appeal against sentence — conspiring with four other persons with intention of dishonestly causing loss to Commonwealth contrary to s 135.4(3) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — dealing with money in excess of $100,000 reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to s 400.9(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 5 years’ imprisonment with 3 year and 3 month non-parole period — nature and circumstances — s 16A(2)(a) — sections of Centrelink claims forms were completed by offender and husband in support of false claims for carer payments — four customers were introduced to offender and husband and carried out role as customers of welfare fraud and co-conspirators in conspiracy — conspiracy was sophisticated — those involved were committed to achieving fraud on Commonwealth — neither offender nor husband were deterred from commitment to achieving objective by seizure of large amount of cash during conspiracy — offender was equally culpable with husband and both were architects of fraudulent scheme even if in early stages of conspiracy husband played more dominant role — offender’s role was central to achieving perpetration of welfare fraud and sole motivation was greed — offender received at least $11,000 for role in conspiracy — sentencing judge accepted that having been married to first cousin by arrangement at age of 18 would have been productive of significant power imbalance in marriage — offender’s limited formal education meant they relied on husband for designing formal aspects of scheme and operation — parity — different and more limited roles played by customers in conspiracy by agreeing to utilise services offender and husband offered as facilitators and organisers of welfare fraud — unlike offender each co-conspirator entered early plea of guilty and two of them had additional discount applied for assistance to authorities — despite evidence of family violence sentencing judge satisfied that offender exercised choice in involving themselves in conspiracy evident from fact that offender continued offending behaviour after husband’s death — hardship to the offender — s 16A(2)(m) — offender’s experience of full time custody as woman in her 60s with concerns for three intellectually disabled children who remain in offender’s care would make experience as sentenced prisoner more onerous — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — essential that aggregate sentence reflect need for general deterrence — sentence neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust — nothing in case is even faintly suggestive that offender suffered any injustice in sentencing process — leave to appeal refused — appeal dismissed
