1 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
2 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
3 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
4 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
5 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
6 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
7 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
8 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
9 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
10 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
11 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
12 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 18-00364

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

BRANDON SCICLUNA

---

JUDGE: HIS HONOUR JUDGE WRAIGHT

WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 6 December 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE: 24 January 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: DPP v Scicluna
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2019] VCC 30

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject: Criminal Law - Sentence

Catchwords: Guilty plea – six charges of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by

deception – five charges of obtaining property by deception – six charges of obtaining a

financial advantage by deception – three charges of attempting to obtain property by

deception – one charge of possession of a drug of dependence – two related summary

charges – youthful offender – whether Verdins principles apply

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act

1981 (Vic), Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic), Bail Act 1977 (Vic), Sentencing Act

1991(Vic)

Sentence: Combination sentence pursuant to s 44 of the Sentencing Act 1991 – Total

13 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 effective sentence of 7 months imprisonment as the prison component – Community

correction order for a period of two years, 250 hours community work, supervision,

assessment and treatment for drug abuse or dependency

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors

For the Director of Public Mr J Singh OPP

Prosecutions

For the Accused Mr R Melasecca Melasecca, Kelly & Zayler

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1 Brandon Tony Scicluna, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges:

 Six charges of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception contrary to

ss 321M and 82(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, which carries a maximum penalty of 5

years imprisonment on each charge (Charges 1, 3, 6, 11, 12 and 16);

 Five charges of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 81(1) of the Crimes

Act 1958, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment on each

charge (Charges 2, 5, 8, 10, and 15);

 Six charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 82(1) of

the Crimes Act 1958, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment

on each charge (Charges 4, 7, 9 and 14);

14 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
  Three charges of attempting to obtain property by deception contrary to ss 321M

and 81(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years

imprisonment on each charge (Charges 13, 17, and 18); and

 One charge of possession of a drug of dependence contrary to ss 73(1) of the

Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 which carries a maximum

penalty of 12 months imprisonment or 30 penalty units (Charge 19).

2 You have also pleaded guilty to two related summary charges:

 Charge 1 – making a false report to police contrary to s 53(1) of the Summary

Offences Act 1966, which carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment

or 120 penalty units; and

 Charge 23 - committing an indictable offence while on bail contrary to s 30B of

the Bail Act 1977 which carries a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment or

30 penalty units.

3 You have also admitted your prior criminal record.

Circumstances of the offending

4 A summary of prosecution opening was tendered on the plea and may be

summarised as follows:

5 On 2 May 2016, you Brandon Scicluna commenced a Home and Contents insurance

policy with RACV Insurance in relation to your then residential address in Wallan.

6 On 27 November 2016, you contacted Wallan Police Station and reported that a

burglary had occurred in the garage of your home. You stated that the burglary had

occurred between 9pm the previous night and 10am that morning. You stated that a

number of power tools were stolen to the value of $13,000, including Ryobi power

saws, an angle grinder and nailer.

15 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
7 That same day police crime scene officer Senior Constable O'Brien attended at your

residence and photographed the garage area. Damage was noted to the garage

door and doorframe. Police commenced an investigation.

8 On 29 November 2016, you contacted RACV Insurance and lodged a claim for the

alleged burglary. You falsely advised RACV Insurance that $50,000 worth of tools,

tool boxes and a car computer had been stolen. This amount was in excess of your

insurance coverage. You provided RACV with two photographs of the allegedly

stolen property in support of proof of the loss (Charge 1).

9 On 11 January 2017, you emailed police officer Senior Constable Davidge a list of

items alleged to have been stolen.

10 RACV Insurance also commenced an investigation through Quantum Corp. On 12

January 2017, RACV investigator Andrea Chambers attended at your residential

address and conducted a recorded interview with you. During an inspection of the

house, she observed and photographed contents of a black plastic container in a

cupboard that contained Ryobi power tools identical to those pictured in the

photographs sent by you to RACV.

11 Later that day Ms Chambers used a metadata viewer to examine a further five

images of the allegedly stolen property sent to her by you. This revealed that the

photographs had actually been taken variously at midnight on 26 November and 22

December 2016.

12 On 16 January 2017, you contacted RACV wanting to withdraw your claim. This was

refused.

