Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v El Masri
[2022] VCC 549
•20 April 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Un-Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-19-02394.1
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH) |
| v |
| MOUSTAFA EL MASRI |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF PLEA: | 18 March 2022 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 April 2022 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP (Cth) v El Masri |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 549 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE
Catchwords: Import tobacco products with intention of defrauding the revenue
Legislation Cited: Customs Act 1901 s 233BABAD(1); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2)(p), s 20(1)(b); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Barakat v DPP (Cth) [2020] VSCA 185; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; DPP v Nasser [2022] VCC 387; Markovic v The Queen [2010] 30 VR 589
Sentence:Convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment, to be released after serving 18 months on recognisance of $2000, to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months.
Section 6AAA: Five years imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of three years and four months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) | J. Saunders | Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | A. Chernok (for Plea) D. Georgiou (for Sentence) | Melasecca Kelly & Zayler |
HIS HONOUR:
1.Moustafa El Masri, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of importing tobacco products with the intention of defrauding the revenue contrary to s 233BABAD(1) of the Customs Act 1901 ('the Customs Act'). The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment.
Introduction
2.The Customs Act regulates the importation of tobacco products by requiring importers to pay duty. At the time of your offending the duty payable was $0.80726 per cigarette. The law defines importation broadly and importation embraces activities that follow the arrival of the goods in Australia such as, arranging to take delivery or taking delivery, or storing the cigarettes, which is part of what you did in this case.
Circumstances of the offending
3.I'll turn to the circumstances of the offending which were summarised extensively in the Prosecution Opening.
4.In early January 2019, a customs broker firm, 20 Cube Logistics, prepared a Full Import Declaration (‘FID’) in respect of a container due to arrive from China in the following days. The container was addressed to Australian Furniture Pty Ltd (‘Australian Furniture’), and the declared contents of the container were 390 cartons of office furniture. The valuation in the FID was $22,510.41 with the duty payable by Australian Furniture to be $2,677.61.
5.On 10 January 2019, 20 Cube Logistics emailed an invoice to Australian Furniture requesting payment of $5,791.51 for the release of the container. This amount included the duty payable, as well as other associated costs. Later that day, 20 Cube Logistics received an emailed photograph of a cash deposit slip in the sum of $5,791.51 into the 20 Cube Logistics account. It was you who had made the cash deposit at Westpac in Roxburgh Park. The container was due for release on 14 January 2019.
6.You asked an associate of yours, Ibrahim Mounajed, to unload some boxes in the forthcoming week. Mr Mounajed was the nephew of Fadi Mounajed, a co-offender of yours, or at least Fadi Mounajed was charged with an offence arising from these circumstances.
7.On 11 January 2019 the container arrived in Australia from China. At about 8.26 am you sent Ibrahim text messages reminding him to pick up a Budget truck and arranging to meet him and Fadi later on.
8.At 9.34 am, Fadi Mounajed attended Budget in Campbellfield with Ibrahim and another man. Earlier, he had arranged to rent two Budget trucks and he paid the rental by credit card. Fadi and the others, drove the trucks from Budget to a factory in Campbellfield.
9.On 12 January 2019 a mobile number 0404 962 028 that was used in the circumstances of these offences was activated in your wife’s name. On the following day 13 January 2019, $30.00 credit was purchased for the phone. On
12 January also, Australian Border Force ('ABF') examined the container and located 10,714,000 cigarettes inside the container. The container was resealed and returned to the wharf for the ABF to conduct a controlled delivery of the container.10.On 14 January 2019, at around 6.30 am, you leased a truck from a rental company ORIX in Laverton.
11.That morning, Fadi Mounajed drove in his VW Hatchback, to 100 The Panorama, Mickleham ('the Mickleham property') and met with you. He left his car there and drove with you in your Hilux vehicle. At around 11.00 am, you met a group of five men at the Campbellfield factory. The men had been hired by another man named El Houli, to unpack the container and were going to be paid $100 each, which you were to give them in cash.
12.You opened the factory gates, let them inside the factory and then left. The ORIX truck and one of the Budget trucks were inside the premises.
13.At about 12.33 pm, a company called, Nite Flight Logistics collected the container from the wharf and took it to a holding yard for delivery to the factory.
