 transferred $1,630 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 28 January 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email. The subject of the email was “congratulations” and ‘Ivan’ wrote “Great news this afternoon is that your application along with your partners has moved to the final stage and is now done.”
‘Ivan’ wrote to victim 1 that another $2,245 was required to finalise the visa applications and asked her to transfer the money to the same account. ‘Ivan’ wrote “this is the last amount that I need to cover the costs, as you have already paid for all the other steps” and stated he would provide victim 1 with another receipt.
In the same email, ‘Ivan’ also asked Victim 1 to pick a date for an appointment at ‘The Department of Home Affairs’, with an address given in Lonsdale Street, Braddon, ACT. That same date, victim 1 replied to ‘Ivan’ and wrote that she would attend the provided address, on 12 February 2021.
On 29 January 2021, victim 1 transferred $2,245 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 1 February 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, asking for victim 1 to transfer another $2,245. ‘Ivan’ wrote to victim 1 that he had misread a previous email and that “the amount of $2,245 was supposed to be per person” and not for victim 1 and victim 2 combined.
On 1 February 2021, victim 1 transferred another $2,245 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 3 February 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email informing her there was a fee of $445 per person, for her appointment at The Department of Home Affairs. ‘Ivan’ wrote to victim 1 that the fee was because the appointment was “within the 14-day period after approval of docs”, which classified the appointment as urgent. ‘Ivan’ also stated to victim 1 that if she waited another week, she would not have to pay the extra fee.
That same date, victim 1 replied to ‘Ivan’ and wrote that she would like to wait the extra week so she didn't have to pay an extra fee.
On 4 February 2021, Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, stating that 'Matt' had given his credit card details to book in the appointment for victim 1 but it could not be processed, due to the credit card being in a different name to the visa application.
That same date, victim 1 replied to ‘Ivan’ that 'Matt' had insisted on paying for the appointment but if it did not work out, she was still happy to wait an extra week for the appointment.
On 5 February 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, with a list of available appointment times. ‘Ivan’ wrote to victim 1 that the earliest appointment time which was not considered 'urgent' was now 31 March 2021.
That same date, victim 1 replied to ‘Ivan’ and stated she would pay the fee, so she didn't have to wait until 31 March 2021 but asked that she keep her appointment on 12 February 2021.
On 8 February 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent Victim 1 an email, stating if he “allocates the fees”, he should be able to book in the appointment on 12 February 2021 or 19 February 2021.
On 8 February 2021, Victim 1 transferred $990 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 11 February 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, stating her appointment had been booked for 24 February 2021. That same date, victim 1 replied to ‘Ivan’, asking why she did not get the appointment on 12 February 2021, like she had requested.
‘Ivan’ replied to victim 1's email and explained that this was the date he was able to get without “raising any red flags” on her application.
On 24 February 2021, Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, informing her that her appointment at ‘The Department of Home Affairs’ had been postponed. ‘Ivan’ wrote that there was a questionnaire that was required to be filled in and he thought victim 1 could do it in person at her appointment, which was incorrect.
‘Ivan’ stated to victim 1 that a form had been sent to her address, which she would receive that day or the next, and asked her to fill it in and send back via express post. ‘Ivan’ informed victim 1 her appointment was now on 26 February 2021.
On 25 February 2021, victim 1 sent ‘Ivan’ an email, asking if the forms were sent via express post, as she still had not received them. ‘Ivan’ replied, stating he would have to check the following morning, as he had already “left for the day”.
On 26 February 2021, ‘Ivan’ informed victim 1 that her appointment for that day was cancelled and would be rescheduled to 3 March 2021.
On 1 March 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent an email to victim 1, stating the $990 she paid for her previous appointment had been refunded and “sent via mail”. ‘Ivan’ also wrote that he had made another temporary appointment but stated to have it “approved in the system it will need payment of the $990 again.”
‘Ivan’ told victim 1 that he was happy to wait for the refund to come through before she paid for another appointment but victim 1 feared if she waited for the money to come through, she would miss her appointment, and agreed to pay for it before receiving the refund.
On the same date, victim 1 transferred $990 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 2 March 2021, victim 1 sent ‘Ivan’ an email, asking about the forms as she still had not received anything. victim 1 also asked if she could confirm her appointment time for the following day, as she had only been told the date of her appointment.
On 3 March 2021, ‘Ivan’ replied to victim 1's email, stating she had not received a time for her appointment as there wasn't any available, and that her appointment had been booked in on 10 March 2021 instead. ‘Ivan’ also wrote to victim 1 that he did not send the forms via express post. He instead sent them through “the computer program”, and that he marked them as urgent.
On 9 March 2021, victim 1 sent a text message to the offender, stating she had not heard anything from ‘Ivan’ and her appointment was the next day. Victim 1 wrote to the offender that it looked like they were going to miss the appointment again and asked him if there was anything that he could do.
The offender replied to victim 1's text message as follows, stating that he would contact ‘Ivan’ and call victim 1 afterwards: He did msg me about an hour ago saying he just emailed u and he was waiting on something form his friend in Canberra office, but if he didn msg u that means he bullshit me and that is something I won’t accept I will call him now until he answers and deal with this. So sorry it’s taken so long this is not wat I wanted for U
A short time later, the offender called victim 1 and spoke on the phone. Following their conversation, victim 1 sent an email to ‘Ivan’ stating 'Matt' had explained to her that she was required to make another payment for a new appointment for herself and victim 2 and wrote that she would make the payment shortly after.
