STATE OF TASMANIA v JOSHUA LEE SCOTT 12 MAY 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
The defendant, Mr Scott, has pleaded guilty to four counts of personation. I am also dealing with his pleas of guilty to a number of summary offences contained in four complaints. Of those, there is a total of forty charges of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage together with three bail offences that arise from continued offending. All charges relate to a course of conduct between 8 April 2020 and January 2021. The facts that need to be set out are unfortunately lengthy. The first matter of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage in April 2020 establishes a broad pattern. A Ms Summergreen was looking for a new mobile phone and found an eBay listing in the name of “Melcl_3467”. She bought the item for about $500 using PayPal. Shortly after, she was contacted by the defendant who told her that the payment must be by bank transfer, later advising her by message that the PayPal transaction had been refunded, and providing bank account details in the name of Melissa Clarke. He told her once the funds were transferred he would post the item. Ms Summergreen had concerns but although reassured by the defendant, she asked for a copy of the seller’s driver’s licence and gave him her mobile number so that they could discuss the transaction. The defendant contacted her, told her he was Melissa’s partner, and provided contact details for “Melissa”. He also provided his mobile contact details along with a copy of his driver’s licence. Ms Summergreen then transferred the amount to the nominated bank account, but no phone was ever received. The matter was reported to police. During the investigation that followed, a number of other complaints were identified involving similar offending; in short, offering electronic items on eBay which were not sent following payment to a nominated bank account. The items included mobile phones, I-Pads, a hairdryer, a gaming console and a vacuum cleaner. There are thirty-four of these offences with separate complainants, the date range being 19 March 2020 to 27 September 2020 with the amounts ranging from about $315 up to $1,300, the total being approximately $20,000. Police discovered a number of bank accounts which were operated by the defendant. On 23 October 2020 he was interviewed and made admissions. He said that he had a big drug problem which was the cause of the offending; in particular he was heavily using methamphetamine in March and had to fund his habit. He was charged, processed and bailed. One condition of bail was that he not access or use eBay or any other form of online buy/sell forum during the period of bail. The 4 counts on the indictment involve similar scenarios. In relation to the first count, Mr Wang expressed interest in a device and paid $950 via a PayPal account linked to the eBay account under the name of “Rihys57”. The defendant refunded the $950 and messaged Mr Wang, asking for payment via bank transfer. In a subsequent phone call, the defendant purported to be “Richard” and suggested that 50% of the purchase price be transferred and the balance when the item was posted. Mr Wang agreed but requested a form of identification. The defendant then sent back bank account details in the name of Richard Hyslop along with a photo of a passport in that name. One half of the purchase price was transferred to the bank account. Mr Wang tried to contact the defendant about whether the item had been sent but the number was disconnected. He later received a text message from another mobile telephone number giving a tracking number and requesting the balance of the payment. Mr Wang withheld payment as he was awaiting the refund from the initial PayPal transaction. In response, the defendant told him he needed the money as he had lost his job, his car registration was due and he had children; subsequently the defendant told him that his wife was pregnant. He kept pressing Mr Wang for payment and eventually received about $84 which was all the money Mr Wang had left at that time. Later, the defendant called Mr Wang and threatened to have him punched and his belongings burnt. Mr Wang was concerned given the defendant knew his address. Later that day Mr Wang received a Facebook message from another person asking him to send the phone or refund the money, at which point Mr Wang realised he had been deceived and contacted police. Count 2 involved purported sale of an I-Pad on eBay, the defendant purporting to be Choi Nguyen Koco. A Mr Alsudani transferred $500 being half the agreed purchase price and then agreed the balance would be paid on delivery. The defendant then requested the balance before posting the item. Being hesitant Mr Alsudani asked for identification, the defendant provided a photograph of a Victorian drivers licence and an Australian passport in the name of Choi Nguyen Koco. Despite requests, Mr Alsudani declined to pay the outstanding balance, and shortly after received express post parcel containing two empty CD cases that had been posted by the defendant. When this matter was reported and police were investigating it, two other instances additional to that involving Mr Alsudani, were identified with a total amount including that of Mr Alsudani’s payment being $2,130.70. All of that gives rise to three charges of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage, and