DPP v Zakhour [2020] VCC 1509

1. On 6 June 2018 you met Mr McCraith on Tinder, and towards the end of June started a relationship with him. Not long after the relationship commenced, you proposed a business plan to purchase a blueberry farm with Mr McCraith. You told him you were putting in the majority of the money to start the business, and that he would make a 300% return. You showed him on your phone a purported contract with a farmer in New South Wales.
2. On the basis of this purported business venture, Mr McCraith, at your request and for the following reasons, transferred you money as follows:
   • $110,000 on 25 June 2018 to help start the business (Charge 1 - OFABD);
   • $41,000 on 26 June 2018, transferred in two separate transactions, to buy land for the business (Part of Charge 3 - OFABD);
   • $55,700 on 29 June 2018 to buy crops for the farm (Charge 4 - OFABD);
   • $50,000 on 13 July 2018, transferred in two separate transactions. At this point you told Mr McCraith the business was not only for blueberries but also for illegal cigarettes. You told him this $50,000 was to purchase cigarettes to be driven from the Gold Coast and sold in Melbourne (Part of Charge 3- OFABD);
   • $9,900 between 20 July and 13 August 2018; transferred in seven transactions. At this time you told Mr McCraith the truck transporting the cigarettes had been stolen, and you needed money to pay the employees to find it. You then told him that when the truck was found one of the employees was arrested, and that you needed money to pay for their bail and legal representation. The $9,900 was transferred for this purpose (Part of Charge 3 - OFABD);
   • $200,000 on 14 and 17 August 2018, in two transactions. You told Mr McCraith this money was needed to get the farm working and tobacco growing, as well as to pay for what was owed to employees, and pay for what was lost due to the cigarette truck. You told Mr McCraith he would be implicated if you were caught. You also told him employees from the farm would get angry and find him. It was on this basis the $200,000 was transferred - $110,000 is attributable to the blackmail, and $90,000 is attributable to the deception (Charge 6 - Blackmail (14/8/2018) and Charge 7 - Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception (17/8/18));
   • $16,400 on 14 and 18 September, transferred in two transactions. You told Mr McCraith this money was required for the employees (Part of Charge 3 - OFABD);
   • $13,000 on 4, 5 and 16 October, over three separate transactions, again indicated to be for employees (Part of Charge 3 - OFABD);
   • $40,000 on 29 October 2018 for employees. At this time you told Mr McCraith if he did not get the money the employees would harm him and his family, telling him 'these people have their ways' (Charge 8 - Extortion with threat to inflict injury);
   • $40,000 between 1 and 16 November, over seven separate transactions. This money was transferred to you after you told Mr McCraith a Malaysian worker had threatened to go to the police if they were not paid more (Charge 9 - Blackmail);
   • $110,000 on 14 November 2018 to pay for a supplier for planted tobacco seeds. You told Mr McCraith the supplier would rip up the harvest if the money was not paid (Charge 10 - Blackmail);
   • $43,000 on 15 November 2018 (Part of Charge 3- OFABD); and
   • $6,800 between 31 August and 7 November, provided in varying amounts, to cover living expenses. You requested an additional $5,000 to pay for your holiday in Bali, which Mr McCraith transferred to you (and that sum of $5,000 is not charged).
3. On 17 November 2018 you requested a further $280,000 from Mr McCraith to harvest the crops and said he would receive $600,000 as a return. Mr McCraith told you he did not have the money and advised you to go to your family, which you told him they could not do as they were in Dubai.
4. You continued to request money from Mr McCraith, sending regular WhatsApp messages, including suggesting Mr McCraith tell his ex-wife he would kill himself if he did not get the money, and to take the money out of his super. You also continually threatened Mr McCraith that the employees would come to Melbourne and harm him and his family.
5. Between 24 November and 12 December Mr McCraith received approximately 240 emails from you with threats towards his ex-wife and children. One text message on 25 November was purported to be from an employee, Mario, requesting money. The effect of these messages was to terrify Mr McCraith. At one point Mr McCraith left his home for the weekend as he was scared of you and your associates coming to the house (Charge 11 - Extortion with threat to inflict injury).
6. On 11 December 2018 you took a photo outside Mr McCraith's house and sent the photo to him. You went to the local bar asking for Mr McCraith's whereabouts and continued driving around until you sighted him. On the same day you sent an email requesting $1,500 from Mr McCraith, advising him you had no money left. The next day your account had gone from $3.43 to $1,411.25.
7. Mr McCraith went to the police and made statements on 24 November and 12 December 2018, giving details of how you met, the money he had transferred, and the bank statements identifying the transfers.
8. In all, Mr McCraith transferred $429,000 to you by way of your deceptive conduct. He transferred a further $300,000 to you as a result of your blackmail threats and your extortion threats.

