Itaoui v Regina

Ground 2 - The learned sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to the applicant's psychiatric condition during the time the offence was committed. 20 The complaint is that the Judge only took into account the psychiatric condition of the applicant in relation to determining the ratio between the non-parole period and the period on parole and not in assessing the overall criminality of the applicant in relation to the offence for which she was being sentenced. 21 There was a great deal of evidence as to the psychiatric condition of the applicant at the time of sentence but little as to any psychiatric condition from which she may have been suffering at the time of committing the offence. There was none to suggest that her psychiatric condition had anything to do with the stealing or her other fraudulent activity. 22 There was a report from Dr Grigis dated 14 February 2003. It was relevantly as follows:

I first saw this young lady at my Eastwood Medical Centre three years ago, and then at Merrylands. I saw her again today in the City.

Other than the very traumatic experience (the hold up at the Airport office), she has suffered even more emotional trauma when she was wrongly accused of stealing a large amount of money.

This has been devastated (sic). Not only [for] this poor lady but this has destroyed the emotional feelings of all her family (whom I have known for almost 15 years now).

Since that most unfortunate incidence (sic), [the applicant's] family has watched her almost starving to death because of the severe depression, intractable insomnia, memory deficits, lack of motivation and developing "Anorexia Nervosa".

Because of that [the applicant] developed "fear of people", she was having panic attacks, and nightmares. This ended in "Social Phobia". 23 Dr Girgis concluded that a mental state examination of the applicant revealed that she was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, severe anxiety/depression state, has feelings of hopelessness and was anorexic. 24 Dr Do supplied a "medical report" dated 15 October 2004. She had been treating the applicant since 1998. Dr Do noted that the applicant had been suffering from chronic medical illnesses for several years. These included: Anorexia nervosa; chronic gastritis; congenital cataracts to the eyes; and vocal cord nodule edema causing loss of voice for several weeks. Dr Do also listed one of the applicant's illnesses as "anxiety and depression" and in that respect commented:

[A]s part of the eating disorder and also due to excessive stress at home and from time to time at work, she also suffers from anxiety and depression. She has been on various anti depression and anti anxiety medication. She is under the care of Dr Baker (Clinical Psychiatrist). 25 Dr Do also stated (my underlining):

I have been seeing [the applicant] on a regular basis for several years. My impression of her is that she is not a physically well person, she has multiple medical problems. There are also multiple stressors in her life. In the past there has been strained relationship with her parents. Currently the charge that she is facing has caused an exacerbation of all the above medical conditions, rendering her very unwell indeed.

Despite her poor health, [the applicant] has always been conscientious and very hard working. She has had several different jobs and positions over the years. She has always enjoyed her work and tried extremely hard to perform well. She spoke often to me about her jobs with a sense of pride. I was astonished to learn of the charge being laid on her. 26 Dr Baker came to have care of the applicant from 3 June 2004 and knew nothing of her or her family before that time. He diagnosed the applicant as suffering from Major Depression. Although he could not exclude a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as found by Dr Girgis, Dr Baker believed her clinical condition had deteriorated into Major Depression with Melancholia. He treated the applicant between June and October 2004 with medication and psychotherapy and her condition slowly improved but her prognosis was guarded. 27 In his report dated 15 June 2004 the following was stated:

The patient's first episode of depression was about five years ago. She describes having episodes of depressed mood episodically since this time………. 28 The applicant's brother gave evidence at the sentencing proceedings relevantly as follows:

Q. After this armed holdup at the airport when she was working [with] Thomas Cook as a teller there, did you notice that she was at home for a while?

Q. In fact she didn't go to work for about six months?

Q. To jog your memory the position is, is it not, that she was being treated, sponsored by her work, by a psychiatrist called Dr Ali and then a Dr Gergis took over from Dr Ali?

Q. After about six months did she get back to work?

Q. In that six months when she was at home what was she like compared to the--

A. She was very stressful and she wasn't feeling well at all, she was always down, very uncomfortable, sick.

Q. When she went back to work was she better at the time she went back to work?

Q. I know you're not a doctor but did she appear better to you when she went back to work after six months?

A. She might have appeared a little better but she's still not a hundred per cent like she was before the - - 29 In cross-examination the following occurred:

Q. Mr Itaoui I think your evidence has been that after the holdup in 1997 your sister remained at home for a period of approximately six months, is that correct?

Q. And during that period she was treated by a psychiatrist?

Q. After she returned to work, that is after the six months, did she continue to see a psychiatrist?

A. Sometimes she did but after a while I think she stopped.

Q. Do you know how long after she returned to work did she see a psychiatrist for, was it a short period after she returned to work or a longer period?