13 On 31 July 2017, police searched your new residential address in Meadow Heights

and located the Ryobi tools.

14 On 5 January 2017, you contacted MasterCraft Melbourne Boat Company by mobile

phone and spoke to the owner Jacob Mutton. You expressed an interest in

16 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 purchasing a 2017 MasterCraft XT23 boat which came with a tandem accent axle

trailer.

15 The following day 6 January 2017, you attended at Torrumbarry Weir Holiday Park

located at Weir Road, Echuca and met Mr Mutton there. Mr Mutton had the

MasterCraft XT23 in the lake and took you for a test drive. You agreed to purchase

the boat for $149,000.

16 You insisted on taking the boat there and then. You purported to make two EFTPOS

bank transfers to Mr Mutton using a Commonwealth Bank application on your mobile

phone. The first was for $100,000 and the second was for $49,000. You set up the

transfers to occur on 7 January 2017. You made screenshots of the transfers and

texted them to Mr Mutton. Mr Mutton did not realise the transfers were set up to

occur the next day. At the time of the transactions you had a balance of $199.89 in

your Commonwealth Bank account (Charge 2).

17 At about 1pm the same day you contacted RACV Insurance and commenced a boat

insurance policy for an agreed value of $149,000.

18 About an hour later at 2pm you took possession of the MasterCraft boat from Mr
Mutton. Subsequently at about 3.30pm, Mr Mutton realised the transfers had been

set up to occur on 7 January. The money was never transferred. On 9 January, Mr

Mutton called you asking where the transferred money was. You replied that the

bank had lost your money and that you had lodged an insurance claim through your

business.

19 At about 10am on 9 January 2017, you contacted RACV Insurance and lodged a

claim for the MasterCraft boat in the amount of the agreed value of $149,000. You

falsely stated that you had taken the boat out that morning and upon returning at

about 8am the boat had struck a rock near Altona, the boat had sunk and had not

been recovered (Charge 3).

17 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
20 Later that same afternoon at about 3.47pm, you contacted Mr Mutton sending him a

photograph of a crack on the deck asking if it was covered by warranty. The next day,

10 January, Mr Mutton contacted you and made up a story that the boat needed to

come in for a service. He asked if he and his father John Mutton could collect the

boat and start the service, returning it by the weekend. You confirmed your address.

21 Jacob and John Mutton attended the address and collected the boat. Mr Mutton

noted that the boat had sustained minor damage to the prop and trailer, but no

damage to the hull, or signs that the boat had sunk underwater.

22 On 11 January, you contacted Mr Mutton to ask where the boat was. Mr Mutton told

you that you were not getting it back until the money was paid.

23 On 16 January, the RACV contacted Mr Mutton about the boat and he told them the

details. Mr Mutton texted you and said that the insurance company are sending the

cops to your workplace. You contacted RACV Insurance and attempted to withdraw

your claim for the boat, at the same time as your claim for the home and contents.

Both requests were denied.

24 On 11 May 2017, you offered a Kawasaki jet ski for sale on Gumtree. Jake Carrigg
responded to the advertisement and attended your residence where he purchased

the jet ski. Mr Carrigg provided you with a photograph of his marine licence in order

to transfer the registration.

25 On 15 May 2017, you contacted Harley Heaven by email and falsely identified

yourself as Jake Scicluna. You requested to purchase a Harley Davidson VROD

motorcycle. Staff member Steve Shirgwin contacted you and you agreed to purchase

a black 2014 Harley Davidson motorcycle for the amount of $23,459.20. The

purchase was entered into the system.

26 You then contacted Cameron Bacon of Yes Finance who submitted an online

application for finance to purchase the Harley Davidson valued at $23,459.20,

18 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 through Pepper Money Pty Ltd. You falsely provided your name as Jake Carrigg,

provided a false driver’s licence number and gave your address. As part of the

application process you supplied a copy of Jake Carrigg's marine licence and two

false payslips in the name of Jake Carrigg. Pepper Money Finance approved the

finance application in the amount $23,500 and the funds were paid to Harley Heaven

on 16 May (Charge 5).

27 Harley Heaven employee Steve Shirgwin then arranged for the purchase of the

motorcycle. You provided Mr Shirgwin with a letter of consent purporting to be from

Jake Carrigg authorising Harley Heaven to transfer the registration into the name of

Brandon Scicluna and allowing you to collect the Harley Davidson from Harley

Heaven (Charge 4).

