Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Blok
[2022] VCC 2073
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT BENDIGO CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-22-00045
| COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CHRISTOPHER BLOK |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Bendigo | |
DATE OF PLEA: | 28 October 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 29 November 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Blok | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 2073 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords: Use a carriage service to transmit indecent communication to a person believed to be under 16 years of age, contrary to ss474.27A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (one charge); possess or control child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service, contrary to ss474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (one charge) – plea of guilty – no prior convictions
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code (Cth), s 474.27(A); s 474.22A; s 473.1; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A; s 20(1)(b)(ii); s 20(1)(b)(ii); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 6AAA
Cases Cited:Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Garside [2016] VSCA 74; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [2010] VSCA 215
Sentence: 20 months imprisonment to be released after 8 months upon giving security by recognisance of $1,000 and to be of good behaviour for 20 months. S 6AAA: 30 months imprisonment, to be released by recognisance after 20 months and to be of good behaviour for 24 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D Holmes | Commonwealth Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R Morgan | Peter Baker & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1Christopher Blok, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of use a carriage service to transmit indecent communication to a person under 16 years of age, contrary to the Commonwealth Criminal Code (Cth) for which the maximum penalty is
10 years’ imprisonment. That is Charge 1. You have also pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service, contrary also to the Commonwealth Criminal Code (Cth) for which the maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment. That is Charge 2.2You were born in December 1959. You were 61 years old at the time of the offending. You were living in Bendigo.
3The circumstances of your offending are outlined in the prosecution plea opening, which was tendered as an exhibit on the plea. I sentence you in accordance with that document. I will though summarise the circumstances of your offending.
4On 17 June 2021, members from the Joint Anti Child Exploitation Team (“JACET”) executed a search warrant at your home address.
5You told police that you had two electronic devices, which were seized. They were a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone located on a bench in the kitchen, and a Samsung Google Chromebook located in the main bedroom.
6Police conducted an onsite preliminary analysis of the mobile phone and detected child abuse material. The files located on this device are the subject of Charge 2 (Possession of child abuse material).
7During the examination of the mobile telephone, police identified a Google Cloud account and a Facebook Cloud account, each linked to your Gmail address. You consented to police downloading the contents of these accounts. Analysis revealed that they were used to store and retain child abuse material.
8After participating in an interview with police, you were arrested and taken to Bendigo Police Station. You were charged and released on bail. Additionally, as I follow the material, you gave police access to your mobile phone.
Circumstances of the offending
9When analysing the phone, police discovered a Facebook Messenger chat between you and a person with the profile name “Abody Abady” over a number of days, between 12 May 2021 and 19 May 2021. The profile picture for the “Abody Abady” account was of a young female aged between approximately 10 to
14 years of age.10The text communications were as follows:
On 12 May:
Abody Abady: “how old are you?”
BLOK: “Too old now darling”
Abody Abady: “What is the”
BLOK: “61”
Abody Abady: (thumbs up emoji)
BLOK: “How old are you sweetheart?”
On 17 May 2021:
Abody Abady: “i am 11”
BLOK: “Really, you look a little older.”
On 19 May 2021:
Abody Abady: (sends two videos containing adult pornography)
BLOK: “Mmmmm, so good”
Abody Abady: “Do you want to practice sex with me? ”
BLOK:“Yes, I would like that more than anything in the world”
Abody Abady: “how old are you”
BLOK: “Daddy age”
Abody Abady: (thumbs up emoji)
BLOK: “Thanks so much sweetheart”
Abody Abady: (thumbs up emoji)”
BLOK:“We would practice sex many times a day. (EVERY DAY)”
11Those text communications are the basis of Charge 1 – transmit indecent communication to a person under 16.
Possession of child abuse material
12By way of overview, you were in possession of a total of 930 video files and 634 image files of child abuse material, within the meaning of s 473.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (Cth). These files were either stored on the seized electronic device or in the online accounts operated by you. Within that collection of files there were 868 unique video files and 476 unique image files.
Samsung Galaxy S20 mobile device
13On the Samsung Galaxy S20 mobile telephone police located 848 child abuse material video files and 512 image files on the seized device.
