R v Hosking

Category: Sentence

Parties: Office of The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Ellise Hosking (Defence)

Representation: Counsel:
Ms K Hogan (Crown)
Mr A Terracini (Defence)
Solicitors:
Ms A Das (Crown)
Ms C Hunter (Defence)

File Number(s): 2021/00235812

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The Offender Ellise Hosking is to be sentenced having pleaded guilty to a single count on an indictment which is in the following terms: That between 8 September 2016 and 31 January 2020 at Muswellbrook and other places she engaged directly or indirectly in transactions involving the proceeds of crime, being $1,091,545, in circumstances where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that $1,091,545 were the proceeds of crime. That is an offence under s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and has a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and there is no applicable SNPP.

The Facts

2. The facts are agreed. The following is taken from the agreed facts.

Introduction and Executive Summary

3. The Co-offender Cameron Gidley-Baird, was the Offender's husband at the time of the offending. He was an undischarged bankrupt as at 27 February 2019, and from 11 February 2010 to 4 September 2013.

4. The Offender’s husband, the Co-offender, did not lodge any income tax returns during FY2011 to FY2020. His bank records did not disclose any regular income during that period. He had a significant gambling habit, known to the offender.

5. The Offender submitted tax returns in 2011, 2012 and 2013 on 29 April 2014. In 2014, 2016 and 2019, the offender indicated a return was not necessary. No returns were submitted in 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2020. In FY2011, the offender's reported income was $27,396, of which $17,293 was reported as income from being a 'Merchandiser' for Snowsports International Pty Ltd. The remainder, as well as the amounts for FY2012 and FY2013, were from government benefits. Similarly to her husband, the Co-offender, no regular income was identified during that period.

6. The Offender and the Co-offender were not gainfully employed during the period of the offending, and declared as such to the Australian Taxation Office. The Offender engaged either directly or indirectly with transactions involving the proceeds of crime, by receiving funds into either her personal bank accounts, or business accounts for companies for which she was the director. There were reasonable grounds to suspect the funds coming into the accounts were proceeds of crime, the crimes being those of the Co-offender.

7. The total sum of monies dealt with, that were deposited into the relevant accounts, was $1,091,545.

8. The period of the offending was 8 September 2016 to 31 January 2020.

The Co-offender’s Fraudulent Conduct

9. The Co-offender entered pleas of guilty and was sentenced for:

10. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception (David Griffiths);

11. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception (Sean O’Neill);

12. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception (Kenneth Maurer, James Wisely, Andrew Cogswell, Graham Hassett, Anthony Wisely, Glen Woods);

13. Do act with intent to pervert the course of justice (Sean O’Neill):

(a) Form 1: - Do act with intent to pervert the course of justice (David Griffiths).

10. In order to obtain money, the Co-offender knowingly and repeatedly lied to the victims, requesting loans/investment monies from them and telling them the money would be used for business purposes/investment for companies and that they were doing well when they were actually in debt. He frequently made use of fraudulent cheques to corroborate lies that his businesses were in a position to repay already outstanding debt.

11. The Offender did not engage personally in that conduct, but was a Director of many of the businesses and managed many of the bank accounts into which the money was transferred, including her personal bank accounts.

12. The Co-offender used the businesses and linked bank accounts, not to conduct proper business, but for what the Agreed Facts terms, personal use. Almost immediately after loan/investment monies were received into those accounts, the Co-offender transferred those monies into business and personal accounts and withdrew the monies as cash, and used the monies to purchase personal items or to gamble.

David Griffiths

13. Mr Griffiths met the Co-offender in 1992, when they both attended The Armidale School. The pair lost contact after attending school together, but bumped into each other in Sydney in early 2007. Shortly after that time, Mr Griffiths invested in a company being developed by the Co-offender.

14. Subsequently, a number of years later, the Co-offender and Mr Griffiths met again. Mr Griffiths, during the period 8 September 2016 to 31 January 2020, made a large number of payments to businesses owned and controlled by the offenders. On five occasions, Mr Griffiths transferred monies after one of the offenders deposited cheques into his account, that were subsequently dishonoured. Some examples are as follows.

15. On 12 March 2013, the Co-offender contacted Mr Griffiths, and said he needed $5,000. The Co-offender said he would provide a cheque the following day for $46,000. On 13 March 2013, Mr Griffiths received a cheque drawn on the 4E Tech Pty Ltd account for $46,000, signed by the Offender. This cheque was subsequently dishonoured.

16. On 24 March 2014, Mr Griffiths was again contacted by the Co-offender. He transferred $5,300 to the TAB Account in the name of the Offender. Assurances had been provided to Mr Griffiths, purportedly by way of a bank cheque in the sum of $190,000 drawn on 4E Tech Pty Ltd; however, that cheque was also dishonoured. The Offender's signature was forged on that cheque.

17. The Co-offender again contacted Mr Griffiths on 27 July 2017. As a result, he deposited $2,000 into the account of Fergus Gidley-Baird (a son of the offenders), and then two further deposits of $2,000, again with the promise of a cheque. The cheque was signed by the Offender, and drawn on R2R Horses Pty Ltd. It was also dishonoured.

18. On 14 August 2017, the Co-offender sent a photo of a special clearance deposit in the sum of $14,000, and as a consequence Mr Griffiths made further deposits of $2,000 and $1,000. The cheque was signed by the Offender, and was drawn on R2R Horses Pty Ltd. It was dishonoured.

