IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
Case No. CR-18-01279

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
ROBERT ANTHONY NAPOLI		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE GEORGIOU	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	13 December 2021	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 January 2022	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v. Napoli	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 33		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: CRIMINAL LAW	
Catchwords: Conspiracy to defraud State of Victoria in payment of goods and services – offending seriousness and gravity in the mid-range – accused and co-conspirators subverted procurement process – accused motivated by the prospect of financial gain – significant utilitarian benefit from plea of guilty – delay  –  person of otherwise good character – significant publicity concerning the conspiracy – closure of bank accounts not extra-curial punishment.
Cases Cited: Ooi v The Queen [2018] VSCA 78; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Boulton and Ors v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308	
Sentence: Community Corrections Order for three years with conditions.	

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	Mr Grant	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Mr Dounias 	RD Silverstein	

HIS HONOUR:

1	Robert Anthony Napoli, you have pleaded guilty to a charge that at Melbourne between 1 September 2007 and 14 December 2010, together with Calcedonio Agazio Napoli and Carlo Squillacioti, you conspired to defraud the State of Victoria in the payment of goods and services.  
2	This is an offence of conspiracy to defraud and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
Circumstances of Offending
3	Exhibit P1 is the Prosecution Opening. It comprehensively sets out the details of your offending.  What follows is a summary of the Opening setting out the circumstances of your offending on which you fall to be sentenced.
4	Between 1 September 2007 and 14 December 2010, you and your wife were the owners and operators of R & D Personalised Printing Pty Ltd (‘R & D Printing’).  Your brother, Calcedonio (‘Nino’) Napoli, was employed in the School’s Finance Unit of the Department of Education, which later became known as the Department of Early Childhood Development (‘the Department’).
5	Under Standing Directions issued by the Minister for Finance, the Department was required to have in place various ministerial and secretarial authorisations for its overall financial management.  Financial authorisations were transfers of authority from a Minister or Secretary to a Departmental position in order for the employee occupying that position to exercise his/her required financial management responsibilities with appropriate authority.  
6	Between 2007 and 2015, your brother, Nino Napoli, was the holder of two such financial authorisations.
7	The procurement framework that applied to the Department for the purchase of goods and services was contained in policies issued by the Victorian Government Purchasing Board.  These policies stipulated that Department purchasing activities must be based on the following principles:
(a)	value for money;
(b)	open and fair competition;
(c)	accountability;
(d)	risk management; and
(e)	probity and transparency.
8	Departmental staff were required to comply with obligations in relation to conflicts of interest.  Those obligations were set out variously in the Public Administration Act 2004 and the Code of Conduct for Victorian Public Sector Employees.
9	The Code of Conduct required employees to declare and avoid conflicts of interest. It was designed to maintain community trust and confidence by ensuring employees’ personal or financial interests did not influence or interfere with the performance of their role. Employees were required to seek guidance from their manager if they were unsure about a possible conflict of interest.
10	Nino Napoli, in the performance of his duties, was required to act impartially.  Where there was any actual or apparent conflict between the public interests of his employer, being the State of Victoria, and his personal interests in the individuals and companies that were awarded contracts and paid for services provided to the Department, Nino was required to declare that conflict of interest.  
11	The conspiracy to which you have pleaded guilty involved you and your co-conspirators colluding to submit a number of invoices seeking payment for goods and services provided to the Department.  Those invoices contained false information and sought payment to which you were not entitled because the payments related to work that had been improperly awarded in breach of the procedures and policies that governed the awarding of such contracts.  
12	During the offending period you received financial benefit for work done for the Department through your association with your brother, Nino.  That financial benefit arose via a course of conduct that involved the submission of a number of false invoices to the Department seeking payment for work purportedly done by a company or business that had not in fact carried out any of the work for which payment was claimed.  Those businesses were:
(a)	RS Media Pty Ltd – owned and operated by Daniel Calleja until October 2008;
(b)	Innovative Visuals Pty Ltd (‘iVisuals’) –  owned and operated by Daniel Calleja from October 2008;
(c)	SD Design – owned and operated by Steven Dingley;
(d)	Quill Investments Pty Ltd – owned and operated by Carlo Squillacioti;
(e)	CT & C – owned and operated by Carlo Squillacioti.