28 At about 2pm on 18 May 2017, you attended at Harley Heaven and collected the

motorcycle. You provided your own driver's licence as identification.

29 On 31 July 2017, police searched your Meadow Heights residence and located the

Harley Davidson motorcycle.

30 On 18 June 2017, you contacted Michael MacKenzie via email in regards to a boat
for sale. You stated you would send a $5000 holding deposit. You asked Mr

MacKenzie to send you his bank details and a photograph of his licence, so that you

would know to whom you were transferring the money.

31 Mr MacKenzie emailed you his bank details, a photograph of his Victorian Marine

licence and Victorian Heavy Duty licence. You did not send through the $5000

deposit and the sale did not proceed. Michael MacKenzie then left the country,

returning on 24 July 2017.

32 On 28 June 2017, you created an email address in the name of Michael MacKenzie

with an incorrectly spelt email address.

19 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
33 On 28 June 2017, you contacted Cameron Bacon of Yes Finance. Mr Bacon

submitted an online application on your behalf, for finance to purchase a Jeep

Cherokee valued at $77,453 through Pepper Money Pty Ltd. As part of the

application you falsely provided your details as Michael MacKenzie of 21 Meridian

Drive, South Morang (Charge 6).

34 Pepper Money rejected the application as no supporting identification or

documentation had been provided in support of the application.

35 On 1 July 2017, you contacted Paul Wakeling Motor Group via an enquiry from Car

Sales using the name Brandon. The sales representative Nadine Hyslop contacted

you on your mobile phone. You said you were enquiring about a black 2014 Holden

HSV GTS Sedan, New South Wales registration YDB 01R. You falsely stated it was

on behalf of your father Michael MacKenzie and that the vehicle would be purchased

by your business “Mick Mach Pty Ltd”. You agreed to purchase the Holden Sedan for

$75,000 (Charge 8).

36 You originally stated that you would obtain your own financing, before being referred

to Macquarie Leasing for finance.

37 You contacted Macquarie Leasing and falsely identified yourself as Michael

MacKenzie. You made an application for finance for the Holden HSV GTS sedan for

$75,000 in the business name of Mick Mach Pty Ltd. You falsely provided your

details as Michael MacKenzie of 21 Meridian Drive, South Moran with the email

address you had created in Mr Mackenzie’s name. You provided your own work

mobile phone number. You supplied a copy of MacKenzie's marine licence and

signed the application in the name of Michael MacKenzie. Macquarie Leasing

approved finance in the amount of $77,715 (including fees) and paid the amount into

your Commonwealth Bank account (Charge 7).

38 The purchase of the black Holden then went ahead. Using the name Michael

MacKenzie, you arranged for the vehicle to be collected by car courier. On

20 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 3 July 2017 the courier collected the vehicle from Paul Wakeling Motor Group and

met you at a BP service station on the Hume Highway after midnight. You purported

to be Michael MacKenzie's son and took possession of the Holden.

39 On 31 July 2017, police searched your Meadow Heights residence and located

documentation and keys for the Holden GTS. The vehicle was ultimately located on

1 August 2017 at Molnor Engineering in Preston, where it had been sent for repairs

by you after you smashed it.

40 On 4 July 2017, you contacted Robert Houghton of Highway Performance Bikes and

falsely identified yourself as Michael MacKenzie. You agreed to purchase a KTM 300

EXC motorcycle for $17,200. You falsely provided your details as Michael

MacKenzie, together with his address and the email address you had created. You

provided your own work mobile phone number. You provided a copy of a heavy

vehicle licence in the name of Michael MacKenzie (Charge 10).

41 You were referred to United Financial Services and made an application for finance

in the amount of $17,200. You falsely provided your details as Michael MacKenzie

together with his address and the email address you had created. You provided your

own work mobile phone number and a copy of Michael MacKenzie's marine licence,
which falsely purported to be stamped and certified by Sergeant P. Brown of Wallan

Police Station on 5 and 6 July 2017. You also provided false Bank of Queensland

documents in the name of Michael MacKenzie. You transferred a $500 deposit to

United Financial Services from your own Commonwealth Bank account. The loan

was approved and paid into the account of Highway Performances Bikes (Charge 9).

