Boswell v The Queen
[2015] NSWDC 208
•15 May 2015
|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | Boswell v R |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2015] NSWDC 208 |
Decision Date: | 15 May 2015 |
Jurisdiction: | Criminal |
Before: | Cogswell SC DCJ |
Decision: | (1) The sentence imposed in the Local Court is set aside. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – offences against the person – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – contravene prohibition in apprehended domestic violence order – relevant factors – purposes of sentencing – previous history of violence – offences committed whilst on conditional liberty – limited understanding of offending behaviour – commenced rehabilitation during adjournment – strong family and community support – community best served by rehabilitation of an offender – no alternative to prison sentence but how to be served – sentences increased after Parker warning but suspended |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 59(1) |
Category: | Sentence |
Parties: | Jason Charles Boswell (Appellant) |
Representation: | Counsel: |
File Number(s): | 2014/220298 |
Decision under appeal: | |
Court or Tribunal: | Local Court |
Jurisdiction: | Criminal |
Date of Decision: | 29 September 2014 |
Before: | Greenwood LCM |
File Number(s): | 2014/220298 |
JUDGMENT
This has been a very difficult case to decide. When I was sitting in Albury last year Jason Boswell had appealed to the District Court from a prison sentence he had received from Magistrate Greenwood. Mr Boswell gave evidence before me in Albury and I heard submissions from his counsel Ms C Mendes. After the second day and after hearing from Ms Mendes and Mr A Thomas, the solicitor for the respondent to the appeal, the Director of Public Prosecutions, I adjourned his appeal to 27 February this year before me in Sydney.
I granted the adjournment under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW). I had in mind - and said at the time - the provisions of s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. That sets out the purposes of sentencing. Lawyers often correctly say that the purposes of sentencing can point in opposite directions. A crime may require a person to go to gaol but on the other hand there may be an expectation that the offender be rehabilitated rather than go to gaol.
When I adjourned the proceedings, I addressed Mr Boswell - who had been listening to the discussion between me and the lawyers - telling him that “it’s better for the community and for you to get yourself rehabilitated, back on track so that you don’t commit these sorts of crimes which you’re committing.” I said that I understood why the magistrate had sent him to gaol and that I was inclined to dismiss his appeal so that the gaol sentence would stand. I went on to say -
“[B]ecause you’re taking these steps to sort yourself out I’m going to adjourn your appeal to next year so when you come back you can show me how things are going, and if they’re going well, then I’ll probably suspend the sentence or hear what Ms Mendes says about alternatives to gaol.”
I indicated that I had not asked the prosecution what their attitude was, at that stage, to dealing with Mr Boswell’s case in that way.
The case came back before me in February this year but Mr Boswell was unrepresented. The details are not important but the point was that he was not in a position to afford counsel because, I think, of a change in his circumstances. I was concerned about him appearing without representation and I agreed to adjourn the case again to check Ms Mendes’ availability so that he could retain her again.
As it happened, Ms Mendes’ and my professional commitments did not provide an opportunity for the case to be brought on again until today. The matter was listed for 10 o’clock. Ms Mendes was flying from Albury this morning but fog prevented her from leaving. The case came on at about noon and I was provided with some reading material and I heard briefly from Ms Mendes and Mr C Allison who appears now for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The case resumed at about a quarter to 3 this afternoon. Evidence and submissions have just concluded and it is now just after ten to 6 on a Friday evening. I have decided to make my decision this evening in fairness to all parties and their legal representatives .
One factor I have not mentioned is that the term of the sentence which was imposed by her Honour Magistrate Greenwood comprised a non-parole period which would have expired in less than two weeks from now, on 28 May 2015. In other words, had Mr Boswell not appealed he would be due for release on parole in just under two weeks from now.
I should record the crimes that Mr Boswell was convicted of and which are the subject of his appeal. One is assault occasioning actual bodily harm which is domestic violence related. That is an offence against s 59(1) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW). Parliament has fixed a maximum of five years imprisonment to that offence, although the Local Court has a jurisdictional limit of two years imprisonment. The other offence was contravening a prohibition or restriction in an apprehended domestic violence order. That is an offence against s 14(1) of Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act2007 (NSW). Parliament has fixed a maximum of two years imprisonment to that offence.