14Within that collection of files, there were 798 unique video files and 461 unique image files. The image and video files identified by police on the device included material depicting:
·adult males ejaculating on the face and into the mouths of female and male prepubescent children;
·female prepubescent children being vaginally penetrated by adult males;
·male prepubescent children being anally penetrated by adult males;
·an infant being vaginally penetrated by an adult male. The child was crying and bleeding from the vagina. The male was wiping the blood away with a nappy which was on the bed beside him;
·a video titled, “Maximiliano – Argentine Boy of 10YO More Hot” which shows a male child, aged approximately 10 years of age, engaged in sexual activity with adult males;
·a video of a prepubescent female, aged approximately 10 years of age, blindfolded with duct tape, being anally penetrated by an adult male;
·videos of prepubescent children sleeping while an adult male masturbated beside them, then ejaculated onto their faces;
·a video of a male prepubescent child, approximately 12 years of age, blindfolded and with his hands tied behind his back being anally penetrated by an adult male;
·many of the videos depicted children crying or in distress while being anally or vaginally penetrated by adult males;
·male prepubescent children engaged in sexual activity with other male prepubescent children;
·a video entitled “Kids Club showing prepubescent males being anally penetrated by, and performing oral sex on, adult males; and
·the children depicted in the image and videos were aged between infants and 14 years of age.
Online accounts
15Police subsequently examined the contents of the Google Cloud download for your Gmail account, and classified relevant items as child abuse material.
16Police identified 82 child abuse video files and 122 child abuse image files. Within that collection of files, there were 70 unique video files and 15 unique image files.
17The image and video files identified by police included material depicting:
· a video with the title, “Baby J Compilation” which shows a female aged approximately 10 years of age, naked then being vaginally and anally penetrated by an adult male;
· a male aged approximately eight years, performing oral sex on an adult male, with the adult male ejaculating into his mouth; and
· a female aged approximately 10 years, sitting naked on a floor with a small dog between her legs licking her vagina.
18Further analysis of the Google account by police also revealed that, on multiple occasions on 30 December 2020, you had used your Google email address to transmit child abuse material to yourself as attachments to emails sent back to that same email address. The attachments to those emails which have been identified as child abuse material and form part of the scope of Charge 2.
19Police also analysed your Facebook cloud account and located a single video file sent to you (via Facebook) in May 2021. The video file depicted a prepubescent female who appeared to have filmed herself whilst standing naked, directing a video camera between her legs with a focus on her vagina.
Record of interview
20During the execution of the search warrant, you participated in a digital record of interview. During the interview you admitted:
· you used the relevant email account;
· you used the applications ICQ New, Viber and Facebook Messenger to view child abuse material;
· you clicked on links containing child abuse material that pop up when you search for adult pornography;
· you used the name Charlie as your profile name on the application ICQ New to hide your identity;
· you used the name Charlie Bravada as your profile name on the application Viber to hide your identity;
· you have been looking at child abuse material for an unspecified number of years; and
· you know that it is illegal to access child abuse material.
21Section 16A(2) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) lists the factors required to be taken into account in sentencing for a Commonwealth offence. I have had regard to those factors.
Guilty plea
22You pleaded guilty to the charges in this case at the second committal mention. I regard that as at the earliest opportunity.
23Your plea has significant utilitarian value to the community. You have saved the Court the resources involved in running a trial. You have pleaded guilty at a time when the Court is dealing with a backlog of trials resulting from the suspension of jury trials during the pandemic. The increased utilitarian value of a guilty plea in the current environment was recognised in the decision of Worboyes[1] (and others) and I have applied the principles outlined in those authorities. You are entitled to a palpable amelioration of the sentences to be imposed.
[1]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
24I accept your plea indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. I accept also that you were cooperative with police, providing the code to your mobile phone and consenting to the download of the contents knowing what police would find on the phone. You also made full admissions in your record of interview.
25I accept your guilty plea, admissions and co-operation are indications of some contrition for your offending. These matters entitle you to a significant sentencing discount in this case.