13	The work for which invoices were sent to the Department under those business names was, in fact, undertaken by your company, R & D Printing.
14	Once the invoices were paid by the Department, you prepared and submitted invoices to the business that received the payment. R & D Printing invoices would then be paid from the funds received from the Department. 
15	Daniel Calleja is a relative of yours.  He owned and operated RS Media, which delivered multimedia and video production services to corporate clients.  Although related, he was not well-known to you or your brother.  It was at a wedding in 2007 that you were speaking to him and introduced him to your brother.  Nino told Calleja about his position with the Department and offered to arrange for Calleja to undertake work for the Department.
16	Following that meeting, Calleja met with you at your business premises.  You discussed with him the prospect of doing business with the Department.
17	In March 2007, Nino spoke to Calleja and during their discussions he explained he could not give work directly to you because you and he had the same surname.  Nino asked Calleja if he would be willing to prepare and send invoices to the Department using his business name and then “contract” the work to your printing business.  Calleja later met with you, and you confirmed you were not able to do work for the Department because you were Nino’s brother.  You asked Calleja to invoice work for the Department on your behalf so that it did not look like Nino was favouring you, his brother.  You advised Calleja that Nino would instruct him what the work was, and for what he was to invoice.  Calleja agreed to assist as he was keen to grow his own business.
18	In late 2007, Nino contacted Calleja and instructed him to create a number of invoices for work undertaken by R & D Printing.  Calleja did and subsequently received payment into his company’s bank account for the amount claimed in the invoices, despite the fact that he had not carried out any of the work.  He was instructed by Nino to transfer the money to you once he received an invoice from R & D Printing.
19	During the offending period, Nino instructed Calleja to issue a number of false invoices in the name of RS Media or iVisuals seeking payment for work that had in fact been undertaken by R & D Printing.  
20	Steven Dingley was an employee of R & D Printing.  In 2009, you assisted him to obtain the business name SD Design and Print.  You did this so that Dingley could send invoices to the Department using his business name for work you did, and thereby conceal your connection to Nino.  
21	During the offending period, Dingley prepared invoices for work purportedly done by SD Design at the direction of either yourself or your brother.  The invoices were forwarded to the Department or a particular school for payment.  As mentioned, the work was in fact undertaken by R & D Printing and not SD Design.  
22	When Dingley received payment from the Department or the relevant school, R & D Printing would prepare an invoice addressed to SD Design seeking payment for work done.  The invoice would involve a claim for payment in the amount received by SD Design from the Department less five per cent.  That five per cent was retained by Dingley for his role in preparing and forwarding the invoices.  This arrangement was again done in order to conceal the conflict of interest  in R & D Printing doing work for the Department.
23	Similarly, entities owned by Carlo Squillacioti forwarded a number of invoices to the Department and schools seeking payment for printing work undertaken by R & D Printing. 
24	At times, Nino Napoli provided information to Calleja, Dingley and Squillacioti which enabled them to tender for contracts at lower than competitors’ prices.  On other occasions, he submitted the tenders, quotes and invoices himself.  
25	Your brother awarded Department contracts to the businesses mentioned without adhering to the Department’s procurement protocols.  In return, he received various gifts and financial benefits. Nino Napoli was able to do what he did because of his senior position within the Department and the trust reposed in him by his employer.  
26	You, Mr Napoli, agreed to engage in this fraudulent conduct to conceal the fact that the work carried out for the Department was performed by you, Nino’s brother.  The fraudulent invoices were submitted by businesses other than yours to give the impression they were awarded legitimately, on the basis of “genuine competition” and the application of the procedures mandated by the Department.  They, of course, were not. You and your co-conspirators knowingly engaged in the conduct to deceive those responsible for approving the awarding of contracts and making payments on behalf of the Department. You and the others received financial benefits because of that deceit.
27	In total, you were involved in 14 transactions in which invoices were sent by another business for work undertaken by R & D Printing.  I do not propose to summarise each of the 14 transactions but will do so in relation to transaction number 1, which is representative of each of the other transactions. A summary of the transactions is set out in exhibit P2, the Outline of Prosecution Submissions on Plea.