42 On 13 July 2017, a vehicle courier collected the KTM 300 motorcycle from Highway

Performance Bikes, and it was then picked up by you.

43 On 31 July 2017, police searched your Meadow Heights residence and located the

KTM 300 motorcycle.

21 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
44 On 6 July 2017, you again contacted Jacob Mutton of MasterCraft Melbourne Boat

Company and stated you were looking to buy a boat. Mr Mutton advised he would

assist you but when you had the money and it had cleared his account. He referred

you to 360 Finance.

45 You contacted Daniel Smith of 360 Finance and identified yourself as Michael

MacKenzie. You made an application for finance in the amount of $100,000. You

falsely provided your details as Michael MacKenzie, together with his address and

the email address you had created. You used your own work mobile phone number.

You also provided a copy of Michael MacKenzie's marine licence, false documents

purporting to be an Australian Tax Office notice of assessment and a tax return from

2016 in the name of Michael MacKenzie (Charge 11).

46 Mr Mutton phoned Daniel Smith at 360 Finance and warned him about the legitimacy

of “Michael MacKenzie”. The loan application was rejected.

47 On 4 July 2017, you contacted James Verheyen at Regal Marine by phone and

identified yourself as Michael MacKenzie. You stated you were Brandon's father, that

you wished to purchase a Malibu Wakesetter VLX boat and trailer for $104,500 and

requested finance. You were referred to Mercury Finance. You told Mr Verheyen that
you would have your son “Brandon” pick up the boat on 8 July 2017 (Charge 13).

48 You requested that Regal Marine obtain insurance for the boat. You provided your

own bank details and post office box in Wallan. Regal Marine obtained insurance

through Club Marine Insurance.

49 You contacted Trevor Hutchings at Mercury Finance and falsely provided your details

as Michael MacKenzie of 21 Meridian Drive, South Moran together with his address

and the email address you had created. You used your own mobile phone number.

You also supplied a copy of Michael MacKenzie's marine licence, as well as a

scanned copy of the Mercury Finance consumer loan contract falsely signed in the

22 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 name of Michael MacKenzie and purporting to be certified by Sergeant Peter Brown

of Wallan Police Station on 7 July 2017 (Charge 12).

50 On 7 July 2017, you attended at Regal Marine stating you were there to pick up the

Wakesetter for your father Michael MacKenzie. Staff member Trent Wardrop

recognised you from a previous failed purchase. You were denied collection of the

boat as the finance had not cleared and Michael MacKenzie had to sign the finance

contract and registration of transfer.

51 You continued to unsuccessfully request that the boat be supplied and be transferred

into the name of Brandon Scicluna.

52 On 10 July 2017, you contacted Mercury Finance as Michael MacKenzie and

requested to cancel the transaction. You were told to contact Regal Marine. The sale

did not go ahead.

53 On 31 July 2017, police searched your Meadow Heights residence and located the

documents supplied to Mercury Finance.

54 On 10 July 2017, you contacted Seaview Ford in Western Australia and identified

yourself as Michael MacKenzie. You agreed to purchase a 2016 Ford Ranger

Wildtrak for $58,124.40. It was electronically signed an “Offer of Purchase”. You

requested finance and were referred to St George Finance.

55 Allan Paul at Seaview Ford assisted you in making an online application with St

George Finance. You falsely provided your details as Michael MacKenzie, together

with his address, email address, a copy of his marine licence and a copy of his heavy

vehicle licence. You used your own work mobile phone number. The application was

submitted under the business name “Mick Mach Pty Ltd”. You signed the application

as Michael MacKenzie. The application was approved by St George Finance and

funds transferred to Seaview Ford (Charge 14).

23 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
56 The purchase of the Ford Ranger was processed. Mr Paul arranged for the Ranger

to be delivered to your Wallan residence by a vehicle courier. However you then

arranged your own vehicle courier to deliver the ranger to that address (Charge 15).

57 On 31 July 2017, police searched your Meadow Heights residence and located the

Ford Ranger.

58 On 26 July 2017, David Henderson of Yamaha Motor Finance Australia received a

referral purporting to be from Michael MacKenzie requesting $101,000 in finance to

purchase a boat. Mr Henderson phoned you on your work mobile number and

requested further information.

