The Queen v Corocher

the offending conduct 3 The facts of Mr Corocher's offending were fairly narrow in compass and were not significantly in dispute. The prosecutor tendered by consent an Agreed Statement of Facts (agreed facts). In short summary, Mr Corocher commenced employment as the general operations manager at a hotel on Norfolk Island known as the Governor's Lodge Resort Hotel (the hotel) in February 2018. In that position, Mr Corocher was responsible for the general management of the hotel, including overseeing the food and beverage side of the business, hotel room bookings, staffing and, importantly, authorising the payment of accounts for goods and services. 4 The hotel managed and maintained its finances and accounts through a well-known computer-based accounting software called Mind Your Own Business (MYOB). As general operations manager, Mr Corocher obviously had access to and was able to operate the hotel's MYOB system. The hotel used the MYOB system, amongst other things, to manage and record the payment of persons who supplied goods and services to the hotel, including food and beverage suppliers and booking and internet services. The ordinary way in which the system operated was that the details of invoices received from suppliers were entered into the system. The system then automatically generated a file called an Australian Banking Association (ABA) file, which was used by major financial institutions for the making of payments between bank accounts. Once received, an ABA file was sent electronically to Mr Corocher in his position as general operations manager to be checked and authorised for payment in due course by the hotel owners. 5 Unfortunately for the hotel and its owners, over a nine month period between 30 October 2018 and 18 June 2019, Mr Corocher manipulated the system for his own financial benefit. He did so in the following manner. 6 First, he changed the bank account details for two particular suppliers, Farmer Lou's and Cascade Softdrinks, to a bank account in his wife's name. He also changed the bank account details for two service providers, Google and Booking.com, to a bank account in his own name. Second, he authorised 29 payments to the bank accounts in his wife's name and his own name. Those payments purported to be for goods and services supplied by Farmer Lou's, Cascade Softdrinks, Google and Booking.com. In fact, no invoices had been sent or received from those suppliers which were referable to those payments and no amounts were owing to them. 7 It is readily apparent that Mr Corocher must have entered false details for those payments into the MYOB system. Mr Corocher must have known that the 29 payments to Farmer Lou's, Cascade Softdrinks, Google and Booking.com which he authorised were not, in fact, owing to those suppliers. In authorising the payments, he falsely represented to the hotel's owners that they were, in fact, payable. He also knew that the payments would be made into accounts held in his and his wife's name. Payments made into the bank accounts of Mr Corocher and his wife totalled $20,984.75. The amounts paid into the account in Mr Corocher's wife's name were subsequently transferred to an account in his name. 8 The fraud perpetrated by Mr Corocher was first detected by one of the hotel owners, Ms Gaelene Quintal, in June 2019 when she was reviewing the hotel's accounts. Ms Quintal noticed that a number of payments had been made to Farmer Lou's, but was only able to locate two invoices. As events transpired, those two invoices turned out to be false invoices which had been created, no doubt by Mr Corocher, in an attempt to cover up his offending. A subsequent audit of the hotel accounts revealed that the bank account details recorded in the hotel's MYOB system were, in fact, an account in Mr Corocher's wife's name and an account in his name, and that Mr Corocher had also falsely authorised - or, rather, dishonestly authorised - payments to bank accounts purportedly in the name of Cascade Softdrinks, Google and Booking.com. 9 It should be noted, in this context, that Mr Corocher gave evidence in these proceedings to the effect that when he became aware that Ms Quintal had discovered a discrepancy in the accounts, he had a conversation with one of the other owners of the hotel, Mr Lindsay Ford, and told Mr Ford that he had information about the discrepancy that had been discovered by Ms Quintal. Mr Corocher did not, however, tell Mr Ford, at least in direct terms, that he had, in effect, defrauded the business. He did, however, inform Mr Ford that he was responsible for the discrepancies. This was, however, all at a time when Mr Corocher plainly knew that his fraud would be discovered in any event. 10 Mr Corocher was interviewed by the police in July 2019. While it is said that he made partial admissions, upon analysis, it is readily apparent that some of what he told the police was not an entirely truthful account of his offending. He admitted that he became aware of payments being made to an account in his wife's name and that the bank account details for Farmer Lou's was incorrect. He said, however, that he did not know how that had happened. He admitted that he authorised the payments into the account in his wife's name, but claimed that he did so because he was not getting paid for the extra hours he was working. He admitted that he created the two invoices purporting to be Farmer Lou's. 11 Shortly after being interviewed by the police, Mr Corocher fully repaid the amounts that he had dishonestly obtained from the hotel.