19. On 15 November 2017, the Co-offender, again with the promise of a cheque to be deposited in the sum of $128,000, contacted Mr Griffiths. Mr Griffiths transferred $5,000 to the Co-offender. The cheque was dishonoured, as the account was closed.

20. During the period 8 September 2016 to 31 January 2020, $205,520 was transferred by Mr Griffiths into the personal accounts of the Offender. $2,800 was received into R2R Horses Pty Ltd, and $92,490 into Australian Breakers and Pre Trainers Pty Ltd. The total amount in relation to this victim was therefore $300,810.

Sean O’Neill, Una Mary O’Neill and Mowenbah Pty Ltd

21. Mr O’Neill was the owner and operator of Pat's Patch Caravan Park at Jindabyne, NSW. Mr O’Neill met the offenders in 2010. He advanced monies to both of them over the years, using his own account, his business account named Mowenbah, and his mother's account in the name of Una O’Neill.

22. All monies advanced, bar on one occasion, were at the direct request of the Co-offender.

23. A cheque dated 14 June 2014, drawn on 4E Tech Pty Ltd, was dishonoured. The Offender's signature was forged on the cheque. A total of seven cheques were issued to Mr O’Neill between 11 September 2015 and 27 July 2017 totalling $387,000. Six of those cheques were issued from R2R Horses Pty Ltd.

24. From 8 September 2016 to 31 January 2020, $543,471 was received into the personal accounts of the Offender. $58,600 was received into the account of Australian Breakers and Pre Trainers Pty Ltd, totalling $602,071 in relation to this victim.

Graham Hassett

25. On 6 September 2019, the Co-offender approached Mr Hassett at a property at Martindale Road, Denman NSW, and began talking about his business Water Safe Pty Ltd. The Co-offender showed Mr Hassett the website for the business on his mobile phone, and said his wife, the Offender, was a Director. The Co-offender told Mr Hassett that he had trucks waiting for fuel such that they could then deliver the product, and that once delivered, the Co-offender would receive $750,000. The Co-offender told Mr Hassett he would pay high interest on a lump sum. Mr Hassett subsequently paid in total $109,000 to Water Safe Pty Ltd between 6 September 2019 and 16 September 2019, at the request of the Co-offender.

26. On 6 September 2019, Mr Hassett went to the home of the offenders. The Offender was introduced as the Director of Water Safe Pty Ltd and wife of the Co-offender. The Offender did not otherwise speak to Mr Hassett.

27. On 17 September 2019, the Co-offender provided Mr Hassett with a letter from Water Safe Pty Ltd, which outlined a payment arrangement. The letter was purportedly signed by the Offender, and had her name and the word 'Director' on it. The document was witnessed by the Co-offender.

28. Also on 17 September 2019, correspondence was sent from Water Safe Pty Ltd to Mr Hassett, in the name of the Offender. It recorded that Mr Hassett had lent Water Safe Pty Ltd $115,000.

29. A Loan Agreement was also drawn up on 29 November 2019 on behalf of Water Safe Pty Ltd, by which time Mr Hassett had already reported the matter to Muswellbrook Police Station.

Anthony Wisely

30. In January 2019, Mr Anthony Wisely attended a social event at The Rocks in Sydney, along with his brother James Wisely. James wisely met the Co-offender at the social event and briefly introduced him to Anthony Wisely. The following day, James Wisely relayed the conversation he had with the Co-offender to Anthony Wisely. He had been told that the Co-offender had started a new business with his wife called Water Safe, and that it sold a new form of fertiliser.

31. Around March 2019, James Wisely successfully used some of the fertiliser on Anthony Wisely’s property. Anthony Wisely was subsequently convinced to join the business venture James Wisely had undertaken with the Co-offender.

32. In October 2019, Anthony Wisely spoke with Andrew Cogswell from Lachlan Commodities, who was a major shareholder of Water Safe Pty Ltd. Mr Cogswell received an authority to draft an agreement regarding Anthony Wisely’s purchase of shares in Water Safe Pty Ltd.

33. The agreement was confirmed in emails from Mr Cogswell to Anthony Wisely on 28 October 2019 and 29 October 2019, with the former email indicating the loan was to be to 'Cameron Gidley-Baird and Ellise Hoskings.' The former also indicated there would be a transfer of shares from the Offender to Anthony Wisely. The Offender was also said to agree to the transfer of further shares should the loan principal not be repaid by 30 November 2019.

34. On 26 October 2019 and 27 October, emails were sent to Anthony Wisely from the Co-offender, confirming that the Offender was selling her shares to Anthony Wisely. They were said to be from the Offender and referred to her as 'Director.' Mr Cogswell sent an email to Anthony Wisely on 1 November 2019, confirming the share purchase from the Offender.

35. Anthony Wisely deposited $26,182 into the Water Safe Pty Ltd account between 8 October 2019 and 1 November 2019, all at the request of the Co-offender.

Andrew Cogswell

36. Mr Cogswell was the Director of Lachlan Commodities, a supply chain manager of wholegrain. Nathan Heckendorf was one of the growers. In April or May 2019, Mr Cogswell attended a presentation by the Co-offender, purportedly on behalf of Agripower. After the presentation, Mr Cogswell was contacted by the Co-offender to discuss setting up a company to distribute the products of Agripower. Mr Cogswell ultimately transferred $11,250 to the Co-offender on 3 June 2019 which was said to be for freight charges.

37. Mr Cogswell understood that Mr Heckendorf, James Wisely, and David Birch would each have shares of 10% in the company called Water Safe Pty Ltd, and the Offender would control the majority of the shares. Mr Heckendorf trialled the product on his property, witnessed by Mr Cogswell. As a result, Mr Cogswell paid a further $18,057.60 on 4 October 2019, and the product was delivered to him.