On the same date, victim 1 transferred $990 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
That same date, victim 1 transferred $990 via EFT from a joint bank account owned by herself and victim 2 to the receiving account. That was victim 1’s first transfer from her joint account to the receiving account.
A short time later, the offender sent victim 1 text messages, asking her to confirm that the “2nd payment” had been processed. Victim 1 responded that the second payment had not been an Osko. The offender responded that “Olso [sic] goes in straight away. Sometimes takes a day or 2 for normal transfer.”
On the same date, victim 1 emailed ‘Ivan’ to explain that she had used the joint account owned by herself and victim 2 for the second payment of $990, because her personal account did not allow her to make two Osko payments to the receiving account on the same day.
Thereafter, whenever victim 1 was required to make multiple payments to the receiving account on the same day, she would generally make the first payment from her personal account, the second from the joint account, and any third payment from victim 2’s account, so that all funds would be transferred through Osko payment in near real-time.
On 11 March 2021, the offender sent victim 1 a text message, stating he was passing on a message from ‘Ivan’. The message required victim 1 to make a further payment of $880 to the receiving account.
Victim 1 replied to the offender’s text message, to confirm whether she was required to pay an additional $880. The offender then wrote to victim 1 that it was what he “understood the message to mean” and further stated “and then you get back $990 X2 plus the $880 and also the $990 that has already been activated. So in total back refunded to you is $3850.”
On 11 March 2021, victim 1 transferred $880 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
That same date, victim 1 sent an email to ‘Ivan’, stating she had sent the payment after receiving the text message from the offender. Victim 1 also asked ‘Ivan’ to confirm that she would be receiving a refund amount of $3,850.
‘Ivan’ replied to victim 1's email and wrote “I was just going to email you then, I didn't know Matty was going to send you the msg. Thats great then thank you.”
On 17 March 2021, victim 1 sent ‘Ivan’ an email with her bank account details and asked if the money owed to her could be transferred via EFT instead of receiving a cheque in the mail.
‘Ivan’ replied and stated: lve just put your banking details into the system so that will update overnight and probably won't be actioned till Friday as there are a few payments to put together which I have already had approved for you.
‘Ivan’ also told victim 1 he would send through the receipts for the previous transactions.
Over the next few weeks, victim 1 sent several emails to ‘Ivan’, stating she had not received the visas, her refund or any of the receipts she was told she would receive. victim 1 asked if ’Ivan’ could send her proof that the visas had been approved.
On 19 April 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent an email to victim 1, stating the reason for the delays was “quite and simply the Covid Virus”. ‘Ivan’ wrote to victim 1 that the visas would be actioned in the next 48 hours. After 48 hours, victim 1 had still not received anything.
On 23 April 2021, victim 1 sent ‘Ivan’ another email, asking again for proof the visa application process had occurred.
On 25 April 2021, ‘Ivan’ replied to victim 1's email and stated: I'm working remotely today, when I'm in the office tomorrow afternoon I'll send you thru your application screenshots and payment forms that were uploaded thru the system so you have at least re assurance as you have asked.
Over the next few days, victim 1 sent ‘Ivan’ four emails, asking for the proof of the visa applications that she requested previously.
On 4 May 2021, ‘Ivan’ eventually replied to victim 1 and stated he had received an angry call from 'Matty' asking what was going on. ‘Ivan’ wrote to victim 1 that he had been sick and this was the reason for the delay.
On 11 May 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email stating he had finally worked out the reason for the delay for the visa process. ‘Ivan’ wrote that “it was due to a problem with victim 2’s application, which has now been fixed. Because both of your applications are linked this is why the delay.” ‘Ivan’ further stated their applications had been expedited and would be processed that week.
Victim 1 replied and asked again for ‘Ivan’ to send through proof that the visas had been processed.
On 14 May 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email which stated: A letter has now been sent to you outlining all of your payments and also what is left in your refund bank. It also shows what Visa you both have applied and been provisionally approved for waiting final approval, which will happen within next 14 days.
On 6 June 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent an email to victim 1, stating that he had tried to call her and asked for a suitable time for him to call again. Victim 1 replied to ‘Ivan’ and stated she did not receive any phone calls that day. Victim 1 provided her phone number to ‘Ivan’ again and said she was free to speak at 1:00pm the following day.
Over the next few weeks, victim 1 made several attempts to arrange a phone call with ‘Ivan’ but victim 1 never received a call and wasn't provided a phone number so she could speak to him directly.
On 2 July 2021, the offender and victim 1 spoke on the phone and exchanged text messages. The offender told victim 1 that if she paid $2,100 for each visa application, they could be processed in a few days.
The offender sent victim 1 a text message, stating: the exact number to currently refund I have been told is $19,840 to your account. The rest is for ur visa to b done as it's already approved and waiting for last stamp. Then it will b on Immi
The offender sent victim 1 a further text message stating: I am not sure wat the $2,100 is for, I thought you must have already paid this at some stage for ur visa as a perm resident. IfU would like the explanation thru Ivan just email, as I just said I have spoken to u about it all. He said if done by 6pm today, U will have by Monday afternoon.
That same date, victim 1 sent an email to ‘Ivan’, where she wrote that she had spoken with the offender about some options. Victim 1 asked ‘Ivan’ about how she could pay $2,100 to have the visas by Monday.