the conduct in relation to the two counts was in breach of bail. On 17 February 2021 the defendant was arrested in relation to these matters, and interviewed. Again he made admissions, and made reference to his drug habit and the need to re-pay drug debts. He said a friend of his had set up the bank account in the name Choi Nguyen Koco and he had used that name so that he would not get caught. He had received the means for identifying Mr Koco during an eBay transaction with him. Count 3 involved the offer for sale of an I-phone on eBay by the accused adopting the user name “Michromoll-zo”. A Mr Zuberna contacted the accused and they discussed purchase price and postage. The defendant requested payment via bank transfer and gave account details in the name of Nicholas Harry Romily. Mr Zurberna transferred $1,068.75 in accordance with the agreement, but on the following day the defendant contacted him to say that the transfer had not been received. He requested the transaction to be reversed and payment made by different means. Mr Zurberna declined. The defendant then requested photo identification of the purchaser saying he would send the package despite not being paid. Mr Zurberna sent a copy of his driver’s licence a day or so later, and Mr Zurberna later received a package with the tracking number provided by the accused but which package contained air fresheners. Count 4 involved another phone. Mr Carter corresponded with the defendant on a price of about $690 which was ultimately agreed. The defendant provided Mr Carter with bank account details in Mr Zurberna’s name, later providing Mr Carter, on his request, with a copy of Mr Zurberna’s licence. Mr Carter was hesitant as his information was that the seller was in Tasmania but the defendant explained he had to transfer his Victorian licence. Mr Carter sent money to the nominated account but later, when he attempted to contact the defendant the text messages went unanswered and an attempt to call was unsuccessful as the number was no longer connected. Mr Carter eventually found and spoke to Mr Zurberna who said that he had also been the victim of an eBay scam. The matters were reported. On 21 July 2021 the defendant was arrested. After initially saying he could not recall the matters involving Mr Zurberna and Mr Carter but on being told of CCTV footage establishing him as being the person who sent Mr Zurberna the package, the defendant admitted selling things on eBay to get money to pay a debt, and that he had not sent the phones. He was then detained. Counts 3 and 4 give rise to two charges of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage. I note that on 12 October 2021, on a variety of offences, the defendant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment backdated to 22 July 2021. His release date is 21 May 2022.
The defendant is 31 years old. He has a record of prior offending starting as a youth in 2007 much of it made up of traffic matters. In May 2015 on 35 charges of destroy property committed in a two day period in 2011, he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment wholly suspended on conditions. He breached the conditions and was resentenced in June 2019 and a heavy fine was substituted. There is nothing of a dishonest nature as such until 2019, matters for which he was dealt with in February 2021. One of those matters attracted a suspended sentence of 5 months imprisonment, and I was asked today to activate that sentence. Among the offences for which he was sentenced in October 2021 are sixteen charges of what seems to be the Commonwealth equivalent of personation, along with five charges of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage for which he was imprisoned for eight months with release on recognizance after serving five. They are not prior convictions in the strict sense but were committed in a period of November 2018 to July 2019. I was told that they involved the defendant representing himself to be others in order to obtain access to accounts through Services Australia – Centrelink – with an amount of about $4,400 involved. I was told that in 2019 the defendant became heavily addicted to methamphetamine. The offending in that year consisted of petty thefts to fund that addiction. The dishonest conduct escalated to a much more serious level; seems he accrued a very significant drug debt which he needed to service and, of course, he needed to continue to supply himself with drugs. I was told he was threatened with physical harm over the drug debt. I was also told he that he was not acting alone in carrying out this offending and was assisted by others in a similar position, but he accepts a substantial and heavy involvement in the offending from the beginning. During this period he and his partner were experiencing accommodation difficulties and they spent short periods in hotel rooms and were homeless for periods. He hopes to reunite with his partner when released. She has children from a previous relationship. Since being in prison he has undertaken a parenting course and sought assistance for his drug addiction. Of significance is the fact that he was eligible for parole in relation to the October 2021 sentence on 21 March but did not apply knowing that a parole order would remove the chance of a drug treatment order in relation to this offending. Accordingly, he has served the full term of 10 months.