1. In February of 2018 you met Mr Panagiotidis on Tinder, and met up with him in person in late March to April of 2018.
2. You told Mr Panagiotidis that your family owned 'Chicken Stop' takeaway stores. You told him you had to go interstate to look after a family farm which grew fruit and vegetables, and told him you were extremely stressed as you had to pay $40,000 in workers' wages.
3. Mr Panagiotidis told you he was a financial planner. When you went for lunch you told him you were having trouble paying workers at your farm, and asked him to lend you money. Mr Panagiotidis was reluctant, but on 25 June 2018, he transferred you $50,000 (Charge 2 - Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception).
4. You then asked Mr Panagiotidis for more money for farming equipment, requesting $20,000. He was reluctant, and you told him if he did not lend the money it would take him longer to get his initial loan back. On 10 July 2018 Mr Panagiotidis transferred to you $11,000 (Charge 5 - Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception). You promised to pay back this $11,000 in 3 weeks.
5. After 3 weeks Mr Panagiotidis sought to get his money back. You continually gave false promises and excuses, including in relation to growing illegal tobacco. He threatened to go to the police.

1. On 12 December 2018 Mr McCraith arranged to meet with you in Brighton. You were arrested at 12:15pm, and your mobile was seized, however you told officers you could not remember your PIN.
2. You were interviewed by police. During the interview you:
   • admitted the blueberry farm, truck and tobacco were all made up, and confirmed there were no employees, including no employee named Mario, and that you made up these stories up to get Mr McCraith to send you money;
   • said you and Mr McCraith were getting married in January and going to the Maldives after Christmas;
   • denied requesting the money for the Bali trip, indicating Mr McCraith offered this to you;
   • admitted that you gambled away the money you received at Crown Casino, believing you could win and pay the money back;
   • indicated you regretted not using the money for a better purpose as you had 'nothing to show for it';
   • told police you had offered Mr McCraith one of the Chicken Stop shops owned by your parents; and
   • said you had 'stuffed up' with money your whole life, and suggested it was Mr McCraith's fault for being 'so stupid' as to believe your stories and provide the money you requested.
3. It was not until after this point that Mr Panagiotidis came forward. In January 2019 he indicated he felt 'trapped', and that you had ceased contact with him. When he managed to get back in contact with you in May 2019 you told him you did not have the money, you had just come out of gaol, and that police had questioned you about the $50,000 transfer. You offered to pay him $150 a week, which he refused, and demanded the full sum of money back from you.
4. Upon contact by police, Mr Panagiotidis made a statement in this matter.
5. In total, Mr McCraith lost $728,700 and Mr Panagiotidis lost $61,000 as a result of your offending. The money has not been recovered (with the exception of 10 per cent which has been repaid) and you told police that you lost the lot playing baccarat at the casino.
6. After you were charged with this offending, you were remanded in custody and spent eight days by way of presentence detention before you were granted bail. I shall reckon this period as already served.