38. On 16 October 2019, Mr Cogswell transferred a further $1,200 at the request of the Co-offender, said to be for marketing. A further $800 was transferred on 21 October 2019, and $500 on 30 October 2019.

39. Monies paid by Mr Cogswell went into the personal account of the Co-offender.

Bruce Cairns

40. Mr Cairns was the head Agronomist for Agripower. Mr Cairns placed the Co-offender on a three-month contract as a Sales Consultant for Agripower around mid-2018, which was extended for one month. The role involved promoting the company's silicon fertiliser product.

41. During the period of the consultancy, Water Safe Pty Ltd was set-up, with Mr Heckendorf, Mr Birch, Mr Cogswell and James Wisely. Following a meeting with those people, and the Co-offender, in May 2019, Mr Cairns decided to appoint Water Safe Pty Ltd as distributor for Agripower's Granular and Chip Silicon Fertiliser. The Co-offender was to be the manager of Water Safe Pty Ltd, and the Offender the Director.

42. Mr Cairns trusted Water Safe Pty Ltd due to the reputation of the four investors. Mr Cairns had regular meetings with the investors and briefly met the Offender. Mr Cairns indicated that except for a limited period of flooding in January 2020 to February 2020, which caused delays, there were never any issues with supply.

43. As at July 2020, the Water Safe Pty Ltd account with Agripower was in arrears in the amount of $51,463.50. The contact details on the invoices were 'Ellise Hosking, 0434 319 747, ellise2418@gmail.com.'

David Birch

44. Mr Birch understood that the Co-offender had set-up Water Safe Pty Ltd in order to distribute product from Agripower. Mr Cogswell, James Wisely, Mr Heckendorf and Mr Birch were shareholders, with the Offender, known as 'Lou' being the major shareholder. However, Mr Birch did not receive confirmation of the company being formed, nor did he invest any money into the company.

45. Mr Birch's role was to deliver the product, which he did. However, he never received any payment for his services.

Evan Haworth

46. As at the relevant time, Mr Haworth was a part owner of Haworth Ag, along with his wife, Brenda. In November 2019, Mr Haworth saw an advertisement in the Land Newspaper. The advertisement was for silicon fertiliser, and the name of the company in the advertisement was Water Safe Pty Ltd. Mr Haworth recalled there were contact details for a 'Cameron' and 'Nathan,' and he called 'Nathan.' 'Nathan' advised that he used the product and explained how it worked. Mr Haworth then made further enquiries, which led him to Agripower. The sale representative on the Agripower website was listed as 'Bruce,' and 'Bruce' directed Mr Haworth to Water Safe Pty Ltd.

47. Mr Haworth observed a further advertisement for the product in early January 2020, in the Land Newspaper, offering a discount on the product of 10%. On 3 January 2020, Mr Haworth telephoned the number listed and spoke to the Co-offender. The Co-offender requested Mr Haworth send through trading details for the purpose of writing up an invoice. Mr Haworth did so, and he received an invoice that same day. The email address from which the invoice was sent was 'cameron@watersafe.net.au.'

48. Mr Haworth subsequently transferred $46,332 to Water Safe Pty Ltd between 6 January 2020 and 8 January 2020, in relation to invoices received from the Co-offender.

49. Despite paying the invoices, the product did not arrive in its entirety. On 20 March 2020, Mr Haworth received an email from 'elise@watersafe.net.au,' which attached a letter. The letter apologised for the inability to fulfil the remaining order, and said this was due to 'inhouse issues.'

Cooks Myall Pastoral

50. Glen Woods, and his wife Sharon, owned the property 'Cooks Myall,' and used the trading name 'Cooks Myall Pastoral Company.' In December 2019, Mr Woods saw the same advertisement as Mr Haworth in the Land Newspaper. As a result of seeing the advertisement, Mr Woods contacted Mr Heckendorf. Mr Heckendorf directed Mr Woods to the Co-offender. Mr Woods contacted the Co-offender that same day and the Co-offender spoke of Water Safe Pty Ltd, and about the product.

51. In early January 2020, Mr Woods ordered 10 tonnes of the fertiliser product from Water Safe Pty Ltd via a phone call to the Co-offender. He transferred $7,150 into the Water Safe Pty Ltd account with Westpac, on 6 January 2020. Mr Woods repeatedly followed-up the Co-offender via telephone; however, the product never arrived.

52. Police had, by this time, become involved and $2,500 was re-imbursed to Cooks Myall Pastoral Company. Mr Woods received two emails in relation to the refunds, on 30 April 2020 and 7 May 2020. The email address from which they were sent was 'ellise@watersafe.net.au' and were signed off with 'Ellise.'

Water Safe Pty Ltd

53. The Offender was the Director of Water Safe Pty Ltd from 19 July 2019.

54. The Business Activity Statement for Water Safe Pty Ltd for the period July 2019 to September 2019 was lodged on 5 March 2020, and recorded the total sales as '$6,644.00.'

55. The Business Activity Statement for Water Safe Pty Ltd for the period October 2019 to December 2019 was lodged on 5 March 2020, and recorded the total sales as '$34,359.00.'