THe objective seriousness of the offending 12 It is obvious from this brief description of Mr Corocher's offending behaviour that the offence he committed was and is objectively very serious. It involved the gross breach of trust conferred on him by his employer, the owners of the hotel, and a gross misuse of his position of responsibility. That breach of trust and misuse of position occurred over a lengthy period of time. 13 There is no doubt the offence involved a degree of planning and premeditation. It involved, as the Prosecutor submitted, actions which were considered, repeated and sustained over a lengthy period. It also involved deliberate deceit and dishonesty. While not particularly sophisticated, the offending was nevertheless not easy to detect given Mr Corocher's position. While Mr Corocher suggested to the police that the offence had something to do with his use of illicit drugs, in all the circumstances, it may certainly be inferred that he was simply motivated by greed. Even if drugs did play some role in his offending, that provides, at best, a partial explanation for the offending; it certainly does not provide a justification. 14 It should be noted, in this context, that the Court has considered victim impact statements from each of the individuals who had an interest in the hotel at the relevant time. Those statements indicate that Mr Corocher's offending conduct has caused the business and its owners financial stress and loss, including damage to the goodwill of the business, as well as general anxiety and stress. In terms of financial loss, it should be reiterated, however, that Mr Corocher promptly repaid the amount he obtained from the business in full shortly after his apprehension. 15 It should also be observed in this context that it is well established that general deterrence is an important consideration in imposing sentences for fraud and dishonesty of the sort committed by Mr Corocher. That is because such offences are typically committed by persons who occupy positions of trust and are also often difficult to detect.

The offender's subjective circumstances 16 There is very little evidence or information before the Court in relation to Mr Corocher's background and personal circumstances. 17 Mr Corocher is presently 43 years of age. He was 41 and 42 years of age when he committed the offence. 18 Mr Corocher is not a man of good character. Indeed, he comes before the Court with a lengthy record of having committed offences of dishonesty. His history of offending began in 1997 when he was just under 20 years of age when he was convicted in the Port Macquarie Local Court of larceny and of obtaining benefit by deception. Six months later, he was convicted of larceny in the Tweed Heads Local Court. The following year, he was convicted in the Bundaberg Magistrates Court of unauthorised dealing with shop goods. His offending in Bundaberg continued over the following years with convictions for various offences of fraud and dishonesty in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2007. 19 Up to this point in time, it appears that despite repeated offending, Mr Corocher had avoided imprisonment. That may have been because the offending behaviour was not seen as being particularly serious, despite its repetitive nature. In any event, the sentences imposed on Mr Corocher plainly did not deter him from continuing to offend. 20 Mr Corocher's good fortune in avoiding imprisonment came to an end in September 2014, when he was convicted in the Bundaberg District Court of a series of offences of stealing and of obtaining benefits by deception. Those offences were committed by Mr Corocher while he was an enrolled nurse at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. In simple terms, he stole the bank cards of elderly or infirmed patients, tricked those patients into giving him their PIN or personal identification numbers in respect of those accounts and then withdrew money from their bank accounts. The total amount he received in this way over a two-year period was approximately $22,000. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and nine months, with a parole release date after having served 16 months' imprisonment. 21 The following year, Mr Corocher was convicted of a further count of fraud. This offence involved Mr Corocher obtaining the bank card of a 70 year old woman who had a medical condition which impaired her cognitive facilities. Over a six month period, he fraudulently made 33 withdrawals totalling approximately $43,000 from that woman's account. He was sentenced to another lengthy term of imprisonment, though much of it was to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed the previous year. 22 Mr Corocher's history of committing dishonesty offences is plainly a critical consideration in imposing the sentence for this offence. That is so for a number of reasons. First, he is not entitled to the leniency often shown to first-time offenders and persons of prior good character. Second, Mr Corocher's history of past offending reveals that this offence is by no means an aberration or an isolated diversion from an otherwise blameless life. He is, rather, a recidivist who has displayed a pattern of disregard for the law and the interests of those who unknowingly or unwittingly trust him. Third and relatedly, it is readily apparent that the previous sentences imposed on Mr Corocher have not deterred him from his dishonest ways. The need for personal deterrence looms very large in this matter and effectively compels the imposition of a combined sentence. It is somewhat extraordinary in light of Mr Corocher's previous convictions and punishment metered out to him in the past for his dishonest activities that Mr Corocher would offend again when effectively given a second chance or a second opportunity by the owners of the hotel. 23 It was said on Mr Corocher's behalf that his offending occurred in circumstances where his job with the hotel had turned out to be more onerous and stressful than he had thought it would be. It was said that he came to be working about seven days a week and that he asked for a pay rise but that was refused. Needless to say, even if that explanation for the offending were to be accepted, it provides no justification for the fraud perpetrated by Mr Corocher. If Mr Corocher did not think that he was being paid enough or that his work was not being sufficiently appreciated by his employers, he should have looked for different work or pursued other options, rather than effectively stealing from them.