Objective gravity and moral culpability for your offending

1. The offences to which you have pleaded guilty are serious offences, as can be seen from their maximum penalties. The Continuing Criminal Enterprise offences carry a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment, whilst each of blackmail and extortion offences carry a maximum of 15 years' imprisonment,

1. I said at the beginning that Charge 3 is a rolled up charge. This is constituted by six identifiable single instances of offending, which resulted in 17 transactions paid to you. When sentencing on a rolled up charge, I must consider all of the circumstances of the offence, the period over which the offending occurred, and the totality of the harm described in the charge. While I may consider all of the relevant circumstances of a rolled up charge, the plea of guilty must still be treated as entered to a single formal charge. The maximum penalty is therefore limited to the maximum penalty for a single charge. A rolled up charge cannot constitute a Continuing Criminal Enterprise offence. Accordingly, the maximum penalty for this offence remains at 10 years.
2. Your offending represents a serious example of these types of offences:
   • through your overall offending conduct you obtained a very significant sum of money - as I have said, $728,700 from Mr McCraith and $61,000 from Mr Panagiotidis - so just short of $790,000;
   • from that sum you received over $259,000 from Mr McCraith through your blackmail demands and about $40,000 in response to your extortion threats;
   • the use of blackmail and extortion threats against Mr McCraith must be viewed as an escalation of your conduct in attempts to obtain money from him;
   • overall, the offending was persistent, continuous and, to an extent, overlapping over a period of about five months. The deceptions were continuous and repeated over this period. You made three blackmail demands of Mr McCraith between 14 August and 14 November and two extortion threats to Mr McCraith between late October and late November 2018; and
   • next I consider the seriousness of your offending. Your offending spanned across two victims; men you had met on Tinder. I can only conclude that you used the dating app as a hunting ground to seek out and exploit your victims. You were offending against each of them concurrently. On one day, 25 June 2018, you received $110,000 (Charge 1) from Mr McCraith and $50,000 from Mr Panagiotidis (Charge 2).
3. The harm caused to your victims has been significant and devastating. Mr McCraith was your principal target. You stole the most amount of money from him and, when the money slowed, he was the target of your repeated blackmail demands and extortion threats. His victim impact statement speaks of the fact that you have in effect ruined his life. He has no money, his relationship with his family has broken down and he is psychologically scarred by what you did. In the same time, Mr McCraith has suffered a debilitating stroke. There is no evidence to say whether the strain you placed on him caused or even contributed to his condition. The point is though, Ms Zakhour, he has lost everything, he can no longer provide for his daughters, he has had to borrow money from family and friends and he no longer has the full health capacity to get back on his feet.
4. Mr Panagiotidis also lost a significant amount of money, but it is to be hoped - in his working life as a financial planner, and it being a lesser amount that you obtained from Mr McCraith - that he will be able to get back on his feet financially. The bigger point with Mr Panagiotidis, and also felt so acutely by Mr McCraith, is the vulnerability each felt that you so callously and ruthlessly exploited them through the ruse of an intimate, romantic or close relationship. No one likes to feel they have been duped. Whether or not it amounts to a breach of trust as the Crown contended in each case, it was a ruthless exploitation and you have broken the ability of both men to be able to trust those around them.
5. I need to say a little about the crimes of blackmail and extortion. The experience of this court is that the crime of blackmail can take many forms. At whatever level it is committed, the object remains to instil fear in the victim in order to submit them to the demand of the blackmailer.
6. Your blackmailing demands were neither sophisticated nor particularly planned. Moreover, you did not intend and you did not have the means to carry out the menaces as they were part of the fiction by which you originally duped Mr McCraith out of so much money. Nevertheless, your demands had the intended effect of instilling fear and compelling submission. As I have already observed, you received a very large amount of money as a consequence of those demands.