Other Companies the Offender Controlled

R2R Horses Pty Ltd

56. The Offender was the Director of R2R Horses Pty Ltd from 18 October 2015 to 16 March 2018.

4E Tech Pty Ltd

57. The Offender was the Director of 4E Tech Pty Ltd from 30 November 2012 to 24 April 2015.

Australian Breakers and Pre Trainers Pty Ltd

58. The Offender was the Director of Australian Breakers and Pre Trainers Pty Ltd from 3 August 2016 to 13 January 2019.

Hunter Bikes and Mechanics Pty Ltd

59. The Offender was the Director of Hunter Bikes and Mechanics Pty Ltd from 26 July 2017.

At Sales Pty Ltd

60. The Offender was the Director of At Sales Pty Ltd from 27 June 2013

Detection, Investigation and Arrest

61. At approximately 3:30pm on 26 September 2019, Mr Graham Hassett attended Muswellbrook Police Station, and reported an alleged fraud, involving the offenders, to the Officer in Charge, Detective Senior Constable Kellyann Grayson. DSC Grayson provided Mr Hassett with a Fraud Report Form, and asked him to complete it, and return it to the Station.

62. On 8 October 2019, Mr Hassett provided police with a partially completed Fraud Report Form. Mr Hassett attended Muswellbrook Police Station on a third occasion on 3 December 2019, and a fourth occasion on 8 April 2020. Following the taking of statements on those dates, and obtaining further documentation from Mr Hassett, DSC Grayson commenced an investigation into the offenders.

63. During the investigation, the Offender willingly emailed police Business Activity Statements and Business Expenses for Water Safe Pty Ltd, from email address ellise@watersafe.net.au.

64. Police identified the further victims during the investigation of the matter, after the report by Mr Hassett.

65. On 31 July 2020, police obtained a Search Warrant and on 12 August 2020 executed it at 2A Riverside Drive, TORQUAY VIC 3228. Within the Offender's wallet found by the police was a debit card from Westpac, with her name and 'Water Safe Pty Ltd.' There was also a debit card from the Bank of Queensland in her name and that of 'R2R Horses Pty Ltd.'

66. The Co-offender was arrested on 14 December 2021.

67. Subsequently, on 2 June 2021, the Offender presented to Surry Hills Police Station, as she had been in Victoria, and was arrested. She declined to participate in an interview with the police.

Co-Offender Gidley Baird

68. The Co-offender pleaded guilty to his involvement in the offending, and was sentenced by Ellis DCJ to a term of imprisonment of six years and six months, to date from 14 December 2021 to 13 June 2028, with a non-parole period of three years and three months, expiring on 13 March 2025. A copy of His Honour's remarks on sentence formed part of the Crown material before me on sentence.

69. The Offender gave evidence on sentence and in doing so gave evidence concerning certain cheques referred to in the Agreed Facts and also about her role as a director of a number of the companies referred to in that document.

70. In relation to the cheque referred to in paragraph 16 of the Agreed Facts which was a cheque drawn on the entity R2R Horses Pty Ltd, on 27 July 2017 in favour of Mr Griffiths and signed by the Offender, the Offender said that she had a memory of signing that cheque. According to her evidence, the circumstances in which she came to sign the cheque were that her husband, the Co-offender, informed her that she needed to sign the cheque. That she asked the Co-offender if there was any money in the account and he informed her that there was. According to the Offender’s evidence, the Co-offender "looked after all the accounts" and she did not know how much money was in them. The cheque was dishonoured, however, the Offender said she did not know that until she had received the brief of evidence in the matter.

71. In relation to the cheque referred to in paragraph 17 of the Agreed Facts, a cheque dated 14 August 2017, again signed by the Offender and drawn on R2R Horses Pty Ltd, inferentially for the sum of $14,000, also payable to Mr Griffiths, the Offender gave evidence she remembered signing the cheque. Her evidence was that the Co-offender had asked her to sign the cheque as he needed to repay Mr Griffiths money that he had loaned. According to the Offender’s evidence, she "didn't feel comfortable signing" the cheque, as she did not know how much money was in the account but the Co-offender had confirmed that there was money there.

72. In terms of her becoming a director of a number of the companies referred to in the Agreed Facts, the Offender gave evidence that the Co-offender had become a bankrupt and told her she needed to become a director, but that she did not "feel comfortable in doing so". The Offender gave evidence that “in hindsight” she accepted that it was wrong for her to have become a director of the companies in those circumstances.

73. The Offender did not agree with the suggestion from her own counsel that at the relevant time she suspected her husband, the Co-offender, was not being honest in his business dealings and said she understood the businesses to be legitimate businesses. Her evidence was that she knew that the Co-offender "was not a nice man".

74. I note that the Offender gave evidence that as at the time of the offences she held tertiary qualifications, however, her qualifications were not in a business related field. I also note the Offender presented in the witness box as an intelligent person.

75. The Offender gave evidence that the Co-offender, during the relevant period, tightly controlled her access to funds and that she struggled on limited funds to maintain her children. Testimonials from her sons and other family members support that evidence from the Offender, although I do note her evidence at one point that the children at some point "went to a couple of private schools".

76. The Offender in cross-examination initially disagreed that she managed the accounts of the corporate entities and her own accounts. When taken to the content of paragraph 10 of the Agreed Facts, which appeared to contradict her evidence on that issue, the Offender said that she was intending to convey that she was not aware as to how her husband used the accounts. The Offender in her cross-examination essentially asserted that she had no access to her bank accounts because of the actions of the Co-offender. Ultimately, her position appeared to be that she could access her bank accounts but she did not have full control of them. The Offender also claimed to have no understanding of the responsibilities and duties of a company director.

