CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Rogation

[2022] VCC 1360

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 21-01426

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(CTH)

v

LLOYD ROGATION

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE KARAPANAGIOTIDIS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 June 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 August 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CDPP v Rogation
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 1360

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING

Catchwords:             Plea of guilty – Conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor – Conspiracy to manufacture a commercial quantity of a controlled drug – Sophisticated offending – Criminal syndicate – Good prospects of rehabilitation – COVID-19 pandemic.

Legislation Cited:     Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A(1); 16A(2); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss; 6AAA; 18.

Cases Cited:Arthars v The Queen [2004] VSCA 222;DPP (Cth) v Estrada (2015) 45 VR 286; DPP (Cth) v Peng [2014] VSCA 128; Mohammed v The Queen [2022] VSCA 136; Plater v The Queen [2013] VSCA 258; Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270, 279; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.

Sentence:Seven years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six month’s imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Commonwealth	Mr J. Manning	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Chisholm	Chardon Legal

HER HONOUR:

1Lloyd Rogation, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges:  Charge 1, conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor; and Charge 2, conspiracy to manufacture a commercial quantity of a controlled drug.  The maximum penalty for Charge 1 is 25 years' imprisonment and the maximum penalty for Charge 2 is life imprisonment.

Circumstances of the offending

2The full circumstances of your offending are set out in a summary of prosecution opening and the attached chronology.[1]

[1] Exhibit A.

3You are a Canadian national.  You are now 37 years of age.  At the time of the offending you were aged between  26 and 27.

4In early January 2011 the business, “Wilson's Flavours”, was registered in Western Australia as a purported wholesaler of vanilla food flavouring.  You were registered as “Sean Wilson” in Malaga, Western Australia.  The business was a front for a Canadian based drug syndicate and never operated legitimately.

5Both charges on the indictment involve conspiracies to offend.  Briefly, in relation to Charge 1 the prosecution allege that between 12 June 2011 and
14 July 2012 you conspired with unknown others to import a commercial quantity of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.  In summary, you engaged in the following overt acts pursuant to the agreement:

(a)  You travelled from Canada to Australia,

(b)  Sixteen consignments were imported from India to Perth between
7 June 2011 and 28 March 2012;

(c)   Two consignments were imported from India to Melbourne between the 20th and 24 April 2012;

(d)  You hired various storage units in Melbourne, Perth and New South Wales;

(e)  You hired vehicles and used mobile phones subscribed in false names;

(f)    You leased a residential premises in Point Cook;

(g)  You travelled to and from Perth, attended courier services in Perth and couriered the imported consignments to your hotels or storage containers in Melbourne; and

(h)  You received and remitted funds overseas.

6The sixteen consignments were imported to Perth and Melbourne in furtherance of the conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.  Your offending relating to each consignment is outlined in the prosecution opening.  It includes, as I have already noted, details of your travels overseas and interstate, transfers of money, the hiring of storage facilities, and arranging and paying for the transportation of the contents of the consignments to be transported to addresses linked to you in Melbourne.

7Across the sixteen consignments there was an unknown quantity of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine imported into Australia, though on the evidence it was an amount including at least 33.9 kilograms of ephedrine and 37.3 kilograms of pseudoephedrine.

8In relation to Charge 2 it is alleged that between 1 June 2012 and
15 August 2012 you conspired with Edward Estrada, Brian Yuan, Robin Byun, Chuck Choi, and unknown others to manufacture a commercial quantity of methamphetamine for commercial purpose.  Pursuant to the agreement you passed on the access code and padlock key to a storage unit which you had hired so that your co-conspirators could access it. 

9The nature of this conspiracy is outlined in detail from paragraph 92 onwards in the prosecution opening, along with the actions of Byun, Yuan, Estrada and Choi.  No overall quantity is, or can be, alleged though investigators later recovered amounts of methamphetamine and ephedrine referrable to this conspiracy.  Inside Unit 48, Kennards Self-Storage, Port Melbourne, investigators located:  268.6 grams of methamphetamine; 25.2 kilograms of pure pseudoephedrine; and 14.1 kilograms of pure ephedrine.