14.At around 1 pm, 20 Cube Logistics informed you the container would be transported between 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock pm that day. The container arrived at the factory at 3.54 pm. You guided the truck with the container into the factory. One of the men opened the container and it was full of cardboard boxes containing the substituted cigarettes. The men began loading the boxes onto pallets which they put onto the back of the Budget truck at the factory.
15.During the unpacking of the container, you moved two boxes containing cigarettes into a white van at the front of the factory. The cigarette were 'Capital' and 'Black Mount' brands. At this time, Ibrahim Mounajed asked you 'What’s in the truck?' and you said, 'Smokes'. When Fadi arrived that afternoon, the container was open, and he saw a group of men moving boxes from the container to a Budget truck. He was aware the boxes contained cigarettes.
16.By about 4.20 pm, the truck had been loaded with 2,624,000 cigarettes. Fadi drove it away from the factory. At that time, the ABF approached to execute a search warrant and requested Fadi to stop but he drove off. About 20 minutes later, he arrived at the Mickleham property. He met an unknown person there, and handed over the keys, retrieved his vehicle and left the property.
17.Meanwhile the ABF forcibly entered the factory, after you had refused them entry. The men unpacking the container told ABF officers that you were overseeing the unpacking of the container and that the white van at the factory was yours. The Nissan van was later identified as being registered to the man named El Houli.
18.At 4.27 pm, ABF officers entered the factory to execute a search warrant. The ORIX truck was present with its rear doors open and boxes of cigarettes were being loaded onto a forklift at the rear of the container. There were 8,090,000 cigarette sticks still in in the container at this point.
19.During the execution of the warrant, you refused to provide the ABF with a pin code to a mobile phone in your possession and at around 9.45 pm, you remotely wiped all the information from the mobile and it returned to factory settings and the information on the phone could not be accessed.
20.In your record of interview, after you'd been arrested, you denied knowledge of what was in the boxes. You said you would have received $200 in cash, for the job - that was plainly untrue, in my view. You said that you were at the factory as labour and that you arrived about half an hour before the ABF arrived. You denied knowing the others involved including Fadi Mounajed. The police obtained details about him from mobile phones connected to you.
21.On 22 February 2019, the ABF executed a search warrant at your house. Several items were seized, including multiple packets of illicit branded cigarettes, a computer, various mobile phones and a phone voucher used to recharge one of those - the mobile phone on 13 January 2019.
22.On 19 February 2019, the ABF executed a search warrant at Fadi Mounajed's residence, who was the driver of the Budget truck which left the factory full of cigarettes on 14 January.
23.On 19 February 2019, the ABF executed a search warrant at the Mickleham property and located a 'Monaco' brand cigarette which was one of the brand of cigarettes contained within the container.
24.So that's a summary of some of the salient features of the offending in this case. I have had regard to all of the matters in the Prosecution Opening. Additionally, one of your mobile phones was examined and found to contain a number of messages indicating your involvement in this importation and your involvement in relation to the illegal cigarettes themselves with requests from people for the sale of cigarettes, and messages about prices of various imported cigarette brands.
25.Mr Mounajed was prosecuted for the offence of conveying goods, being tobacco products, knowing the goods were imported with the intent to defraud the revenue.
26.The prosecution case was that he was paid the sum of $5,000 to transport the tobacco products from the factory to another address. He was sentenced by Her Honour Judge Hassan to 1 year and 8 months and ordered that he be released immediately on a recognisance release order to be of good behaviour for two years. The amount of the recognisance was $1,000.
27.The total amount of the cigarettes imported was $10,714,000 and the duty evaded was $8,648,983.64.
Principles
28.In sentencing you for these offences, I must have regard to the sentencing factors set out in s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). In the case of Barakat v DPP (Cth) [2020] VSCA 185, Niall JA observed that the maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for this offence was increased in 2012, to address the illegal importation of tobacco and tobacco products and provide a strong deterrent to those involved in illegal smuggling of tobacco products, whether by importation or possession. His Honour characterised the offence as one against the revenue and said the offending must be viewed in the context of taxation, undermining the ability of the Governments to raise revenue in a fair and accountable way. [1]
[1]Barakat v DPP (Cth) [2020] VSCA 185 at 53
29.Moreover, as submitted by the prosecution, tobacco smuggling erodes the health measures in place to mitigate the harmful effects of smoking because it facilitates the sale of cheap tobacco, which is not subject to quality control. Crimes such as yours are difficult to detect, and they offer not insignificant financial rewards; therefore, general deterrence must be emphasised. Important considerations in sentencing include the role of the offender: for example, whether the offender was a principal or taking instructions from others; the sophistication or otherwise of the offending; the period over which the offences were committed. The quantity of tobacco imported, and the amount of duty evaded, are also significant factors.