59 You provided Michael MacKenzie's marine licence details and a false Australian Tax

Office notice of assessment in Mr MacKenzie's name. On 28 July 2017, the finance

was pre-approved and applications forwarded to dealerships Port Phillip Boating

Centre and DipTech Pty Ltd (Charge 16).

60 On 28 July 2017, you contacted Port Phillip Boating Centre and identified yourself as

Michael MacKenzie. You requested to purchase a new Yamaha Outboard motor.

Steven Schembri provided a quote of $19,885. You asked Mr Schemri to call your
son “Brandon” about bringing the boat in. Mr Schembri spoke to you, this time as

Brandon, and advised that without the boat the sale could not proceed. You said you

did not have a car to tow it with (Charge 17).

61 You then spoke to Sofia Di Pietro of DipTech Pty Ltd about the purchase of a

Yamaha personal watercraft for $24,480.81. You provided your details as Michael

MacKenzie, together with his address. Mr DiPietro emailed an application form to

your email address. You returned a Yamaha Motor Group Finance contract in the

name of Michael MacKenzie, purporting to be signed by Mr MacKenzie, together with

a copy of a marine licence and Australian Tax Office notice of assessment in Mr

MacKenzie's name (Charge 18).

24 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
62 On 29 July 2017, Mr Henderson was notified of a possible fraud warning and the pre-

approved finance was withdrawn and rejected.

63 All of the offences were committed while you were on bail and that is summary

charge 23 – commit indictable offence on bail.

64 On 31 July 2017, you were arrested in the bungalow at the rear of the Meadow

Heights property.

65 The search of the garage and premises located:

 two vials of testosterone (Charge 19 – possess drug of dependence);

 Ryobi tools (as had been reported stolen on 27 November 2016);

 documents in the name of Michael MacKenzie;

 documents and keys for the Holden GTS;

 Harley Davidson VROD motorcycle;

 a KTM motorcycle;

 a Ford Ranger;

 documents relating to various vehicle purchases;

 documents from Mercury Finance;

 cut certified copy stamp from Wallan Police Station; and

 two mobile phones used to contact various parties.

66 You participated in a recorded interview at Wallan Police Station on 31 July 2017.

You made admissions to most of the deceptive conduct and of using the false

identity of Michael MacKenzie. However you essentially stated that you were acting

under duress from a guy you knew called Joe.

Objective seriousness of the offending

67 The offences of obtaining property by deception and of obtaining financial advantage

by deception are serious offences which is reflected in the maximum penalty of 10

years imprisonment respectively. While the offences of attempting to obtain financial

25 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 advantage or property by deception attract a lower penalty of five years

imprisonment they too in my view are serious offences as in this instance, they form

part of a series of offences committed by you from November 2016 through to July

2017. Further, all of the offences represented on the indictment were committed

while you were on bail.

68 Your offending over this period as detailed above, on the obtaining offences amounts

to $498,000 and on the attempts to $728,000. The items that you sought to obtain

and did obtain in some instances, were boats, motorcycles, and motor vehicles. I

was told on the plea that all of the items that you did obtain were recovered when

your property was searched by police.

69 It is difficult to understand the motivation behind your offending. On the one hand, if

not for your complex psychological history and drug use, these offences may be

viewed as being motivated by greed. On the other hand, you had at the time a

serious drug addiction where on your own admission you were using drugs to the

value of $600-800 per day yet the items that you did obtain were not quickly on sold

in order to fuel that habit as may be expected. One view that was offered by your

psychologist was an overriding desire fuelled by inadequacy to be viewed as

‘somebody’. I will return to this point later when dealing with your personal issues.

70 It was also submitted on your behalf that your offending was quite unsophisticated

and that it was inevitable that you would be caught. This was put on the basis of your

various cognitive deficiencies in combination with your serious drug addiction, which

meant that you were not exercising proper judgement. Again I will return to this issue

later in the sentencing remarks however as I noted on the plea, while there may have

been an inevitability of detection, you did manage to commit the substantive offences

by deceiving persons who worked in insurance companies and sales positions who

would be alert to obvious attempts at deception. Ultimately as noted, the completed

offences amounted to you retaining either property or financial advantage in the

amount of approximately half a million dollars.

