Kareem v R

Kareem v R - [2022] NSWCCA 188 - NSWCCA 2022 case summary — Zoe

[6]

The applicant's role in the scheme

The applicant's role in the scheme was to be gleaned from the applicant's agreed facts, which were to the effect that he was a member of the joint criminal enterprise from its inception in 2013, initially to a limited extent, but by late 2015 as a fully cognisant participant. The references in that document to acts done by the applicant knowingly in furtherance of the joint criminal enterprise commence following the co-offender starting to open accounts in false names in 2013 and transferring money from Kareem Enterprises under the guise of salary payments and then withdrawing funds. Relevant aspects of the applicant's agreed facts from that point on were as follows: "OUTLINE OF JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE TO DEFRAUD ANZ 9. … 10. … Initially in 2013 [the applicant] was directed to withdraw funds and provide these to [the co-offender] under the guise of being wages for the business venture. 11. In March 2014 after Divergent Trading Pty Ltd had [been] incorporated, [the co-offender] was able to obtain a further number of lines of credit on credit cards obtained through such a fraudulent process and then would have [the applicant] continue withdraw funds from ATMs in different amounts and at different times. Such monies were then provided to [the co-offender], and part thereof re-deposited into sums to show salary staging. 12. Although initially [the applicant] was not aware of the specific nature of the fraudulent activity to obtain the monies, and the process involved, as time progressed [the co-offender] began to divulge the enterprise to [the applicant] and by that stage [the applicant] has been regularly withdrawing sums of money on a frequent basis for [the co-offender] mainly at World Square nearby where he worked. 13. Throughout the existence of the enterprise [the applicant] was involved in a number of aspects, including withdrawing sums of money and providing to [the co-offender] [sic], re-depositing sums of money into accounts, transferring money from accounts, checking on applications, accessing accounts and retaining records about such applications. 14. In total [the co-offender] and [the applicant] were involved in this joint criminal enterprise to defraud ANZ Bank between May 2013 and August 2017. 15 separate false identities were created and bank accounts were opened in those names. 'Salaries' were transferred into the fraudulent accounts from the [NAB] business accounts of Divergent Trading or Kareem Enterprises. Once a salary history was established in respect of the false identity, [the co-offender] submitted the online applications to obtain loans and credit cards (with the limited knowledge of [the applicant] initially which subsequently became more detailed as he became more involved) (Dishonestly Cause Disadvantage by Deception). 15. The applications claimed that the false identity was employed by either Divergent Trading or Kareem Enterprises, (although there is no direct evidence to suggest that [the applicant] was aware of this specific content of the applications). 16. The general nature of the enterprise would see by late 2014 [the co-offender] have [the applicant] withdraw (and would also withdraw the sums himself) most of the loan or credit card money from the fraudulent accounts using ATM facilities within days of the money becoming available, through various instructions and communications with him. Often these ATMs were located in the vicinity of [the co-offender] and [the applicant's] residence or workplace. Predominantly, money was then deposited into the business accounts of Divergent Trading or Kareem Enterprises and cycled through the further salary staging process. 17. This allowed [the co-offender] and [the applicant] to further engage in the enterprise by [the] defrauding of ANZ; money obtained by fraudulent loans and credit card applications were cycled through the fraudulent accounts attending to minimum payments as necessary and through savings accounts opened in the name of the fraudulent identities, from their business accounts to create the appearance of active accounts. Loan and credit card repayments were also made. This allowed the enterprise to make further fraudulent applications and to engage in further fraudulent activities. In preparation for these loans and credit cards, [the applicant] and [the co-offender] deposited an increased amount of money into the false identity accounts or sought loan insurance to improve the chance of the application being granted (Deal with property intend it be an Instrument of Crime). 18. Some applications for loans and credit cards were declined (Attempt Dishonestly Cause Disadvantage by Deception). 19. [The co-offender] and [the applicant] also used the money obtained in the scheme to make relatively small personal purchases at clothing stores, service stations, car parking, grocery stores and other venues to apparently meet their own personal needs. 20. During the investigation some 3,500 text messages between [the co-offender] and [the applicant] were located from 2013 onwards. The communications establish that by 2015 [the co-offender] and [the applicant] were in contact on a regular basis. By the end of 2015 their exchanges openly referred to the mechanics of maintaining the scheme and included discussions such as salary payments, salary pay days, the progress and outcome of ANZ applications. … 22. Between 31st August 2017 and 22nd November 2017, all loans and credit cards were marked as fraudulent by ANZ due to fraudulent activity, suspicions attached to Kareem Enterprises and Divergent Trading and the use of salary staging. Text messages between [the co-offender] and [the applicant] after the discovery of the fraudulent activities by ANZ did not refer to the false identities. 23. In terms of the scale of the offending, in total, the Joint Enterprise accounted for a total of $1,351,274 in loans and credit cards that were applied for and or granted. Of these applications $786,535.46 was granted, with $548,714.00 in applications being declined. Once ANZ had the opportunity to examine the records between 2013 and 2017 a loss of $663,090 was calculated. No restitution has been made. Aside from expenditure on the personal items that can be accounted for, it is not known where the total sums of money have ended up. [The applicant] continued in his course of employment throughout the venture."
In relation to the reference in par 20 to the applicant and co-offender exchanging text messages, the applicant's agreed facts reproduce some that were exchanged in relation to 13 of the 15 false identities. The earliest in time were in September 2015, concerning a false bank account that was established in August 2014. Following the grant of a credit card with a limit of $6,000, on 4 September 2015, the co-offender texted the applicant, "Zahid job done". The applicant replied the same day, "Ok good". It follows that this is the earliest date in the joint criminal enterprise when the evidence established that the applicant was a fully cognisant participant in the joint criminal enterprise. The last text messages reproduced in the applicant's agreed facts were exchanged on 7 August 2017, in relation to the last bank account. [1]
The applicant's agreed facts included a table that set out the cycling of deposits and withdrawals through the accounts of Divergent Trading and Kareem Enterprises. The total amounts that were credited and debited to Kareem Enterprises, between 27 March 2014 and 13 November 2017, were $2,142,725.30 and $2,144,395.73 respectively. The total amounts that were credited and debited to Divergent Trading Pty Ltd, between 14 March 2014 and 29 December 2017, were $1,750,244.49 and $1,699,146.18 respectively.