30.Whilst it is not suggested by the prosecution that you were a principal in this importation, in the sense of being one of the organising minds of the importation, or that you were to receive the profits directly from the sale of the cigarettes, I accept the prosecution's submission that you had a managerial role in relation to this container once it had arrived in Australia.
31.From the evidence you appeared to be in control of the operation to unload the container once it had arrived. I do not know what financial reward you were to receive, but I infer beyond reasonable doubt that given your important role and the risks associated with this activity, it was to be significant.
32.Fadi Mounajed was sentenced on the basis that he was to be paid $5,000. I would infer that given your role, your reward was to be more significant than that and it goes without saying and I reject the account you gave in the record of interview of being paid $200.
33.The amount of duty evaded here, and the number of cigarettes imported was extremely large. This is a large-scale example of this sort of offending by any measure.
34.Your involvement in this offending included planning, premeditation, organisation, and the deployment of resources; although I do accept it wasn't highly sophisticated; and you were not a controlling mind of this importation; and that you must have been taking instructions from others at some level.
35.Applying the principles set out in the authorities, which apply to offending such as this, I accept the prosecution submission that this is a serious example of the offence.
Guilty plea
36.I turn now to your guilty plea.
37.You pleaded guilty on 4 October last year, 2021, two days after a sentence indication hearing. Whilst this cannot be characterised as a plea at the earliest opportunity, I am nonetheless satisfied your plea is indicative of some remorse and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. Your plea has saved the court, the time and the resources involved in a trial. It is my opinion that a trial in this matter, would have been a complex and a substantial drain on court resources. The utilitarian value of the plea is substantial, and it is heightened in the current circumstances where the court faces a very substantial backlog of trials, resulting from the suspension of jury trials during the pandemic. This increased utilitarian value of the guilty plea was recognised by the Court of Appeal decision of Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 and in other recent cases. I apply the principles in those authorities. The sentencing discount must be palpable. You pleaded guilty notwithstanding my indication that an immediate prison sentence was inevitable. You could have delayed this consequence for a considerable further period, but you decided to plead guilty and take responsibility for your offending. In the circumstances you must receive a significant sentencing discount for your guilty plea.
Personal circumstances
50.Your personal circumstances were outlined in the psychological report of
Mr Luke Armstrong, which was tendered as an exhibit on the plea. You were born in Melbourne to parents who had fled the civil war in Lebanon. You are now aged 37. You are the second youngest of eight siblings who are aged between 54 and 35 years old.51.When you were growing up, your parents worked in factories but then retired due to health issues. You describe your family when you were growing up as experiencing financial difficulties. Mr Armstrong characterised your relationship with your parents as healthy and supportive, during your childhood.
52.You grew up in Preston and attended a state primary school where you described being bullied for your ethnicity and your speech impediment. You recounted experiences of students stealing your possessions and throwing food at you. You say that this bullying left a lasting mark on you.
53.You then went to Darebin Secondary College and it was around that time your father suffered a work injury and could no longer support the family financially. You then began working with your brother cleaning factories. You also had worked at Safeway and as a waiter. You indicate you worked seven days a week as an adolescent.
54.Your brother Fouad, developed a severe heroin addiction when you were 15, which created substantial difficulties in your family life. Nonetheless, you were able to maintain your grades and completed Year 12.
55.You then started a Diploma of Accounting and did well enough to transfer to a Bachelor degree at Melbourne University at the age of 21. And this is where you met your wife, Jamilla and she has provided a reference for you which I will refer to later in these remarks. Her parents did not support your relationship and as a result of her relationship with you, she has been estranged from her family.