A. I would say a short period but I can't really recall exactly. 30 It should be noted that the armed robbery was in 1997 and the offences commenced in July 1999. In the meantime the applicant had obtained a law degree and had been attending university to obtain her business degree. It should also be noted that in 2002 she was well enough to work for the NRMA. 31 On this evidence it is quite impossible to see how the Judge could have found as a fact that the applicant was suffering from any mental illness or disability at the time of the offending. The applicant had the onus of proof in that regard. Dr Grigis's evidence was quite unspecific as to dates but it might be accepted that the applicant could have been suffering from some symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when she returned to work. I fail to understand how such a Disorder, even if she were still suffering from its symptoms at the time of the offending behaviour, could possibly have borne any relationship to the crime committed. The brother's evidence tended against any suggestion that she was mentally ill or disabled at the time of the offences. Dr Do's report is against the proposition that during her working periods she was suffering any significant mental condition apart from occasional anxiety or depression chiefly as a result of problems at home. The underlined passage from her report refutes any possible inference that the applicant was suffering from some mental illness as Dr Grigis or Dr Baker described at the time of the offending behaviour. 32 The applicant relied in particular upon the following passage in Dr Baker's report as being relevant to the issue of the applicant's culpability:

The [applicant's] extraordinary evidence of being born and growing up during the Civil War in Lebanon (1973-1995) and her subsequently being a victim of robbery at the Sydney Airport in 1997, places this woman at a higher risk of severe psychiatric illness. Similarly the use of the coping style of denial may exacerbate the patient's condition, resulting in [the applicant] not fully acknowledging situations which she experiences as threatening. This may lead to delayed onset of treatment due to the patient not seeking help.

I do not view this opinion as suggesting that the applicant's behaviour was in any way due to a psychiatric illness such that her culpability was diminished. There was no evidence that at the time of the offences she was experiencing any threatening situations. Her "coping style of denial" may explain her refusal for so long to acknowledge her criminal conduct and may explain her lack of apparent remorse. It raises questions about her prospects of rehabilitation rather than her criminal culpability. 33 In any event the nature of the applicant's activity in stealing the money and concealing her theft by what the Judge described as "careful and sophisticated procedures of her own which must have required considerable forethought" is inconsistent with any mental disability. The Judge described the thefts as "systematic, planned and sophisticated". There was no error in these findings and there is no merit in this ground of appeal.

Ground 3 - The sentence imposed is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. 34 This was a difficult sentencing exercise. On the one hand there was the seriousness of the applicant's criminal behaviour in breach of trust of her employer that clearly warranted a significant prison sentence for the reasons given by the Judge including the importance of general deterrence. 35 On the other hand, the applicant was suffering serious mental and physical conditions of which her Honour was fully appraised. Shortly before imposing sentence the Judge remarked:

The extent to which the prisoner's undoubted ill health should protect her from adequate punishment for her wrong doing is a troubling issue.

The resolution of this issue was one for the sentencing Judge to determine in the exercise of her discretion. 36 As has already been noted, the Judge adopted the unusual course of increasing the discount for the plea of guilty by reason of the applicant's mental state at the time of sentencing. I do not quite understand the rationale behind that course because the applicant's mental condition had nothing to do with the utilitarian value of her plea. A late plea is of less utilitarian value than an early plea irrespective of the personal circumstances of the offender. But, even though the Judge's approach was erroneous, it was to the applicant's advantage. The Judge specifically took into account that the applicant would spend her time in prison in more difficult conditions than might otherwise be the case because of her physical and mental condition. 37 The applicant contends that a particular error was the failure of the Judge to give sufficient weight to the delay between the commission of the offence and the applicant being charged with the offence. This was a period of nearly two years. However, the Judge specifically referred to this period and indicated that it had to be taken into account in favour of the applicant. 38 I have already noted that the Judge came to a finding that the applicant's physical and mental condition justified a variation in the ratio between the non-parole period and the period to be served on parole. I am unpersuaded by the applicant's argument that the Judge failed to take into account sufficiently the applicant's mental condition in determining the total term of the sentence. Her Honour took into account all relevant facts and sentencing principles and I am far from satisfied that the course adopted by the sentencing judge was outside her sentencing discretion. Although error has been shown in the way the trial judge pronounced the sentencing orders, I am not satisfied that any other sentence is warranted. 39 I propose that the application for leave be granted, the appeal allowed and the sentence quashed. The following orders should be made:

The applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 34 months to date from 26 November 2004. There is specified a non-parole period of 15 months to commence on 26 November 2004 and to expire on 25 February 2006 the date upon which the applicant is to be released to parole. **********

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.