For the assault occasioning actual bodily harm her Honour imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. For the contravention of the domestic violence order her Honour imposed a sentence of four months imprisonment. Her Honour accumulated both sentences so that the overall aggregate sentence was 16 months. It was specified to commence on the day her Honour imposed it, 29 September 2014. As I have said, her Honour fixed a non-parole period of eight months and that was due to expire on 28 May 2014. Mr Boswell spent about three days in custody before receiving appeal bail.
I need to say something about the circumstances of the offence. There was an apprehended domestic violence order naming Mr Boswell as defendant and a woman named Amanda Pierce as the person in need of protection. It was in place when these offences occurred on 26 July 2014. Mr Boswell was not allowed within 100 metres of any premises where Ms Pierce was, nor was he permitted within 50 metres of Ms Pierce herself. Despite this, they evidently attended a club together in Albury and she was giving him a lift home in the early hours of Saturday morning, 26 July 2014.
There is some question about whether or not they argued. The facts recorded that they did. Mr Boswell in evidence said that they did not. But what did occur is that there was some struggle as he took the keys from the ignition. She bit him and he then threw the car keys out of the window. The agreed facts record that he hit her “four or five times with a closed fist to the victim’s forehead and facial area”. He says it was no more than three times, but I need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was more than his verified account says and so I accept that it was three times. More importantly, however, is the fact that he inflicted the violence on her.
I raised the questions of photographs. Mr Allison tendered (as exhibit D) some photographs today. They show a nasty-looking bruise on Ms Pierce’s face. There are other injuries which are in dispute. I do not need to make determinations about the details. It is enough that Mr Boswell has pleaded guilty to assaulting her physically and punching her in the face three times causing, as I repeat, a nasty bruise.
Mr Boswell was arrested and charged. I might add that the injuries were described in the facts in a way consistent with how I see them as “a large swollen left eye socket, a lump in front of her left ear, numerous redness and swelling to her right wrist”. There are some scratches and a chipped tooth which are in dispute. Again, it is enough for my purposes that Mr Boswell caused the facial bruising by violently assaulting Ms Pierce.
As I have said, I am not surprised at the sentence imposed by her Honour. Mr Boswell has a criminal record, not only in New South Wales but also in Victoria. In 2011 he received a good behaviour bond from the Local Court for stalking and intimidating someone with an intention to cause them fear. He was convicted again in the Local Court of contravening a restriction in a domestic violence order and given a bond under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. In 2013 he was convicted of a common assault and received a s 9 bond. He was called up on that bond which was extended to two years. Hence when he assaulted Ms Pierce he was in breach of that good behaviour bond. Mr Boswell has driving offences in Victoria as well as convictions for theft and burglary and one conviction for recklessly cause serious injury. The driving convictions in New South Wales and Victoria on occasion involved driving under the influence of alcohol.
A pre-sentence report prepared on 25 September 2014 noted that Mr Boswell had been referred for assessment relating to “his alcohol abuse issues”. That pre-sentence report was updated for the purpose of these proceedings and a supplementary report dated 11 March 2015 was prepared by Ms Samara Abbott. Two passages are of concern in that report which both counsel addressed in their examination, cross-examination and addresses. One is a note that “Mr Boswell self assessed that he feels as though he has never had an issue with the consumption of alcohol and that he is currently abstinent from consuming alcohol”. A second passage is an assessment by the author which pointed out that “Mr Boswell did not display any victim empathy and placed blame for the current charges on the victim.” When exploring a pattern of domestic violence he is quoted as saying: “You know how women like to get men in trouble”. The author notes that Mr Boswell “claimed not to be a violent person justifying all past violent convictions as the fault of the victim.”
Mr Allison was obviously concerned about those remarks and cross-examined Mr Boswell about them this afternoon. Mr Boswell explained that the interview lasted no more than five minutes and that he did not have time to explain himself and that the references do not accurately state what he has said. Mr Boswell also explained an apparent inconsistency between a note by the Probation and Parole officer that Mr Boswell is abstaining from alcohol and a note from another counsellor who refers to him reducing his alcohol intake and drinking only occasionally.