26 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
71 That said, the indictment contains a number of charges of attempt to obtain financial

advantage or property by deception and as was put on the plea, those attempts

failed because the potential victims recognised immediately how unsophisticated the

offending was in those instances.

72 Further, you have had experience with this type of offending and thus were not a

novice. Your criminal history records similar offending on a number of occasions in

relatively recent times. In all the circumstances in my view, your offending represents

serious examples of the offences of obtaining property and financial advantage by

deception and attempting to obtain property and financial advantage by deception.

Personal circumstances

73 You are now 23 years of age and you were 22 at the time of the offending.

74 You grew up in the Meadow Heights area with your parents and two older sisters

now aged 28 and 25 respectively. You attended the local primary school followed by

high school at Penda Catholic School where because of your medical issues,

including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Asperger's, which is

part of a broader definition of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), you were only able
to complete year nine. You left school and attended the Kangan Institute where you

received a certificate three in automotive painting and engineering.

75 You commenced work in the spray painting business in Craigieburn where you

worked for four years. You then went to work for another panel beating business

where you met a group of people who introduced you to drugs. You began to use ice

and ultimately became involved in offending behaviour as reflected in your criminal

history.

76 Specifically, as to your drug history you tried cannabis at the age of 15 however you

did not continue as it made you feel sick. At age 18, you commenced taking speed

which you used mostly on the weekends for about four months. At age 19, you were

27 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 introduced to methylamphetamine initially not using every day, however by the age of

20 you were using up to two grams of ice on a daily basis. Together with ice you

used cocaine, on average about one gram per weekend.

77 You were arrested for these offences on 31 July 2017 however on 29 August 2017,

you were sentenced in the Magistrates' Court in relation to other deception charges

receiving a four-month term of imprisonment. Ultimately, you were in custody from

the July arrest until December when you were bailed. While that time amounted to

just over four months, because you were sentenced in relation to the other matters,

you have only 29 days available to you that can be formally declared in relation to

any sentence I impose.

78 Since being released on bail for the past 12 months you have engaged in intensive

rehabilitation programs which were the focus of the plea and the matters put by Mr

Melasecca who appeared on your behalf. One of the conditions of your bail is that

you engage in treatment and counselling which you have done with Ms Amanda

Brown of Lamberti Associates, rehabilitation consultants. Ms Brown gave evidence

on the plea confirming the matters that she outlined in her report.

79 In summary, Ms Brown states that you have been successful in achieving drug free
status for the 12 months that you have been on bail. I also accept that you did not

use whilst in custody and thus you have approximately 16 months being drug free.

Ms Brown states that you have been committed to attending counselling

appointments on a weekly or fortnightly basis, together with the provision of urine

screens. You have also attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings twice a week and

have sustained weekly attendance of that group.

80 I also received a report from psychologist Luke Armstrong who assessed you and

provided a report. Mr Armstrong also gave evidence before me at the plea. He

provides a detailed history as to your diagnosis from age six with ADHD. Further at

age nine, you were diagnosed with Asperger's condition. These conditions made it

28 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 very difficult for you to thrive in an academic environment and you were soon left

behind by your peer group. You had great difficulty in taking directions from teachers

and from your parents and had emotional outbursts including aggression towards

your family members.

81 Mr Armstrong assessed you via various psychological tools and the findings are

detailed in his report. In short your general cognitive ability is within the extremely

low range of intellectual functioning. Your overall thinking and reasoning abilities

exceed those of only one per cent of individuals of your age. Your verbal and non-

verbal reasoning abilities are in the borderline range.

82 As to your academic achievements, Mr Armstrong applied testing which resulted in

your reading being assessed in the very low range at grade four primary school level,

your arithmetic at grade three primary school level and your spelling at grade two

primary school level. While you left school at year eight level in his view, the testing

suggested a far greater level of academic impoverishment. Mr Armstrong is also of

the view that you have a limited understanding of risk in social situations, your social

judgment is immature for your age and you are at risk of being manipulated by

others.

83 Mr Armstrong is of the opinion that your impaired cognitive functioning and flawed

personality needs to be considered together with your serious substance abuse

problem, in order to assess your offending behaviour. He states that your various

cognitive conditions such as ADHD and ASD alone create considerable functional

impairment however when encountered together, that is in combination with your

serious drug problem, your ability to exercise appropriate judgement is even further

impaired.