[10]

The Sentencing Assessment Report

The Sentencing Assessment Report dated 3 December 2020 described the applicant's family, education and employment history. At the time of the report, the applicant was residing with his wife and two children in their family home. His younger son "has autism". The applicant reported a "positive relationship" with his wife and said that he was the primary carer of his younger son. He was employed as an accountant and "contact with [his] employer revealed him to be a good worker" who was "well-liked by his colleagues".
The applicant said that he "held the co-offender in high esteem" and regarded him as a "role model" who would act in his "best interests". As to the circumstances of the offences, the applicant said that he was not sure why he committed them: "I don't know what frame of mind I was in and why I did it". He gave various explanations, including that he was provided with the opportunity to run a business which appealed to him; that once he became aware of the illegal activities, he "felt bad" for the co-offender and wanted to help him "kick start" his life; and greed, that is, being motivated to make money to better his financial circumstances.
The applicant expressed regret, saying, "It was the biggest mistake of my life" and said that "I shouldn't have done it, no questions asked". As to the applicant's "insight into impact of offending", the report noted: "[The applicant] stated that his actions would have financially deprived the bank, however, he commented that it should not have been so easy for the co-offender to do what he did and that the banks should have been 'looking at their procedures'. He did acknowledge that regardless of what he thought, the bank still lost money because of their actions. "[The applicant] stated that he not only let his wife down, but the broader community as well. He stated that his actions went against his own morals and principles and the morals and principles of his community."
The report assessed the applicant at a "Low" risk of reoffending in accordance with the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R) assessment tool.

[12]

The report of Dr Nielssen

Dr Nielssen assessed the applicant by phone on 30 November 2020 and by audio-visual link on 3 December 2020. Dr Nielssen related the applicant's account of why he committed the offences and what part he played in them: "[The applicant] said that the co-offender approached him to ask for a favour, as he said he wanted to start a business in herbal tea, and because he was receiving Centrelink payments he did not want to open a bank account or start a company in his own name. He said 'he asked me to use my bank account … I had a trusting relationship with him and I thought he would do something and I might join him in the business'. He said that he also felt obliged to the co-offender because of the assistance he received when he first arrived in Australia. … 'I should have said no but then I started withdrawing cash'. He said 'he was controlling everything and I was just assisting him … My job was to go to an ATM and take the cash out'. … [The applicant] said 'I understand that the loss to the bank had involved me as well … even though my part was lower … I opened the door and someone got in … my part was to open the door for him' … … [The applicant] said that he had been financially secure, as he and his wife were both working in good jobs and he was doing well in his career, they were paying off a mortgage on their home and did not have a particular need for money. He denied having any kind of substance use disorder or gambling addiction, or any other pressing need for money. He said 'I was influenced by the mutual trust I had with [the co-offender] and I got carried away … which was a big mistake'."
The applicant expressed remorse: "… since that day I am very regretful of my actions … I understand I should not have done this … since that day I changed my perception of my life … there should be no shortcuts in life … it was a mistake … I let my family down … I let my community down … I let my morals down."
In relation to the applicant's younger son's mental conditions, Dr Nielssen took the following history: "[The applicant] said that his younger son had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder by a paediatrician, after he was observed to be slow to start speaking. … He said that caring for his son had been a priority since the diagnosis, and had led him to take a less demanding job that allowed him time off to attend appointments and activities."
Dr Nielssen concluded that the applicant "was not thought to meet the accepted criteria for the diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder". He expressed the following opinion on the applicant's response to being charged with the offences: "[The applicant] reported becoming distressed in the aftermath of being charged with the offences, and the implications of his younger son's subsequent diagnosis has added to his distress. However, he has been able to meet his various commitments, and did not seem pervasively depressed, and he was not thought to require specific treatment for depression at this stage. [The applicant] reported that he was active in the care of his younger son, who has behavioural problems and does not respond well to changes in routine, and his imprisonment would be very difficult for his wife, in addition to depriving the family of his income. He expressed what seemed to be an appropriate degree of remorse for his conduct, and was assessed to have a comparatively low likelihood of further similar offences, based on an assessment of his attitude and circumstances, the absence of any history of other forms of criminal conduct, or committing offences to fund an addiction, which can be enduring. No specific psychiatric treatment is recommended to reduce the likelihood of reoffending."

[18]

The parties' submissions to the sentencing judge

In written submissions, the Crown stated: "The facts accepted by the Crown in relation to [the applicant] acknowledge that it was the co-offender … who initiated the scheme from 2013 and enlisted the support of [the applicant] to utilise a business account in the name of Kareem Enterprises through which to channel funds for the purposes of demonstrating credit worthiness. [The applicant] became more deeply involved in the fraudulent activity as time progressed. He was informed of the specifics of the fraudulent scheme from the beginning of 2015 and by late 2015 was fully aware of the process by which fraudulent payments were being obtained. Such involvement was reflected in various electronic communications investigators were able to retrieve after computers and mobile telephones belonging to [the applicant] and co-offender were seized and examined. Records relating to access and management of several of the fraudulent accounts were found on computers in [the applicant's] possession. … [The applicant] … is a qualified accountant. Records kept on computers found in his possession show that he used his accounting skills to track activities relating to fraudulent accounts. The Crown accepts that [the applicant] is less criminally culpable than the co-offender because there is no evidence that he was involved in the establishment of the fake identities nor that the scheme was established on his initiative. … … several … aggravating factors are present. They include the degree of planning that is reflected in the creation of false documentation, the staging of wage payments into accounts, the making of fraudulent loan and credit applications and the [siphoning] of money out of the accounts."
In oral submissions, the Crown said: "… the Crown does concede that it is not in possession of evidence which demonstrates [the applicant's] involvement in the creation of the false identities or the applications for the loans or credit cards but the Crown does submit that he has pleaded to facts that clearly demonstrate that from the outset he was prepared to involve himself with [the co-offender] to the extent that those activities facilitated the frauds that occurred on the ANZ bank. ... … the Crown does concede a lower level of culpability in that there's no evidence and your Honour could not find that [the applicant] was physically involved in opening the accounts, signing applications, submitting applications in relation to the credit facilities that were utilised. That's got to be tempered so the staging process that [the applicant] admits his involvement in, the depositing of cash into the bank accounts for the purposes of making it look like those accounts were being paid a wage so that the loan facilities could be obtained, well that process is in the context of [the applicant] being a professional accountant which the Crown says certainly impacts on his degree of criminality and there's no way that [the applicant] would suggest - and I haven't heard any proposal to this effect - that he didn't appreciate the sorts of activities he was involved in, as a far more sophisticated member of the community perhaps than [the co-offender] … We've also got, the Crown submits, a far higher degree of expectation in relation to a professional person employed in the occupation of accountancy."
The applicant submitted that it was necessary to differentiate between the relative culpability of the applicant and the co-offender in the joint criminal enterprise, noting that the applicant was less criminally culpable, as conceded by the Crown. The applicant submitted that a lesser sentence than that imposed in respect of the co-offender was also warranted because of the disparity in their ages and criminal histories and the influence that the co-offender had exercised over the applicant in the applicant's involvement in the joint criminal enterprise. The applicant noted that the facts concerning the co-offender's fraud offences in 1998 and 1999, which were to the effect that he had created false identities using fabricated birth certificates, supported the proposition that the co-offender was the architect of the scheme. The applicant submitted that an aggregate sentence of 3 years or less was open to the Court, in which case an intensive correction order should be imposed. [3]
The applicant responded to the Crown's submission that the applicant's occupation was an aggravating factor: "In relation to the fact that my client is an accountant, my submission is that is simply a red herring because on the … agreed facts … the only role my client played was certainly criminal but all he did was transfer monies. You don't have to be an accountant to do that. Anybody could have done that and the important point is if you go back to para 12 … the important word there is divulge. [4] Now what that really explains in the context of this case [is] that at that stage, [the co-offender] was divulging the scheme to [the applicant] and everything that happened after that was mechanical. … All [the applicant] did when he came to it, he certainly embraced it, but everything he did after that was mechanical in the sense that he certainly transferred amounts of money but the significant criminality was initiated by [the co-offender], given the fact that he in fact forged documents which on the face of it [the applicant] was not aware of that until all this information was divulged to him. So, that just makes the point that all [the applicant] did was in the mechanical sense was transfer the monies which is criminal in nature but he didn't have to be an accountant to do that."
In relation to the issues of the special needs of his son, in written submissions, the applicant noted that "he plays a key role in the care for his children, in particular one of his children is afflicted with autism and requires special care" and that a full-time custodial sentence would have a significant impact "for [the applicant], and his wife and family", since he is "the parent of a son who has special needs and is autistic, with severe behavioural issues". The applicant submitted that "the impact on his immediate family" of a custodial sentence was a reason to find special circumstances.
In the course of an exchange between the sentencing judge and Crown on the topic of hardship and the test, confirmed in R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510, that the circumstances need to be "highly exceptional" for significant mitigatory weight to be attributed to hardship, her Honour said: "Even if it doesn't reach the threshold, it's still something to be taken into account in [mitigation]". Senior Counsel for the applicant then clarified the applicant's position, stating that: "… in relation to hardship we accept what your Honour says. We concede it doesn't reach the Edwards standard but nonetheless it's a huge factor in a case such as this."