7. The fact that you repeated the demands in various forms adds to the overall seriousness of your offending.
8. Equally, or perhaps even more so, the crimes of extortion you committed were indeed intended by more direct, forceful and insidious means to instil fear and compel submission. This time, you targeted your threats of harm towards the victim's family. You followed up with over 240 emails to Mr McCraith, threatening his ex-wife, his children and his mother.
9. Again, you had no intention or ability to make good on the threats. Your offending was again unsophisticated and unplanned. Equally, however, they caused real fear, to the extent where Mr McCraith left his house for a couple of days, terrified that you and your associates would arrive at his house and carry out the threats, and from that conduct you extracted $40,000 from him.
10. When analysed in this way, your conduct is very serious. It represents very serious examples of obtain financial advantage by deception, blackmail and extortion.
11. Ordinarily, such conduct must be met by principles of deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community. I shall return to these principles after I have considered your moral culpability for your offending but I will first briefly outline your personal circumstances.
12. Much of the background of your personal circumstances is taken from the report of psychologist, Joe Mollica.
13. You are 41 years old and you were born on 9 August 1979.
14. You had a normal childhood and adolescence, being the second of five children. Your family is of Lebanese heritage. You completed high school, describing yourself as a good student, and then did two years of a psychology degree. In 1998, at age 18 you met and married a man and moved to Lebanon with him. Once in Lebanon your husband had an affair and after 13 months you moved back to Australia. At this time you are described as being 'stressed and sad' about your life, and it was at this point you commenced gambling.
15. Some years later, around 2003, you began another relationship with a man who was violent. You travelled to Lebanon on the advice of your parents to escape him, however you were followed, and ended up effectively kidnapped and held in Syria by the same man. After 10 months your parents paid $400,000 to the man to allow you to return to and stay in Australia. You felt guilty that your parents had to make such a payment.
16. Once back in Australia, you found comfort in gambling, and your rate of gambling increased. You had a belief you could win enough money to repay your parents for the payment they had made. You had two further relationships with men, both of which were marred by both your and their problem gambling. Before long, Crown Casino enticed you by making you a member of the Mahogany Ultra Black room, where you gambled with high rollers; you were allocated your own hosts and you advise you were encouraged to make $20,000 bets.
17. In 2007 you were placed on an adjourned undertaking on a charge of obtain financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity. After the plea, I received a note stating that you had signed a document, believed to be an application form, in relation to a Commonwealth Bank credit card on the insistence of your then partner. I emphasise again, that the Crown provided no information about this prior offending and did not urge me to take it into account. I do not intend to say any more about this matter, or to take it into account in sentencing you for this offending.
18. You report being excluded from gambling for 12 months (although Crown Casino reinstated your rights within 2 months), as well as you self-excluding at one point. Neither exclusion lasted, and you continued gambling.
19. You report that Crown casino continued its enticements over the years. For example, you say that you were flown to Perth in a Crown Casino private jet. You report having to borrow money many times, but you say that you always paid it back with interest.
20. However, from 2018 your losses increased and you became 'desperate' as you continued gambling.
21. I was provided with two documents from Crown Casino: the Crown Casino Player Trip Report, which provides the date, buy in amount, average bet, hours spent at tables and winnings, and the Crown Casino average turnover document. Both were provided without explanation, so I have done my best to follow them; particularly the trip report. The trip report seems to indicate that after your first offending on 25 June 2018 up to 30 June 2018 you "bought in" about $140,000 to gamble. So that is your buy-in figure. The trip report uses the rather neutral language that "where a figure is prefixed by negative symbol, that indicates a win for the player. Any figure not prefixed indicates a win for Crown Casino". You lost about $165,000 in this five to