Personal circumstances
26You are now 62 years old. You were born and raised in Naracoorte, South Australia. Your parents still live in South Australia. They are now divorced. You maintain a close relationship with your mother, who is 87 years old. Your father is 90 years old. You have a younger brother and sister.
27You went to school at Andamooka High and then you went to Scotch College in Adelaide for Year 12, which you did not pass. As an adult you worked as a machine and plant operator and a truck driver in Naracoorte and Alice Springs. You were working in Bendigo in similar occupations until it became known that you had been charged with these offences, at which time you lost your employment.
28You were married in 2017. Your wife is a Vietnamese migrant. You have a stepdaughter aged 17. You and your wife moved from South Australia to Bendigo in 2017 because your wife gained employment at a chicken farm. Your stepdaughter is at school in Melbourne in St Albans. She is in Year 11. I have been told that your wife is making an application for permanent residency, and that you are her sponsor.
29This morning Mr Morgan read to me and sent to my associate an email from a migration agent dealing with the potential impact of a sentence of over 12 months on her application for permanent residency because you are her sponsor. This matter was discussed at some length during this morning's proceedings. In the end it seems to me that I do not have enough material to draw a conclusion that the sentence I will impose will have a probable impact on your wife, and her application for permanent residency, but I do have enough information to conclude that subjectively you are of the view that you have created problems for her application for permanent residency. I will return to the impact of that on your period of imprisonment later in these remarks.
30Returning to your background, you have only had one other romantic or intimate relationship which was in your twenties. I am told that during the course of your relationship with your wife you have suffered from erectile dysfunction which you have not been able to address and there has been little physical intimacy. However, your wife remains supportive of you, and I accept that you understand the difficult position you have put her in by offending in this way.
Offence seriousness
31The principles in sentencing for offences relating to the possession of child pornography, and indeed indecent transmission, are well established. It is clear the most serious offence here is Charge 2, the possession of the child abuse material.
32The children depicted in the images are of course victims of your offending. The content of the images as described in the prosecution summary is disturbing and repugnant. In accessing and possessing these images you supported the market at the heart of which is the serious abuse and exploitation of these children. The protection of these children is a very important sentencing consideration.
33In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Garside,[2] sentencing guidance was provided by the Victorian Court of Appeal. In paragraph 62 of the joint reasons of Their Honours Redlich and Beach JJA, they said this:
“What is clear from all the authorities is that access to child pornography is regarded as very serious morally depraved conduct that is harmful to children. The authorities speak with one voice that a term of immediate imprisonment will ordinarily be expected for such offending … .”[3]
[2] [2016] VSCA 74
[3] DPP v Garside (ibid) at paragraph [62]
34Of course that proposition must be considered in the circumstances of the individual case that is being dealt with, but since that decision for Commonwealth offences, pursuant to s 20(1)(b)(ii) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act (Cth), a sentence of imprisonment is mandated for a child sex offence in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Both Charges 1 and 2 are child sex offences. It is not submitted in this case that exceptional circumstances exist.
35In Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith,[4] Nettle JA said this:
“… general deterrence is regarded as the paramount sentencing consideration - because of the public interest in stifling the provision and use of child pornography; and less or limited weight is given to an offender’s prior good character because it has been the experience of the courts that such offences are committed frequently by persons otherwise of good character.”[5]
[4] [2010] VSCA 215
[5] DPP v Smith (ibid) at paragraph [23]
36The difficulty of detection because of the anonymity provided by the internet and the prevalence of offending such as this, are further factors which support the primary role of general deterrence in sentencing for such offences.
37The authorities establish that the following factors should be considered in the assessment of the nature and the circumstances of the offending:
· the nature and content of the material, in particular the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity depicted;
· the number of items or images possessed;
· whether the material is for the purposes of sale or further distribution, and whether the offender will profit from the offence;
· in a case of possession or access of child pornography for personal use, the number of children depicted and thereby victimised; and
· the length of time for which the pornographic material was possessed.
