Director of Public Prosecutions v Atiyeh
[2014] VCC 600
•14 April 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-12-00866
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| MOHUMMED ATIYEH | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Parsons | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | ||
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 April 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Atiyeh | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 600 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr Albert | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Defendant | Mr J. Gullaci | Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1 You, Mohummed Atiyeh have pleaded guilty before me to seven counts of burglary and 11 counts of theft. Your co-accused Khaled Jomaa pleaded guilty before me to six counts of burglary, ten counts of theft and a summary offence of driving in a manner dangerous. I sentenced him on 6 August 2013. Exhibit 1 is the prosecution opening for the plea hearing. Exhibit 2 is a summary of plea charges. Given the very detailed opening which comprises 20 pages, I think it appropriate to briefly summarise various matters to which you pleaded guilty.
2 Between 28 June 2011 and 13 August 2011, you and Jomaa committed a series of burglaries and thefts on a number of commercial properties in inner suburban Melbourne, particularly in the area south of the Yarra River. Goods stolen from those commercial properties included luxury cars, laptop computers and mobile phones.
3 On 28 June 2011, forced entry was gained to the business premises of NES Electronic Hire at 41 Brady Street, South Melbourne. 34 laptop computers and computer accessories valued at approximately $50,000 were stolen, and an HTC mobile phone valued at about $500. You each pleaded guilty to those offences of burglary and theft, and that was charge 1 and 2 respectively.
4 Between 11 and 12 July 2011, forced entry was gained by way of the main door to the motor repairer and garage at Europei Motors at 109 Munster Terrace North Melbourne. Keys to cars at the garage were stolen, as were keys to various bollards which prevented the cars from being driven off the premises. That matter concerns only you, Atiyeh, and you have pleaded guilty to charge 3 burglary. A number of items were stolen from Europei Motors, and they included a black 2005 Kawasaki motorcycle valued at $8000, a dark blue 2005 Land Rover valued at $75,000, a 2006 black Peugeot convertible valued at $22,000, and a 2001 BMW which was found burnt out on 27 July 2011.
5 Various other items including registration plates, cash, car repair and a bag of tools were also taken. The cash was in the amount $900, and I’m not informed as to the value of various tools. With respect to this matter, you Atiyeh have pleaded guilty to a rolled up charge number 4 of theft, and this is a continuing criminal enterprise with a maximum penalty of 20 years.
6 On the night of 28 and 29 July 2011, two registration number plates were stolen from a Land Rover parked in South Melbourne, and that gives rise to charge 5, theft, and you both pleaded guilty to that charge.
7 On 31 July 2011, forced entry was gained to the Harvey Norman store at 460 South Road, Moorabbin. Exhibit 1 states that 109 mobile phones and five computer tablets were stolen from the store with a total value of nearly $41,000.
8 Exhibit 2, the summary of plea charges states that 121 mobile phones and five computer tablets were stolen in the same amount, none of which have been recovered. You both pleaded guilty to charges 6 and 7 in respect of those matters.
9 Between 19 July 2011 and 3 August 2011, a set of number plates were stolen from a Harley Davidson motorcycle in East Melbourne, and you both pleaded guilty to charge 8 theft regarding that matter – with respect to that matter.
10 On 3 August 2011, forced entry was gained into the Next Byte computer store at Tin Alley, Melbourne University Union building, Parkville. 37 MacBook computers, nine iPads, nine time capsules, three sets of BOSE sounds docks, and miscellaneous accessories to the total value of $64,000 were stolen and have not been recovered. You both pleaded guilty to charges 9 and 10 in respect of these matters, and with respect, you Atiyeh, charge 10 is a continuing criminal enterprise offence with a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.
11 On 3 and 4 August 2011, two registration plates were stolen from a Land Rover in East Melbourne. They have not been recovered, and you both pleaded guilty to charge 11 in respect of that matter.
12 On 8 August, forced entry was gained into the Optus store at 57 City Road, Southbank. 835 mobile phones of various brands, valued at $281,800 were stolen and have not been recovered. This is a matter to which you have pleaded guilty in respect of charges 12 and 13, and with respect of charge 13, this is a continuing criminal enterprise offence, for the which the maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment.
