Sydney academic who posted her own underwear avoids prison for bizarre hate mail campaign

A former senior Sydney academic has narrowly avoided being sent to jail for a bizarre hate mail campaign that included sending herself her own underwear, though her motivations will remain a mystery.

Despite facing up to 10 years behind bars, former University of Technology Sydney dean of science Dianne Jolley, 51, was on Friday sentenced to serve her punishment by way of an intensive corrections order in the community.

A NSW District Court jury earlier this year found Jolley guilty of making the threats against her safety after she penned a series of letters and notes and sent them to her office and home between July and November 2019.

After pleading not guilty, she was convicted of 10 counts of conveying information likely to make a person fear for their safety and one count of causing financial disadvantage by deception.

When the first of the notes arrived in July 2019, the university took the notes so seriously it authorised $127,000 worth of protective measures to be thrown around Jolley.

This included having the university’s head of security escort her to work on the train and installing CCTV at her home and office.

“Chop our future, we chop yours,” said the first letter that came in on July 31.

“You are f—ed racist b–ch China hating lesbian,” said another.

In an effort to cover her tracks, Jolley sent one letter just prior to leaving for China for a business trip so that it arrived in her office while she was overseas.

At the height of the campaign, she faked a break-in at her southern Sydney home where she claimed several items of clothing hanging on the washing line were cut up and a pair of her underwear was stolen.

That pair of red underwear was later found inside a package sent to her Ultimo office together with a sympathy card that said “sorry for your loss”.

During the trial, Ms Jolley admitted to sending one letter to herself in November 2019 when she typed up and printed out the letter in her office — an act caught on the very CCTV that had been installed to protect her.

She said at the time the real series of threatening letters had wrought a toll on her life and family and she was trying to find a way to get fired from her $320,000-a-year position.

In text messages sent to a colleague on November 18, five days after her arrest, Jolley admitted: “I know I have cracked under the pressure, after a lot of reflection I think I can pinpoint exactly when.”

Jolley’s motivations were never revealed in court after she declined to give evidence at her sentence hearing last month.

The crown had accused her of waging the fake hate mail campaign in an attempt to muster support to push through the closure of a traditional Chinese medicine course.

Judge Ian Bourke said her motivations remained a mystery.

“I have even greater difficulty in finding that stress and attention-seeking behaviour provides an explanation for such extreme measures such as the offender cutting up her own clothes and later sending items of her own underwear to the university,” Judge Bourke said.

“Ultimately, the evidence does not permit me to arrive at any clear conclusion as to why the offender committed these somewhat bizarre offences. “

She was ultimately undone when her fingerprint was discovered on the back of a stamp that had been used to send one of the letters and police began to investigate her as a suspect.

Jolley was earlier in her trial acquitted of a slew of other charges.

Judge Bourke directed the jury to find her not guilty of another nine counts of conveying information likely to make a person fear for their safety.

He said he believed her crimes could only be dealt with by way of a custodial sentence, although he noted her prospects of rehabilitation were strong and at the likelihood of her reoffending was minimal.

She was sentenced to a two-year and six-month intensive corrections order, including performing 100 hours of community service.

“Ms Jolley you understand the sentence that’s been imposed?” Judge Bourke said.

“Yes, I do Your Honour,” Jolley said as she watched proceedings via videolink.

“I understand you’re sentencing me based on the convictions and the verdict of the jury. I still don’t understand … But I accept.”

Jolley’s lawyer Aaron Kernaghan told The Saturday Telegraph outside court that his client was “relieved”, but would still likely appeal the verdict.

“She’s relieved the proceedings have reached the final stage and she’s now able to take a moment with her friends and family who have been supporting her throughout the process,” Mr Kernaghan said.

“It’s taken a huge toll on everyone…the pressure of the devilish social media groups who have taken the time to character assassinate her.”

He said they would look closely at the jury verdict, to see if there was a case to appeal.

Mr Kernaghan claimed a “significant mistake” was made when Jolley spent three weeks in jail after being charged with several offences, many of which she was later found not guilty to.

He said people had to remember there were “hundreds” of letters sent to the university to this day, which the author was not known.