‘Ivan’ replied to victim 1 and stated: I did speak to Matty yesterday re the visas and how to have them asap. I also explained to him the refund that has now been done at our end in the office and sent thru to process at admin. If we receive the payment tonight before I leave at 6pm, I can process tonight and have the visa for Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning at the latest, I have also promised this timeframe to Matty. The payment process will have to be the same thru the account details you have, otherwise there could be a delay.
Victim 1 agreed to make the requested payments for the visas but also requested again that ‘Ivan’ send proof that the visas were being processed.
On 2 July 2021, victim 1 transferred $2,100 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account, then made a further transfer of $2,100 from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 5 July 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, stating he still had not received the money that victim 1 transferred on 2 July 2021. ‘Ivan’ also requested a further payment for both victim 1's and victim 2’s applications, stating: due to all the refunds being processed we also need to pay the admin fee of $990 each for both you and [victim 2]. This is the last payment you will have to make to receive everything. I suggest you pay them both separately that way it will hit the account straight away because it will be Osko.
On 5 July 2021, victim 1 transferred $990 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
That same date, victim 1 transferred $990 via EFT from her joint bank account to the receiving account.
On 7 July 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, stating he had spoken to 'Matty' and 'Lisa from accounts' to go over everything, and wrote that they were now at the end of the visa process.
That same day, the offender called victim 1 and explained that she still needed to pay another $2,900 for the visas.
Victim 1 emailed ‘Ivan’, relaying the conversation she had with the offender to confirm whether she needed to make a further payment. ‘Ivan’ replied to victim 1 and stated, “yes, that is correct”.
In a further email on the same date, ‘Ivan’ wrote to victim 1, “I have just got off the phone to Matty and he was not happy with me and screaming threats to me down the phone, but I've explained everything to him.” ‘Ivan’ explained that victim 1 was required to make a further payment of $2,900 to the receiving account and that it would be best to make “separate Osko payments so it hits the account.”
On 7 July 2021, victim 1 transferred $1,000 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account. Victim 1 then transferred $1,000 via EFT from her joint bank account to the receiving account.
On the same date, victim 2 transferred a further $900 via EFT from his personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 9 July 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, stating victim 2’s permanent residency was now completed but victim 1's application was still waiting, “due to the fact that no money from the previous was held over” and that victim 1 was getting a refund of “$21,340 as explained”. ‘Ivan’ also wrote that a further $2,900 was required to finalise victim 1's permanent residency.
On 9 July 2021, victim 1 transferred $1,000 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account. Victim 1 then transferred $1,000 via EFT from her joint bank account to the receiving account.
That same date, victim 2 transferred a further $900 via EFT from his personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 13 July 2021, victim 1 sent ‘Ivan’ an email, informing him she had still not received anything in her Immi account.
That same date, ‘Ivan’ replied to victim 1's email and wrote to her that the reason her visa wasn't showing in her Immi account, was that the “the payment for the sub class was supposed to be $1,590 each not $990.”
‘Ivan’ further stated the reason this wasn't picked up earlier, because they were not doing the visa application “the normal way.”
In the same email, ‘Ivan’ stated that victim 1’s two previous payments of $990 would be added to the refund amount that was she was owed but she was required to make two further payments of $1,590 before her visa would be added to her Immi account.
On 13 July 2021, victim 1 transferred $1,000 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
That same date, victim 1 transferred $590 via EFT from her joint bank account to the receiving account.
Victim 2 then transferred a further $1,000 via EFT from his personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 14 July 2021, victim 1 transferred the remaining $590 via EFT from her joint bank account to the receiving account.
On 15 July 2021, victim 1 sent ‘Ivan’ an email asking again for proof that the visas were being processed as she will had not received anything. Victim 1 explained to ‘Ivan’ that she was very stressed she only had ten days left on her current visa.
On 16 July 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, stating the application was now “inside the urgent zone for a visa approval” and that an extra fee was required because the application was in the “14-day period of exclusion”. ‘Ivan’ informed victim 1 that another $1,295 was required for each application.
On 16 July 2021, victim 1 transferred $1,000 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account. Victim 1 then transferred $1,000 via EFT from her joint bank account to the receiving account.
That same date, victim 2 transferred a further $590 via EFT from his personal bank account to the receiving account.
On 18 July 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent an email to victim 1, asking her to call 'Matt'. The offender and victim 1 spoke on the phone. Following the conversation, the offender sent victim 1 a text message with instructions for her to make another two payments of $813 to the receiving account.
On 18 July 2021, victim 1 transferred $813 via EFT from her personal bank account to the receiving account.
Over the next few days, victim 1 sent several emails to ‘Ivan’ but did not receive a reply. On 20 July 2021, victim 1 wrote to ‘Ivan’ and informed him that she was going to start looking at other options, as she only had four days left on her visa.
On 21 July 2021, the offender called victim 1 and told her she could speak with 'Lisa from accounts' to get a full refund. A short time later, 'Matt' sent victim 1 a text message with mobile phone number to contact 'Lisa'. The mobile phone number the offender provided for ‘Lisa’ was a number registered to the offender.
The offender sent victim 1 a further text message, stating “my mate just spoke with Ivan then, and 'Lisa' was the one that came down with him from the office. She will b able to sort everything out for u both.”