10I confirm that the above is a summary and overview only.  Your offending took place over a substantial period of time and was multi-faceted.  The nature and scope of the conspiracies and your role within them is comprehensively outlined in the prosecution opening which, for completeness, I annex to these reasons and is the basis of the sentences I will impose.

11Your case initially proceeded as a sentence indication hearing.  At that hearing both Counsel, Mr Manning for the prosecution, and Mr Chisholm, on your behalf, made comprehensive and very helpful submissions relevant to sentence.  At the subsequent plea hearing both Counsel principally relied upon and adopted their earlier submissions.  I have therefore taken into account the oral submissions at both the indication hearing and subsequent plea hearing.  I have also taken into account all the written material, including the prosecution submissions of 22 May 2022, and the submissions on your behalf dated 19 May 2022 and 28 July 2022.

Gravity of the offending

12Overall, Mr Rogation, I consider that your offending on both conspiracies is serious and your moral culpability is high.  The seriousness of your offending is reflected or reinforced by the maximum sentences set by Parliament. 

13As submitted by Mr Manning on behalf of the prosecution, I accept that there are a range or relevant factors that properly inform an assessment of your criminality, including:

(a)  The quantity of drugs or precursors involved (or intended to be involved);

(b)  The value of the drugs or precursors involved (or intended to be involved);

(c)  The sophistication of the enterprise;

(d)  Your role and your position in the (planned) importing and manufacturing hierarchies; and

(e)  The nature and extent of your involvement in the enterprise.

14In relation to Charge 1, while the precise overall quantity of drugs imported into Australia is unknown, it was an amount including at least 28 times the commercial quantity threshold for ephedrine and 31 times the commercial quantity threshold for pseudoephedrine.

15In relation to Charge 2, the amount of methamphetamine planned to be (and actually) manufactured is also unknown.  Investigators recovered a quantity, at least 3.4 times the commercial quantity, and precursors which would have facilitated the production of a further quantity of at least 33.3 times the commercial quantity.

16It is unknown how much you stood to gain by your involvement.  Given all the circumstances I infer that your offending was motivated by profit and your Counsel sensibly did not submit otherwise.[2]  

[2]R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238 at [72].

17I accept the submission of the prosecution that it is clear from the circumstances and nature of the offending that a trans-national criminal syndicate was behind both agreements and the execution of overt acts pursuant to those agreements.

18The prosecution point to a number of measures outlined in detail at
paragraph 27 of their submissions which indicate the level of organisation and sophistication of both conspiracies.  While the prosecution accept that you were not responsible for, or necessarily involved in each of the measures identified, they indicate that as a whole the enterprise was highly organised and sophisticated, and to the extent that you were involved, your role reflected this.

19As the Court of Appeal stated in Estrada[3], your criminality should not only be assessed by reference to your respective role.  The sentences to be imposed must also reflect the organisational nature of the conspiracy.  Relevantly, in relation to the conspiracy, in particular the subject of Charge 2, the Court observed:

…[the offenders] had taken part in a conspiracy to commit a very serious and damaging crime, the seriousness of which is reflected in the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Deterrence, particularly general deterrence, and the need to strongly condemn the offending were of great importance.  The respondent's moral culpability was high given that they had chosen to assist in the manufacture of a socially damaging drug for profit.

[3]DPP (Cth) v Estrada (2015) 45 VR 286.

20These comments, Mr Rogation, have clear application in your case. 

21It is still important to assess your criminality and your participation in the offending.  The prosecution submit that your role was akin to an, “Operations Manager”.  Of course, labels should not divert the focus from the offences charged and an assessment of what you actually did.[4]

[4]R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270, 279 at [19].

22In relation to Charge 1, I accept that you had a trusted role and undertook significant hands-on activity in Australia, though at the direction of others overseas.  Over a year period you performed a number of acts, some of which I have already referred to, including travelling between Canada and Australia, hiring vehicles and transferring and receiving funds. The prosecution acknowledge that you were not a party to the conspiracy until around the time of your arrival in Australia in June 2011.  It is not suggested that you were equal to, or above, any of the Canadian based members of the syndicate.  Nor is it suggested that you directed or instructed the others in Australia or that you recruited any other syndicate members or that you were responsible for bringing any border controlled precursors into the country.