six-day period. Further, if I am reading the report correctly, you spent over 43 hours at the gaming tables in this five to six-day period, including 26 hours in the period 26 and 27 June 2018.

22. The Crown Casino turnover summary report shows that in the year 2016 you turned over just over $4½ million, in 2017 you turned over just under $7 million, and in 2018 you turned over $13 million in gambling.
23. In August 2019 you were referred by your gamblers help counsellor Catherine Hammond to consultant psychiatrist Dr Rebecca Hope at The Statewide Mental Health and Problem Gambling Services for assessment and management. I was provided with Dr Hope's letter liaising with your general practitioner. Dr Hope diagnosed you as presenting with gambling disorder in early remission, post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder without psychotic features.
24. In the course of the history you provided to Dr Hope you stated that you were targeted by your victim; that he put hundreds of thousands of dollars in your account most of which was spent on gambling; he attempted to seduce you and became angry when you refused. Mr Edwardson QC, who appeared on your behalf, expressly retracted any criticism or blame which had been levelled at your victims in the record of interview and in your history to Dr Hope. He stated that his retraction was made on your behalf.
25. I also received a report dated 17 May 2020 from your treating psychologist, Joseph Mollica. You were referred to Mr Mollica by your GP under a mental health care plan to assist you to manage your anxiety and depression. Mr Mollica reported that in your sessions with him you explored the "fantasy life" that you had led as a high roller at Crown Casino; you said that it distorted your reality and that you derived a sense of power and control by the status afforded to you by Crown Casino. In some instances, you were able to transgress Casino rules because of your gambling turnover. Importantly, it appears "money had lost its value and was merely a means to feeding [your] addiction." That comes from what you told Mr Mollica. Mr Mollica states,

Ms Zakhour maintained that she never sought to gain personal wealth but appeared, in part, to have been motivated to maintain an image of success and associated respect amongst family and friends.