[20]

Reference to agreed facts by the sentencing judge

The sentencing judge expressed mild criticism that there were two sets of agreed facts, rather than one set in relation to both offenders: "The agreed facts in the Crown bundles, for some reason, are different for each offender. [For the applicant], the facts go into more background detail. I do intend to read paras 4 to 12 of the agreed facts … in the bundle that was tendered by the Crown in the sentence matter of [the co-offender]. It is essentially the same insofar as content is concerned as the document tendered in the bundle for [the applicant]. Why the Crown has presented two different sets of facts is unclear to me, and frankly, productive of confusion. Nevertheless, the following facts are relevant in relation to both offenders."
The sentencing judge then proceeded to extract pars 4-12 of the co-offender's agreed facts, as follows: "4. [The co-offender] and [the applicant] were involved in a joint criminal enterprise to defraud ANZ Bank between May 2013 and August 2017. 15 false identities were created and bank accounts were operated in those names. 'Salaries' were transferred into the fraudulent accounts from the National Australia Bank business accounts of Divergent Trading or Kareem Enterprises. Once a salary history was established in respect of the false identity, [the applicant] and [the co-offender] submitted online loan and credit card applications to obtain loans and credit cards. The applications claimed that the false identity was employed by either Divergent Trading or Kareem Enterprises. 5. [The co-offender] set up the accounts and [the applicant] withdrew the loan or credit card money from the fraudulent accounts using ATM facilities within days of the money becoming available. Predominantly money was then deposited into the business accounts of Divergent Trading or Kareem Enterprises. 6. This allowed [the co-offender] and [the applicant] to further engage in the defrauding of ANZ; money obtained by fraudulent loans and credit card applications were cycled through the fraudulent accounts and through savings accounts opened in the name of the fraudulent identities, from their business accounts to create the appearance of active accounts. Loan and credit card repayments were also made. This allowed [the co-offender] and [the applicant] to make further fraudulent applications and to engage in further fraudulent activities. In preparation for these loans and credit cards, [the applicant] deposited an increased amount of money into the false identity accounts to improve the chance of the application being granted. 7. Some applications for loans and credit cards were declined. 8. [The applicant] [and I add [the co-offender]] also used a small amount of the money obtained in the scheme to make relatively small personal purchases at clothing stores, service stations, car parking, grocery stores and other venues. The majority of the proceeds of the frauds remain unaccounted for. 9. Some 3,500 text messages between [the co-offender] and [the applicant] were located. The communications establish that [the co-offender] and [the applicant] were in contact on a daily basis. Their exchange related to the mechanics of maintaining the scheme and included discussions such as salary payments, salary paydays, the progress and outcomes of ANZ applications. 10. An analysis of the accounts of Divergent Trading and Kareem Enterprises revealed a number of deposits and withdrawals cycled through the respective business accounts. [Those entries are set out in the table at para 10.] 11. Between 31 August 2017 and 22 November 2017, all loans and credit cards were marked as fraudulent by ANZ due to fraudulent activity, suspicions attached to Kareem Enterprises and Divergent Trading, and the use of salary staging. Text messages between [the co-offender] and [the applicant] after the discovery of the fraudulent activities by ANZ did not refer to the false identities. 12. In total, [the co-offender] and [the applicant] applied for a total in excess of $1.351 million in loans and credit cards, and approximately $768,000 was granted. Approximately $548,000 was declined, and ANZ suffered a loss of $663,090."
The sentencing judge read into the judgment a further section from the co-offender's agreed facts, titled "Roles of Malik and Kareem", which did not have a counterpart in the applicant's agreed facts: "Under the heading Roles of Malik and Kareem the following is stated: '[The co-offender] and [the applicant] each had access to the fraudulent bank accounts and accessed the accounts for the purpose of identifying missed salary payments, ascertaining the balance of a fraudulent bank account, and providing updates to each other regarding the outcomes of applications. Regular meetings were arranged to discuss the scheme. [The applicant] withdrew funds from the fraudulent bank accounts and deposited the money into their own company bank account before the money was again deposited into the fraudulent account. [The applicant] transferred money into the fraudulent accounts from the identities' savings accounts or other fraudulent accounts to ensure a positive balance was maintained to improve the chance of a loan or credit application being granted. The applications were lodged with ANZ by [the co-offender], who sent a confirmation to [the applicant] when the application was lodged. [The applicant] maintained accountant-like records associated with the scheme which outlined: • salary and paydays; • access numbers and passwords; • repayment details and dates; • minimum balance to keep cycle afloat; and • details when the next application for a loan should take place."
The sentencing judge included a passage extracted from the Crown written submissions in respect of the co-offender: "The Crown submits, and I accept, that essentially the two offenders engaged in (para 3 Crown written submissions Kareem): 'A sophisticated arrangement in which the offender and co-offender established false identities with ANZ Bank. Fraudulent identification information was used to create these false identities. They then created a false income stream for each identity to support applications for credit. Once credit was obtained there was some servicing of the loans but generally the loans fell into arrears and the offenders realised the benefit of credit initially advanced.'"
Contrary to the inference that the extracted passage is replicated at par 3 of the Crown submissions in respect of the applicant, it does not contain the same attribution of joint liability for the entire duration of the scheme. Rather, par 3 of those submissions reads: "The facts relate a sophisticated arrangement in which fifteen false identities were created with ANZ Bank. Fraudulent identification information was used to create these false identities. A false income stream was created for each to support applications for credit. Once credit was obtained there was some servicing of loans but generally the loans fell into arears and the benefit of credit initially advanced was fraudulently obtained."

