sentence — 1 count of dishonestly causing loss to Commonwealth offence contrary to s 135.1(3) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, 1 count of dishonestly causing a loss or risk of loss to Commonwealth knowing or believing there was a substantial risk of loss occurring offence contrary to s 131.1(5) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — offences relate to $20,577 and $367,753 respectively — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — involvement motivated by combination of loyal obedience to ACG corporate strategies and enhanced personal pursuit of career opportunities within ACG which to some extent lessens moral culpability — offender aware actively participating in substantial exercise which involved receipt of untaxed cash wages by large number of guards under four payrolls — moral culpability is moderately high — were it not for matters personal to offender, would have been found to be a serious example of offence and very high moral culpability — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — reparation — s 16A(2)(f)(ii) — offender offered to repay $20,577 to the ATO — sentencing judge accepted that offender demonstrated true contrition and remorse for offending conduct — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — detection more difficult by payment of cash wages and employment of sub-contractors, shifting tax burden to entities which did not take responsibility for payment of taxation obligations — investigation and prosecution of fraudulent scheme was complex, difficult, time consuming and resource intensive — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — pleas entered at earliest forensically reasonable opportunity and offender was entitled to have this taken into account — significant utilitarian benefit considering likely length and complexity of any trial and large number of witnesses who would have needed to be called — offender was first of those involved in tax avoidance scheme to plead guilty — pleas also indicate an acceptance of responsibility for offending conduct and willingness to facilitate course of justice — delay — considerable systemic delay occasioned by progress of proceedings through court individual circumstances of judge and effect of COVID-19 pandemic —offender has had matters hanging over them for period of well over five years — delay calls for significant leniency to be extended — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — as far as rehabilitation during period of delay is concerned offender has lived exemplary life and prospects of rehabilitation are very good — offender’s family and dependants — s 16A(2)(p) — offender is mother’s primary carer, has had significant adverse effects on offender emotionally, mentally and to some extent physically — COVID-19 crisis has heightened offender’s concerns for wellbeing of parents — this is not a case where these circumstances warrant separate consideration outside conventional sentencing framework — concerns regarding welfare of parents would increase burden of imprisonment on offender — burden is more significant because current COVID-19 crisis means concern regarding parents’ situation would be elevated by reason of increased risk factors — mental condition — s 16A(2)(m) — no mental condition offender may have been suffering at time of committing offences was in any way causative of offending conduct — all of offender’s current mental condition are either entirely reactive to current circumstances or have been significantly exacerbated by them — Verdins principle 5 engaged to some extent as offender’s depression and anxiety would have cumulative effect on their concern for mother’s predicament and inability to care and support her while serving custodial sentence — any sentence of imprisonment would weigh more heavily even if offender did not have psychological condition — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — offender has learnt salutary lesson from investigation and prosecution of crime and is unlikely to reoffend — protective factor of living at home with aged parents whom offender cares for and supports — very little weight given to specific deterrence and community protection — sentence — imposed 3 years’ imprisonment, offender released immediately on recognisance release order and $5000 fine — s 6AAA — sentencing judge would have imposed sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with 3 year and 8 month non-parole period but for offender’s guilty plea