38The Prosecution submitted that serious aspects of your offending include that some of the images and videos were highly depraved, showing children engaged in sexual acts including penetration with adult males; the children in the images and videos often appeared distressed; the total number of child abuse files is significant; the number of children depicted is also significant; the offending was not isolated or an aberration, because it is clear that you had the material in your possession for some time and acquired it over an extended period, and you had the material for sexual gratification. I accept the submissions of the prosecution although I note that the number of images and videos, whilst significant, is not particularly large comparative to what is often detected in cases such as this. Additionally I have not been provided with breakdown of how much of the material falls into the more serious categories of child abuse material, but it is clear that a percentage of this material was depraved and very serious material.
39Assessing the same considerations, Mr Morgan on your behalf submitted that your possession of child abuse material was for personal use, and you did not have any intention to produce, sell or distribute the material. Further, Mr Morgan submitted that you did not purchase the child abuse material and thereby did not directly financially support the market, and that you were not involved in a network of collaborative likeminded offenders. He characterised the offending as unsophisticated.
40In assessing these offences, I have considered the absence of the aggravating circumstances referred to by Mr Morgan in his written submissions and in oral argument. Of course, the absence of such aggravating circumstances does not reduce the seriousness of your offending in this case.
41Mr Morgan further submitted, based on the psychiatric report of Dr Lester Walton, that you do not have a sexual interest in children. He relied on the following passage from Dr Walton’s report:
“It is common indeed for offenders found to be in possession of child abuse materials (often in vast amounts), as well as having engaged in sexualised conversations with purported children, to deny any meaningful sexual interest in children, citing boredom or curiosity and it would seem likely that many of these men are not meaningful paedophiles.”
42Dr Walton also set out your explanation for the offending; namely, that in the context of sexual frustration, you started looking at adult pornography and came across child pornography whilst doing so. You said you were bored, and it was something to do. You described yourself as having no life.
43Whilst I accept the contextual circumstances you described to Dr Walton, I reject the submission that you have no sexual interest in children.
44What Dr Walton says is that it is common for men in your position to deny such a sexual interest. He says, “it would seem likely that many of these men are not meaningful paedophiles”. In using the term “meaningful paedophiles” he is clearly referring to offenders likely to engage in direct sexual offending against children. You may well fall into the category of men Dr Walton is referring to as not being “a meaningful paedophile,” but that does not mean that by looking at this material over years you do not have a sexual interest in children. In my opinion, it is self-evident from the offending that you do have a such a sexual interest and that you derived sexual gratification from the material. Why else would you look at this repugnant material?
45In respect of Charge 1, Mr Morgan has set out in his written submissions the absence of various aggravating factors, including that you did not initiate the indecent communication and made no attempt to seek any actual contact or contact details with the child involved, and that the text communications were relatively short lived. However, the circumstances of Charge 1 involve you engaging in sexual conversation with a person you believed to be an 11-year-old female, saying you would practice sex with her, so it is a serious offence requiring general deterrence and meriting a period of imprisonment.
46Finally, it is clear that general deterrence must be the primary sentencing purpose in this case.
Psychiatric factors
47A psychiatric report was provided by Dr Lester Walton. Dr Walton said that you provided a history of depressed mood reaching back to childhood with recurring suicidal thoughts. He said you suffer from chronic depression. Mr Morgan submitted that your moral culpability is reduced by the chronic depression referred to in Dr Walton’s report. Dr Walton said this:
“It is probably obvious from what I have stated above that I do regard this man’s chronic depressive condition as having made at least some contribution to the offending. … .”
48I have taken this matter into account as marginally reducing your moral culpability. This factor cannot justify a significant reduction in the assessment of your moral culpability given the absence of a clear and direct connection to the offending, and because it is not suggested that you did not understand the wrongfulness of your conduct. Your chronic depression which I accept based on the diagnosis of Dr Walton, a very experienced forensic psychiatrist, seems to me to be a factor in the background making some contribution to this offending which justifies some modest reduction in the assessment of your moral culpability. Similarly, in my opinion, a modest reduction in the weight to be given to general deterrence is also appropriate. I also accept Dr Walton’s opinion that a person suffering chronic depression will endure incarceration as more onerous than someone without such a condition, and I also take that into account as a mitigating factor.