Objective Seriousness

77. I turn now to my assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence. That is something about which the parties were in dispute. The amount of money the subject of the offence is substantial, being $1,091,545. That amount is 10 times the minimum amount caught by the offence creating provision, but about 1/5th of the maximum amount. The amount of money is a relevant factor to have regard to when sentencing for this offence, but it is not necessarily determinative of the sentence. The offending occurred over a 3-year period. The role of the Offender in the offending appears limited to allowing herself to be a director of relevant companies when she knew her Co-offender could not be and being someone able to operate relevant bank accounts into which the proceeds of the Co-offender's frauds were paid. This Offender signed a limited number of cheques drawn on those accounts essentially in the circumstances she gave evidence about. I am not able to make a finding of any particular financial gain which this Offender obtained. The strong inference that arises from all the evidence is that some of the funds were used to assist her maintain her children, but I can take that aspect of the matter no further. It is not suggested in the Agreed Facts that the Offender made any misrepresentation to the victims of the Co-offender's frauds.

78. I assess the level of objective seriousness of the offence to be below a notional mid-range offence given the nature of the offence, which covers a wide range of conduct, but clearly not at the bottom of the range.

79. There is considerable evidence before me, not challenged by the Crown, that the Offender was in an abusive and controlling relationship with the Co-offender over a number of years during the period of the offending. I will discuss that evidence more fully when I consider the Offender’s subjective case and the issue of the Offender’s moral culpability for the offence.

The Offender’s Subjective case

Age

80. The Offender’s date of birth is 11 November 1970, so she is currently 54 years of age.

Criminal history

81. The Offender has a minimal criminal history consisting of one offence of driving with low range PCA for which she received a 12-month s 10 bond in Muswellbrook Local Court on 8 Jan 2018 which was without a conviction being recorded.

82. The Offender’s lack of criminal convictions entitles her to leniency in this sentence.

Documentary material

83. Following documentary materials are before me:

84. A report by Ms Regina Sawyer, psychologist, dated 25 March 2024;

85. A report by Ms Regina Sawyer dated 25 April 2025;

86. A psychological report by Dr Laura Mason dated 19 February 2025;

87. A letter from Barwon Health dated 24 February 2025;

88. An affidavit of the Offender, affirmed on 24 April 2025. As I mentioned earlier, the Offender gave oral evidence during the sentence proceedings and was cross-examined by the Crown; and

89. Statements of the Offender’s 2 sons, Fraser Gidley-Baird, Fergus Gidley-Baird, the Offender’s brother, Nick Hosking, and the Co-offender Mr Gidley-Baird’s half-sister, Lean Steedman.

90. The Offender’s daughter, Harriet Gidley-Baird, also gave evidence on sentence. The authors of the testimonials that are before me attended the sentence hearing and were available for cross-examination, however they were not so required by the Crown.

Family background

85. In terms of the Offender’s childhood, the Offender reported to Dr Mason that she was sexually assaulted when she was young, however, despite that, she had a good family life and a happy childhood.

86. In terms of the Offender’s family background, the material before me establishes that the Offender met her husband, the Co-offender, in 1997 after she completed university. They were married in 2002. They have three children, two sons born in 2002 and 2004 and a daughter born in 2007.

87. The Offender reported a manipulative, controlling and abusive relationship with the Co-offender. The Offender gave evidence that she had lived in over 20 different homes in 3 different States over the course of their relationship and marriage. She told Dr Mason that within 3 years after they met, the Co-offender took control of their finances; that he removed her bank card from her wallet, took her Centrelink money and only gave her a small stipend to pay for family items such as food; that when the Co-offender became bankrupt, he coerced her into putting her name down as the director of companies in which she had no involvement; and that he had manipulated her to give him money and to apply for loans in her name to help him, for which he would not repay her. She also stated in her affidavit that the Co-offender had taken all her money, sold her car and her jewellery, and once pawned all her belongings. She stated to Dr Mason that she had limited access to money and no control over her money throughout their relationship.

88. The Offender reported to Dr Mason that the Co-offender would shout and scream at her and call her names, and this type of behaviour would occur on a daily basis. She described the Co-offender as an alcoholic, a significant gambler, and a compulsive liar.

89. The Offender told Dr Mason that the Co-offender separated her from all her friends and family members and had physically assaulted her brother to whom she was particularly close. The Offender detailed in her affidavit a number of instances of abuse and controlling behaviour by the Co-offender. For example, she deposed that once, in 2012, the Co-offender had abused her mother. In the Offender’s brother's statement, he similarly records an incident in 1998 where the Co-offender bit the Offender’s mother's ear and head and hit the brother in the head, knocking him out. He also stated that the Co-offender had on many occasions borrowed money from himself and threatened to harm his son and his partner when Mr Hosking asked for the repayment of the money, and so far, the money has not been repaid.

90. The Offender told Dr Mason that the Co-offender had never physically assaulted her, but he would kick her out of bed leading to her falling onto the floor. In the Offender’s affidavit, she also described an occasion where the Co-offender threw a phone at her head and that the Co-offender had numerous times threatened to leave her on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere out in the country.

91. The Offender told Dr Mason that she was exposed to daily sexual abuse as her Co-offender would force her to send photos of her genital area to him and she had to carry out sexual acts to please him every day. She reported that her Co-offender would leave sexual photos of her genitals out for her children to see and this happened approximately 4 to 5 times per year, leading her to feel embarrassed, ashamed and humiliated and causing a significant impact on her children.

92. The Offender in her affidavit described one occasion where she got arrested as the Co-offender had hired a car under her name and not returned it on the date it was supposed to be returned.

