Michelle Bellizia V the Queen 2016 VSCA 21

Summary of Judgment

Michelle Bellizia v The Queen [2016] VSCA 21

29 February 2016

The applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to three rolled-up charges of theft, spanning 131 offences committed over the period November 2011 and September 2013. Following a plea on 18 February 2015, the applicant was sentenced on 10 March 2015 to an aggregate sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment with a Community Correction Order (‘CCO’) for 12 months for each charge.

The applicant was employed by two separate businesses in Victoria during the period of offending. In that time, the applicant transferred money from the businesses into her personal bank account through a series of fraudulent transactions. In total the applicant stole $309,629.49 from both businesses. The applicant was arrested and participated in a police interview in which she expressed surprise at the amount of money stolen and that she was disgusted with her behaviour.

The applicant spent large amounts of the money at gambling venues. She also spent the money on hotels and a holiday in Bali, as well as living expenses, bills and retail purchases. The applicant had been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress as well as a Gambling Disorder.

After the applicant had spoken with police about the thefts in Victoria and before pleading guilty, she relocated to New South Wales and began employment as a book-keeper in a real estate agency. The applicant was later charged in New South Wales with a ‘blanket’ charge. The allegation was that between 8 December 2013 and 19 November 2014, she obtained financial advantage by deception, comprising of 27 transactions with the total funds obtained amounting to $39,068.07.

At the time of the plea, the applicant had not been convicted of the New South Wales offending. However the substance of the subsequent offending was conceded by her counsel. The sentencing judge remarked that her claims of remorse did not sit well with the subsequent offending.

The applicant applied for leave to appeal her sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge erred by having regard to the unproven subsequent offending when considering the weight to be placed on general and specific deterrence, as well as the applicant’s level of remorse. Supreme Court of Victoria 29 February 2016

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that the sentencing judge did not err in having regard to the applicant’s subsequent New South Wales offending, for which she had not yet been convicted. The Court said that subsequent charges, if admitted and relevant, can be taken into account by a sentencing court. Further, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 280(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act as there is no reasonable prospect that the Court of Appeal would impose a less severe sentence than the sentence imposed.

NOTE: This summary is necessarily incomplete. It is not intended as a substitute for the Court’s reasons or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons. The only authoritative pronouncement of the Court’s reasons and conclusions is that contained in the published reasons for judgment.

Summary of Judgment – Michelle Bellizia v The Queen [2016] VSCA 21 Page 2 of 2