84 Ultimately, Mr Armstrong concludes that you have a long and complex history of

developmental disturbance which is evidenced by complex diagnoses including

ADHD and ASD from the age of six. Mr Armstrong isolates your current IQ score as

29 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 more accurately reflecting the long-term crippling effects of your ADHD and ASD on

your intellectual functioning rather than attributing that to drug use.

85 Mr Armstrong is also of the view that you do have insight into your offending

behaviour and that you demonstrated to him that you appreciate the impact of your

behaviour on your family and most particularly, your young son. It would seem that

the four months you spent in custody was the catalyst in you realising the position

you put yourself and your family in as a result of your poor choices. It was at that

stage that you decided to cease using drugs and have continued drug-free since

being released for a period of 12 months.

86 You have significant family support and a number of members of your family were

present in court during the plea to support you. Your partner Amy Lee Himmerman

gave evidence on the plea. She stated that you have been together for almost nine

years and have had to face very challenging times as a result of the conditions you

suffer. She witnessed your decline into drug use and unfortunately this occurred at

the time when your son was born and while he was very young. She confirms the

changes in you that have been documented in the various reports since your

release. She said that you are hard-working and you have become a close and
devoted father to your son.

87 Ms Himmerman’s father also gave evidence on the plea. He states that you, your

partner and your son have been living with his family since your release and he has

no issue with you being there. He has taken on a role of being a mentor to you. He

gave evidence that he will continue to support you in providing accommodation and

ongoing support to you.

88 Evidence was also called from your employer Mr Johnny Abella. He confirms that

you have been employed with his engineering firm since August last year. Mr Abella

employs approximately 15 people and has daily contact with you at the workplace.

He is well aware of your criminal charges and has had numerous conversations with

30 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 you about your offending behaviour. He views you as a valuable employee and will

continue to employ you.

89 A further reference was tendered from the general manager of your employer, Ms

Naomi Cooke. She explains your role as second in charge of the area you work

within the factory. Ms Cooke notes that you have face to face contact with customers

and that you handle that role with integrity and professionalism. She too notes that

you have discussed with her your criminal charges and states that you are

remorseful for the pain you have caused to your partner and family. Finally, she

notes that the company will support you if you are required to undergo any

community based sentence.

Sentencing considerations

90 Mr Melasecca outlined the matters in mitigation. First and foremost is your plea of

guilty. It is accepted by the prosecution that your plea of guilty is a plea at the earliest

opportunity which has of course, in cases such as this, saved a significant amount of

court time and has facilitated the course of justice.

91 Over and above your plea of guilty it was submitted that you have demonstrated
genuine remorse. Both Ms Brown and Mr Armstrong in their professional dealings

with you, indicate that you have demonstrated sincere regret and remorse in relation

to the pain that you have caused to your partner, your family and your wider family. I

accept that through the course of your rehabilitation you have gained insight into

your offending and have a greater understanding of the impact it has had on your

immediate family and the wider community.

92 You are 22 years of age when you committed these offences and are now 23. You

therefore fall to be sentenced as a youthful offender. Further, as noted above by Mr

Armstrong as a result of testing, you function at a very low level. Therefore, although

you do have prior convictions for similar offending, given the powerful mitigating

material that has been presented on your behalf and the sustained rehabilitation in

31 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 the last 12 months, in my view your youth still should carry weight in the sentencing

discretion and your rehabilitation remains as a prominent sentencing consideration.

93 Mr Melasecca submitted that your sustained period of rehabilitation should carry

significant weight. You have remained drug-free as evidenced by urine testing for the

12 months that you have been on bail and I accept that you were drug-free for the

four months you were in custody. You have engaged as required by your bail

conditions with Ms Brown and have been entirely compliant with the treatment and

rehabilitation that you have been offered by her. Further, you have been able to

maintain full employment and it is clear from the evidence from your employer that

you have become a contributing member of the community in that respect.

94 I take into account the difficulties you have suffered as a result of your cognitive

impairments and I accept that Verdins principles do have application in this instance.

Your various psychological disturbances on their own impair your ability to exercise

appropriate judgement and thus I accept that your moral culpability is reduced

because of those conditions. As was noted by Mr Armstrong, when those matters are

combined with substance abuse, it only complicates further your cognitive

functioning.