On 21 July 2021, victim 1 sent a message to 'Lisa' on the phone number provided by the offender and requested a refund. 'Lisa' replied to victim 1, stating there was a $24,795 refund waiting for victim 1 and if she paid a further $1,875, she would receive the visas and her refund the following day.
Victim 1 replied to 'Lisa' and asked which account she would need to send the money to. 'Lisa' replied, stating “the same as you normally do” or victim 1 could receive a full refund instead.
Victim 1 replied to 'Lisa' and stated she would send the money if they could send proof that everything would be processed by the following day. 'Lisa' wrote to victim 1 that they couldn't legally “take a screenshot because we are a government organisation.” Victim 1 then wrote to 'Lisa' that she would like a full refund.
On 22 July 2021, victim 1 sent a text message to 'Lisa', asking for proof that the refund had been actioned. victim 1 never received a reply.
Over the next few weeks, victim 1 sent several emails to ‘Ivan’, asking for updates on when she would receive the refund. ‘Ivan’ would occasionally reply to victim 1, stating the refund had been processed and she would be receiving a remittance receipt.
On 16 August 2021, victim 1 sent ‘Ivan’ an email, stating if she did not receive a date for the refund, she was going to contact a lawyer.
On 18 August 2021, ‘Ivan’ replied to victim 1, stating he was waiting to hear back from “accounts”. The email further stated: I will also be taking down all correspondence from you and also from Matty in regards to this deal, and admitting all fault if it comes to lawyers in regards to organizing an illegal visa for both you and for your partner, and this is quite evident in all emails and messages. This will then be decided if in fact that you should both be allowed to stay in Australia and also not be jailed or fined. I've had enough of the threats and don't deserve it.
On 10 September 2021, ‘Ivan’ sent victim 1 an email, stating she would be receiving a refund in the “next 7 working days.” victim 1 sent several emails to ‘Ivan’ in reply but never received another email from ‘Ivan’.
Victim 1 and victim 2 transferred a total of $41,523 to the receiving account. Victim 1 and victim 2’s transfers to the receiving account during the offending are set out below: Transfer Date Victim 1’s Victim 1 and Victim 2’s personal victim 2’s joint personal account account account Monday, 11 January 2021 $6,000.00 Friday, 15 January 2021 $6,000.00 Monday, 18 January 2021 $1,630.00 Friday, 29 January 2021 $2,245.00 Monday, 1 February 2021 $2,245.00 Monday, 8 February 2021 $990.00 Monday, 1 March 2021 $990.00 Tuesday, 9 March 2021 $990.00 Tuesday, 9 March 2021 $990.00 Thursday, 11 March 2021 $880.00 Friday, 2 July 2021 $2,100.00 Friday, 2 July 2021 $2,100.00 Monday, 5 July 2021 $990.00 Monday, 5 July 2021 $990.00 Wednesday, 7 July 2021 $1,000.00 Wednesday, 7 July 2021 $1,000.00 Wednesday, 7 July 2021 $900.00 Friday, 9 July 2021 $1,000.00 Friday, 9 July 2021 $1,000.00 Friday, 9 July 2021 $900.00 Tuesday, 13 July 2021 $1,000.00 Tuesday, 13 July 2021 $590.00 Tuesday, 13 July 2021 $1,000.00 Wednesday, 14 July 2021 $590.00 Friday, 16 July 2021 $1,000.00 Friday, 16 July 2021 $1,000.00 Friday, 16 July 2021 $590.00 Sunday, 18 July 2021 $813.00 TOTAL $31,973.00 $6,160.00 $3,390.00
Victim 1 never received a refund, a visa or any of the documents she was told that she would receive, except for the cash receipt for the first transaction that was given to her by the offender.
On 9 December 2021, victim 1 reported the fraud to police.
Police obtained subscriber checks for the phone numbers provided by the offender to victim 1 for both ‘Matt’ and ‘Lisa from accounts’, which were both registered to the offender.
A subscriber check showed the email account ‘ivankoch11@hotmail.com’ was created with the name ‘Ivan Koch’, with Russia as the country chosen when the account was created. Subscriber checks for the internet protocol addresses linked to mailbox logins for ‘ivankoch11@hotmail.com’ were associated with the residential internet account of the offender’s wife’s address.
On 12 August 2022, Police executed a search warrant at St George Bank for the receiving account. The receiving account was in the name of the offender’s 17-year-old daughter, with a linked bank card. During the period of the offending, the receiving account was debited regularly for cash withdrawals, motels, hire cars, airline tickets and a Sportsbet account in the offender’s name. Police obtained business records from these vendors which demonstrated that the offender was the person who made the purchases.
The offender also received regular payments from Centrelink into the receiving account, which he had nominated to Centrelink as being an account he controlled, rather than his daughter’s account.
On 28 February 2023, Police executed a search warrant at the Bank of Queensland for the offender’s personal bank records. Those records showed that the offender had made a cash withdrawal from an automatic teller machine in [redacted] on the first night he met victim 1.
On 21 June 2024, Police executed a search warrant at the offender’s residential address in [redacted], New South Wales. Police located a cash receipt book with a carbon copy of the receipt the offender had given to victim 1 on 15 January 2021. The offender made admissions under caution to owning the receipt book and to his signature being on the receipt to victim 1.