28	In September 2007, Daniel Calleja prepared a RS Media invoice on instruction from Nino Napoli.  He was told how to describe the work on the invoice and the amount to claim.  The invoice, dated 7 September 2007, sought payment of $4,961 from Moonee Ponds West Primary School for “graphic artwork & set up cost – for cover and set up cost for HTML database and various scanning”.  
29	Despite not having undertaken any of the work specified in the invoice, Calleja emailed the invoice to Nino Napoli at the Department.  Nino then forwarded the invoice to the Moonee Ponds West Primary School.  On 9 October 2007, the school paid RS Media the amount sought by transferring the funds into Calleja’s bank account. 
30	On 12 September 2007, Calleja received an email attaching a R & D Printing invoice, seeking payment of $4,340.60 for “graphic artwork & set up cost – for cover and set up cost for HTML database and various scanning”.  
31	A short time later, he received another R & D Printing invoice seeking payment of $550.  On 10 October 2007, Mr Calleja paid both invoices from the funds he was paid by the primary school.
32	Not all invoices for work R & D Printing conducted were sent by Calleja. For example, transaction number 3 was a Quill invoice.  That invoice, which was paid by the Department, was in an amount of $19,850.  You invoiced Quill $9,270 in respect of the work your business had in fact undertaken.  Transaction 6 was also a Quill invoice. Transaction number 10 was a CT & C invoice.
33	Transactions 11, 12, 13 and 15 were invoiced to the Department by SD Design.
34	The offending was discovered following an IBAC investigation targeting Nino Napoli and others.
35	On 29 April 2014, search warrants were executed at a number of locations including the residential and business premises of Nino Napoli, Carlo Squillacioti and yourself.
36	You were initially charged with some seventeen charges on 28 December 2016. You ultimately pleaded guilty to the charge before me on 19 July 2021.
Background and personal circumstances
37	I turn now to your background and personal circumstances. 
38	You were born in Melbourne in 1968.  You are the youngest of three children.  Your oldest brother, Nino, is 13 years older than you.
39	Your parents migrated to Australia from Calabria.  Your father in 1955 and your mother and Nino in 1959.
40	In Italy, your father worked as a cobbler and upon his arrival in Australia obtained work with Crosby Shoes.  Thereafter, he had a number of different jobs, his last being a laboratory assistant at the Sunshine Technical College.  Your mother was engaged in home duties and raising you and your siblings.  
41	You attended Sunshine High School to Year 11.  You were not academically inclined but were more sports focused.  You participated in soccer, Australian Rules Football and athletics. You captained the school soccer and football teams.  
42	Outside of school you played for the Green Gully Soccer Club, a premier league team.  Your soccer career spanned the period 1982 to 2005, and between 1986 and 2000 you were a paid player.  You were awarded the best and fairest player award on four occasions and were runner-up on three occasions.
43	On leaving Sunshine High School, you enrolled in a tertiary orientation program for Year 12.  You completed your Higher School Certificate and eventually gained entry into an Associate Diploma course in Fitness Leadership at the Footscray Institute of Technology.  You completed that course in 1989.  
44	You have worked for a number of employers from an early age.  It was submitted that you have a strong work ethic.  You have never been unemployed or in receipt of government benefits since completing your education.  You operated R & D Printing between 1996 and 2014.  Since 2019, you have been employed in your own gardening and maintenance business.  
45	You married in 1992.  With your wife you have two children aged 23 and 17.   Your wife is an accountant and registered tax agent working on a casual part-time basis.
46	It was submitted by your counsel, Mr Dounias, that whilst you were operating R & D Printing you asked your brother, Nino, whether there were any opportunities for you to do printing work for the Department.  It was put that your brother had told you he was having difficulty with a print supplier used by the Department and asked whether you would be prepared to do the work.  According to you, your brother said that you could not seek the work directly from the Department as you and he were related.  It was because of that concern that the fraudulent arrangements were set up by your brother, Nino.