[23]

Subjective considerations

The sentencing judge considered the issue of hardship arising from the applicant's younger son's autism: "The younger child suffers from autism. He has severe behavioural and speech-related issues. He is in a special class at school. [The applicant], according to his wife, is better at dealing with him. [The applicant's] wife works full-time and she has no family support as her family live[s] in Pakistan. The evidence establishes that the family is likely to suffer financial hardship if she has to limit her work so that she can care for their children, particularly the younger son who has special needs. [The applicant's] incarceration will inevitably cause not only financial hardship, but other hardship. There is no doubt that hardship will flow from [the applicant's] incarceration to his wife and to both his children, in particular his youngest son. However, in my view, … exceptional hardship in the sense referred to by the case of Edwards is not established here. The prosecutor cross-examined [the applicant's] wife, establishing that she might be entitled to additional financial support during the period of incarceration."
As to the applicant's claim that his offending was consequent to the influence that his co-offender had over him, the sentencing judge remarked: "The Court accepts that [the co-offender] was someone who played a role in [the applicant's] life as an older, influential and trusted male and that [the applicant] was likely to have been impressionable and naïve. But [the applicant] made a choice to get involved in this fraudulent scheme. He is an accountant who knew precisely what he was doing."
The sentencing judge summarised the applicant's favourable subjective circumstances thus: "There are a number of mitigating factors in his case: 1. There is demonstrated remorse. 2. He is entitled to be extended a measure of leniency on account of a lack of prior criminal history. And I accept that this was out of character offending. 3. I accept that he has good prospects of rehabilitation. 4. I accept that he is unlikely to reoffend."

[26]

The applicant's submissions

The applicant submitted that, to the extent that the sentencing judge assessed the applicant's role on the basis of the co-offender's agreed facts, on the mistaken assumption that they essentially mirrored the applicant's agreed facts, her Honour was mistaken as to when the applicant became a wholly involved participant in the enterprise and incorrectly assessed his role in it. As such, her Honour fell into error by either mistaking facts or being guided by irrelevant matters: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 at 505.
The applicant referred to the observations by the sentencing judge, extracted from the remarks on sentence at [52] above, to the effect that the offenders' agreed facts are "essentially the same" and that the passages her Honour incorporated into the remarks from the co-offender's agreed facts were "relevant in relation to both offenders". Consequent to that error, the sentencing judge determined identical levels of objective seriousness for each offence to each offender.
The applicant submitted that the co-offender's agreed facts assigned a higher level of culpability to the applicant than the applicant's agreed facts. A concession was made in the applicant's agreed facts that there was "no direct evidence to suggest that [the applicant] was aware of [the] specific content of the applications" and that he only became "fully aware" of the details of the scheme in 2015. [6] In contrast, the co-offender's agreed facts implicated the applicant in the offending "right from the beginning".
The applicant referred to the passage that the sentencing judge took from the co-offender's agreed facts, extracted at [54] above, noting that it was not replicated in the applicant's agreed facts, and that it itemised aspects of the applicant's role that were not part of the applicant's agreed facts. Those aspects were: "a. There was no evidence in the applicant's agreed facts that the purpose of the applicant accessing the accounts was for 'identifying missed salary payments, ascertaining the balance of a fraudulent bank account, and providing updates to each other regarding the outcomes of applications'; b. There was no evidence in the applicant's agreed facts that 'regular meetings were arranged to discuss the scheme'; c. While there was evidence of the applicant withdrawing funds from the fraudulent bank accounts and depositing it into the company bank account, there was insufficient evidence contained [in] the applicant's agreed facts to suggest that the applicant did so with a particular purpose in mind, that is that the applicant 'transferred money into the fraudulent accounts from the identities' savings accounts or other fraudulent accounts to ensure a positive balance was maintained to improve the change [sic] of a loan or credit application being granted'…; d. While there was evidence in the applicant's agreed facts that the applicant had kept records, there was no reference to the records being 'accountant like', nor evidence in the applicant's agreed facts that such records included the 'minimum balance to keep cycle afloat' and 'details when the next application for a loan should take place'." (emphases in original)
The applicant submitted that the offender's role was not readily apparent from the applicant's agreed facts: "… there was no clear exposition of role in the applicant's agreed facts, in contrast to the co-offender's agreed facts. The applicant's role in his case was to be ascertained from the agreed facts tendered in his case, read as a whole ... much of the conduct in the applicant's agreed facts are not attributed to one or the other co-offender … … With respect to many of the acts carried out in relation to each 'profile' that was set up, there is no delineation of role nor specific attribution to one or other of the offenders. Insofar as any specific acts could be attributed to the applicant, they did not support all of the findings made by [the sentencing judge] on the basis of the agreed facts tendered in the co-offender's case."