Police seized the offender’s mobile phone, which contained victim 1’s phone number as a contact. The offender’s phone also contained several text message conversations between July 2022 and December 2023 with other people, unrelated to the offending, where the offender introduced people to ‘Ivan’, who also used the email address ‘ivan.koch11@hotmail.com’, a contact who could assist people in obtaining loans.
On 1 July 2024, the offender’s daughter, the sole signatory on the receiving account, provided a written statement to Police. The offender had told his daughter that his bank account was not working and had asked to have his friends transfer money to his daughter’s account for what he said was work. The offender would then ask his daughter to transfer the money to his wife. The offender would use his daughter’s bank card, linked to the receiving account when he needed to make purchases which he told his daughter were for work.
Victim Impact Statements
I was provided with victim impact statements from both victims. Each statement carefully detailed the immediate financial effect of the offender’s conduct as well as the overall destructive effect of the offender’s conduct on their relationship and on their lives more broadly.
Both victims outlined a multitude of social, emotional, financial and physical difficulties they have experienced arising from the offending perpetrated against them by the offender, including that it has undermined their capacity to trust their own judgement.
The victim impact statements assisted me to understand the extent of the harm they have suffered arising from the offender’s conduct. Recognition of that harm is a compelling sentencing consideration.
A reparation order is sought in favour of both victims. In respect of victim 1 a sum in the amount of $38,133 is sought and in respect of victim 2, a sum in the amount of $3,390 is sought. This is a matter to which I will return.
Considerations
Nature and circumstances of the offending
The maximum penalty for each offence reflects the gravity of fraudulent conduct in the pursuit of financial gain and provides a “yardstick” against which to assess the objective seriousness of the offending
In DPP v Singh [2024] ACTSC 202, McWilliam J helpfully set out the following features as relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of an offence of obtaining property by deception at [24]: • The amount of money involved; • The degree of premeditation and sophistication; • The time period over which the offence was committed; • The repeat nature of the offending as suggesting an intention to continue unless the police became aware of the breach; and • The level of dishonesty or breach of trust.
The primary offence is a rolled-up charge which reflects the overall sum involved was made up of numerous smaller transactions. Such a charge captures conduct with a greater degree of criminality than an offence established by a single act. The offender obtained a substantial sum of money overall. The offence involving victim 1 plainly resulted in a larger sum than the sum obtained from victim 2 (the scheduled offence) and is a serious example of the offence.
The offending occurred over an extended period, from January 2021 to July 2021. The continuation of the fraud over that period stalled the victims from making any complaint about the conduct.
The offending was not attended to by a significant level of sophistication nor was it premeditated. I also accept that the victim, victim 1, was not specifically targeted by the offender because of her visa situation but clearly the offender sought to exploit that situation upon learning it existed. There was, once fraudulent conduct commenced, a level of planning and organisation required to first bring the fraud about and then to continue it for several months. The level of dishonesty involved was quite significant. The offender deliberately manipulated the victim’s vulnerability as a non-citizen including by threatening repercussion if she reported his conduct.
The offender ultimately conceded, whilst noting that his cocaine use and gambling had combined to put pressure on his financial circumstances, that the offending was driven by a desire to support a lifestyle which he could not afford.
Subjective Circumstances
The offender is 51 years of age. He has been married for 20 years. He and his wife have an 11 year old son and they live in Sydney, New South Wales. He has three adult children from a previous marriage. His first grandchild was born in December 2025. The offender is in regular contact with his parents and they remain supportive of him.
[redacted].
The offender has a history of employment though he stopped working in 2021 after he was diagnosed with Graves’ disease. From 2021 until his remand in September 2025 the offender was the primary carer for his son. The offender is currently employed in a trusted position within the AMC.
To the author of a pre-sentence report (PSR) the offender disclosed a long-term gambling problem for which he has not received treatment or intervention. The offender also stated that he would prioritise the payment of compensation to the victims of his offending once released from custody. The offender identified that in the five years leading up to the offending he had significantly increased his use of cocaine. The offender has not engaged in any formal drug rehabilitation. The offender reported that upon his remand in custody he was not given access to the daily medication that he requires to manage Graves’ disease which was difficult.
The offender acknowledged the nature and circumstances of his offending and that his conduct was deserving of punishment. He expressed shame for his behaviour and acknowledged the effect of it on the victims and the effect on his family of his incarceration.
The offender was noted to have the benefit of ongoing support from his wife and family including stable accommodation. The offender has arranged employment in the community to commence when he is released. The offender was assessed as suitable for a low level of supervision with ACT Corrective Services. The author of the PSR recommended that he engage in treatment for gambling and illicit substance use.
Support letters
The offender’s parents and wife authored letters of support.
The offender’s parents observed some of the effect of the offender’s problem gambling over the years. They also commended the offender’s wife for her ongoing support of him through his illness and after he was charged with these offences. The offender’s parents recorded their “immense disappointment” in the offender in the face of his offending conduct which they unequivocally denounced. They observed the effect of full-time incarceration on their son and considered that he has taken responsibility for his actions, reiterating his intention to repay the money lost by the victims at his hands. The offender’s parents confirmed their ongoing support for him and their confidence that he can fulfil the potential he demonstrates for a law-abiding future.
The offender’s wife confirmed that the offender’s previous employment in the entertainment industry precipitated his use of illicit substances which led to financial difficulties. She also confirmed some of the difficulties brought about by the offender’s diagnosis with Graves’ disease. She described the significant effect upon their son of the offender’s remand in custody and the financial and caring burden she now bears in his absence. The offender’s wife confirmed that for the first six weeks of his incarceration he was denied necessary medication which led to a deterioration in his physical and mental health. She recorded that access to medication remains inconsistent in the custodial environment.