Clinical report 24 A clinical report tendered on Mr Corocher's behalf indicates that he was diagnosed at a relatively young age as suffering from a treatment-resistant form of epilepsy. This apparently resulted in him suffering seizures. It would appear that Mr Corocher's ill health continues to this day. 25 Mr Corocher's developmental history was described in the clinical report as being "unremarkable" besides of episodes of bullying at school. Mr Corocher told the doctor who prepared the report that he was sexually abused during his incarceration as a result of the sentences imposed on him in 2014 and 2015. 26 Mr Corocher also reported to the doctor a four-year history of treatment for depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. The latter was apparently a product of his time spent in custody, including the sexual assault referred to earlier. Mr Corocher was treated with various antidepressants. He presented to the doctor with mixed anxiety, depressive and psychiatric symptoms. 27 The clinical report indicated that Mr Corocher lives in Bundaberg with his wife and two children and is self-employed in a car detailing business. It would appear, however, that Mr Corocher is now unemployed and was made bankrupt shortly after he was charged with the present offences. 28 The clinical report also indicates that Mr Corocher was apparently recently diagnosed with cancer. However, there was very little information before the Court in relation to that diagnosis. 29 Mr Corocher told the doctor that he felt remorseful for his actions and fully responsible for them. The doctor concluded the report as follows: I believe Mr Corocher remains vulnerable, and his mental state is more likely to deteriorate during incarceration. If Mr Corocher is to receive a custodial sentence, I would recommend him to be assessed and treated by the Prison Mental Health Service as soon as possible. He will be benefiting from the time spent in protective custody unit to ensure Mr Corocher's safety.

Sentencing assessment report 30 A sentencing assessment report prepared by a Senior Community Corrections officer employed by Corrective Services New South Wales revealed the following additional information about Mr Corocher and his past and present circumstances. 31 Mr Corocher apparently benefits from the support of his wife and wider family who continue to reside in the Bundaberg area. Mr Corocher's wife said she had been "shattered" by Mr Corocher's offending, but that she was impressed with the efforts he had made to rehabilitate himself. Exactly what Mr Corocher had done in that regard is somewhat unclear, at least from the report. Mr Corocher's wife said that she was unsure that she will be ever able to trust him again. 32 Mr Corocher also expressed regret over his offending and claimed to be sorry for "let[ting] everyone down". He claimed to have felt ashamed at betraying the trust of his employers. 33 Mr Corocher also told the Corrections officer that he commenced using crystal methamphetamine or ice and marijuana during his employment on Norfolk Island. He claimed to have ceased using those substances. 34 There is one aspect of the report that is cause for some concern. The report indicates that Mr Corocher told the Corrections officer the following information in relation to his offending: • Mr Corocher denied he played any part in instructing the MYOB accounting system to divert payments to his wife's bank account. • Mr Corocher claimed that a staff member in the accounts department executed an error in redirecting supplier payments to his wife's bank account, with Mr Corocher's crime being that he was dishonest in electing to keep those payments. • Mr Corocher claimed that while later payments were used to fund his drug and alcohol use, the early payments were not and that he elected to keep the monies for no other reason, than that he considered them recompense for the unpaid overtime he had purportedly been working. 35 It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile that account of Mr Corocher's offending conduct with the agreed facts. Mr Corocher's statement to the Corrections officer that some unnamed staff member was responsible for diverting payments to an account in his wife's name was false. The agreed facts clearly indicate that Mr Corocher was responsible for this and it was deliberate and part of the overall fraud perpetrated by him. Mr Corocher's crime was clearly not limited to electing to keep payments which had somehow mistakenly been paid into an account of his wife's name. It should be noted, in this context, that in written submissions filed on behalf of Mr Corocher, similar assertions were made about the nature of his offending - for instance, that "he noticed there was a discrepancy in the bookkeeping which was redirecting funds to his wife's bank account". 36 The fact that Mr Corocher made these statements to the Corrections officer demonstrates a lack of insight into his offending behaviour and an unwillingness to face up to the seriousness of his actions. It casts some doubt on his statements of contrition and remorse, and casts a shadow over his prospects of rehabilitation. 37 The final point that should be made in relation to the report is that it states that Mr Corocher has been assessed at a medium/low risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R). The report contains no details of that assessment. It is unclear who made it and in what circumstances, and neither the Prosecutor nor Mr Corocher advanced any submissions in relation to that assessment or apparent assessment of the risk of his reoffending.

