Published September 2026
Fraud charges, restitution and suspended imprisonment on appeal
A serious prosecution arose from a construction business operated with her former partner. The allegations concerned fraudulent home indemnity insurance documents, payments received by the business and misuse of confidential information held by her employer.
The prosecution developed from a joint indictment containing 14 counts to one containing 46 counts, 32 counts of which named our client. When Perrella Legal took over her defence, we reviewed the extensive evidence and assessed the strength of the case charge by charge. We advised her to seek a negotiated resolution, which was successful.
The original indictment was discontinued, and our client pleaded guilty to eight offences on a new indictment. The resolution avoided a lengthy trial and brought numerous separate allegations together in charges that reflected the conduct for which she accepted responsibility.
We also gave our client frank advice about sentencing. The offences were serious, particularly concerning breaching her employer’s trust. We told her that immediate prison was likely unless we could build a compelling, evidence-based case for suspending the sentence.
The foundation for achieving that goal would take time.
We arranged an assessment by a forensic psychologist and connected her with a clinical psychologist for treatment. Their reports examined the grief and psychological vulnerability that had preceded her relationship with a controlling and manipulative partner. They also addressed her insight, progress in treatment and low risk of reoffending.
We advised our client to make restitution and worked with a commercial lawyer to achieve it. We sought time for her to sell real estate so that she could repay losses associated with the fraud offences. She ultimately made significant funds available for full restitution. We also obtained evidence of the fine she had already paid following related State Administrative Tribunal proceedings.
Our client had made significant admissions to investigators. On our advice, she provided a detailed statement about her own offending and her former partner’s involvement and undertook to give evidence against him if required. We brought her cooperation, guilty pleas, restitution, treatment and personal circumstances together in 16 pages of written sentencing submissions arguing for a suspended sentence. We also persuaded the sentencing judge to impose no penalty for one of the fraud counts.
Despite that preparation, the District Court sentenced our client to three years and 10 months’ immediate imprisonment.
We scrutinised the sentencing decision and identified factual errors that had made her offending appear more serious. The judge had attributed losses to her that arose from problems with the building work. The judge had also treated her as though she had offended knowing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, although the relevant conduct occurred before the pandemic was declared and had nothing to do with the quality of the building work.
Given our intimate involvement in the matter at sentencing, we instructed an independent, reputable and highly experienced criminal law barrister to run the appeal. Our detailed sentencing material remained central to the argument that imprisonment should be suspended. Before the hearing, the State conceded in its appeal response that the factual errors were material and that our client should receive a lesser sentence. The Court of Appeal still had to decide whether she should remain in prison.
We applied for an urgent hearing, which was heard two days later.
The Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It found that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider suspension and that the sentence was plainly unjust in the circumstances. It recognised our client’s psychological vulnerability, cooperation, restitution and genuine remorse. It also considered the disparity between her sentence and the suspended sentence imposed on her former partner, whom it regarded as the principal offender.
After approximately three months in prison, our client walked out of the Supreme Court doors with a sentence she could serve in the community: two years’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months.