Sentencing considerations
47	Mr Grant, who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that the charge to which you have pleaded guilty is a serious example of the offence of conspiracy to defraud.  He relied on the following factors as being relevant to an assessment of the gravity of your conduct:
(i)	the offending took place over a lengthy period of approximately three years;
(ii)	the offending was organised, systematic and difficult to detect with the conspirators utilising a number of companies and complex invoicing systems;
(iii)	the conspiracy involved the offenders participating in illegal conduct that defrauded the State of a significant amount of money.  Your direct involvement resulted in your company receiving payment as a result of fraudulent invoices being sent to the Department, as set out in the table attached to Exhibit P2;
(iv)	the total amount received by your company indirectly from the Department was $77,428.50, although as I will shortly discuss this amount was disputed.  It is accepted by the prosecution that the work was in fact performed by your company and thus, after the deduction of expenses and labour costs, the amount you benefited was lower than that figure;
(v)	the offending involved conduct that undermined the Public Service Procurement Policies and involved corruption of the trust placed in public servants that taxpayer funds will be honestly expended and accounted for in the public interest.
48	Mr Dounias submitted that you agreed to the sub-contracting arrangement because your brother, Nino, said it was “okay”.  He further submitted that you relied upon the fact that your brother was in a senior financial position within the Department and would know the difference between right and wrong.  He said that you trusted your brother without question.
49	I reject any suggestion that you did not know that what you were doing was wrong.  Not only is such denial of knowledge inconsistent with your plea of guilty to the charge, but is also against the weight of the evidence and the matters contained in the prosecution summary, Exhibit P1. 
50	Mr Dounias also relied on the fact that had the proper procedures been followed regarding potential conflicts of interest, it was possible that your company would have been awarded a contract.  While that might be so, the fact remains that you did not follow proper procedures but instead conspired to defraud the State of Victoria.  I do not consider the possibility that you may have been awarded a contract in any way lessens the seriousness of your offending.  
51	I do not accept the submission that you were “dragged” into the conspiracy. Whilst your brother may have exerted some influence, I find that you willingly engaged in the conspiracy motivated by financial gain. I also reject the submission made on your behalf that you “never intended nor ever imagined that you would be defrauding the Department”.  Again, such a submission is inconsistent with the charge to which you have pleaded guilty.
52	I do accept, however, that you were not the principal offender in the conspiracy. The principal offender was clearly your brother. Furthermore, unlike your brother, you were not an employee of the Department.
53	Mr Dounias submitted that the financial benefits received by you was in fact based on 14 transactions, and not the 15 set out in exhibits P1 and P2.  Mr Grant did not take issue with that submission.  Accordingly, I will sentence on the basis that the money you received was pursuant to 14 fraudulent invoices and amounted to $72,353.  
54	It was put that after covering costs, GST and allowing for a 30 per cent margin, $19,733 is the amount you profited from the fraud.  Whilst there was no evidence called to establish the extent to which you profited, I will sentence on that basis as it was not the subject of any dispute.
55	Mr Dounias submitted that in the circumstances, the gravity of your offending tended towards the lower end of the spectrum.
56	Whilst your counsel focused largely on the financial benefit you derived, it must be recognised, as was submitted by the learned prosecutor, that when assessing the gravity of offences of this type, it is not appropriate to focus solely on the personal gain achieved by an offender.  Mr Grant relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ooi v The Queen.
57	As was stated by the Court of Appeal, if the only relevant loss that could be considered in a case such as this was one measured in dollars, then it “proceeded from too narrow a conception of loss in the circumstances”.
58	The Court in Ooi noted that loss is not an element of conspiracy to defraud.  At paragraph 62 the Court stated:
“A conspiracy to defraud may be established if the conspirators intended to obtain some advantage for themselves by putting another person’s property at risk or depriving another person of a lawful opportunity to obtain or protect property.”
59	As is the case here, the evidence in Ooi showed that the State adopted procurement processes and rules regarding conflicts of interest “the purpose of those policies and rules was to prevent patronage and to ensure that the procurement of goods and services occurred in a competitive environment”.
60	You and your co-conspirators subverted the procurement process.  Your conduct was contrary to the government procurement processes regarding conflicts of interest.  Other, honest printers, missed out on the opportunity of obtaining contracts. You and your co-conspirators diminished the “trust that citizens of this State place in public servants that taxpayer funds will be honestly expended and accounted for in the public interest.”
61	The seriousness of the offence to which you pleaded guilty is marked by the maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment that may be imposed.  