93. A similar abusive familial relationship was described in the Offender’s sons' statements, which stated the Co-offender was verbally abusive towards every one of them and had treated the Offender in an abusive manner; that the Co-offender was a heavy drinker and would sometimes leave home for some period to drink or gamble without contacting them. The Offender’s younger son, Mr Fraser Gidley-Baird, states in his statement that the Co-offender had on many occasions stolen and sold their possessions or personal savings without their knowledge. The Offender’s elder son, Mr Fergus Gidley- Baird, states in his statement that he never saw his mother handle or deal with any of the Co-offender's finances.

94. The Co-offender's half-sister, Ms Steedman, also described in her statement the Co-offender's heavy gambling behaviour and several events where the Co-offender had physically or verbally threatened the Offender, Ms Steedman herself or her children, including incidents in which the Co-offender threatened Ms Steedman and her friend with a gun; that the Co-offender threw knives at and attacked his own sister and Ms Steedman who at the time was pregnant; that the Co-offender borrowed money from her husband, refused to repay and threatened to harm her children. She also described in her statement events demonstrating the financial hardship the Offender was in during her relationship with the Co-offender.

95. It was recorded in Ms Sawyer's 2024 report that the Offender’s children suffer significant mental health conditions. Her sons struggle with depression and anxiety conditions. I will return a little later in these remarks to the Offender's daughter's medical condition when I consider the issue of hardship to third parties that will arise should the Offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment

96. As I understood the Offender’s evidence, she currently lives with her 17-year-old daughter while her two sons, who are young adults, live independently of her.

97. The Offender gave evidence dealing with aspects of her offending behaviour as well as her family life and in particular, certain arrangements pertaining to her daughter. The Offender in her evidence demonstrated that she was an educated woman of considerable intelligence. Overall, even accepting the fact that she had experienced a lengthy abusive relationship at the hands of her husband, the Co-offender, I did not find the Offender to be a particularly impressive witness, on the topics of her role in the offending, her knowledge of the transactions the subject of the charge and her remorse for the offending.

98. On the topics of her role in the offending and her knowledge of the transactions the subject of the charge, her evidence was what can only be described as defensive, evasive and to some degree, inconsistent. Her evidence, in my opinion, showed an inability to accept what are overwhelming inferences from the Agreed facts, given her intelligence and education. I do not accept, as she appeared to imply in her evidence, that she had no understanding of the role of a director of a company at the relevant time. I also found her evidence that she "never really checked" her bank accounts difficult to fully understand given the imprecision of that evidence. I also note that on all the evidence before me, the Offender at times had the capacity to check her bank accounts, noting that on occasions her husband would travel overseas to attend to what she understood to be business matters and her possession of debit cards for some of the accounts.

Education and employment history

99. In terms of her education and employment history, Dr Mason recorded that the Offender had completed a university degree in human movement science and skied for Australia for 5 years and later become the head selector for Australian Olympic teams; that she attempted to study architecture and had completed 1 year but stated that became impossible due to the demands of the Co-offender.

100. I note that according to her brother's statement, the Offender was a selector for the Australian Alpine Ski Team up until 1999, so that she was able to engage in that activity for a period of about 2 years after having commenced her relationship with the Co-offender.

101. The Offender gave evidence that during the period of the offending, she worked at her brother's café, and she ran a cleaning business as a sole trader.

102. The evidence before me is to the effect that the Offender currently works at her brother's café as head cook and performs some services for the NDIS.

Substance use

103. Dr Mason recorded that the Offender has no known substance use history.

Psychological/psychiatric history

104. In terms of the Offender’s psychological history, the Offender reported to Dr Mason that over the course of her 25 year marriage, she had no psychiatric or psychological input. Dr Mason recorded that the Offender is currently seeing a psychologist whom she has been seeing for 1.5 years and finds it helpful; she is currently prescribed antidepressants and anxiolytics.

105. The Offender reported having regular suicidal thoughts but no plan to enact them; that she experiences daily anxious rumination, feels panicky, hypervigilant, and feels hyperarousal, particularly when out of the house.

106. Dr Mason opined that the abusive behaviour patterns occurring over the period of the Offender and the Co-offender's marriage would equate to a significant and prolonged domestic violence situation and would be described as coercive control by the Co-offender. It is Dr Mason's opinion that the instances of coercive control would have an impact on the Offender’s decision-making capacity, in that she may have been afraid of making general life decisions due to concern about the Co-offender's response.

107. Ms Sawyer in her 2025 report states that she concurs with Dr Mason's diagnoses that the Offender has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), secondary to sustained domestic violence, including prolonged emotional, financial, and sexual abuse in her relationship with her ex-husband, and severe anxiety and panic symptoms, accompanied by social avoidance.

Attitude to the offence

108. In terms of her attitude to the offending, Dr Mason recorded that the Offender stated that she was unaware of any of the Co-offender's financial transactions, but was aware of some of the financial irregularities that the Co-offender engaged in.

109. The Offender denied any knowledge of or involvement in the Co-offender's fraudulent activities in her evidence. When asked in the cross-examination was she blaming the Co-offender for all of her offending behaviour, the Offender said, "I am blaming Cameron for, yeah, I guess I am." Consistent with that statement, which is lacking in any genuine remorse, is the content of paragraph 59 of her affidavit where the Offender expresses herself in the following terms: "I am so sorry for what has happened to David Griffiths and Sean O’Neill. I am sorry that I was never informed of the extent that Cameron (the Co-offender), had deceived them". There is little acknowledgment in her affidavit that she is remorseful for her conduct which assisted the Co-offender in his ability to defraud the victims here.