95 I also accept that if you are to complete a further period of time in custody that your

impaired mental functioning which as noted, affects your judgement in social

situations and makes you at risk of manipulation by others, will make any further time

in custody more difficult for you.

96 As to your rehabilitation prospects, I assess them as strong. Without repeating the

matters outlined in the various reports and the evidence that was presented on the

plea, it is clear that you have indeed demonstrated a sustained period of

rehabilitation. However while you may be drug free as noted by Mr Armstrong,

because of your long-term and complex psychological history, you will need further

32 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
 ongoing assistance and support to manage your condition within the context of your

workplace, your family and your interpersonal relationships.

97 Mr Singh who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions accepted

much of the matters in mitigation that were put on your behalf and submitted on

behalf of the Director that given the powerful matters in mitigation, a combination

sentence pursuant to s 44 of the Sentencing Act 1991 is an appropriate disposition.

However, it was submitted that the seriousness of the offending calls for a further

period of custody before you should be released on a community correction order.

98 As noted, while I accept that the Verdins principles apply and that therefore your

moral culpability is reduced in relation to the offending, nonetheless general

deterrence still must carry weight in the sentencing discretion. As to specific

deterrence, I also accept that it too can be moderated as a result of your

psychological conditions, however I note that despite the difficulties you have

suffered you do have a significant number of prior matters in recent times for the

same type of offending for which you received a term of imprisonment. Further, I also

note that summary charge 23, commit indictable offence whilst on bail, is a rolled-up

charge reflecting the fact that all of the offences on the indictment were committed
while you were on bail.

99 In my view just punishment and denunciation of your conduct must also play a role in

the sentencing discretion.

100 I also note that you fall to be sentenced as a continuing criminal enterprise offender

in relation to charges 2, 7, 8, 14 and 15 on the indictment. That is so because you

have been convicted of 12 prior offences of obtaining property by deception within

the past three years. As such, in relation to those charges on the indictment, the

maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. However Mr Singh submitted that the

prosecution does not contend for a greater sentence as a result of that fact and in my

view a differential sentence is not called for in all the circumstances.

33 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
101 After balancing all the relevant sentencing considerations, in all the circumstances a

sentence pursuant to s 44 of the Sentencing Act 1991 is an appropriate disposition

however in my view, the prison component of the order must include a further period

of custody in order to meet the seriousness of the offending and the other applicable

sentencing considerations.

Sentence

102 Mr Scicluna please stand.

103 Brandon Scicluna in relation to charges 2, 5, 8, 10 and 15, obtaining property by

deception, you will be convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment on each

charge.

104 In relation to charges 4, 7, 9 and 14, obtaining financial advantage by deception, you

will be convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment on each charge.

105 In relation to charges 1, 3, 6, 11, 12 and 16, attempting to obtain a financial

advantage by deception, you will be convicted and sentenced to 1 month

imprisonment on each charge.

106 In relation to charges 13, 17 and 18, attempting to obtain property by deception, you

will be convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment on each charge.

107 In relation to charge 19, possession of a drug of dependence, you will be convicted

and discharged.

108 In relation to summary charge 1, making a false report to police, you will be

convicted and discharged.

109 In relation to summary charge 23, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, you

will be convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment.

34 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna
110 I direct that 1 month of the sentence on charges 5, 8, 10 and 15 be served

cumulatively on each other and on charge 2. That makes your total effective

sentence of 7 months imprisonment as the prison component of the sentence

pursuant to s 44 of the Sentencing Act 1991.

111 Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that 29 days be reckoned as

the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed. That

does not include today.

112 In addition to the prison component of the sentence, upon your release you will be

placed on a community correction order with conviction for a period of two years. The

community correction order will have punitive and therapeutic components.

113 You will be required to complete 250 hours community work and engage in programs

to further address your drug use and assist you remaining drug free. You will also be

subject to supervision.

114 Further, pursuant to s 48CA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I direct that all of the hours

that you satisfactorily complete pursuant to the treatment and rehabilitation condition

may be credited as hours of unpaid community work.

115 Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you not pleaded

guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of 18 months imprisonment with a

non-parole period of 12 months.

---

35 SENTENCE

DPP v Scicluna