62	In my opinion, the gravity of your offending properly falls within the mid-range on the scale of seriousness.  I find that your moral culpability was high, knowing that by deception, you were obtaining payment for work for which you had not properly tendered and thus were not entitled. I reject your assertion that you did not know that what you were doing was wrong. As I have already mentioned, I find that you were motivated purely by the prospect of financial gain.    
63	You have pleaded guilty to the charge and your plea of guilty operates to reduce the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.
64	When charged on 28 December 2016, you then faced 17 charges.  There was a contested committal hearing which occurred between May and June 2018, at the conclusion of which you were committed for trial.  A plea of not guilty was entered by you.  
65	I accept that the sole issue at committal, insofar as you were concerned, was whether or not the work described in the fraudulent invoices was done.  I also accept that your offer to plead guilty to the charge before the court followed a period of extensive negotiation with the prosecution and was made in approximately July 2020.   
66	While it could not be said it was an early plea of guilty, there are nevertheless significant utilitarian benefits to the court and community that flow from your plea of guilty.  You have spared the court and community the time and expense of a contested trial and have spared witnesses from having to give evidence at a trial.  A trial was estimated to take approximately three weeks and would have been of some complexity.
67	Your counsel relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Worboyes v The Queen.  I accept that in the circumstances of your case, because of the impact that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on the court’s listing of trials, there must be “an actual and palpable amelioration of sentence”.
68	Your plea of guilty is also indicative of some remorse.  However, I am not persuaded that it represents an acceptance by you of your responsibility in the offending.  As was stated in the written submissions, Exhibit D1, and maintained at the plea hearing you said you “never intended nor ever imagined that [you] would be defrauding the Department”. I note that as recently as 10 January 2022, when being assessed for a Community Correction Order, you maintained that you did not understand you were doing anything wrong. As already stated I reject that assertion.
69	Reliance was placed on the delay between the  offending, the institution of charges against you and sentencing. I agree there has been significant delay. It is now a little over 11 years since the commission of the offence.  
70	As stated, IBAC commenced its investigation in late 2013.  Charges were laid in late December 2016.  A trial date was set for 3 September 2021, but vacated on your pleading guilty to the charge on 19 July 2021.  The plea hearing took place on 13 December 2021.
71	I accept that in the circumstances of your case the delay constitutes a powerful mitigating factor.  This is so because, since the commission of the offence, you have not been in any further trouble, have continued to be gainfully employed and, since charges were laid, you have lived with the stress and anxiety awaiting the outcome of your fate.  With one minor exception, when you sought an adjournment of the original plea date, the delay is not in any way attributable to you.  
72	You are a person of otherwise good character.  You have no previous or subsequent convictions, and there are no outstanding charges against you.  As far as I can tell, you have otherwise led a good life, raised a family, and have been in constant work since leaving school.  You are entitled to call in aid your previous good character and rely on that fact in mitigation of penalty.  In the circumstances, I find that you have well embarked on the process of rehabilitation and that your prospects in that regard are very good, if not excellent.
73	I have had regard to each of the character references tendered on your behalf.  They speak highly of you, your work ethic, remorse, and commitment to family, particularly the care of your elderly mother.  You mother is aged 94 and suffers from a number of debilitating health conditions, including near blindness.  As your brother, Nino, is undergoing a gaol sentence, you took over from him the role of principal carer for your mother.  You attend on your mother usually every morning before work, and every day after work between 1.00pm and 5.00pm, six days per week.  You spend more time with her on Sundays when you do not work.  
74	Although I have accepted generally your character references, I do not accept those parts which suggest you were not aware that you were involved in criminal offending.  
75	I will allow for some moderation of penalty arising from the fact that there was significant publicity concerning the conspiracy.  Whilst most of that publicity focused on your brother, you and your wife, Domenica, were nevertheless caught up in that publicity.
76	A number of documents and letters from banks and other financial institutions were tendered on your behalf. I do not accept that they constitute extra curial punishment.  I accept Mr Grant’s submission that while the closure of your bank accounts may have caused you inconvenience, it was not said that you have not been able to re-establish banking facilities at other banks.