Character
49You have no prior convictions. I previously referred to sentencing authorities that deal with that factor. I do accept that you were a person of good character until your immersion into child abuse material. I have taken this into account subject to the necessity to give prominence to general deterrence as a sentencing purpose.
50Mr Morgan referred me to the comments in Garside,[6] Priest JA said:
“… So long as a sentencing judge always bears steadily in mind that general deterrence must be seen as a prominent factor in the exercise of the sentencing discretion for child pornography offences, a judge is entitled to give such weight to good character as is appropriate in all of the circumstances of the particular case.”
[6] (Supra) at paragraph [94]
51I have applied those principles in sentencing in this case.
Rehabilitation
52The absence of prior convictions is also a factor in your favour in the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. However, your denial of a sexual interest in children notwithstanding the facts of the case and your disinterest in “mental health assistance” as indicated by Dr Walton, mean I can only take a guarded view of your prospects of rehabilitation.
53Still, this will be your first sentence of imprisonment and therefore the period you must serve is likely to weigh heavily on you at your age and with your psychological profile. I do anticipate that for you any period of immediate imprisonment I impose will send a clear message to you regarding the consequences of further offending of this nature.
54In this way it seems to me the operation of specific deterrence will assist your prospects of rehabilitation. Furthermore, I will impose as a requirement of release on recognisance that you are to undertake what is effectively a community correction order including assessment for a sex offenders’ program.
55In those circumstances, I have some optimism you will not reoffend. I have also taken into account the effect on the operation of the prisons of the COVID-19 pandemic. I accept that the pandemic is still having some impact, although perhaps declining on the situation for prisoners and increases to some extent the burden of your imprisonment.
56Additionally, as I have foreshadowed, I take into account your view that the period of imprisonment that I must impose on you will impact on your wife's application for permanent residency. You must serve your sentence knowing that you have left your wife alone in the community, and with a belief that your conduct and your period of imprisonment will impact on her application for permanent residency, so I take that matter into account as increasing the burden of imprisonment on you.
57As I have indicated, I am of the view there is insufficient material before me to draw any conclusions as to the probable impact on your wife pursuant to s 16A(2)(p).
Current sentencing practices
58Finally, I have had regard to the cases referred to in the Prosecution submissions and the cases referred to in the Prosecution table which was provided. I have also had regard to similar cases in the Sentencing Manual summaries. Current sentencing practices are one of the many matters I must regard to in deciding the sentence in this case. They are a guide but not a controlling factor.
Concurrency / Cumulation
59Whilst a presumption of cumulation exists in respect of the two offences on the indictment because they are child sex offences, I have formed the view that a sentence that is appropriate in severity can be imposed without full cumulation between the charges. I will impose some cumulation to reflect the separate criminality involved in Charge 1.
Submissions
60The Prosecution submitted that the only appropriate sentencing disposition is a term of imprisonment involving an immediate period to be served in custody prior to release on a recognisance order pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act (Cth).
61Mr Morgan really made the same submission in the end, but emphasising that the period of immediate imprisonment in his submission should be a “short and sharp” period. He really submitted imprisonment, in combination with a community correction order, was appropriate. In the end a period of imprisonment followed by release on a recognisance is the appropriate sentence in this case.
Sentence
62Mr Blok, you are sentenced as followed:
· In relation to Charge 1, you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of three months.
· In relation to Charge 2, you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 18 months. Charge 2 is effectively the base sentence, and the commencement date for that sentence is 27 October 2022, which is the date I remanded you in custody. So in that way you are credited with the time that you served on remand awaiting the sentence in this case.
· The sentence for Charge 1 is to commence one month before the expiration of the sentence on Charge 2, which makes a total effective sentence of 20 months.