Mr Scott, this was undoubtedly a serious course of relatively sophisticated conduct persisted into the detriment of many. One instance involved you making threats of violence. Other instances involved you using identification details of real people in order to defraud others. You persisted in the conduct despite being arrested and bailed, later dealt with in court for earlier dishonesty, and shortly after that being spoken to by police. There was a small gap in continuity during which you tried to address your problems but to no avail. These types of offences are difficult to investigate and undermine the system of commerce that was utilised and the elements of trust which need to exist within that system. Offences of this type have the capacity to not only deprive victims of amounts of money, which for some might be significant, but can emotionally effect the victims. Feelings of betrayal, self-blame and foolishness would be common. I take into account the pleas of guilty. In this case, they have significant practical value and demonstrate a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. You have been assessed as suitable for a drug treatment order. I have carefully considered the matter and I think it appropriate to make one. I have been influenced by your deliberate decision to abandon prospects of parole in order to achieve that outcome, and the time spent in prison to date. Nonetheless, factors of general deterrence and denunciation require a lengthy custodial component of that order. I have set out the facts, your relevant personal circumstances, and the considerations which need to be taken into account.
I will first deal with the application to activate the suspended sentence. In all of the circumstances it is not unjust to activate it, and so I do not need to consider proper compliance with the legislation as to any proposed substituted sentence. The order is that you serve the term of imprisonment of 5 months but it is appropriate to backdate it to commence on 20 December 2021. Turning to the present matters, you are convicted of all offences and, subject to your agreement, I make a drug treatment order by which you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 16 months all or any of which custodial part you will not be required to serve unless ordered to do so, or if the order is cancelled. That order will contain the core conditions as provided for in the Sentencing Act. They will be set out in writing. As to the core condition set out in par (b) of s 27G(1), which requires attending at court whenever the court directs, the first directed appearance is the Launceston Magistrates Court on Tuesday, 2 June 2022 at 2:15pm, and under par (c) of that subsection I order that you report to a court diversion officer at 111 Cameron Street Launceston within two clear working days of your release from prison. All of this will be put in writing for you. Program conditions under s 27H of the Act will be as follows:
1 You must submit to drug testing, including random drug testing, urinalysis and oral fluid testing.
2 You must submit to detoxification or other treatment, whether or not residential in nature.
3 You must attend vocational, educational, employment, rehabilitation or other programs, including the EQUIPS Addiction Program.
4 You must submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological assessments or treatment.
5 You must not associate with persons or class of persons as may be directed by the case manager or a court diversion officer.
6 You must live at [address] and not change that address without the prior approval of the case manager, a court diversion officer, a judge of this Court or a magistrate, and you must be present at that address between the hours of 10pm and 6am each day unless otherwise expressly authorised by the case manager or court diversion officers.
7 You must not use any illicit drugs or substances, or any prescription or non-prescription medication unless prescribed by a treating doctor or recommended in writing by a pharmacist.
8 You must maintain the use of a working mobile phone in order to send or receive messages about drug testing, case management and/or appointments from your case manager and court diversion officers, and you must remain contactable at all times.
[The defendant consented to the making of the order.] With that agreement, I make the drug treatment order in those terms. I make compensation orders in favour of each of the 38 persons named in the list set out in my written comments, and adjourn the further hearing of those applications to dates to be fixed:
Han Min Woon
Zeev Litwin
Joanne Summergreene
Sarah Ozkeser
Steven Amos
Maibibi Itinimarewe
Wyandrhinie Ignacio
Jesse Bannister
Yangfan Zheng
Amy Sym Choon
Gabriella Carling
Nic Barker
Vijav Chari
Adam Weston
Patrick Mifsud
Joseph Cullen
Marie Perombelon
Jessica Houston
Mike Lee
Alissa Bree McCrae
Duane Ingram
Adileen Reddy
Muhammad Juma Hussaini
Vaclav Zelinsky
Basile Psarras
Brian Victorien
William Chapman
Kunal Pratap
Jacob McNaught
Elinya Dyer
Talia Bradley
Jess Duske
Nicholas Wang
Jack Young
Ahmad Alsudani
Eltavveb Al Fakir Al Rabab’a
Paul Sberna
Bruce Carter