110. The plea of guilty came late which is consistent with my overall impression of the Offender that she has little by way of genuine remorse for her offending.

The future and risk of re-offending

111. Given the Offender’s lack of a criminal record , her age, and the fact that it appears her relationship with her husband is now over, her prospects of rehabilitation are good and I am satisfied she is unlikely to re-offend.

The Evidence Concerning the Offender’s Daughter

112. In Ms Sawyer's report of 25 March 2024 it is recorded that the Offender’s daughter has severe anorexia nervosa, diagnosed in Dec 2021 and has had multiple hospital admissions since diagnosis. It was recorded, as at the time of that report, that the Offender’s daughter's condition was not stable, and was life threatening. The letter from Barwon Health dated 24 February 2025 that is before me, confirms that the Offender’s daughter is currently receiving treatment for anorexia nervosa and has in the past had a number of admissions to hospital and is expected to require additional admissions in the course of her illness. As at the date of that report, the Offender’s daughter's condition was not said to be life threatening. The report also records that the Offender’s daughter is on a Community Treatment Order under the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2014 (Vic) in Victoria.

113. The Offender gave evidence concerning her daughter's illness, current medical condition and treatment. The Offender is her daughter's primary carer. While in 2024 the daughter's condition was life threatening, currently the daughter is said to be in a very vulnerable condition. According to the Offender’s evidence, her daughter has the ability to lose two kgs in a week and if she lost 3, her daughter would be in the same weight range that she was in when placed in intensive care.

114. The Offender also gave evidence that her daughter was currently seeing her general practitioner once a week but her attendance upon the general practitioner had previously been more frequent. The evidence is that the daughter is connected to the Children's Hospital in Geelong and has been engaged with services provided by that hospital for 4 years. Meetings of relevant health professionals are held fortnightly to discuss the daughter's treatment and future plans. The Offender’s daughter's medical team is based in Torquay and Geelong in Victoria and that it would be very difficult for the daughter to relocate to NSW. This issue arose in submissions concerning the appropriate disposition of the sentence in all the circumstances here, something to which I will return.

115. The Offender detailed in her evidence that her daughter is currently in year 12 at High School in Victoria and has missed a lot of schooling due to her illness. The daughter is required to have a record of a certain level of school attendance, in order to satisfactorily complete her year 12 education.

116. If upon sentence the Offender is no longer living with her daughter, then the Offender’s mother, who is 84 years of age, would become the daughter's primary carer. Currently the Offender’s mother has a broken arm, and the Offender’s father who is 85, drives the daughter to her medical appointments. The Offender in cross-examination said she was aware that Westmead Hospital in NSW has a very good eating disorder service. The Offender also accepted that consultations with the daughter's psychologist could be conducted via audio visual link and that a GP could be found for her daughter in NSW.

117. It was explored in cross-examination with the Offender whether her brother, who lives near the Offender in Victoria, could look after her daughter if the Offender was not residing in Victoria with her daughter. The Offender said her daughter had experienced a lot of trauma, presented as being closed off and would not eat in front of anyone except the Offender. The evidence was that it had taken a very long time for the Offender’s daughter to establish trusting relationships with her psychologist and medical team.

118. While I had some concerns about the Offender’s evidence in relation to her role in the offence and her level of remorse, I have no concerns about the truthfulness of her evidence concerning her daughter's medical conditions. It was consistent with the psychological and psychiatric evidence that is before me.

119. The Offender’s daughter also gave evidence in the proceedings. Without in any way being disrespectful to the witness, she presented as a vulnerable adolescent. I note the daughter will turn 18 in July and confirmed that her mother was her primary carer and that she did not know what she would do without her mother. The Offender’s daughter also confirmed that she would only eat in the presence of her mother, or by herself on some occasions. She gave evidence that she is in her last year of school and hopes to go to university to study nursing. The daughter's evidence was that in her current state of health she felt she could complete year 12 but not previously.

120. I found the daughter's evidence to be compelling as to her condition, how it could become worse without the support of her mother and that she has a close bond with her mother.

121. The principle that applies in relation to the approach a sentencing judge is to take to the issue of hardship to a third party when sentencing for a State offence is that there is required to be a finding of exceptional circumstances, before hardship to a third party, such as a family member, can be given substantial weight in the exercise of the sentencing discretion. Absent such a finding, hardship to family members remains a matter that may be considered in the so-called general mix of factors relevant to sentence.

122. I think it is appropriate to note that circumstances do not need to be unique to be exceptional. In considering this issue, I have not lost sight of the fact that sentencing a child's parent to a term of imprisonment will very frequently cause hardship to the child.

123. In all the circumstances here, I consider that the hardship that would be caused to the Offender’s daughter, if a sentence of imprisonment was imposed, meets the test of exceptional circumstances as required by the authorities. My reasons for coming to that view are because of the combination of the following factors: the daughter's father is already incarcerated; the daughter has lived through the domestic abusive relationship that the Offender had with the daughter's father, which on the material before me, involved considerable trauma for the daughter; the daughter is a young, vulnerable adolescent in the last year of high school; the daughter suffers from a serious medical condition about which it is common knowledge can afflict young adolescent females in contemporary society and have dire consequences; the Offender is the person most able to support her daughter through her treatment regime which is in place in Victoria and which has been in place for considerable time; it seems highly likely that if the daughter is not able to be with her mother and continue to receive the treatment she has been receiving from the health professionals with whom she has a trusting relationship, her condition will deteriorate, and if so, it may become life threatening; it is simply not reasonable to expect the Offender’s parents, who are essentially in their mid-80's, to step in and fulfil the role that the Offender has fulfilled in relation to her daughter's care and treatment especially when I have regard to the nature of the condition that the daughter suffers from.