56.When your wife became pregnant you deferred your enrolment at university, because you would not have been able to manage study and full-time work with looking after a child. You have been married for some 17 years. Your wife is a qualified accountant. She has been a full-time caregiver to your children. You are described in the material as an active and involved father.
57.In your early twenties you worked as a truck driver and at a paper company. When your father was diagnosed with lung cancer you became his full-time carer. At the age of 26 you established a towing company and later, a panel beating business. You have always worked in some area of the vehicle trade; apparently since the beginning of this year you have been driving an Uber.
58.I am told and I accept that the COVID-19 pandemic led to a down-turn in your business. Mr Chernok submitted it was in the context of some financial difficulty that you decided to engage in this criminal enterprise, although that - the circumstances in which you became involved are not entirely clear.
59.Your father passed away from cancer in 2010. I am told that you have a role as a primary carer to your mother Fatima, who suffers from varicose veins, knee problems and uses a walking frame.
References
60.I have had regard to the character references or letter of support, tendered on your behalf.
61.Your wife said you are her best friend and the backbone of her support network. She described the significant role you play in the upbringing of your children.
62.Mr Mohtadi is the director of a multicultural youth centre, he described you as a good and honest person. He said that you regularly volunteer with the centre. You are well-liked and respected in the community.
63.Mr Yehia is a marriage celebrant and a community worker who has known you for 15 years. He detailed the assistance that you and your wife provided in planning and delivering fundraisers for various organisations. He was full of praise for your character and described this offending as out of character for you.
64.A man named, Mr Luke Melido has known you for 10 years. He met you through your towing services that you provided to his company, and he said that he was shocked to learn of the charges against you. He described you as hard-working, reliable and a supportive and caring friend.
65.Finally, Mr Mouhamad who operates collision repair garages has known you for many years, because your families have been friends. He described you as a dedicated father, a loyal friend and a person with a strong work ethic. He attests to your diligence, your know-how and your trustworthiness. He continues to support you. He says you have expressed remorse.
66.I have taken all these letters into account in deciding upon the appropriate sentence in this case. I turn now to the issue of family circumstances and hardship.
Family circumstances and hardship
67.You have five children with your wife; Mohamed aged 14, Isaac aged 13, Ibrahim aged eight and twins, Ahmed and Nadia – both seven years old. Ibrahim suffers from a chronic asthma-like condition and Mohamed has a heart defect which restricts his physical activity and requires visits to the Royal Melbourne Children’s Hospital from time to time. I have had regard to the letter from Dr Hassan Hamie and the other medical material tendered in relation to these issues.
68.Your mother Fatima, I am told suffers from varicose veins and uses a walking frame. I am told you shoulder the primary responsibility for looking after her. She does live with your older brother, but he has the drug addiction issues, which I referred to earlier. He takes methadone and he was described on the plea as unreliable.
69.Mr Chernok, your counsel, submitted the combination of the following factors constitutes exceptional hardship: that you have two children with serious medical conditions; that your wife will be left caring for six children; that you have responsibility to look after your mother; and that there will be significant financial hardship relating to a $200,000 mortgage still owing on the family home.
70.No evidence was called as to the precise issues with your mother and the alternative ways in which she might be cared for, or the exact financial circumstances of you family, or what precisely is required in relation to the health issues of your children.
71.Section 16A(2)(p) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), requires me to have regard to the probable effect that any sentence or order under consideration would have on any of the persons family or dependents. This section has been interpreted in line with the common law position that such hardship is only mitigating in exceptional circumstances. Cogent evidence that imprisonment would expose your children, your wife and your mother to exceptional hardship is required.
72.Exceptional circumstances may be established by a combination of lesser hardships to multiple family members.
73.In the case of Markovic v The Queen [2010] 30 VR 589, at paragraph 77, the court described the requirement of exceptional circumstances in the following terms:
Whether or not in any particular case of family hardship gives rise to exceptional circumstances must be a question of fact and degree. In answering that question, it is necessary to have regard to the admonition often stated in the authorities that such cases will be rare.
74.The prosecutor, Mr Saunders submitted that the combination of factors relied on, do not meet the exceptional hardship test. In my opinion, the matters relied on, fall short of establishing exceptional circumstances as required in the authorities, however this does not mean that these circumstances are irrelevant to sentencing in this case. I am satisfied that the burden and the weight of the sentence of imprisonment I impose will be substantially increased by these factors, and that this a mitigating matter of significance in this case.