1. Interestingly, Mr Panagiotidis stated that "... I had been told about the lavish lifestyle she leads and ostentatiously flaunting various high-value assets to make it apparent that she is 'financially established.'"
2. Mr Mollica concluded that you met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. He concluded you sought refuge from the reality of life in gambling. He further concluded you met the DSM 5 criteria for Gambling Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.
3. You found your eight-day period on remand harrowing, and that experience heightened your anxiety and depression. Likewise, you have found the court process and the prospect of imprisonment has further increased your anxiety and depression (and for that I refer generally to the report of Mr Mollica and your GP, Dr Uthman).
4. In October 2019 you undertook an eight-week psycho educational and peer support program, directed at assisting people and making changes to their gambling behaviour, called Getting Even Education. The program is funded through the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and is run as part of the Gamblers Help support services and Banyule Community Health.
5. You were assessed by your group facilitators as very committed to your recovery. By December 2019, facilitators Margaret Potter and Ian Correia considered you were free of gambling with no intention of returning.
6. On 31 March 2020, you signed a deed of self-exclusion, excluding yourself from 91 gaming venues for a period of up to 2 years.
7. The reference from Roba Elkadi, social worker with Arabic Welfare Inc, dated 6 July 2020, states that you first saw her in May 2020 to follow-up on your gambling addiction. Ms Elkadi specialises in helping members of Arabic speaking communities with gambling problems. Ms Elkadi considers that you have used gambling to enhance your life and to disassociate from your unhappy and unpleasant past. The "glitzy and exciting environment" presented to you by casino staff allowed you to forget about your previous life and to live in the moment.
8. It is apparent that since you were charged with this offending, your life now is very constrained. You live with your parents. Since 1 July 2019 you have worked within management at Kings Sweets in Coolaroo and at the Royal Café at the Royal Children's Hospital.
9. The character references provided to me state that since September 2019, you have worked at the Salvation Army store in Taylors Lakes. For some time you have also worked at the Queen Victoria Market on a Tuesday night helping to feed and clothe people in need. You and your family have a long history with the World Lebanese Cultural Union supporting and attending cultural and charitable events. A number of other character references, such as from your parents and from Dr Brian Martin, Associate Dean Indigenous, Monash University, speak of your underlying cultural and family values and your efforts to overcome your gambling addiction.
10. You told the police that you gambled away all of the money that you received from your offending. You said that you had lost the lot and that you had nothing to show for it. The casino player trip report that I referred to earlier reports a buy in figure during the offending period (and a little beyond) of under $500,000. It is not clear whether or how further funds were spent on gambling at the casino or elsewhere. It simply was not explained. Nevertheless, the Crown did not argue against the submission that you had spent the entirety of the money from offending on gambling; that you had lost the lot; that you were addicted to gambling; and that the fact you had nothing to show for it is not evidence of actual sustained unjust enrichment.
11. I turn now to the issue of your moral culpability. Mr Edwardson QC submitted that, in the way discussed at [56] of the Court of Appeal case of Grossi, I should find that at the time of your offending you suffered from an impulse control disorder in the form of pathological gambling listed in the DSM, the essential feature of which is "persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behaviour that disrupt personal, family or vocational pursuits". Mr Edwardson made it clear that he did not submit that your gambling addiction operated at the time of your offending such as to moderate your moral culpability. Rather, your counsel referred to [51] of Grossi where it was stated "in some cases the addiction has rather been viewed as avoiding what otherwise would have been an aggravating motive such as pure greed...". Mr Edwardson submitted that I should find that there is an inextricable link between the blackmail and extortion to your personality disorder. As such, I should find there is no aggravation of the offending.
12. On all of the evidence presented to me, I conclude that you were in the grip of gambling addiction at the time of your offending. Further, whilst it seems likely that a considerable portion of the proceeds of your offending was not spent directly on gambling, but on the lifestyle associated with it, that formed part of the lifestyle into which you retreated to escape the reality of your life and your past to that point. Whether this is an accurate assessment or not, it is clear that you have nothing to show for all the money that you stole and received. Importantly in this respect, the Prosecution does not seek to allege otherwise.
13. I also add that it seems that Crown Casino provided you with an environment and enticements which played their part in fuelling your escape and your addiction.
14. Whilst I am prepared to find that your offending is inextricably linked to your gambling addiction, I am not prepared to conclude that that addiction or any of your other diagnosable psychological disorders should be used to moderate your moral culpability. Rather, I will not ascribe your offending to simple, base greed, but to the disorder from which you suffered.
15. I am also prepared to find that you have made considerable efforts to address the cause of your offending behaviour. Although it is likely that you have a considerable way to go, and that you will require a deal of structured support and treatment into the future, it seems to me that you have good prospects for your rehabilitation.
16. Your rehabilitation prospects are enhanced by the considerable prosocial network of support you have available to you. Your parents wrote of your work ethic since you stopped gambling, and your exhibitions of support and sympathy to others working in the soup kitchen. The other references described you as well liked, hard-working, generous and trusted. Those around you believe that you can lead a law-abiding life and that you are otherwise trustworthy. The availability of these people to help you rebuild your life will be integral to your rehabilitation.
17. Although you have done much to acknowledge your wrongdoing and to address the root cause of your offending, remorse has been slow to emerge. Your record of interview spoke in contemptuous terms of one of your victims. This was repeated as late as in the report of Dr Hope dated 26 August 2019 when you in effect blamed one of your victims for your offending.
18. As I have already said, I accept that you have retracted any attribution of responsibility to the victims.
19. I received your letter of apology dated 21 July 2020. Initially, I was not inclined to accept it. After hearing from your counsel, I accepted it as an exhibit albeit with stated reluctance. The reason for my reluctance is that for the most part, a letter of apology is an anonymous and untested document. Without

cross-examination, there is no opportunity to test its genuineness or its sincerity.