23In relation to Charge 2 the prosecution accept that your participation was confined.  As already stated, the overt acts carried out by you in respect of this conspiracy are limited to passing on the access code and padlock key to a storage unit which you had hired so that your co-conspirators could access it.  Notwithstanding your limited participation, I accept the prosecution's submission that such a role nevertheless reveals the trust reposed in you by the syndicate.  The prosecution accept that you were not above any of your named co-conspirators in the hierarchy, nor did you direct anyone in the course of that conspiracy.

24The prosecution accept that the same transnational syndicate was behind both conspiracies but it does not accept that it involved only, “one conspiracy”, as each conspiracy had a different criminal objective.  I accept that the stated objective of each conspiracy is different and that they involve different considerations and maximum sentences.  However, I consider it is relevant to an assessment of your criminality that the two conspiracies were effectively part of the one enterprise run by the one syndicate.  The totality principle is an important consideration in sentencing you, which I will return to shortly.

Sentencing factors

25There are many sentencing factors, Mr Rogation, that I must take into account when sentencing you, as outlined in the non-exhaustive list contained in s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act1914 (Cth). I also have regard to other sentencing principles that are relevant to fixing a sentence, 'of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence’, as required by s 16A(1).

Early plea of guilty

26You entered a plea of guilty following a sentence indication provided by this Court on 21 June 2022.  Prior to the indication your case was also the subject of case conferencing.  I accept that by your plea of guilty you have indicated a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.  As submitted by your Counsel,
Mr Chisholm, I accept that your plea carries substantial utilitarian value.  It avoids the considerable cost to the State of what could have been a long and complex trial and avoids the difficulties inherent with a trial concerned with circumstances that are now some ten years’ old.

27I also accept that there is greater utilitarian value in your plea, given it has been entered during the currency of the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore should attract a more pronounced amelioration of sentence than at another time.[5] 

[5]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.

28Weighing up all relevant matters, I also consider that your plea is indicative of some remorse for your offending and that you have accepted responsibility for what you have done.

Delay

29The period of your overall offending ends in August 2012 and your
co-conspirators on Charge 2 were arrested at this time.  The delay thereafter is reflected and helpfully outlined in the chronology filed by the prosecution.  It was not until 9 December 2016 that your extradition request was presented to Canadian authorities, which involves a delay of approximately four years and five months.  In February 2017 the extradition process commenced.  During this period you were remanded for 127 days and otherwise lived in the community.  In March 2020 you were extradited to Australia.

30While the prosecution submit that the overwhelming inference is that upon the arrest of your co-offenders you became aware of the involvement of the authorities, they accept that you did not flee the jurisdiction for fear of apprehension.

31It is clear from the chronology that there has been a considerable delay in your case.  The justification for taking delay into account as a mitigating factor rests upon the twin considerations of rehabilitation and fairness.  Every case is different and the factors seen properly to affect the exercise of the sentencing discretion will vary according to circumstances[6].  Taking all the circumstances into account in your case, I consider that delay is a powerful mitigating factor.

[6]Arthars v The Queen [2004] VSCA 222; Plater v The Queen [2013] VSCA 258 at [25]-[29]; R v Merrett, Piggot and Ferrari [2007] VSCA 1 at [35]; Day v The Queen [2011] VSCA 243 at [18].

32You have had this matter hanging over your head since at least the commencement of the extradition proceedings.  I take into account the stress and uncertainty experienced during this period.  I also consider that the delay is important when considering and assessing your rehabilitative prospects.  You built a productive life for yourself in Canada.  You have not reoffended.  You were gainfully employed and you were in a stable relationship and have become a father to two young children.

33I accept that you have demonstrated significant reformation over the years and that in all the circumstances you present with strong prospects of rehabilitation.  Given the delay in the matter and the absence of any prior or subsequent convictions, I note that the prosecution also accept that you present with positive rehabilitative prospects.