75.In Mr Armstrong's report, he said the following:
From observation today, and corroboration gained by his wife, I can confirm that Mr El Masri is deeply connected to his wife and children. And Mr El Masri accurately articulated that his older son is entering a sensitive developmental age. He says, "He will be the man of the house if I get locked up, but he should not be thinking like that at his age." Mr El Masri reports that separating from his son will be detrimental to his development and I would tend to agree. Mr El Masri has been such a significant figure in his son's life that any separation from his father would be detrimental to his development.'
'I would extend this opinion to Mr El Masri's sons and his twins. Mr El Masri personally runs and maintains his three businesses, all of which rely on his actual presence and operation on a daily basis. Mr El Masri's family is understandably complex, I would venture to suggest that your client's family is in fact significantly fragile. Mr El Masri has an essential role in both the material, logistical and emotional support of his immediate and extended family. It is my view that a sense of incarceration would bring about both arduous suffering to your client's own mental health in addition to the actual collapse of his family's financial and emotional circumstances.'[2]
[2] Psychological Report of Mr Luke Armstrong dated 17 March 2022 at page 5
76.In assessing the burden and the weight of the period of imprisonment I will impose in this case; I have taken into account the matters referred to by
Mr Armstrong in his report.Criminal history
77.You have a prior conviction from 2012 at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court for charges relating to obtain property by deception and make a false document. Given the time that's elapsed since then, I do not regard this prior conviction as of any real significance to the sentencing in this case. Although, you do not have the benefit of an unblemished history.
Delay
78.It is over three years, since you were arrested and charged. The delay in this case, is certainly partially due to the disruption of the criminal justice system from the pandemic. Of course, until the sentencing indication hearing last year, you had intended to plead not guilty. Nonetheless, you have had to wait three years for your case to be finalised, knowing that a period of imprisonment was looming, and that you would be leaving your wife and children in an invidious financial position, and concerned about the health of your children and your mother's health as well.
79.I accept that this delay has caused you a level of stress and anxiety and I have taken this matter into account in deciding the sentence in this case.
Custody
80.I accept that your time in prison will be more onerous because of the restrictions in prison in response to the pandemic. We may be getting to the tail end of the pandemic, but it's hard to know how long restrictions will prevail within the prison. It seems to me that certainly for the foreseeable future, you will experience a level of restriction within the prison that will make the serving of the sentence more onerous.
Prospects of rehabilitation
81.This was serious offending and for that reason the prosecution submitted I should exercise caution in assessing your prospects of rehabilitation. The defence's submission is that you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation. I have formed the view that you do have good prospects for rehabilitation. You have a solid employment record, you are a mature man in a stable relationship with support in the community. You have responsibilities to your children and you have every reason to avoid further offending. By your guilty plea you have taken responsibility for your offending. You have no history of prior convictions, indicating ongoing criminal activity.
82.Whilst it is a cause for caution that you saw a chance to make money and engage in this serious offending. As I say, I have ultimately formed the view that you have good prospects of rehabilitation. I have read and had regard to the comparative cases referred to on the plea, and in the prosecution table which were of considerable assistance. I have also considered the decision of Judge Mullaly in the case of DPP v Nasser [2022] VCC 387, which was brought to my attention by the defence in an email sent yesterday.
83.That case is an interesting example of the County Court sentence, after a sentence indication in the post Worboyes environment, involving a serious case of tobacco importation offending. It has some parallels to this case, but of course there are significant differences. And that is so, in respect of all of the comparative cases. The cases referred to are indicative of current sentencing practices, which are a guide but not a controlling factor, in fixing the period to be served in this case.
84.Pursuant to s 16AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I am required to impose a sentence, which is of the severity appropriate to all the circumstances of the offence. Section 17A(1) provides that a sentence of imprisonment should not be imposed, unless no other sentence is appropriate in all of the circumstances of the case. In this case in the end, Mr Chernok sensibly conceded that the only appropriate sentence in this case was one of imprisonment, immediate imprisonment.