The offender’s wife recorded that the offender has directly expressed his remorse to her for the effect of his conduct upon the victims and on his own family. The offender’s wife emphasised her unwavering support for him and their shared commitment to ensuring “that something like this does not happen again”.
Remorse and rehabilitation
I accept the offender is remorseful. This is revealed in the unchallenged observations of his parents and his wife as well as in the remarks attributed to him in the PSR. It is also consistent with the offender’s plea of guilty at an early stage in the proceedings.
Remorse is relevant to his prospect of rehabilitation. I accept the submission made on his behalf that he has not engaged in illicit substance use whilst he has been on remand and has not engaged in any gambling.
[redacted]. I readily accept that this was a traumatic event which undoubtedly effected his emotional and psychological wellbeing. The submission that he had a “difficult childhood” was not otherwise borne out in the material before me. The offender did not give evidence. The PSR author recorded that the offender reported a “mostly positive” childhood experience. The offender’s father died prior to his second birthday. His mother remarried when he was three years old and his stepfather appears to have willingly taken on a significant role in his life.
The letter of support from his parents described the offender’s “amazing” sporting achievements and explained that he “did well at school and was loved by teachers and students alike”. The offender became a “doting big brother to his sister and brother”. The offender’s use of illicit substances and gambling were submitted to have arisen because of the ill health he has more recently experienced as an adult. I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence before me to conclude that the offender had a disadvantaged childhood such that the principles in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 57 apply. If I am wrong about that and his experience [redacted] does enliven those principles, allowing “full weight” for the effect of that event in his life should not result in a reduction in his moral culpability for the offending.
The offender has employment available to him immediately upon his release and he has the full support of his (law-abiding) wife and parents. He has stable accommodation. He does not present with any significant criminogenic risks and has numerous pro-social factors. The offender presents as a strong prospect of rehabilitation. Any lingering concern about a potential return to illicit substance use or problematic gambling I am satisfied could be met by conditions on his release to provide support and accountability.
Plea of guilty
The offender entered pleas of guilty in the Magistrates Court. The timing of the pleas had significant utilitarian value.
There was, I accept, a very compelling circumstantial case against the offender. On the information before me though I am not persuaded that this is a case which falls in into the category of cases where “an acquittal [would be] realistically unlikely” R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20; 367 FLR 122 at [31] such that it was ‘overwhelming strong’: s 35 (4).
Accordingly, I will reduce the sentence imposed on the offender by 25 per cent in recognition of the utilitarian value of his early plea of guilty. Time in custody
The offender has been in custody solely in relation to these offences since 18 September 2025. The sentence I impose will be backdated accordingly.
Criminal history
The offender has a criminal history which includes convictions for dishonesty offences, the most recent in 2002. He is also recorded for possess/use prohibited weapon (2000), driving offences (2010, 2013, 2023, 2025) and contravening a domestic violence order (2015).
The offender’s criminal history disentitles him to leniency. His criminal history reveals the current remand period to be the longest period he has spent in a custodial environment.
Comparative Cases
I was taken to several comparable sentencing outcomes for this offence. Of course, regard to sentencing practice promotes consistency in the application of sentencing principle, not mathematical equivalence. The full detail of the table provided by the prosecution is annexed to this judgement.
In DPP v Henry [2023] ACTSC 384, I sentenced an offender to 24 months of imprisonment for a single rolled up charge, reduced from 32 months for a plea of guilty. I directed that the sentence be served by way of intensive correction order (ICO). The offender had no criminal history and misappropriated funds as a manager in a retail outlet. The offending was unsophisticated and was a breach of trust. The offending involved a sum of $49,497.64. The offender was a strong prospect of rehabilitation. I have had regard to the observations I made in Henry with respect to comparable outcomes at [70]-[74].
In R v Raftery [2022] ACTSC 77, an offender was sentenced to a total sentence of 12 months and 21 days imprisonment, suspended after 4 months on a 2-year good behavior order (GBO). The offending involved a substantial sum ($292,240.70). The offender had a lengthy criminal history including dishonesty offences and had previously been subject to an intensive corrections order. The offender was “relatively young” so still had “a prospect of rehabilitation”: at [15].
In DPP v Librando [2024] ACTSC 100, an offender was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 3 years, after a 25% reduction for a guilty plea, to be served by an ICO. The offending consisted of four counts made up of the following sums $48,512.50, $17,418.16, $10,631, and $380. The offences were committed by the offender as part of their employment at an aged care facility over a period of eight months. The offender had no criminal history, demonstrated remorse and good prospects for rehabilitation. The offender’s moral culpability was reduced arising from the application of the Bugmy principles and because mental ill-health.
R v Dotta [2021] ACTSC 150 an offender was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment reduced from 15 months (wholly suspended on a GBO, paired with 200 hours of community service). The victim paid $60,494 to the offender in advance of anticipated renovations. The offender made full repayment to the victims prior to sentence. The offender was remorseful and at low risk of reoffending. He had no criminal history.
I record here that I do not entirely agree with the prosecution submission that the outcomes in Henry and Librando could be distinguished on the basis that the offenders in those outcomes had “no criminal history and strong prospects of rehabilitation”. Plainly the offender does have a relevant criminal history but as I have determined he presents with what I consider to be strong prospects of rehabilitation.