Mr Boswell is clearly well liked and highly regarded as an individual. He has strong and supportive references from former and current employers and personal references from women who know him well. In particular he is currently in a new relationship with Kristy Lehmann. In a letter to the court dated 12 May 2015 she points out that they are living together in Wodonga and that Mr Boswell has been “honest and open with me about the charges that he was facing and the predicament that he was in”. She too, like others, describes him as a “caring, kind and thoughtful person”. Significantly, she said that she has “observed over the last few months a number of changes in him and I believe that he has been doing everything he can to make himself a better person.” She thought that Mr Boswell “has benefitted from his meetings with parole officers and drug and alcohol counsellors and the men’s behaviour counsellor.” She notes that he expresses what appears to be genuine remorse when talking about his offences. She is “confident that Mr Boswell is committed to make positive changes in his life.” Ms Lehmann is a registered nurse working for Albury Wodonga Health. She points out, and I accept, that she has no criminal history and drinks only occasionally. She does not take drugs. Significantly, she says that “Mr Boswell understands that I will not put up with any nonsense in our relationship.” She is prepared to continue to offer “my love, encouragement and support” and that the community of Albury Wodonga would greatly benefit from his contribution if he was given another opportunity.
I have reports from a men’s behaviour change program conducted through the St Vincent de Paul Society. It records that Mr Boswell participated well and understands “that change takes time and is an ongoing work in progress”. That is dated February this year. He is well regarded, as I say, by his employer. There is a report from a drug and alcohol counsellor who records that “Mr Boswell has identified the correlation between his drinking and resulting situations leading to his legal situation” and “has developed a self-awareness of his actions and the impacts they can have on others.” She thought that this has resulted in Mr Boswell “making positive changes in his life, gaining control over his thoughts and actions.” His GP has referred Mr Boswell to a clinical psychologist in Albury, Dr Brian Hickman.
Mr Boswell is obviously a skilled welder who works with metal and I have seen photographs of some of his work which is clearly of a high quality and I can understand why he is highly regarded by employers.
Ms Mendes called her client again today. I had asked the prosecutor in Albury not to commence his cross-examination down there but to wait until the case resumed in Sydney. Mr Allison came well prepared and cross-examined Mr Boswell very thoroughly and covered topics which I had hoped would be explored. The cross-examination revealed the truth of Ms Mendes’ opening submission in her address to me that her client is far from perfect. He was very defensive about his behaviour and played down his role in the various offences that he has been convicted of involving violence with women. He happens to be the only person I have heard evidence from, so I must bear that in mind. He also seemed to be somewhat defensive about his alcohol intake. At least one or two or more of the offences have been committed when Mr Boswell had been drinking. His criminal record involves a number of drink driving offences. He is a person who clearly has run into difficulty with the consumption of alcohol. By difficulty, I mean that his behaviour has resulted in committing offences. That means that he needs to give very serious attention to his drinking habits.
Mr Allison pointed out correctly that not only is Mr Boswell deprived of leniency because of his criminal record but that he committed these offences whilst he was on a good behaviour bond. I will explain those two submissions. A person who comes before a court for sentencing if they have good character references and no criminal record will receive a benefit for that and receive a lesser penalty. A person does not get an increased penalty because of a record but is deprived of what might otherwise count in their favour. Mr Allison is right in that submission. The second point is that a court decided to release Mr Boswell on a good behaviour bond. Instead of complying with that good behaviour bond, he did the opposite and assaulted someone. Courts regard that as an aggravating factor in sentencing people.
Mr Allison drew my attention, correctly, to s 14(4) of the Crimes Domestic and Personal Violence Act. It must be remembered that Mr Boswell has been convicted of an offence under s 14(1) of that Act. Subs 4 provides that unless I order otherwise -
“A person who is convicted of an offence against subs (1) must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment if the act constituting the offence was an act of violence against a person.”
This was an act of violence against a person.
Ms Mendes realistically acknowledged that there was no alternative than a prison sentence for her client which is a question that I have to consider under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. But the thrust of her submission was how the prison sentence should be served.