34On your behalf Mr Chisholm submits that you are no longer the twenty something year old committing these serious offences.  You have grown and developed into a mature man, as evidenced by your family life, your responsible job in Canada and your lack of any subsequent criminal offending, aside from a minor driving charge in 2014 that was noted.

35As Mr Chisholm put it, your actions speak louder than words and for years you have been living a law abiding and productive life. 

Character, antecedents, age and prospects of rehabilitation

36You have no relevant prior or subsequent convictions or findings of guilt.  In assessing the weight to be given to this factor I am mindful of the general proposition that the prior good character of a person involved in a drug importation offence is to be given less weight as a mitigating factor on sentence.[7]

[7]R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238.

37I take into account your personal history.  You were born in Jaffna, Sri Lanka, in 1984.  You arrived in Canada at ten years of age as a refugee with your mother and sister, to escape civil war and conflict.  Your father later followed.  You are a Canadian citizen.  You have a sister who is currently employed as a vendor manager at a bank. 

38Your parents are now elderly and both retired.  Your father previously worked as a teacher in Sri Lanka and as a welder in Canada.  He has now been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and cancer.  His serious ill-health weighs heavily on you and you fear he may die before you have an opportunity to see him again.

39Since 2002 you and your family have lived in Brampton, Ontario. You undertook your education in Canada and finished your schooling in 2003.  You have been in a relationship with your partner, Melissa Gorecki, since 2015.  You have two sons: Ari, born in March 2016; and Kye, born in September 2020.  You have never held your youngest child.  It causes you anguish and worry that you are not able to care or provide for your elderly parents or your young family.

40You have a solid work history.  From 2000 and 2006 you held several jobs in retail while you were in high school and after graduating.  From 2007 to 2008 you worked as an officer manager for a physiotherapist.  Between 2010 and 2011 you held several factory jobs and from 2013 to 2015, after a short period of unemployment, you worked as a counter and supply manager for a deli.  More recently, from 2016, you were employed by “6ix Legal Services Inc.” as a process server.  The owner of the business, Gavin Fernandes, provided a letter to the court with full knowledge of your current circumstances.  He states that as an employee you were dedicated, responsible and trustworthy. He also states that you value family and friends and are someone who can be relied upon.  He would be happy to offer you employment upon your return.[8]

[8] Exhibit 4.

41I was provided with a number of other references that speak of a man who for many years now has been living a full and productive life in Canada.  Your cousin, Niroshan Thiruchelvam, describes you as loyal and family orientated.  She has also worked with you previously at the company, “Yahoo”.  Not only have you been dedicated to your family but you have also helped her with her two daughters, spending time with them and demonstrating that you are trustworthy and caring.  She is shocked by these allegations.[9]

[9] Exhibit 6.

42Your friend of over 20 years, Prexie Pathmanathan, also speaks highly of you and was shocked by these charges, struggling to reconcile them with the person he knows you to be.  He describes you as an incredible father and as an uncle figure to his own children.[10]

[10] Exhibit 2.

43I also take into account your significant health issues.  In 2016 you suffered a cerebral artery ischemic stroke. Consequently, you require ongoing medication; you have suffered some visual defects; and it has affected your cognition to the extent that you have difficulties with short term memory retention and have suffered some long term memory loss. I note that you have also been somewhat anxious in custody because of the restrictions or limitations in the available treatment or testing.

44The court received a portion of your medical records for 2016 and also a letter from Dr Ho-Yin Lai, dated 18 April 2022, confirming your stroke, your treatment with indefinite medication and your ongoing difficulties.[11] In considering your circumstances I take these matters into account and I accept that they highlight that the ten year delay in your case means that the court is sentencing a man very different from the one who committed the offences.

[11] Exhibits 7 and 8.