considerations relevant to the appropriate sentence 38 There are some considerations which count in Mr Corocher's favour. First, he has already repaid the amount that he defrauded from his employer. It follows that the victim of the fraud has suffered no permanent financial detriment. The repayment of the ill-gotten spoils also demonstrates a degree of contrition and remorse. This is a significant factor in considering the sentence to be imposed on Mr Corocher. 39 Second, Mr Corocher entered a plea of guilty at a very early stage. That again demonstrates a degree of contrition and remorse and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. The early plea has also saved the community the trouble and expense of a defended trial. Mr Corocher should also be given significant credit for the fact that he voluntarily and willingly travelled from Bundaberg to Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, for his sentence hearing. That was a situation which was made necessary as a result of a combination of factors, including restrictions imposed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 40 Third, it would appear from various character references that had been tendered on Mr Corocher's behalf that he has taken some steps, albeit in recent times, to rehabilitate himself. He has attended counselling in respect of his previous substance abuse and volunteers at a community service operated by the Bundaberg Uniting Church to, amongst other things, feed homeless people. The reverend of the Bundaberg Uniting Church, who is involved in and knows of Mr Corocher's involvement in those charitable activities, speaks very highly of him. It is also said on Mr Corocher's behalf that he had other significant community engagement and had assisted and raised funds for various other charities. Other individuals who have provided references attest to positive aspects of Mr Corocher's character. It would appear that Mr Corocher, fortunately for him, retains the support of not only his family, but some other members of the Bundaberg community. 41 Fourth, I take into account the fact that any time that Mr Corocher is required to spend in prison will be very difficult given his current health and the fact that his family and friends reside in North Queensland, whereas his imprisonment will be served in New South Wales. It should also be noted in this context that Mr Corocher had a bad experience during his previous incarceration.

norfolk island sentencing law 42 Subsection 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 2007 (NI) provides as follows: The only purposes for which sentences may be imposed on an offender are - (a) to punish the offender to an extent or in a way that is just in all the circumstances; (b) to provide conditions in the court's order that will help the offender to be rehabilitated; (c) to discourage the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence; (d) to make it clear that the community, acting through the court, does not approve of the sort of conduct in which the offender was involved; (e) to protect the Norfolk Island community from the offender; or (f) a combination of 2 or more of the purposes referred to in this subsection. 43 Subsection 5(2) of the Sentencing Act contains a list of matters that the Court is required to have regard to in sentencing an offender. I have had regard to that list of matters insofar as there is relevant evidence and information before the Court in relation to them. Those that appear to be of particular significance to the circumstances of this case are as follows. 44 First, the maximum penalty (subs 5(2)(a)), which as earlier indicated is 10 years imprisonment or a fine of $100,000 or both. 45 Second, the nature of the offence (subs 5(2)(b)), which, as I have described earlier, is objectively very serious, involving a breach of trust and the obtaining of a significant sum of money via a fraudulent, deliberate and premeditated scheme over a lengthy period of time. 46 Third, the extent to which the offender is to blame for the offence (subs 5(2)(d)). It is clear that Mr Corocher was solely to blame for the relevant offence. 47 Fourth, the offender's character, age and intellectual capacity (subs 5(2)(f)). As described in detail earlier, Mr Corocher is not a man of good character. Rather, he has a lengthy history of committing offences of dishonesty. I have, however, had a regard to his state of health as well. 48 Fifth, the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factor concerning the offender (subs 5(2)(g)). As has already been indicated in detail, Mr Corocher paid restitution to the victim of his fraud shortly after he was apprehended and entered a plea of guilty at a very early stage. 49 Sixth, the nature and extent of the offender's role or position in society and whether the offence took advantage or sought to take advantage of that role or position in the commission of the offence (subs 5(2)(h)). As already discussed in detail, the owners of the hotel placed their trust in Mr Corocher and he breached that trust and misused his position to gain a benefit to the detriment of his employers. 50 Seventh, whether the offender pleaded guilty to the offence and, if so, the stage in the proceedings in which the offender did so or indicated an intention to do so (subs 5(2)(l)). As I already indicated, Mr Corocher entered a plea of guilty at a very early stage, which is reflective of a degree of contrition and remorse and also having a utilitarian benefit to the community. 51 I should note, in this context, that the fact that I have not specifically referred to other paragraphs in subs 5(2) does not indicate that I have ignored those considerations. Rather, this simply reflects the fact that they are not major considerations in this matter given the nature of the evidence before the Court.