Returning to Mr Allison’s submissions, he cogently pointed out that there have now been three victims of Mr Boswell’s domestic violence and he referred to the three women, the last being Ms Pierce. He emphasised the importance of specific and general deterrence as well as denunciation of the crime and punishment of the offender. He expressed significant concern about the observations made by the author of the most recent presentence report. He pointed out, which is consistent with my observation, that Mr Boswell minimises responsibility.
On the other hand, Ms Mendes points out that her client has done all he could have done during the period of the adjournment. She points out that her client accepts the significant aspects of the violent offence he committed against Ms Pearce and she points to the benefit or progress he has made from assistance over the last seven months. She emphasises that in the long term the community is best served by the rehabilitation of an offender such as Mr Boswell who has not completed his rehabilitation but has clearly embarked on the correct path and, as she cogently pointed out, her client has come a long way since he attacked his former partner in July 2014. In contrast of course to Mr Allison, Ms Mendes emphasised the stronger purpose of sentencing in this case may be the rehabilitation of an offender within the community rather than the punishment which Mr Allison also correctly pointed out is another valid consideration.
I have been in two minds about how to deal with this case. Both positions are strong. In the result I have decided that I will suspend the sentence which was imposed upon Mr Boswell. I appreciate that I am putting the community at risk in doing this. Mr Boswell’s record and the fact that he breached a previous bond are serious considerations, as correctly emphasised by Mr Allison who highlighted the importance of the protection of the community. Again, I acknowledge that in not sending Mr Boswell to gaol immediately I am increasing to some extent the risk in the community. However, on the other hand, that risk would still be present if Mr Boswell served a period of time in gaol and came out of gaol to commence his progress towards rehabilitation then.
An important factor that I have taken into account is Ms Mendes’ point about her client undertaking everything that he was asked to do. I said to him in Albury that he should show me how things are going and if they are going well “then I’ll probably suspend the sentence”. I think the force of Ms Mendes’ point is particularly relevant to that observation of mine. Mr Boswell has seen a number of counsellors, has obtained reports and is undertaking a serious commitment to seeing a psychologist. To send him to gaol fulltime now would, I think, be somewhat unfair in light of what I said to him in Albury. In addition to that, as I observed, had he not appealed his non-parole period would be almost finished by now. Through unfortunate and unavoidable circumstances there has been a significant delay in his appeal being finalised. That means that Mr Boswell would commence a fresh gaol sentence almost at the time that he was due to be released. As Ms Mendes said, her client is far from perfect. That became obvious during his cross-examination. But I am prepared to provide him with the opportunity, with professional support and the apparently strong support of Ms Lehmann, to continue to deal with what his obviously an ingrained problem in his life. In suspending the sentence it means that for the next 16 months if Mr Boswell commits any further offences, be they serious or less serious, he is likely to go to fulltime gaol. As Ms Mendes pointed out he is, in effect, his own gaoler.
HIS HONOUR: I am going to make my formal order now Mr Boswell. If you would stand up. Ms Mendes and Mr Allison if you would be thinking about conditions of the bond.
Under s 20(2) of the Crimes Appeal and Review Act 2001 I determine this appeal against sentence by varying the sentence. I vary the sentence by making an order under s 12(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and suspending the execution of the whole of the sentence for the whole of the period. I direct that Mr Boswell be released from custody on condition that he enters into a good behaviour bond for 16 months.
HIS HONOUR: Now apart from conditions which we will fix in a moment, are they the only formal orders I need.
MENDES: In respect of both offences your Honour?
HIS HONOUR: Yes because it was an aggregate sentence, so her Honour imposed one sentence.
MENDES: But your Honour’s now imposing two suspended sentences. One for each.
HIS HONOUR: No because my understanding is that - and this is what exhibit A says - aggregate term of imprisonment of 16 months to be released, et cetera, and then it says sequence 1 imprisonment 12 months, sequence 2 imprisonment 4 months. So clearly what her Honour did was to accumulate them both completely to 16 months. Sorry. My understanding what her Honour’s doing is under section 53A whatever it is, and she specified as the section requires what the individual sentences would have been. So they would have been 12 months and 4 months but instead under section 53 whatever it is her Honour’s imposed one aggregate sentence. Now I might be wrong but that’s my reading of it.