20. Similarly, I am reluctant to give much weight to Mr Mollica's opinion of your remorse. Again, without expansion or cross-examination, it is hard to know exactly how he arrived at that opinion.
21. The true test of remorse is not what you say, but what you do. Immediately before the plea hearing you offered payments of approximately 10% restitution to each of Mr McCraith and Mr Panagiotidis. I understand those payments have now been made and some $79,000 has now been repaid. That is a start.
22. In your case, the true test of your remorse will come in the future. If you are true to your objective of rehabilitation, then you will stick to your plan not to gamble again. If you are truly remorseful then the empathy that you feel for those from whom you stole, from those whom you threatened and deceived, will make you thoroughly ashamed of what you did and determined never to offend again.
23. For the present time however I am prepared to find that you are beginning to exhibit remorse, but it has been late in coming and is still relatively early in its development.
24. In this way, I am prepared to find your plea of guilty has true utilitarian benefit. It has saved your victims from the hurt of the trial process; and it has saved the time and resources required to run a trial. I am also prepared to find that in the time of COVID-19, it would be easy to determine to run a trial or find some other excuse to try and put the matter off. In these circumstances, your plea of guilty should be used to mitigate your sentence in both these respects.
25. Moreover, I accept that this is in reality your first time in custody and I accept that this is made more difficult for you by the separation from your family. The difficulties you face going into custody during this period of lockdown will manifest in a number of ways. First, there has been a suspension of personal visits and the opportunity to see your loved ones face-to-face will not resume for some time to come. Second, your opportunity to work and occupy yourself meaningfully in prison has been reduced as prison work has been limited to essential tasks only. Third, therapeutic intervention has been severely reduced (if not ceased altogether). And, fourth, you will face a period of isolation when you first enter the prison system.
26. I accept all of these factors will make your entry into the prison system and your initial time in custody difficult.
27. It is necessary to say more about the difficulties you will face in prison. In March 2019, you were referred to Dr Uthman to manage your anxiety and depression. The report of Mr Mollica concludes that you meet the diagnostic criteria for gambling disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Mr Mollica considers that imprisonment will elevate your anxiety and panic attacks and you may experience a period of depression.
28. On 18 September 2020, a further plea was made on your behalf. I received a CAT discharge summary, a letter from your GP and your GP's consultation notes as exhibits.
29. You had expressed some thoughts of suicide or self-harm. The CAT team intervened and you were hospitalised for six days until 8 August 2020. Dr Uthman has trialled medications to treat your severe anxiety, panic attacks, depression and insomnia. You have also lost a considerable amount of weight in this period.
30. At the original plea hearing, the Crown agreed that limbs five and six of Verdins were enlivened: that is, the existence of your conditions of anxiety and depression at the date of sentencing would mean that the sentence of imprisonment would weigh more heavily on you than it would on a person in normal health; and that there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significant adverse effect on your mental health. These are factors which should tend to mitigate the punishment I impose on you.
31. Ms Kaczmarak submitted to the court that there had been a further deterioration in your mental health and that this reinforces the submission that your sentence should be mitigated by the application of the fifth and sixth limbs of Verdins.
32. Mr Roper, who appeared for the Crown on the initial hearing and on 18 September, agreed with this submission, but stated expressly that although your sentence should be mitigated, the deterioration in your mental condition did not change the Crown's submission on sentence; that is, that you should be sentenced to a period of imprisonment.
33. I agree that your sentence should be moderated to take into account your mental health issues, and the fact that imprisonment is likely to weigh more heavily on you than on a person of normal health. I take into account that your sentence should be mitigated by the fact that there is a serious risk that imprisonment may have a significant adverse effect on your mental health.
34. Perhaps the most important submission made on your behalf by Mr Edwardson QC was built around the remarks of King CJ in the case of Yardley v Betts. In that case, King CJ acknowledged the primary importance of general deterrence in the sentencing objectives but acknowledged that protection of the community is often best achieved through encouraging the rehabilitation of the offender.
35. Mr Edwardson submitted, on your express instructions, that I should impose a community corrections order. I told him at the plea hearing that I did not consider such a sentence to be appropriate. For his part, Mr Edwardson submitted that I could impose a combination sentence of imprisonment with a community corrections order. Again, I made it clear that I did not consider such a penalty reflected the gravity of your offending; even taking into account the words of King CJ. I said to Mr Edwardson that I would consider the submission further, and I have. Ultimately however, I reject that submission. After considering it further, and taking into account the new material filed on 17 and 18 September 2020, I conclude that your offending can only be met by a period of imprisonment.
36. Mr Roper, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution, referred to the facts I have already outlined and as to the objective seriousness of your offending to submit that general deterrence is a major sentencing consideration in this case. Moreover, Mr Roper submitted that protection of the community also has a role to play in the sentencing consideration. Mr Roper submitted (and Mr Edwardson conceded) that your gambling addiction should not mitigate your moral culpability.
37. Mr Roper submitted that your plea should be mitigated by the utilitarian benefit it brings. Moreover, the Crown conceded that your anxiety and depression will make any time in custody more burdensome than the general prison population. Finally in this respect, Mr Roper submitted that COVID-19 restrictions on movement around the prison, access to visits, and restriction on work and educational opportunities, will also serve to make your time in prison more burdensome. As I have said, I accept all of these submissions.
38. Ultimately however Mr Roper submitted that your offending must be met by a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period.
39. I have looked at a number of Court of Appeal cases[1] and also to sentences delivered by judges of this court[2] on charges of deception, of blackmail and of extortion. Although they set out the applicable principles, and give me a sense of sentencing practices, I must ultimately take into account the objective principles and balance them against the circumstances personal to you and arrive at the sentence appropriate in this case.
40. Also, given the number of offences to which you have pleaded guilty and must be sentenced, I must take into account the principle of totality; that is that I must either adjust the sentences that I impose and/or the periods of cumulation so that I arrive at a total effective sentence which is not crushing in all the circumstances.
41. So, as I say, I have decided against the imposition of a combination sentence of imprisonment with a CCO. In my opinion, it simply does not reflect the gravity of your offending. Nevertheless, in setting an overall sentence and non-parole period, I have taken into full account your efforts at rehabilitation and I now seek to impose a sentence which gives full weight (so far as the law permits) to the protection of the community by encouraging your prospects for rehabilitation.
42. Ms Zakhour, you are sentenced as follows.