45Your partner, Ms Gorecki, has provided an insightful letter dated 19 April 2022.  She refers to the modest life you were living and the efforts you made after your stroke and hospitalisation to resume employment.  She describes you as a loving family man who misses his children and family, including his elderly parents.  Your youngest child is non-verbal and developmentally delayed.  He has never met you and she explains that she feels overwhelmed and is struggling with the burden of being the sole financial and emotional support to your young children.[12]

[12] Exhibit 3.

46I note here that between the indication hearing and the plea hearing the Court of Appeal delivered its reasons in Mohammed v The Queen[13], finding that exceptional circumstances are not required for the purpose of taking into account family hardship under s 16A(2)(p) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). As such, it was contended by your Counsel that the court should give some weight to family hardship, though it was accepted that it was towards the lower end and would be best perhaps reflected in determining the appropriate non-parole period.

[13]Mohammed v The Queen [2022] VSCA 136.

47The prosecution submit that while the law has changed on this matter, the facts in your case have not.  The prosecution accept that it is a fact that should be taken into account and that it is ultimately a matter of weight for the Court.  On the facts of your case it is submitted, and I’m inclined to agree, that it has limited weight in the Court's overall instinctive synthesis of all factors.

Remand conditions

48You have served your period on remand during the pandemic.  You were extradited, as I have already referred to, in March 2020, and within some
ten days the Australian government shut our international borders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  You have experienced lockdowns and restrictions in custody, at times serving months in highly restrictive lockdown conditions.  I also note that recently you contracted COVID and the authorities did not bring you to court, necessitating an adjournment of your case.

49I accept that the conditions in custody have been more onerous for you and I take this into account in sentencing. 

50A submission was made on your behalf by Mr Chisholm that emergency management days have been repealed for Commonwealth matters and that this has produced an unfairness in your case.  You had an expectation of being credited some 15 months of time.  For completeness, I accept the prosecution submission that the applicability or otherwise of emergency management days is not a relevant consideration to the Court’s sentencing task and as such it is not a matter that I have taken into account.  

51It is also submitted on your behalf that upon the completion of your sentence you will be deported forthwith, there being no legal basis for you to remain here.  Mr Manning, on behalf of prosecution, points to the fact that you came to Australia for the purpose of criminal activity and the prospect of deportation, the timing of which is entirely speculative, would not cause hardship but would rather result in your reunification with your homeland and family.[14]

[14]DPP (Cth) v Peng [2014] VSCA 128 at [23]-[24].

52In the circumstances of your case and given the material before me, I do not regard the prospect of deportation or the complexities surrounding your possible release on parole as capable of moderating your sentence.  Instead, I am prepared to take into account that you are likely to continue to serve your time in prison in a different country, isolated and separated from your family and friends for a very lengthy period.  This is more burdensome as it deprives you of their comfort and support and causes you some anguish.  I also note that the combination of the time differences between countries and the restrictions caused by COVID have severely limited the contact you have been able to have with your family.  Further, as I have already noted, Mr Rogation, I accept that your elderly father's ill-health and the needs of your young family do weigh heavily on you in custody.

Parity

53The principles now governing parity are well established.  Equal justice requires that like offences be treated alike, but also that relevant differences between offenders be capable of being treated as justifying different outcomes.  I accept the prosecution's submission that in relation to Charge 1 your substantial involvement in the conspiracy and overt acts is a clear basis of distinction to those co-offenders who have been sentenced, namely Wright, Proko, Kelsey and McNaughton.   I accept that each was involved for a confined period of time and had a limited role to perform and were not part of conspiracies to import or manufacture. Having said that, of course, is not to suggest that their offending was not serious.  For example, Proko was convicted by jury on the principal charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of ephedrine. 

54In relation to Charge 2, the prosecution accept that you, sit somewhat alone', in this conspiracy given your limited involvement in the acts in the furtherance of it.  However, they submit that your global offending on both counts sits well above your named co-offenders.  Dealing with the charges separately, I accept that on Charge 2, without losing sight of the nature of the overall enterprise, your role and level of involvement can be distinguished from your co-conspirators.  Also, I accept your counsel's submission that there are important differentiating factors in your case that justify a degree of disparity, including the substantial delay in the finalisation of your matter, that I have already referred to in detail, and the circumstances of COVID-19, both in terms of the value that attaches to your plea, and also to a consideration of your circumstances in custody.