[27]

The respondent's submissions

The respondent submitted that in relying upon sections of the co-offender's agreed facts in order to determine the applicant's role, the sentencing judge: "… recognised the differences in the wording of the two statements of facts and simply used the [co-offender's agreed facts] as a convenient summary of the joint criminal enterprise … That summary included obvious and available inferences as to the role of the applicant that her Honour was entitled to draw from the evidence as presented in [the applicant's agreed facts]."
The respondent referred to the paragraph extracted above at [52], submitting that the sentencing judge was correct to conclude that there was no difference between the applicant's criminal conduct as described in the passages that her Honour took from the co-offender's agreed facts and as set out in the applicant's agreed facts. The respondent also noted that the applicant and co-offender had "each pleaded guilty to the same joint criminal enterprise" and that the sentencing judge was entitled to describe that enterprise and summarise her findings with respect to the applicant's role in it.
The respondent addressed each of the discrepancies identified by the applicant, extracted at [71] above, making submissions which can be summarised as follows: 1. Complaint (a) "has no substance" because it was clear from the applicant's agreed facts that he was "fully aware of the criminality involved in the scheme by late 2015" and engaged in "salary staging". 2. Complaint (b) involved a "semantic" and "immaterial" distinction because the applicant's agreed facts referred to 3,500 text messages between the applicant and co-offender that established they were "in contact on a regular basis" and which, by the end of 2015, contained discussion of the fraudulent scheme. 3. Complaint (c) appeared to involve "an issue of potential traversal of the plea", given the mens rea involved in the offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty was to dishonestly cause, or attempt to cause, financial disadvantage to the ANZ Bank and to transfer money into accounts in false names by way of salary staging. 4. Although the applicant's agreed facts did not expressly refer to the applicant keeping "accountant like" records and did not state that those records included the minimum balance necessary for the scheme and details as to when the next loan application should be made, the applicant's background in accountancy and the nature of the salary staging scheme were described in the applicant's agreed facts, and it was asserted that the applicant was involved in the mechanics of the scheme, including the retention of records, "throughout the existence of the enterprise": see par 13 of the applicant's agreed facts extracted at [19] above.
The respondent submitted that the sentencing judge's mistaken reference to the section of the Crown written submissions concerning the co-offender being replicated in those in respect of the applicant was a "slip". The respondent submitted that the applicant's role is later correctly stated, for example, in the sentencing judge finding that the co-offender was the "architect" of the scheme and the applicant's involvement increased over time.
The respondent submitted that, in the context of a joint criminal enterprise, that enterprise can be considered to determine objective seriousness as a "general concept" without distinguishing between the individuals' offending, before proceeding to consider the individual culpability of the co-offenders.

[28]

Consideration of ground 1

As was observed in Gaggioli v R [2014] NSWCCA 246 by Fullerton J (Hoeben CJ at CL and Adamson J agreeing), at [27]: "It is well recognised that sentences imposed on co-offenders may be based upon different factual findings if the evidence tendered before either the same or different sentencing judges differs (see Baquiran v R [2014] NSWCCA 221 referring to R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135 per Basten JA at [6], referred to with approval in Ith v R [2013] NSWCCA 280 at [61]) …"
In Baquiran v R [2014] NSWCCA 221, Macfarlan JA (Adamson and Bellew JJ agreeing) found error by a sentencing judge who relied in part upon the sentencing judgment of a co-offender in determining the role of the offender. Macfarlan JA said, at [27]: "…. Baquiran's role had to be determined by [the sentencing judge] by reference to the facts in evidence before him, essentially those set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts. As Basten JA pointed out in R v Chandler [2012] NSWCCA 135 at [6] (referred to with approval in Ith v R [2013] NSWCCA 280 at [61]), sentences of co-offenders may occur on differing factual bases if the evidence before the sentencing judges differs."
A comparison of the parts of the co-offender's agreed facts extracted above at [53] with the part of the applicant's agreed facts extracted above at [19] brings to light, in my view, more significant differences as to the applicant's role than those identified by the applicant at [71] above. In more detail, the differences are as follows: 1. Inferentially, in the co-offender's agreed facts, the applicant was a fully cognisant member of the joint criminal enterprise from the scheme's commencement in 2013. However, according to the applicant's agreed facts, at par 12, the applicant was initially unaware of the "specific nature of the fraudulent activity to obtain the monies, and the process involved" and, as time progressed, the co-offender "began to divulge the enterprise" to the applicant. The applicant's agreed facts further qualify his involvement at par 14, noting that the applicant initially had "limited knowledge" of the co-offender submitting applications for loans and credit cards. At par 15, the applicant's agreed facts state that there was "no direct evidence" that the applicant was aware that the loan applications stipulated that the false identity was employed by either Divergent Trading or Kareem Enterprises. 2. Whereas the co-offender's agreed facts at par 9 refer to the 3,500 emails exchanged between the offenders between 2013 and 2017 establishing that they "were in contact on a daily basis", the applicant's agreed facts state, at par 20, that the emails establish that "by 2015 [the co-offender] and [the applicant] were in contact on a regular basis". 3. According to the co-offender's agreed facts, at par 4, the applicant and the co-offender jointly submitted the online applications for loans and credit cards, whereas in the corresponding part of the applicant's agreed facts at pars 14 and 15, it was the co-offender alone who submitted the applications. There is also no direct evidence in the applicant's agreed facts that the applicant was aware of the specific content of the applications. 4. Consistent with those differences, whereas at par 12 of the co-offender's agreed facts, "[the co-offender] and [the applicant] applied for a total in excess of $1,351,274 in loans and credit cards", in the applicant's agreed facts, at par 23, it is stated that "the joint enterprise accounted for a total of $1,351,274 in loans and credit cards". 5. In the co-offender's agreed facts, at par 6, it was the applicant alone who made the deposits into the false accounts to improve the chances of the applications being granted, whereas in the applicant's agreed facts, at par 17, both the applicant and co-offender did so.
The passage in the remarks on sentence that was taken from the co-offender's agreed facts under the heading "Roles of Malik and Kareem", and the passage from the Crown's written submissions on sentence concerning the co-offender extracted at [55] and [56] above, underscore the inference arising from the co-offender's case, and adopted by her Honour in respect of both cases, that the two offenders were equally culpable and fully engaged in the joint criminal enterprise throughout the life of the scheme.
It was common ground in the sentence hearing that the applicant's role in the enterprise rendered him less criminally culpable than the co-offender, for four reasons: there was no evidence, first, that the scheme was established on the applicant's initiative; or second, that he was involved in the establishment of the fake identities and accounts; or third, that he was involved in signing and submitting the fraudulent applications to the ANZ Bank for credit. Fourth, that evidence did not establish that the applicant was aware of the mechanics of the fraud before 2015.
As noted, the sentencing judge acknowledged the applicant's lesser role in the enterprise in relation to objective seriousness, the aggravating factor of planning and parity. In the course of assessing the objective seriousness of the offending, the sentencing judge correctly related the applicant's lesser role as extracted at [57] above, which identified two of the four bases upon which the applicant's role was conceded by the Crown to be less than that of the co-offender, namely, the first and third reasons above. However, by then fixing identical levels of objective seriousness in relation to both offenders for each offence, the sentencing judge failed to reflect the applicant's lower level of criminal culpability.
The sentencing judge also acknowledged the applicant's lesser role when referring to the aggravating factor of planning and considerations of parity of sentence. The sentencing judge noted that the degree of planning involved in the offences was less relevant to the applicant than to the co-offender and that the applicant was entitled to a lesser sentence than the co-offender because, unlike the co-offender, he did not have a prior criminal history, and "he played a significantly lesser role and so, is less culpable".
Although the sentencing judge did acknowledge the applicant's lesser role in those later aspects of the sentencing exercise, the fact that it was not reflected in disparate findings of objective seriousness for each offender, that the bases of his lesser criminal culpability were not further identified and that those acknowledgements were not reconciled with the earlier part of the remarks on sentence in which the roles of both offenders were described in equal terms over the duration of the joint criminal enterprise, leads me to conclude the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion miscarried by her Honour allowing into consideration extraneous or irrelevant matters or making a mistake as to the relevant facts: House v The King at 505.
Accordingly, I find that ground 1 is made out.
Before leaving this ground, I join the sentencing judge in her criticism of the manner in which the agreed facts were presented to the Court. They were unnecessarily complex, to a point that the differences in the roles of each offender were obscured. A court that is tasked with sentencing co-offenders on the basis of agreed facts should be provided with facts, either separate or combined, that clearly delineate the roles of each offender. The agreed facts in both cases fell short of that standard.