1. My intended total effective sentence is a period of four years and six months.
2. I order you serve a non-parole period of two years and eight months before you are eligible for parole.
3. I declare the period of eight days pre-sentence detention reckoned as already served.
4. But for the plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of six years with four years to serve.
5. I have considered the application for a pecuniary penalty order pursuant to s.58 of the Confiscation Act and I have considered the compensation orders. There is no objection to the compensation orders being made but I note that Ms Kaczmarek on your behalf on the last occasion objected to the making of the pecuniary penalty order.
6. Although I was provided with almost no assistance, it appears that each of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty as specified in the application are Schedule 2 offences; that is that they are either over $50,000 in value or together, which is the part that is relied on by the Crown, in combination a total of more than $50,000.
7. Given the plea of guilty to the offences and the circumstances in which you have been found guilty, it seems to me that it is appropriate to make the pecuniary penalty order. I will also make each of the compensation orders.
8. Mr Kenna, is there any other matter from the Crown's perspective?
9. MR KENNA: There are no further orders required, Your Honour.
10. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Ms Kaczmarek, anything from your perspective?
11. MS KACZMAREK: No, Your Honour. As the court pleases.
12. HIS HONOUR: Ms Zakhour, what I will do is I will leave the Bench now so that Ms Kaczmarek can speak to you in relative privacy and then I will ask after that that you be good enough to go with the prison officers.

[1] R v Grossi (2008) 23 VR 500; [2008] VSCA 51; La Rosa [2019] VSCA 152, Loftus [2019] VSCA 24

[2] DPP v Davis [2018] VCC 2219; DPP v Williams [2020] VCC 667; DPP v Clews (A Pseudonym) & Anor [2017] VCC 1965; DPP v Alexiou & Ors [2019] VCC 897; DPP v Le-Gallienne [2015] VCC 954