"The matters to be taken into account and the approach in this jurisdiction to sentencing for offences involving breach of trust by employees are reasonably clear, but may conveniently be restated. In general, unless the circumstances are very exceptional or the amount of money is small, a sentence of immediate imprisonment is the usual and expected punishment in such cases. The sentence, and that part of it which is directed to be served, must be sufficiently substantial to indicate to the public the gravity of the particular offence. While the amount of money taken is not the only determinant of the length of sentence, it is a useful practical indicator. Where very large sums of money are taken, as here, a lengthy sentence of imprisonment is warranted. Other factors being equal, like defalcations should be dealt with by like sentences and more serious defalcations by heavier penalties; this satisfies the need for consistency in punishment, referred to by Mason J in Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606 at 610-11; [1984] HCA 46; 54 ALR 193 at 196. Apart from the amount involved, other factors to be considered when imposing sentence include: the period over which the criminal enterprise was carried on - in this case a little over two years; the quality and degree of trust reposed in the accused by his employer, including the accused's position in the employer's organisation; the use to which the accused put the moneys - in this case, mainly gambling; the impact of the offence and sentence upon the accused's fellow-employees and the public - see the observations in R v Steven and R v Green (Schedule, infra); where relevant, the impact upon public confidence in the employer; the effect of the defalcation upon the employer; the effect of the sentence upon the accused; the history and personal circumstances of the accused and any matters of mitigation personal to him. Where the breach of trust is serious it is usually not appropriate to suspend any part of the sentence."