appeal against sentence — dealing with proceeds of crime in respect of money or property the value of which was $50,000 or more offence contrary to s 400.5(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, obtaining financial advantage by deception from a Commonwealth entity offence contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — additional dishonestly causing a risk of loss to a Commonwealth entity offence contrary to s 135.1(5) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code taken into account pursuant to s 16BA — offences relate to $51,692.97, $22,475.18 and $16,814.73 respectively — original sentence imposed 5 years’ imprisonment with a 3 year non-parole period — victim impact statements — s 16A(2)(ea) — open to sentencing judge to have been satisfied giver of impact statement was properly to be regarded as a victim for the purposes of s 16AAA of the Crimes Act — as such, s 16A(2) required sentencing judge to take their victim impact statement into account — by victim’s own account, they have suffered harm and relates that harm to the offence committed by offender for commission of which it is apparent victim was recruited and manipulated — sentencing judge’s implicit conclusion that giver of statement was a victim or that their statement was a victim impact statement are entirely uncontroversial — offender’s family and dependants — s 16A(2)(p) — sentencing judge’s remarks make it clear they did take account of hardship to offender’s family — offender did not contend that sentencing judge failed to give it sufficient weight or emphasis — unsurprising having regard to the fact that, absent a demonstrable House v The King error, sentencing judge’s discretionary consideration of matters arguably amounting to hardship is unassailable — character — s 16A(2)(m) — apparent from any fair reading of sentencing judge’s remarks that they were singularly unimpressed with character evidence upon which offender relied — clearly of the view that statements of praise from relatives and colleagues and accompanying expressions of disbelief that offending even occurred at all were effectively in tension with fact and extent of offending — that is so particularly having regard to considerable degree of detailed planning involved carried out at several layers of detail over a relatively extended period — loss of opportunity to make better submission not to be confused with loss of opportunity to make any submission — offender not denied procedural fairness, sentencing judge entitled to proceed as they did — contrition — s 16A(2)(f)(ii) — sentencing judge unambiguously indicated that they were not prepared to act upon second-hand expressions of remorse, particularly in circumstances where offender did not themselves choose to give evidence about it — offender cannot demonstrate sentencing judge’s finding that offender was not remorseful was erroneous — appeal dismissed