Sentencing principles

55Turning to sentencing principles now, Mr Rogation, as a federal offender you fall to be sentenced under Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Accordingly, I must impose a sentence that is of appropriate severity in all the circumstances. I must not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate. It was properly conceded on your behalf that a substantial term of imprisonment is the only appropriate and just sentence in your case given the seriousness of your offending.

56I was provided with a table of comparative cases and I have given these very careful consideration and also considered other relevant cases dealing with Commonwealth drug importations.  While the cases provide some useful statements of principle and guidance, they do not set a floor or ceiling for sentencing purposes. They are a useful guide that I have considered. As accepted by Mr Manning they serve to illustrate but do not define the possible range of sentences available to the court.  I note that in some of the cases there are discernible and significant differences in terms of both the quantities of the drugs and the personal circumstances of the accused.

57The sentences I impose must denounce your conduct, punish you and deter you and others from committing crimes of the same or similar kind.  I accept that the principles of general deterrence and denunciation are prime considerations in sentencing for drug importation offences and that stern punishment is usually warranted.  I accept that specific deterrence has a lesser role to play given the ten year period that has followed your offending.  I must also look at your rehabilitation and balance the mitigating factors in your personal circumstances.

58I have moderated the cumulation of the sentences on Charge 1 and 2 so as not to impose a crushing sentence or offend against totality and so as to reflect the total criminality of your offending.[15]  As previously noted, the charges are discrete and so a period of cumulation is warranted so as not to undermine the overall gravity of your conduct.

[15]Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26 at [307-8]; Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372 at [64-5]; Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1 at [27].

59Turning now to the sentences that I impose, you are convicted and sentenced as follows:

Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to six years and three months' imprisonment;

Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to five years and seven months' imprisonment.

60Charge 1 is the base sentence and I order 15 months on Charge 2 to be cumulative on Charge 1, resulting in a total effective sentence of seven years and six months' imprisonment, which was, Mr Rogation, the indication that I provided on the earlier occasion.

61In order to give effect to the cumulation I am intending I will direct as follows, and then I will hear from both Mr Manning and Mr Chisholm if something different is needed, but the sentence on Charge 1, which is the base sentence, is to commence immediately.  The sentence on Charge 2 is to commence four years and four months prior to the expiry of the sentence on Charge 1, which should add the additional fifteen months, or that is my intention, and should then arrive at seven and a half years.  Does that  produce that result?  Mr Manning?

62MR MANNING:  Yes, Your Honour, it does.  Thank you.

63HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  Mr Chisholm, any issues as to the way I have done that, just in terms of commencement dates?

64MR CHISHOLM:  No.  No, I was just doing the calculations as well.

65HER HONOUR:  All right, thank you.  Mr Rogation, in relation to your sentence I am going to set, taking into account all the factors that I have referred to in your case, including weighing up the gravity of the offending, the ten year delay, your rehabilitative prospects and all other matters that I have canvassed, I am proposing to set a non-parole period of four years and six months’ imprisonment.

66Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) I declare that you have served 1,019 days in custody. Is that correct?

67MR CHISHOLM:  That is correct, Your Honour.  Yes, Your Honour.

68HER HONOUR:  And I declare, pursuant to s 6AAA that but for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of nine years and nine months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and eight months. Is there anything else that is required of me,
Mr Manning?

69MR MANNING:  No, Your Honour.  As the court pleases.

70HER HONOUR:  All right, Mr Chisholm, anything else?

71MR CHISHOLM:  No, Your Honour, no, Your Honour.

72HER HONOUR:  No.  All right, can I again thank both the parties.  This matter has been listed a number of times before me and I really have been assisted by your very detailed, helpful, written and oral submissions. So I thank you both.  Mr Rogation, we will leave the link on for you so that your solicitor and barrister, Mr Chisholm, can remain on the link once everybody leaves, and they can speak to you for a moment, all right.

73OFFENDER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

74HER HONOUR:  All right, thank you.

- - -