77	I have been informed of the sentences imposed on the other co-accused and, indeed, I sentenced your brother and Mr Squillacioti on 14 July 2021. They were both sentenced  to terms of imprisonment.  
78	They each pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to defraud that covered a significantly longer period and involved greater amounts of money than the conspiracy to which you have pleaded guilty. They also pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to attempt to pervert the course of justice. Your brother, Nino, was sentenced as the principal offender, and both he and Mr Squillacioti were clearly more culpable than you.  I do not consider that the principle of parity operates as between you, your brother and Mr Squillacioti.  Similarly, I do not consider that the sentences imposed on Mr Calleja and Mr Giulieri have any bearing on the sentence I am to impose on you.  
79	In my opinion, the principles of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation are significant considerations in the sentence to be imposed. Those minded to engage in similar behaviour should understand that they risk condign punishment, usually a term of imprisonment.  
80	Very little weight need be given in your case to the consideration of specific deterrence given your lack of prior convictions, the fact that you have not been in any further trouble since this offence was committed, and my finding as to your prospects for rehabilitation. The prospect of you re-offending in any manner, in my opinion, is remote.  
81	Your counsel submitted that you should be sentenced to a Community Correction Order.  He said that an appropriately conditioned Order would meet all of the sentencing objectives. The learned prosecutor accepted that such a sentence would be within the range of appropriate sentences, particularly having regard to the principles set out in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Boulton and Ors v The Queen. As was held in Boulton, a Community Correction Order is to be considered punitive and capable of satisfying the requirements of deterrence, denunciation and just punishment.   
82	Having considered all of the circumstances of your case, and notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence, I have reached a similar conclusion as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed. I have had particular regard to the delay between the offending, charge and sentence; the fact that this is your first and only offence; your otherwise good character; and that you have re-ordered your life, including setting up of a new business. I have also had regard to the principle of parsimony and that gaol should be a sentence of last resort.
83	You were assessed as suitable for a Community Correction Order on 10 January 2022.  
84	Subject to your agreement, which is necessary before I may make a Community Correction Order, I propose to place you on a Community Correction Order for a period of three years.  The order will have the following mandatory conditions: 
•	You must attend at the Sunshine Justice Service Centre within two clear working days after the commencement of this order.
•	You must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time the order is in force.
•	You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by regulation 17 of the Sentencing Regulations 2011. 
•	You must report to and receive visits from the Secretary or his or her delegate.
•	You must let a Community Corrections officer know within two clear working days of you changing your address or job.
•	You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so from the Secretary or his or her delegate.
•	You must obey all lawful instructions from and directions of the Secretary or his or her delegate.
85	There will also be a condition requiring you to perform 300 hours of unpaid community work over three years.
86	You also need to understand that should you breach the Order you may be brought back before the Court on a charge of failing to comply with the Order and be sentenced on that charge and re-sentenced on the original charge. 
87	Mr Dounias, do you need to speak to your client as to whether or not he agrees to be placed on an order?
88	MR DOUNIAS:  If I could, Your Honour.
89	HIS HONOUR:  Very well, you may approach the dock.
90	MR DOUNIAS:  Thank you.  He understands, Your Honour, and he agrees.
91	HIS HONOUR:  Mr Napoli, please stand.  Do you agree to be placed on a Community Correction Order with the conditions that I have read out?
92	OFFENDER:  I do.
93	HIS HONOUR:  Do you understand that should you breach the order you may be brought back before this court and sentenced?
94	OFFENDER:  I do.
95	HIS HONOUR:  Very well, thank you.  I will place you on a Community Correction Order in the terms that I have just outlined.
96	I will shortly provide you with a copy of the order and you will be required to sign that.
97	I am also required by s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, to inform you of the sentence I would have imposed but for your plea of guilty.  Had you not pleaded guilty to the offence, the sentence I would have imposed is one of 12 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months.  
98	You may be seated.
99	Mr Grant and Mr Dounias, are there any other matters?
100	COUNSEL:  No thank you, Your Honour.
101	HIS HONOUR:  May I thank you both for your assistance in this matter.
102	COUNSEL:  As Your Honour pleases.
103	HIS HONOUR:  Mr Napoli, you may step out of the dock and approach the Bar table and sign the order.  Yes, thank you very much, please adjourn the court.