63If you agree, I will release you under section 20(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act (Cth) 1914 after serving eight months of the term of imprisonment and upon you giving security by recognizance of $1,000 to comply with the following conditions:
A. that you are of good behaviour for a period of 20 months; and
B. that you are to be under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner, Community Correctional Services and Sex Offender Management or his or her nominee for a period of 20 months; and
C. that you are to attend for assessment and, if assessed as suitable, treatment pursuant to a sex offender program or programs to reduce re-offending as directed by Deputy Commissioner, Community Correctional Services and Sex Offender Management or his or her nominees; and
D. that you are to report to Bendigo Community Corrections Centre, within two days after your release from custody.
64This is effectively a community corrections order to come into force at the time of the recognisance release. You have to obey all reasonable directions of Corrections. You cannot travel interstate or overseas without the written permission of Corrections. As I said, you have to undertake any treatment or rehabilitation programs as directed.
65You have to attend at Bendigo Community Corrections at 3 William Vahland Place, Bendigo, within two clear working days of your release from custody. You have to report and receive visits from the Community Corrections officer. If you change your address or your place of employment you have to notify Corrections within two working days. As I said, you have to attend for the assessment for the sex offender program.
66So those are the conditions. It is a recognisance in the amount of $1000. The effect of this recognisance release order is to grant you conditional freedom after eight months of the period of imprisonment. You are to be of good behaviour obviously and participate in these programs. If you breach the recognisance release order either by reoffending or by not participating in the programs that I have ordered, then you will be brought back before me, to be dealt with for that breach and you may well be required to serve the remaining term of imprisonment. It may also mean that you would forfeit the sum of $1000.
67Mr Holmes, is that expressed correctly?
68MR HOLMES: Your Honour, I apologise for not raising this sooner. I think we briefly discussed it, but in the intervening period we received instructions about the backdating of the sentence.
69HIS HONOUR: I see, yes.
70MR HOLMES: I am instructed that there is no - - -
71HIS HONOUR: It should start today.
72MR HOLMES: And pre-sentence detention be recognised.
73HIS HONOUR: The sentencing manual suggests I can backdate it.
74MR HOLMES: My understanding, Your Honour.
75HIS HONOUR: I should have gone to the Act, Mr Holmes.
76MR HOLMES: My understanding, Your Honour, from the sentencing manual is that the sentence can only be backdated on appeal to the date of being taken into custody.
77HIS HONOUR: So the commencement date of the sentence is today, namely
29 November. So what is that, 32 days, is it? Just give me the exact figure.78MR HOLMES: The plea was conducted on 28 October, Your Honour.
79HIS HONOUR: I had the 27th. It was the 28th, was it?
80MR HOLMES: I believe so. Let me just double check that, Your Honour.
81HIS HONOUR: What date did you have, Mr Morgan?
82MR MORGAN: Friday, Your Honour. I think it was 28 October.
83HIS HONOUR: So the 28th, so how many days does that make, not including today?
84MR HOLMES: My calculation, Your Honour, is 32 days.
85HIS HONOUR: So 32 days. I will allow 32 days of pre-sentence detention on Charge 2, which effectively takes the matter back to the date that you went into custody. What section is that done under, Mr Holmes?
86MR HOLMES: The pre-sentence detention, Your Honour? The Victorian section.
87HIS HONOUR: That picks up the Victorian section, I see. That is what I will do. I will order that.
88Charges 1 and 2 are Class 2 offences within the meaning of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) and are registrable offences.
89Therefore, having been found guilty of two Class 2 offences, the reporting period under the Sex Offenders Registration Act is 15 years. Mr Blok, you will be provided with documentation with respect to the Sex Offenders Registration Program. You will need to sign a receipt in relation to that.
90
We will have to scan the material, send it through to the prison and have Mr Blok sign the recognisance, so we will just have that arranged now. That will be done and those documents will be sent through to you, Mr Morgan, and to you,
Mr Holmes.
91Is there any other clarification of the orders required? You sought a forfeiture order?
92MR HOLMES: Yes, Your Honour, a forfeiture order which I provided to your chambers and my friend this morning.
93
HIS HONOUR: In terms of custody management issues it will be noted that
Mr Blok suffers from chronic depression. I would imagine that has already been addressed. No other clarification required, Mr Morgan?
94MR MORGAN: No, thank you, Your Honour.
95HIS HONOUR: Thanks both of you for your assistance in this matter and I will adjourn.
- - -
0
3
0