The outcomes reveal, consistent with the scope of conduct captured by the offence and variations in subjective features across offenders, that sentencing practice for this offence includes entirely community-based sentences and severe periods of full time imprisonment. Without undermining the effect of the offending on the victims in this case, the sums involved in the offence vary dramatically and the sum involved in the offending in this case was toward the lower end. In every case, general deterrence, denunciation, recognition of harm and punishment were compelling sentencing considerations.
Determination
It was conceded by the offender that the ‘threshold’ in s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) was crossed. That is to say, the only appropriate outcome having regard to possible alternatives is a period of imprisonment. The concession was properly made.
I am satisfied that there has been a substantial level of specific deterrence achieved by the offender’s first substantial period in custody. The offender has obtained employment in a trusted position in the AMC and thereby demonstrated the ability to use his time meaningfully. General deterrence, denunciation, punishment and recognition of the harm suffered by the victims are sentencing considerations of some significance. I accept the offender is remorseful and has taken responsibility for his conduct. To the extent that the offender’s drug use and gambling influenced his motivation for the offending I am not persuaded that they present as significant criminogenic risks. This is consistent with the conclusion contained in the PSR that he requires a low level of supervision. The offender’s strong prospect of rehabilitation is a factor which should also carry considerable weight.
The offender has not resisted the making of an order requiring him to repay the victims. He has indicated a capacity to initially pay half the sum owed and thereafter to make payment at a rate of $1000 per week. Through his counsel, the offender expressed his willingness to accept an obligation to make payments in that amount to the victims as part of any condition of his release. Of course, consistent with the following observations of Wood CJ in R v Woodman [2001] NSWCCA 310 at [32]-[34] this is not a relevant consideration for the purposes of determining the appropriate outcome: The offer by the applicant to make reparation was of limited value to him, particularly in the absence of any earlier attempt to do so. It is not the case that an offender found guilty of fraud offences can purchase mitigation by way of a voluntary repayment. While the degree of sacrifice involved can be taken into account it cannot be overlooked that an order for compensation, or reparation does no more than require the return of illgotten gains to which the offender had no entitlement. Moreover, as Hunt CJ at CL pointed out in R v Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446: "It is more of a matter of aggravation when there has been a loss which is effectively irretrievable than a matter of mitigation where the loss has been made good".In the light of these considerations I reject as unfounded the argument that there would be some utility in reducing the applicant's sentence, or to deal with him on a non custodial basis, so that could continue to work and thereby fund the repayments ordered. He is of course perfectly able to resume those payments once released upon parole.
I observe the offender’s capacity and willingness to repay the victims for the purpose of determining it appropriate to make such an order.
The offender is ineligible for an intensive corrections order (ICO) as he plans to reside interstate, in New South Wales, following his release. He has not been assessed for an ICO. In my view a plan for him to return to the support offered by his wife, son and parents in NSW would best support his rehabilitation and in turn, operate to protect the community.
Pursuant to s 33(1)(o) of the Crimes Sentencing Act, I have had regard to the unchallenged evidence before me of the real financial and emotional hardship which the offender’s wife and son have experienced and would continue to experience arising from the imposition of a period of full-time imprisonment. This is a matter which mitigates the sentence to be imposed to an extent.
In determining the sentence to be imposed I must take into account the scheduled offence which was a serious offence involving a separate victim. In my view, the seriousness of the offending and the purposes of sentencing can be achieved by the imposition of a period of imprisonment suspended after the offender has served a period of full-time imprisonment.
A period of imprisonment suspended represents significant punishment. For the period that the offender remains subject to the obligation to be of good behaviour, any breach of that obligation risks his presence in the community. I am satisfied that the offender is motivated to avoid that outcome and will be well supported to do so.