MENDES: My understanding is precisely what your Honour has just indicated.
HIS HONOUR: Which means just one sentence.
MENDES: The difficulty is that your Honour cannot suspend an aggregate sentence, as I understand it. There’s nothing wrong with your Honour of course imposing the two suspended sentences, one in respect of each offence.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Allison?
ALLISON: Suitable your Honour.
I review my order. Under s 20(2) of the Crimes (Appeal andReview) Act2001 I determine this appeal against sentence by setting aside the sentence. Instead of the sentence imposed by the Magistrate, I sentence Mr Boswell to 12 months imprisonment in respect of the assault occasioning actual bodily harm and to a cumulative 4 months imprisonment to the offence of contravening the apprehended domestic violence order. The total sentence is therefore 16 months. Under s 12(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999, I make an order suspending the execution of the whole of the sentence for the whole of the period. I direct that Mr Boswell be released from custody on condition that he enters into a good behaviour bond for 16 months.
MENDES: I am sorry, your Honour. My understanding is that you can’t actually impose a cumulative suspended sentence. So your Honour is entitled to impose a 12 month suspended sentence and then 4 months suspended sentence with respect to the other matter. If he was to breach the suspended sentence within the 4 month period then your Honour’s remarks on sentence would become relevant in that a sentence of 16 months would then flow cumulative. However, if your Honour imposed a suspended sentence of 4 months but the breach occurred after that, my understanding is your Honour would only then have the 12 month suspended sentence remaining.
HIS HONOUR: I am not following exactly, but what do you propose, what is the solution?
MENDES: If your Honour wishes to impose a 16 months suspended sentence it would be appropriate for your Honour to impose two suspended sentences each of 16 months.
HIS HONOUR: That means a Parker warning though.
MENDES: Effectively yes, but your Honour we wouldn’t wish to be heard in respect of that.
HIS HONOUR: If you talk to your client.
MENDES: I will just explain that.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Allison do you want to be heard on that solution?
ALLISON: I concur with that solution, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
MENDES: I have explained in a nutshell the Parker warning to Mr Boswell and he wishes to proceed with the appeal.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you Ms Mendes. So two sentences each of 16 months.
MENDES: Yes, 16 months.
HIS HONOUR: I don’t specify, because I am going to suspend them, whether they are concurrent or cumulative, I just sentence don’t I?
MENDES: Yes. Those questions are determined later, if at all.
Mr Boswell, Ms Mendes has just explained to you, but I need to explain it to you. You are going to come away with two higher sentences than the ones that you came with. You came with 4 plus 12 equals 16. You are going to go away with two lots of 16. So instead of 4 months you are getting 16 months and instead of 12 months you are getting 16 months. But they will run at the same time so the effect is the same. But you need to know so far as your criminal record is concerned that when somebody is looking at your criminal record in the future they will see that I have imposed two 16 month prison sentences - yes suspended - but they are higher than the Magistrate and that could count against you at some stage if somebody said, they gave 16 months not just 4 and 12, the judge gave him 16 months. Do you want me to proceed?
APPELLANT: I understand that.
HIS HONOUR: You want me to proceed?
APPELLANT: Yes.
Under s 20(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 I determine this appeal against sentence by setting aside the sentence. In respect of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm I impose a sentence of 16 months imprisonment. In respect of the offence of contravening an apprehended domestic violence order I impose a sentence of 16 months imprisonment. In the event that those sentences need to be served in prison they are concurrent. A Parker warning has been explained to the offender by his counsel and by me and I accept that he understands it and asks me to proceed. Under s 12(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I make an order suspending the execution of each of the sentences for 16 months and I direct that Mr Boswell be released from custody on condition that he enters into a good behaviour bond for 16 months.
HIS HONOUR: Have we got it right?
MENDES: Yes.
ALLISON: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Now, conditions.
MENDES: Accept the supervision of NSW Community Corrections Service as they deem necessary--
ALLISON: Including, in relation to alcohol, anger management--
HIS HONOUR: Are you picking that up from the report?
