Ms Liles's personal circumstances
87In evidence was a June 2012 report of Dr John Obeid, a consultant physician and geriatrician. There he outlined the history he had been given by Ms Liles, then aged 65 years.
88Ms Liles' 71 year old husband is unwell, with multiple medical problems, including spinal problems. She is his principal carer. She is presently at liberty on bail, working and involved with certain charities.
89The report indicates that Ms Liles is suffering from a number of serious, chronic and ongoing medical problems for which she is being treated. They include hypertension; non-insulin dependent diabetes; hypercholesteroleamia; possible ischaemic heart disease; left ventricular hypertrophy; a condition requiring regular review of her breasts; hepatitis; presumed irritable bowel syndrome; depression; and benign skin lesions. She has a family history of heart disease and cancer and herself was treated for ovarian carcinoma some 25 years ago.
90Dr Obeid found Ms Liles stressed and emotional, as well as suffering from severe depression and anxiety, likely brought on by the stress of her current legal situation, although Dr Obeid noted that his expertise was not in psychiatry. She was diagnosed as facing multiple cardiovascular risk factors, suffering symptoms of recurring chest pain and undiagnosed gastrointestinal symptoms. Dr Obeid noted that life expectancy of a 66 year old women in NSW is 21 years, but given Ms Liles' multiple medical and psychiatric problems, especially cardiovascular risk factors, in his opinion her life expectancy was reduced to 7 years.
91Dr Obeid was of the view that Ms Liles' symptoms of panic, depression and anxiety were likely to worsen with a custodial sentence and concern about the care of her frail husband. He noted that her medical conditions had worsened with the commencement of these proceedings. In his view there was a substantial risk that a custodial sentence would exacerbate her underlying conditions, increasing the risk of a vascular event and death. Dr Obeid outlined Ms Liles' immediate, medium term and ongoing care requirements, including age related requirements.
92I note that there was no evidence as to what steps had been pursued in this regard, but it was not suggested that Ms Liles' medical needs could not be met, if she received a custodial sentence. To the contrary, that such a sentence would be imposed, was accepted.
93There was also a June 2012 report from the forensic psychiatrist Dr Stephen Allnut in evidence. Dr Allnut noted that Ms Liles was seeing a psychologist. Dr Allnut noted that during the period of her offending, she was not taking drugs or alcohol to any great extent, but that she had received medication as the result of treatment for her past ovarian cancer. The history which she gave Dr Allnut was to somewhat different effect to that recorded by Dr Obeid. On the history which he took, Ms Liles had not been diagnosed with any major medical problems and had never been prescribed any psychiatric medication. He found that her mental state was stable, that she did not experience significant mood fluctuations, periods of anxiety or symptoms of psychosis.
94Ms Liles gave a history that she had experienced personal stress when she had to declare herself bankrupt in 1997/98, the result of a failed project, where she had given a director's guarantee and had been pursued by creditors. In 1999, she had financial problems and had to start again. She commenced her offending when aged 52, at a time when she was attempting to deal with her financial difficulties. She then had a client base of 1,200 clients and apart from what she charged for her accounting services, received no benefit from her offending in respect of the five clients involved.
95In hindsight, Ms Liles told Dr Allnut that she should have said 'No, you can't do this'. She took responsibility for not stopping the offending behaviour and accepted the charges of conspiracy, but said that 'her role was in relation to dealing with the paperwork related to the transactions'.
96It is apparent from Ms Liles' statement tendered in these proceedings, that this is not an accurate reflection of the nature and extent of her involvement in the conspiracies she has admitted to.
97Dr Allnut also recounted that:
"When I enquired what she thought her personal weakness in this process had been, she said that she had always been the type of person who had a commitment to helping people; at that time she was [at] a stage where she did not know how to say stop; she tended to be a person who preferred to avoid confrontation, that she did not keep her eye on the ball at the time; she accepted it was not a difficult thing to recognise but that she was not aware of the extent of event; in addition she thought that partly the(sic) inadequate response was because she did not want to create a rift in her relationship with the people involved because they had become friends of hers."
98Dr Allnut noted Ms Liles' account of her very depressed mood, her acceptance of her responsibility for what she had done and her embarrassment and regret. He noted poor sleep and appetite, poor self-esteem and difficulty in concentrating, as well as panic attacks and anxiety about her husband. She also recounted having been the victim of harassment, after publicity of her offences, a matter about which she also called evidence at the hearing.
99Dr Allnut also noted Ms Liles' family background, her educational and business success and her two marriages, amongst other matters.
100Dr Allnut's opinion was that Ms Liles was manifesting symptoms consistent with a depressive disorder, but not a personality disorder. He noted that she was suffering from a number of medical conditions and the significant stressors which she faced, given her circumstances and her fall from grace as a professional. He assessed that overall, she presented as an individual who had manifested remorse and contrition. He recommended further treatment.
101These reports must be considered in a context where Ms Liles did not give evidence at the hearing. It follows that statements which she has made to doctors, including in relation to the motivation for her offending and its consequences for her, and the submissions advanced about such matters, must be approached with some caution.
102Ms Liles' mental state is what one might well expect of a person in her position, given the loss of her reputation, her profession and her business and that she is facing an extended term of imprisonment. That cannot mitigate the gravity of this offending, but the difficulty of her imprisonment, given her age, her physical and psychological health and her resulting reduced life expectancy, are all matters which must be properly taken into account in the sentencing exercise.
103As to the evidence about the position of her husband, that is evidence which must be approached in the way discussed by Simpson J in Agius, namely, that such evidence may not be given substantial weight unless it can be "categorised as "exceptional" as discussed in R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522 at [9] - [17] and R v Hinton [2002] NSWCCA 405; 143 A Crim R 286 at [31]. That Ms Liles' imprisonment will have a significant impact upon her husband, given his medical conditions and her role to this point as his principal carer, may well be accepted. In the circumstances, I take the view that these are matters which may properly be taken into account in sentencing, although I do not consider that they can be given substantial weight.