[32]

Consideration

As noted, the Crown conceded before the sentencing judge, and her Honour accepted, that the applicant's offending did not involve a breach of trust by profiting from a position as an accountant to commit the offences. The issue is whether, based on the applicant's agreed facts alone, it was open to the sentencing judge to conclude, as an aggravating factor, that the applicant utilised his skills as an accountant to commit the offences.
The relevant parts of the applicant's agreed facts set out the nature of the applicant's accountancy qualifications and employment, his critical steps in setting up the companies that were used for the transfers of funds between accounts for salary staging and withdrawals for their own purposes, over 100 text messages that were exchanged between the applicant and co-offender that illustrate that the applicant was closely informed of the progress and outcome of loan and credit card applications from late 2015, and a considerable volume of documentary material that was recovered from the applicant's computers, set out at [22] above.
Although the agreed facts do not indicate the authorship of the spreadsheets, the nature of the information in them and the other documents (bank statements, loan documents, business registration details and tax details) permit an overwhelming inference that the applicant's role between late 2015 and 1 August 2017 was more than simply "transferring money". Further, regardless of whether the applicant authored the entries in the spreadsheets, his possession of them was for the purposes of the joint criminal enterprise and he must have brought to bear his qualifications and experience as an accountant in utilising the information upon them and in the other documentation, in furtherance of the joint criminal enterprise.
Accordingly, on the basis of the material in the applicant's agreed facts, it was open to the sentencing judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant used his skills as an accountant to commit the offences.
In relation to ground 2, I would grant leave to appeal, but find this ground is not made out.

[38]