ALLISON: No, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: They think that he is unlikely to benefit from supervision.
MENDES: Yes. Your Honour he is subject to a s 9 bond that was imposed on 29 September last year for a period of 2 years, a condition that he accept the supervision of NSW Probation Service. So, notwithstanding that they indicate that he may not benefit, your Honour, he is already subject - perhaps if your Honour just makes that condition.
ALLISON: Your Honour, under tab 8 of the original appeal bundle--
HIS HONOUR: Yes I am just reading it, yes.
ALLISON: Yes, the original pre-sentence report. Your Honour in relation to Victoria, if I can perhaps pre-empt what your Honour is considering, what is done in Victoria is a matter for those authorities--
HIS HONOUR: I agree with that.
ALLISON: The Crown’s position is there should be some conditions in relation to the New South Wales s 12 suspended sentence, even if it mirrors it, it shouldn’t add in terms of aggregation of responsibility but if it could superimpose that same responsibility that would be ideal. It would seem that the responsibility, anger management, management of alcohol issues, in the Crown submission, they are key considerations.
HIS HONOUR: Yes I think you have got a point. Yes I am going to do it Ms Mendes.
The conditions of the good behaviour bond are these:
(1)That he be of good behaviour.
(2)That he notify any change of his residential address to the Registrar of the Distract Court at Albury.
(3)That he attend court if he receives a notice to do so.
(4)That he accept supervision from Community Corrections and accepts any reasonable recommendations and directions from that Service including for anger manager and alcohol issues.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Bowell, it took me a while to make up my mind about your case. I was very close to sending you to gaol and there was a very good case made for it. You have heard what Mr Allison has said, your record shows it, but I am concerned about being fair to you and, as Ms Mendes said, you have done a lot in the last 7 months. You have had a hiccup in the middle, and so you are here in the middle of May instead of February. I am putting the community at risk letting you out because of your record and because you have breached these things before, but I am going to give you a go. You have got strong support obviously from Ms Lehmann and from your employer and, most importantly, you as Ms Mendes said you are on track, you have started. Now you are under supervision for 16 months, you know about that better than I do. Let them help you and continue the work that you have started. That will make you less of a risk to the women that you relate with and you have been a risk in the past to the women that you are intimate with and you do not want to put Ms Lehmann at risk--
APPELLANT: No.
HIS HONOUR: No. But you are a risk and so you have got to keep up the good work that you have started, do you understand? You have got to stay out of trouble no drink driving, no brawls, nothing. Because if you come back before me, and Ms Mendes will remind you and explain this, a suspended sentence good behaviour bond is different to a normal good behaviour bond that you have got from the Local Court. If you breach a suspended sentence good behaviour bond my hands are pretty tied. I have pretty well got to send you to gaol, the law says that. It is very hard for me not to send you to gaol. So you have got to understand that. If you get busted for PCA and come back before me there is little I can do apart from send you in, you have got to understand that. And certainly if you get into a brawl or anything like that it is the same. If you change your address from where you are now let them know at the courthouse so that they can track you down. If you get a notice to come to court, turn up, rather than have the police and sheriff chasing you, and most importantly let Corrective Services help you. They know to what extent to push you and not to push you, but let them help you. Do you understand that?
APPELLANT: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Is there anything else Mr Allison, Ms Mendes?
ALLISON: No, your Honour.
MENDES: No.
HIS HONOUR: Now it is 5 minutes to 7. It is an occupational hazard for me and my associate, we understand that, and counsel. But there is a court officer here and most significantly there are staff in the Registry and RSB, those who are recording these proceedings. My associate indicated to me that they couldn’t keep recording past 6.30. I indicated that that was not acceptable. So somebody I expect, perhaps more than one, is significantly inconvenienced as a result of me sitting on until almost 7 o’clock. A number of people have had their Friday night disrupted and I record my appreciation for that. It means that this case which has followed me from Albury, and has had some false starts, has now been finalised and I appreciate the contribution which those inconvenienced members of staff have made to the administration of justice. I will now adjourn.
**********
0
0
4