85.Giving the scale of the offending in this case, more than 10 million cigarettes imported and more than $8 million of duty evaded, and your managerial role over the container, the need for general deterrence is significant. Considerations of general deterrence, adequate punishment and denunciation, dictate that the only appropriate sentence is one of immediate imprisonment.
86.However, I must also consider your rehabilitation and ultimate reintegration into the community. I have given considerable thought to whether I should release you, after a period of imprisonment on a recognisance release order or fix a head sentence with a non-parole period. This is very serious offending, general deterrence is the paramount factor in the sentencing, but in this case the sentencing discount for the plea of guilty must be significant. This would have been a complicated trial, and as I said earlier, you pleaded guilty in the face of knowing that a period of imprisonment would follow, and therefore avoided the drain on the court resources, that a trial would have occasioned.
87.In my view, this, your first sentence of imprisonment will weigh extremely heavily on you in the circumstances that I've described at some length in this sentence, and which are set out in detail in Mr Armstrong's report. Additionally, I think the delay is a significant matter in mitigation in this case. Ultimately, I have decided to fix a period of imprisonment, but release you on a recognisance release order. Mr El Masri, if you could please stand now?
88.Look, one further matter I should have mentioned, in terms of parity with - you can just sit down again, with Mr Mounajed, he had a much lesser role, and he pleaded guilty to a different offence to that which you pleaded guilty. And on the plea Mr Chernok didn't argue that there were any significant parity considerations. Your involvement in this was much more significant than his and justifies a longer period of imprisonment, that was - than that which was imposed on him and a period of immediate imprisonment. Mr El Masri, if you could stand again, please?
Sentencing
89.On the charge of importing tobacco products with the intention of defrauding the revenue you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. I order that you are to be released after 18 months, upon entering a recognisance release order, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The recognisance will be in the amount of $2,000 and will be for a period of 18 months.
90.Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but for your plea of the guilty I would have imposed a sentence of five years, with a minimum non-parole period of three years and four months.
91.I'll make the forfeiture order sought by the prosecution and there's no
pre-sentence detention to be declared in this case, that's right isn't it,
Mr Saunders.92.MR SAUNDERS: None, Your Honour.
93.HIS HONOUR: Now, just as far as the recognisance release is
concerned - - -94.MR SAUNDERS: I'm just doing that now, Your Honour.
95.HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you very much.
96.MR SAUNDERS: I should have used the plural, my instructor is just doing that now.
97.HIS HONOUR: Yes.
98.MR SAUNDERS: If I had anything to do with it, it would be - it'd be wrong.
99.HIS HONOUR: No. Any clarification sought in relation to - - -
100.MR GEORGIOU: No (indistinct words) - - -
101.HIS HONOUR: No, all right. Just while that's being done Mr El Masri, the effect from the recognisance release order really is that it operates in the same way a suspended sentence used to operate, you're required to be of good behaviour during the period of the recognisance release. If you're not, the matter can be brought back before me and one of the options would be to impose the balance of the sentence which is 18 months. So, that's one of the options you would face. You can be seated Mr El Masri.
102.VOICE: (Indistinct words), can I just speak to Daniel?
103.HIS HONOUR: Yes, just wait until this is done, all right. We've got a document for you to sign. Do you want me to stand down while we get the document? You can have a chat to him if you like. I'll just stand down. I'll come back in a moment.
(Short adjournment.)
104.HIS HONOUR: All right. Mr El Masri, I'll just explain this to you. The amount of the recognizance in this case if $2,000, the condition of the recognizance is that you are to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months. All right.
Mr Georgiou I'd ask you to have Mr El Masri sign the document.105.MR GEORGIOU: Your Honour my client's just pointed out that you've dated the order the 21st. It should be the 20th.
106.HIS HONOUR: I've written the wrong date. Apologies. All right, do you understand that document Mr El Masri?
107.OFFENDER: Yeah, Your Honour.
108.HIS HONOUR: It requires you to be of good behaviour, and it allows you to be released after 18 months and if you breach it, there can be further proceedings in relation to this matter, then you could serve a further period of imprisonment. Any other questions about the orders? All right. Mr Saunders nothing?
109.MR SAUNDERS: Nothing, Your Honour.
110.HIS HONOUR: All right. I'll just sign the orders. All right, I'll adjourn until tomorrow at 10.30.
- - -
0
4
0