Consideration

This Court has previously observed that extreme hardship that would be occasioned to an offender's family by a sentence of imprisonment, that falls short of the Edwards standard of "highly exceptional" circumstances, nevertheless may be taken into account by the sentencing judge shortening the overall sentence of imprisonment or by finding special circumstances: Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156, at [34]; R v Cornell [2015] NSWCCA 258, at [141]. Counsel for the applicant at the proceedings on sentence conceded that the evidence of hardship that would be occasioned to the applicant's family by his imprisonment did not reach the Edwards standard. This ground thus focuses on hardship as a subjective circumstance that is taken into account in sentencing an offender.
There was ample evidence before the sentencing Court to the effect that, because of the applicant's central role in the care of his younger son, his incarceration would have a direct adverse impact on his son's wellbeing. The applicant's absence would likely oblige his wife to cease her employment, in order to fill that void, which would in turn have financial consequences for the family as a whole.
Although the sentencing judge did not expressly acknowledge in her remarks on sentence that the consequences of imprisonment to the applicant's wife and younger son were taken into account as a mitigatory factor, in the course of oral submissions at the sentence hearing her Honour expressed her intention to do so: see [50] above. That acknowledgement, taken together with her Honour's consideration of the issue in the course of her remarks on sentence that is excerpted above at [62], leads me to conclude that her Honour did appropriately take into account the impact of the sentence on the applicant's family circumstances. In any event, the sentencing judge did find special circumstances, significantly reducing the ratio of the non-parole period to the total sentence, from 75 per cent to 58 per cent, so that it is unnecessary to consider that issue further: R v Cornell at [141].
As to the second aspect of this ground, the only reference to the applicant's concern for his younger son's welfare being a mitigatory factor made in the applicant's written submissions to the sentencing judge was under a heading of "Impact". There, the applicant submitted that "… a full-time custodial sentence … for [the applicant] and his wife and family … will have a significant impact given he is the parent of a son who… has special needs and is autistic, with severe behavioural issues."
The submissions sought a finding of special circumstances because it was the applicant's first instance of offending and because of the impact that his incarceration would have on his family, but did not identify the impact on the applicant himself as a reason for a finding of special circumstances. Indeed, it was stated in the applicant's submissions that Dr Nielssen's report disclosed that, "There are no apparent relevant mental health issues identified, save for general appropriate situational anxiety".
In oral submissions to the sentencing judge, as noted at [49] and [50] above, senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the impact of imprisonment on the applicant's family was "a huge factor" to be taken into account in mitigation, but did not submit that the impact of the applicant's family's situation on his mental wellbeing should also be taken into account.
This Court has previously observed that it is reluctant to intervene where reliance is placed on a subjective factor that may be open on the evidence but which defence counsel at first instance did not refer to. In Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44 Johnson J, McClellan CJ at CL agreeing, said: "79 This Court is a court of error. The jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with a sentencing decision is exercisable only where there can be seen to have been an error of principle, or some other mistake of fact or law: R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104 at 108. If material error is demonstrated, before the Court would proceed to resentence the applicant, the Court must form a positive opinion that some other sentence is warranted in law and should have been passed: s 6(3) Criminal Appeal Act; R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; 126 A Crim R 525 at [79]. It is, of course, a basic principle that, absent error, the Court of Criminal Appeal may not substitute its own opinion for that of the sentencing judge merely because (if it be the case) the Court would have exercised its discretion in a manner different from the manner in which the sentencing judge exercised his or her discretion: Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 at [15]. 80 There is a practical expectation that an offender's legal representative will make submissions to the sentencing judge at first instance, by reference to the particular factors which are sought to be taken into account in mitigation of sentence in the case at hand: Edwards v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 199 at [11]; Dyer v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 185 at [49]. It might be thought that defence counsel would have ample opportunity to consider whether an argument concerning possible summary disposal should be made in the District Court, given that the acceptance of a plea of guilty to a lesser charge usually follows charge negotiations, as occurred in this case. The fact that a less serious charge is to proceed (and its consequences) would be at the forefront of counsel's thinking. 81 The Victorian Court of Appeal has emphasised recently, that in sentencing appeals, the Court is reviewing the exercise of a discretionary judgment and not rehearing a plea of mitigation. It is not the occasion for the revision and reformulation of the case presented below. The Court will not lightly entertain arguments that could have been put, but were not advanced on the plea, and will have an even greater reluctance to entertain arguments that seek to resile from concessions made below or are a contradiction of submissions previously made. The Court spoke of the need for exceptional circumstances before this can be done, where it can be shown that there was most compelling material available on the plea that was not used or understood, and which demonstrates that there has been a miscarriage of justice arising from the plea and sentence: Romero v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 486; Romero v The Queen 206 A Crim R 519 at [11]; Keane v The Queen [2011] VSCA 156 at [13], [18]; Bayram v The Queen [2012] VSCA 6 at [28]-[29]."
Zreika concerned an ex tempore sentence judgment. It was followed in Ibrahim v R [2022] NSWCCA 161, at [69], in which the sentence judgment had been reserved, as was the case here.
In Griffin v R [2018] NSWCCA 259, McCallum J, as her Honour then was, said, at [35]-[36], in relation to Zreika: "The reference to a 'practical expectation' that factors relied upon in mitigation will be identified cannot be elevated to a principle subverting the entitlement of an offender to be sentenced according to law. I would not understand his Honour to have intended to express any such principle. The submission put for the first time in the appellate court in Zreika was that the sentencing judge erred by failing to have regard to the possibility that the matter could have been prosecuted in the Local Court. As the Court unanimously held, that is the kind of point which, if not expressly raised by counsel, may appropriately be put to one side by the sentencing judge. … "
It is appropriate to consider whether the submission, if it had been made, was available in any event, on the evidence adduced at the sentence hearing. The principle set out in Markovic has been applied by this Court in Mokhaiber v R [2011] NSWCCA 10, at [31], where Price J (James J and Hislop J agreeing), considered an application for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence. The applicant's sole ground of appeal was based on fresh evidence to the effect that his three year old daughter had been diagnosed with an illness that was likely to result in her death within four years. At the time of the judgment, the applicant would not become eligible for parole for another 19 months. The evidence of the applicant's mental state was in the form of a report from a forensic psychologist, about which Price J noted, at [27]: "Mr Watson-Munro in a report dated 30 July 2010 reports that the applicant, though highly anxious, was well orientated with no indications of psychosis or gross psychiatric disturbance. The psychologist reports that the applicant expressed strong feelings of despair and guilt and was socially isolated in gaol. The applicant's ultimate fear relates to Sara and the fact that she may die whilst he is still in custody."
Leave to appeal was granted, the sentence was quashed, and a fresh sentence imposed with a non-parole period that would expire 13 months after the date of the judgment. Price J said: "30 … It seems to me in the present case that the applicant's wife who is sadly burdened with Sara's terminal condition and the care of two other young children will suffer overwhelming hardship because of the applicant's imprisonment such that the circumstances may be regarded as highly exceptional. 31 I also give modest weight to the applicant's distress at being unable to assist his wife with the care of Sara and his daughters during this difficult time as it will make the experience of his imprisonment more onerous: Markovic v R; Pantelic v R [2010] VSCA 105 at [20]."
In this case, it is questionable whether the evidence of the applicant's concern at his family's plight, consequent to the prospect of him being sentenced to imprisonment, reached a point of him being so mentally afflicted or distressed that it warranted consideration as a discrete subjective factor in the sentencing exercise. The relevant references in Dr Nielssen's report to the applicant's concern for his younger son is as follows: "[The applicant] said that his biggest concern was that he might not [be] available to help with the care of his younger son, who has significant behavioural problems, in addition to the financial difficulties of not being able to work to support the family. … [The applicant] reported becoming distressed in the aftermath of being charged with the offences, and the implications of his younger son's subsequent diagnosis has added to his distress. However, he has been able to meet his various commitments, and did not seem pervasively depressed, and he was not thought to require specific treatment for depression at this stage."
The applicant's wife did not refer to the applicant being distressed at the prospect of being imprisoned and unable to help care for their younger son, either in her letter to the Court or in her oral evidence. In his letter to the Court, the applicant said: "Going to Jail is going to affect my family so much. … I am so concerned that I cannot be there for my sons who are so close and reliant on me as a father. I have let them down and my wife and will ensure that I will never do so again. I know this is all my fault and I have truly felt emotionally punished for the past 2 1/2 years where I have consistently awaited for this matter to progress and finalise, always knowing that I may not be here for my family at the end. I do not wish to use my family as an excuse, but I do want your Honour to know that I have spent many nights watching my little sons sleep at night where I have totally broken down out of disappointment in myself and the feeling of regret. I have tried my best to be strong in front of my wife but it has been very hard. I have let everyone down and I am so sorry for this."
The evidence before the sentencing judge established that the applicant was remorseful for his criminal conduct and regretted the impact of the possible penalty of incarceration for his offences on his family, particularly in view of his younger son's disabilities. There can be no doubt on the evidence that the applicant also regretted that he would be unable to assist his wife in the care of their children, in particular, his younger son, if imprisoned. However, there was scant evidence of the applicant being so distressed by the consequences of imprisonment for his family's plight that it warranted an express finding of mitigation.
Accordingly, in relation to ground 3, I would grant leave to appeal, but find this ground is not made out.