The Offender’s Moral Culpability for the Offence

124. I have outlined at some length the evidence of the nature of the Offender’s relationship with the Co-offender. It was a relationship involving abuse and what is today termed, coercive control, over a number of years. It is a significant aspect of this sentence, in particular, given the evidence as to the control that the Co-offender exercised over the Offender during the period of the offending.

125. I accept, as the Crown did in its approach to the Offender’s sentence, that on the balance of probabilities, the Offender for a considerable period of time, and in particular over the period of time in which the offence was committed, was in an abusive relationship with the Co-offender as she described in her evidence and had related to the psychologists. This is also confirmed in the material from her brother, sons and her sister-in-law.

126. I find that the Offender involved herself in the offence, to a considerable degree, because of the abusive and controlling nature of her relationship with the Co-offender and the conduct of the Co-offender towards her over a number of years. I consider that the relevance of those findings here is analogous to that of a finding of non-exculpatory duress. It is a matter that operates to mitigate the sentence, because it reduces the Offender’s moral culpability for the offence and to some degree, reduces the need to reflect the sentencing principle of general deterrence when imposing sentence.

Other Relevant Sentencing Principles

127. It was common ground between the parties that the Offender’s late plea of guilty should attract a discount of 5% of her sentence for its utilitarian value.

Remorse finding

128. Overall, I do not consider that the Offender has expressed any genuine remorse for her offending. The Offender’s blaming of her husband, the Co-offender, for the offence, is reflective, I think, of the fact she was in a lengthy abusive and controlling relationship with him as at the time of the offence, and sees him as the cause of her criminality. To some degree, the Offender’s lack of remorse should be seen through the prism of the domestic relationship she had with the Co-offender.

Prospects for rehabilitation

129. As I said earlier, I consider the Offender has good prospects for rehabilitation and is unlikely to re-offend.

Parity

130. Given the offences for which the Co-offender was sentenced, and his role in those offences, in my opinion, there is no issue of parity that needs to be considered here. Clearly, this Offender’s criminality is considerably lower than the Co-offender.

131. I note that the Offender spent 1 day in custody prior to obtaining bail upon being charged in relation to the matter.

132. I have had regard to the objectives of sentencing referred to in s 3A of the Crime Sentencing Procedure Act which include the need to impose adequate punishment, general and specific deterrence; protection of the community; denouncing the Offender’s conduct; recognize the harm done to the V and the community and rehabilitation of the Offender.

133. General deterrence normally should be given considerable weight when sentencing for offences which fall within the general category of money laundering offences, such as this offence. That is generally because such offences are often hard to detect and prosecute, and create a distortive effect upon the economy. I explained earlier why I consider that the sentencing principle of general deterrence is to be given less weight in this sentence, than would ordinarily be the case.

134. Sentencing has been said by the higher courts to involve a process of instinctive synthesis of a number of relevant factors some of which pull in different directions. This case is an example of the different factors that impact upon a sentence.

135. The maximum penalty has been taken into account as a legislative guidepost.

Is the only appropriate sentence one of imprisonment, having considered s 5 of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act?

136. The substantial issue in this case is whether the only appropriate sentence to be imposed is one of imprisonment having considered the terms of s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). Section 5 provides: A court must not sentence an offender to imprisonment unless it is satisfied, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.

137. The Crown submitted that the only appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment, but made the concession that "the Crown would not be heard against an ICO". That concession has two components to it. The first is a concession that the appropriate term of imprisonment for the offence is one of 2 years imprisonment or less, otherwise there could be no question of an Intensive Correction Order, (ICO), being imposed. The second component of the concession was that if that was the term of imprisonment the Court considered to be appropriate, a proper application of the test in s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act would result in the Offender serving the sentence by way of an ICO in the community. The Crown, in putting that submission, noted that the Court had been informed that if the Court came to the view that was the appropriate disposition of the sentence, the Offender was prepared to relocate to NSW so that sentencing option could be imposed.

138. It is unfortunate to say the least, that the effect of s 69(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure*)* Act and the current terms of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Regulation 2024 (NSW) is that an ICO can only be imposed on an offender if the offender resides in NSW. This unfortunate situation has existed in this State for a number of years. It seems most unfortunate that Australia has been a Federation for over 124 years, yet a sentencing option is not available to be considered because of where an offender lives within the Federation. This provision has the capacity to work an injustice and cries out for reform, or for regulations to be made to facilitate the imposition of such orders on people who do not reside in NSW.

139. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that, despite the undoubted seriousness of the offence and the Offender’s lack of remorse, when I have regard to the Offender’s reduced moral culpability for the offence due to the fact it was committed during the course of a relationship involving coercive control by the Co-offender, and the level of hardship that would be inflicted upon the Offender’s daughter should a sentence of imprisonment be imposed, which I consider would be exceptional, a sentence of imprisonment is not the only appropriate penalty to impose.

140. The Offender is convicted of the offence to which she has pleaded guilty. I order that the Offender enter into a Community Correction Order for a period of 2 years and 10 months from today. It is subject to the following conditions:

141. The Offender is not to commit a criminal offence.

142. The Offender is to appear before this Court if called upon to do so during the term of the order.

143. For the first 12 months of the order, the Offender is not to be outside her residence between 9pm and 5am, and is to present herself to the door for police checks if required.

**********

Amendments

26 May 2025

Case title corrected