The starting point for the offence of obtain property by deception, taking into account the scheduled offence, is 3 years of imprisonment reduced to 2 years and 3 months of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
Orders
I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy-six [176] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor Associate: O Williams Date: 18 March 2026 ANNEXURE A – Comparative Cases provided by the Prosecution
AUTHORITY OBJECTIVE FACTORS SUBJECTIVE FACTORS SENTENCE R v Cook Charges Age Count 1 – 6 months reduced from 7.5 [2018] ACTSC Count 1: obtain property by deception ($1,470) 53 months. 302 Count 2: obtain property by deception ($96,830) Elkaim J Criminal Record Count 2 – 19 months reduced from 24 Conduct Substantial criminal record including “property offences, months The Offender met the victim, performing small jobs prohibited substance offences, deception offences and break on her home. He convinced her that he owed and enter crimes”. Total sentence of 1 year and 10 months various and increasing expenses and debts. imprisonment. Non-parole period of 18 Other months. The Offender deceived the victim into transferring 20% discount for guilty plea. sums of money over 12 months, on the false basis Indigenous Offender. that the Offender would soon repay the victim History of suicide attempts and placement in youth refuge. Reparation order for $98,300. from the proceeds of sale from an apartment. The No formal education beyond year 10. offending involved a significant breach of trust. Substantial history of cannabis and heroin use. Evidence by Offender at sentence that he was participating in Worldview programme. No physical or mental health diagnosis. R v Raftery Charges Age Count 1 – 12 months and 3 weeks [2022] ACTSC Count 1: theft ($292,240.70) 34 reduced from 15 months 77 Elkaim J Conduct Criminal Record The Offender met the elderly victim, who was in Lengthy criminal history including deception offences and Total sentence of 12 months and 21 days the early stages of dementia, through an previous intensive corrections orders. imprisonment suspended after 4 months engagement to do plumbing work for her. on a 2-year good behaviour order. Other Over 6 months and 18 transactions the defendant 15% discount for guilty plea. stole the amount charged from the victim through Completed secondary education and employed as a plumber. electronic bank transfers. Recent relapse into illicit drug use. Remorse and prospects of rehabilitation. AUTHORITY OBJECTIVE FACTORS SUBJECTIVE FACTORS SENTENCE History of suicide attempts. Prospects for rehabilitation. Physical health condition causing heart function of 25%. $20,000 returned to the victim. R v Dotta Charges Age Count 1 – 12 months reduced from 15 [2021] ACTSC Count 1: obtain financial advantage by deception 34 months 150 ($60,494) Burns J Criminal Record Conduct No relevant or significant prior convictions. Total sentence of 12 months The Offender was the director of a building imprisonment wholly suspended on a 12-company. The victim contacted the Offender for Other month good behaviour order with 200 renovations to be completed on their homes. The 20% discount for guilty plea. hours of community service. Offender provided the victim with false documents Offender found to be remorseful and at low risk of indicating the renovations had approval to reoffending. commence. The victim paid the Offender in Full repayment made to the victim with interest prior to advance of anticipated renovations. sentence. DPP v Henry Charges Age Count 1 – 24 months reduced from 32 [2023] ACTSC Count 1: theft ($49,497.64) 34 months 384 Taylor J Conduct Criminal Record The Offender was a manager at Officeworks, No criminal history. Total sentence of 2 years imprisonment Fyshwick. He used his position to process 260 served by intensive corrections order. unauthorised refunds onto his personal Other Mastercard over a 12-month period. The offending 25% discount for guilty plea. was largely unsophisticated but involved a gross Completed Bachelor of Media Arts and enrolled in Masters. Reparation order for $48, 397.64 breach of trust. Father to twins under 6 months old. Demonstrated remorse in sworn evidence and an early offer to repay the victim. Diagnosed with depression. Excellent prospects of rehabilitation. AUTHORITY OBJECTIVE FACTORS SUBJECTIVE FACTORS SENTENCE DPP v Charges Age Count 1 – 1 year and 6 months reduced Librando Count 1: obtain financial advantage by deception 40 from 2 years. [2024] ACTSC ($48,512.50) 100 Count 2: theft ($17,418.16) Criminal Record Count 2 – 1 year, 1 month and 15 days Baker J Count 3: theft ($10,631) No criminal history. reduced from 1 year and 6 months. Count 4: minor theft ($380) Count 3 – 1 year, 1 month and 15 days Other reduced from 1 year and 6 months. Conduct 25% discount for guilty plea. Count 4 – 23 days reduced from 1 month. The Offender was employed under the general Mother of 2 children under 18. manager at Kalparrin Aged Care. She processed 43 Completed Bachelor of Business. fraudulent invoices to have funds electronically Consistent employment in administration roles. Total sentence of 3 years imprisonment transferred to her bank account. The Offender Victim of childhood domestic violence enlivening Bugmy served by intensive corrections order. used the EFTPOS cards of 3 aged care residents to principles. make cash withdrawals over an 8-month period. Lost mother to suicide at the age of 3 or 4. The offending involved a significant breach of History of suicide attempts. trust. Psychological report for complex-PTSD and persistent depressive disorder. Finding of additional hardship due to mental illness if imprisonment were imposed. Demonstrated remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation. Delay between offending in 2019 and prosecution. DPP v Al Charges Age Count 1 – 18 months reduced from 1 Kinani [2024] Count 1: obtain property by deception ($16,568) 35 year, 11 months and 3 days. ACTSC 385 Count 2: attempt obtain property by deception McWilliam J ($51,651.73) Criminal Record Count 2 – 18 months reduced from 1 Count 3: possess device for making false document Mostly driving offences with breached good behaviour order year, 11 months and 3 days. (card printers) for obtain property by deception offence. Count 3 – 7 months reduced from 9 Count 4: money laundering ($16,568) months. Count 5: theft (EFTPOS terminal) Other Count 4 – 20 months reduced from 2 25% discount on theft. 22% discount on remainder. years, 1 month and 20 days. Conduct 5 months time in custody. AUTHORITY OBJECTIVE FACTORS SUBJECTIVE FACTORS SENTENCE The Offender stole an EFTPOS terminal. Over two Born in Iraq with traumatic upbringing enlivening Bugmy Count 5 – 3 months reduced from 4 days and nineteen transactions, the Offender principles. months. refunded $16,568 to bank cards for his own use Completed secondary education and successfully employed. and attempted to transfer over $50,000. The PTSD diagnosis. offending was sophisticated but involved no Methylamphetamine addiction. No further action on breach of good breach of trust. Engagement in Solaris Therapeutic Community during behaviour order remand, though removed from program. Acceptance into Karralika day program. Total sentence of 1 year and 11 months Guarded prospects of rehabilitation. imprisonment. Non parole period of 12 Unsuitable for ICO. months. No reparation order was sought.
DPP
Ryan-Garnsey [2026] ACTSC 62