[39]

Re-sentence

Since error has been established on the basis of ground 1, the Court should re-exercise the sentencing discretion: Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37. The applicant submitted that a lesser sentence would be warranted. The respondent submitted that if error is established, having undertaken afresh a separate and independent exercise of sentencing discretion, the Court would not form the opinion that a less severe sentence is warranted in law.
I take into account the applicant's agreed facts. I have previously referred to the regrettably opaque nature of that document as to the applicant's precise role. By reference to the passage from the applicant's agreed facts that is excerpted at [19] above, I note from pars 10 and 13 that he was involved in the scheme from its beginning in 2013 "in a number of aspects", including the withdrawing, depositing and transferring of sums of money into and between accounts, accessing accounts, checking on applications and retaining records about such applications. Having regard to the contents of the applicant's computers that were seized on his arrest, which are summarised at [22] above, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant's possession of the documents on his computers is consistent with his actions as described in par 13 of the applicant's agreed facts.
I note that the applicant was not fully engaged in the joint criminal enterprise, which is described at par 14 of the applicant's agreed facts, until September 2015. That is the date of the first text message exchange between the applicant and co-offender concerning the enterprise, being in that instance a fraudulently-obtained grant of credit from the ANZ Bank. Although this was approximately the mid-point of the scheme, a tallying of the amounts of credit granted and declined before and after that date establishes that the majority of the fraudulent grants and denials of credit, and the majority of the amount of credit granted, occurred after that date. The loss to the ANZ Bank is in the order of $663,090. That amount has not been recovered.
The applicant's role was less than that of the co-offender; the co-offender was the scheme's architect and he acted alone in setting up each of the 15 false accounts and making the applications for loans and credit cards.
None of the three offences has a standard non-parole period. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to express findings of objective seriousness in terms of a range: R v Harris (2015) 70 MVR 412; [2015] NSWCCA 81 at [57]; Belghar v R [2013] NSWCCA 245 at [59]. However, the sentencing judge having done so in respect of both offenders, it will assist in the differentiation of my assessment of the seriousness or objective gravity of the applicant's offending from that of the co-offender if I adopt the same approach. I would assess the seriousness of the first and third offences as slightly above the mid-range and the second offence as just below the mid-range. To be clear for the purposes of parity, I find the objective seriousness of each offence to be slightly lower than that determined by the sentencing judge in relation to the co-offender.
An aggravating factor is that, although the applicant's commission of the offences did not occur in the context of him exploiting a position of trust, his profession as an accountant gave him a particular responsibility to not exploit financial services by criminal offending. In addition, the offences entailed considerable planning over the two years of the applicant's full involvement in the joint criminal enterprise, in the form of maintaining the accounts in the names of false identities and keeping track of the salary staging and loan repayments. As to motive, I note the evidence that the applicant and his family were materially well-off throughout the period of offending and his difficulty in explaining his motivation. I find that the applicant's likely motive was simply greed. No restitution has been made.
The applicant read two affidavits to be taken into account if error is established. One is an affidavit by the applicant, sworn on 4 February 2022. He stated that a month after he commenced his sentence, he was moved to a prison a considerable distance from Sydney. His wife, who resides with their children in Sydney, was able to visit him only once in the first five months after the transfer, for financial and family reasons. The prison then went into lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which continued until the time of his affidavit. During that period, he was allowed one audio-visual link ("AVL") call per week, lasting 30 minutes, which he utilised to contact his wife. Those calls were subject to technical issues that sometimes resulted in the call being cancelled.
The applicant related a solid work history in prison and expressed a desire to engage in educational programs which presently were unavailable due to the pandemic and him being in a "working prison". He agreed to be a delegate for the section of the prison in which he worked, so that he liaised between the correctional centre managers and fellow prisoners about various issues, which I accept was a position of trust and responsibility.
The applicant refreshed his expressions of remorse and his desire to eventually pay restitution to the ANZ Bank. The applicant said that he feels guilt and anxiety for the impact of his offending and incarceration on his wife, children and overseas family. He has sought psychological help in custody, but it is difficult to obtain appointments; he has only had one session with a psychologist.
The other affidavit, sworn by the applicant's solicitor on 4 February 2022, annexed documentation and correspondence that corroborated the applicant's attempts to access educational courses and their non-availability, his failed attempts (with the exception of one session) to access counselling services, and the limited availability of AVL calls and their technical issues. In addition, annexed to the applicant's solicitor's affidavit are prison records that have entries by prison staff that attest to the applicant being held in high regard by prison officers.
As to other subjective factors, I note that the applicant has no criminal record and that, prior to his offending, he was a person of good character who contributed to the community.
Although there is no evidence as to how the applicant's family has fared since he has been in custody, including in relation to the special needs of his younger son, on the basis of the material that relates to the period immediately before the sentence was handed down, I find that his family is likely experiencing financial hardship and significant stress consequent upon the applicant's imprisonment. I find that the applicant's younger son is particularly affected by that circumstance. I take the issue of family hardship into account in finding special circumstances.
As to the applicant's submissions concerning his relationship with the co-offender, which he claims contributed to his decision to commit the offences, in my view, while the relationship is relevant to an understanding of how the offences came about, it is of little benefit to the applicant otherwise. He was a mature-aged, university-educated adult, employed in the area of financial services, with family responsibilities and significant life experience. His criminal responsibility is not diminished by him having chosen to engage in the offending at the behest of an older, trusted person who had previously assisted him and who was held in high esteem in his community.
The impact of the hardship to the applicant's family on the applicant's mental wellbeing is not so significant as to warrant significant weight in the mix of factors that are relevant to the formulation of the appropriate sentence. However, the applicant's continuing difficulty in having face to face and AVL contact with his family is a relevant factor to be taken into account. In so finding, I do not minimise the anguish which the applicant doubtless feels at his family's plight.
I accept that the applicant is genuinely remorseful, although in his letter to the Court he did seek to minimise his criminal culpability, and that, taking into account the affidavit evidence, his rehabilitation is underway. I accept the evidence that the risk of him re-offending is low.
I am satisfied that the threshold of s 5(1) of the CSP Act is crossed. I take into account the statutory signpost of the maximum penalties for the offences. I note the scale of the fraud that is captured in the three offences, having regard to the quantum of loss to the ANZ Bank and the significant further amount that the offenders attempted to obtain, which warrants reflection in general deterrence and denunciation.
I conclude that a lesser sentence is appropriate. I would allow a 10 per cent discount for his late pleas of guilty and, consistent with a finding of special circumstances, I would fix a lower ratio of the non-parole period to the total sentence.
Accordingly, I would impose an aggregate sentence of 3 years 7 months with an aggregate non-parole period of 2 years. The commencement of the sentence would be backdated to 16 December 2020, so that the non-parole period would expire on 15 December 2022 and the total term would expire on 15 July 2024.
The indicative sentences would be as follows: (1) The first offence: 3 years imprisonment. (2) The second offence: 1 year, 8 months imprisonment. (3) The third offence: 2 years, 3 months imprisonment.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (41 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (27)

Cited By (2)