appeal against sentence — 9 counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception contrary to s 134.2(1) Commonwealth Criminal Code — 2 counts of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception contrary to ss 11.1 and 134.2(1) Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 2 years’ and 6 months imprisonment with offender to be released on recognisance release order after 10 months — nature and circumstances — s 16A(2)(a) — offences committed over substantial period of time and there was element of repetition or persistence in offender’s behaviour — mental condition — s 16A(2)(m) — report from psychiatrist noted that offender had no known medical illness to explain behaviour and no past psychiatric history — offender diagnosed with gambling addiction with secondary diagnoses of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressive problems — sentencing judge considered dated material tendered in favourable light — Discharge Summary is essentially unremarkable and contains no further information other than that offender had suicidal ideation on particular date — offender’s family and dependents — s 16A(2)(p)— offender argued effect that incarceration had on daughter should be taken into account particularly in context of COVID-19 pandemic — no evidence has been adduced about actual effect on daughter but it is accepted that personal visits have been restricted — restrictions have affected entire prison population and families and imposition occurred after sentence imposed — Court’s function is to consider sentence imposed by primary judge and circumstances which have arisen post-sentence are not relevant consideration when considering merits of appeal — as possible hardship has occurred post-sentence and affects prison population as whole it could not amount to exceptional circumstances that should have been taken into account by sentencing judge — delay — in offender’s case complaint had been laid 12 months after they had been asked to participate in interview and indictment was presented 12 months after that — subsequent delay was not due to DPP or Court but was indulgence to offender as they took some time to engage legal representation — application to adduce further evidence refused — application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