submissions and comparable cases 52 Both the Prosecutor and Mr Corocher's solicitor referred the Court to previous sentence decisions in what was said to be comparable cases in other states. Those cases provide some guidance in imposing the sentence in this case and "stand as a yardstick against which to examine a proposed sentence": Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 at [54]. 53 I do not propose to discuss those so-called comparable cases at any great length. That is because they all involve facts and circumstances that differ in some way to the facts and circumstances of this case, both as to the nature and seriousness of the offending behaviour in question and the circumstances of the offender in question. The offenders in each of those cases were also sentenced under different legislative regimes. 54 The prosecutor referred the Court to three cases, each of which involved frauds of between $17,000 and $41,000, which were committed by employees. Those cases were: Marasco v The Queen [2016] VSCA 85; Allie v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 6; and R v Guillevic [2011] QCA 273. In those cases, effective minimum sentences of imprisonment to be served before suspension or eligibility for parole between 12 months and 20 months were imposed. 55 In the submissions made on his behalf, Mr Corocher referred the Court primarily to the decision of R v Allen [2005] QCA 73. The judgment in that case also considered sentences imposed in a number of other cases involving fraud and offences committed by employees. The minimum terms of imprisonment to be served prior to suspension or eligibility for parole in Allen and the cases cited therein ranged between nine months and 18 months. 56 None of the cases referred to by the parties in this matter were truly comparable to the facts and circumstances of this case; nor do they establish any concrete range of sentences for cases of this type. They do, however, tend to indicate that cases involving fraud by employees or persons in positions of trust generally warrant combined punishment, almost invariably involving a period of full-time incarceration. So much so was effectively conceded on behalf of Mr Corocher. Nevertheless, as I have said, despite the differences between this case and the facts and circumstances of cases to which the Court has been taken, those cases do provide some guidance and assistance in this matter.

the appropriate sentence 57 There is, of course, no single correct sentence that must be imposed on an offender. The process of sentencing involves what has been called on many occasions an instinctive synthesis, which effectively means the weighing of all of the relevant and often competing factors and considerations in the process of arriving at what is considered to be an appropriate sentence - one which achieves the relevant purposes for which sentences are to be imposed. As I have said, in the case of offences against the laws of Norfolk Island, the purposes for which sentences are to be imposed are set out in subs 5(1) of the Sentencing Act. 58 I have referred at considerable length to all the relevant factors and considerations in Mr Corocher's case. Weighing all of those factors in consideration and taking them all into account, I consider that the appropriate sentence in this case is a sentence of imprisonment for two years and six months, with the sentence to be suspended after Mr Corocher has served 12 months imprisonment. 59 As I have already said, in fixing that period of imprisonment, I have taken into account that Mr Corocher's time in custody will, in some respects, be more difficult than others because it is to be served in New South Wales, whereas his family resides in Queensland, and given his health issues. I should also note in arriving at the sentence of imprisonment of two years and six months, I have given Mr Corocher a discount of 25 per cent, having regard to his early guilty plea, remorse and contrition and his facilitation of the administration of justice. 60 The Court makes the following orders in relation to this matter: (1) The offender, Shawn Michael Corocher, is convicted of the offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 209 of the Criminal Code. (2) The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months to commence on 21 September 2020 and end on 21 March 2023. (3) The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the offender is suspended pursuant to s 39 of the Sentencing Act, such suspension to commence on 21 September 2021, after the offender has served 12 months imprisonment and be subject to the condition referred to in order 5. (4) For the purposes of subs 39(6)(b) of the Sentencing Act, the period during which the offender is not to commit another offence punishable by imprisonment if he is to avoid being dealt with under s 42 of the Sentencing Act is 21 September 2021 to 21 March 2023 (the operative period). (5) The suspension of the offender's sentence is subject to the condition that he be of good behaviour during the operative period. 61 Finally, I should recommend, in accordance with the clinical report that has been tendered on Mr Corocher's behalf, that Mr Corocher be assessed and treated by the Prison Mental Health Service as soon as possible and that consideration be given should Mr Corocher desire to be placed in protective custody. I certify that the preceding sixty-one (61) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wigney.