13 On 12 August 2011, a dark blue Commodore with registration plates was parked in Port Melbourne. Those registration plates were removed, and they have been recovered. That matter gives rise to charge 14 with respect to you, and charge 12 with respect to Jomaa.
14 On 13 August 2011, a resident of 1 Queens Park Road, Melbourne, who owned a garage in the underground car park of the building found that the garage had been forced open, cabinets inside had been opened and there were a large number of items missing. These are broadly described as various items including ADF supplies and clothing, two motorcycle helmets, bottles of wine, the total value of which was estimated at a value slightly in excess of $3500, and most of which has been recovered. That gives rise to charge 15 and 16 with respect to you.
15 The business of Metro AutoHaus is a vehicle car wash located in the basement of 1 Queens Road, Melbourne, and on 13 August 2011, the office of that business was damaged and forced entry gained. That gives rise to charge 17 with respect to you. Keys to the cars which were parked on the premises of Metro AutoHaus, the car wash business, were removed from a draw of the office, and the following vehicles were found missing: an Audi sedan valued at $12,000; a Range Rover station wagon valued at $90,000; a Mercedes station wagon valued at $64,000; an Audi Coupe valued at $150,000; and a Volvo wagon valued at $36,000. The cars listed were stolen from Metro AutoHaus and were all recovered by the police and returned. These matters gives rise to charge 18 with respect to you, and that is a continuing criminal enterprise offence in respect to which the maximum penalty is 20 years.
16 The total value of property stolen by you is estimated to be slightly in excess of $900,000, of which $480,354.22 was recovered, and the total estimated value of the property stolen by Jomaa was slightly in excess of $500,000, of which $125,554.22 was not recovered. See exhibit 2.
17 The history of your plea is somewhat complicated and delayed by the application to change your plea, and your change of solicitors. A chronology of events has been set out and is available in the materials, and that reflects the matter as I understand it. I won’t repeat that history in this sentence.
18 With respect to continuing criminal enterprise matters, Mr Gullaci made some submissions. He did not challenge that charges 4 and 18 are continuing criminal enterprise offences, and it’s my opinion that charges 10 and 13 are also continuing criminal enterprise offences, notwithstanding submissions to him by the contrary.
19 The prosecutor submits in exhibit 1 that charge 4, 10, 13 and 18 were all CCE offences. That was a submission which was developed on 25 June 2013. It apparently caused you to reconsider your plea and change your solicitors which resulted in the significant delay which has occurred in the hearing of your plea. In due course, your new counsel, Mr Gullaci made submissions with respect to that matter, and as I say, it was his submission that only counts 4 and 18 qualify as continuing criminal enterprise offences as defined in the Act. He said those counts contain thefts where one item worth more than $50,000 was stolen. That is there were two vehicles worth more than that.
20 He supplemented those submissions with further written submissions which are exhibit M, and attached to those submissions were various documents including the second reading speech, the explanatory memorandum and a number of cases. He did concede that counts 10 and 13 were not rolled up counts as the authorities had been dealing with them. It was his submission, for example, with respect to one count that as Mr Atiyeh could not have picked up all 835 phones at the one time, as the behaviour would have occurred “over a period of minutes at least”, and that situation is to be contrasted with the situation where an offender obtains one cheque or electronic transfers of one amount of money in express of the $50,000 .
21 He submits that the authorities on the CCE provisions deal with the latter type of offending. He submits that as a result of the ambiguity in the provisions, and lack of detailed authorities to support the prosecution application, the court should refuse to classify counts 10 and 13 as CCE offences. The submissions from the prosecution are exhibit 8. It seems to me there is no requirement that a single item of stolen property must itself be worth $50,000 or more. There are many charges of theft which involve many articles being stolen from the one premises and of course, depending on the scale of the theft, the aggregated amount value of the items stolen may be anything from a modest amount to a very significant amount.
22 The thrust of the legislation is, in my view, aimed at a theft or offence where amounts to a substantial value in excess of $50,000, and in the event the value of the combined number of articles stolen exceeds $50,000, that satisfies the requirements of the legislation. Accordingly, I find charges 4, 10, 13 and 18 are each offences where the value of the property stolen is $50,000 or more, and therefore you are guilty of continuing criminal enterprise offences in respect of each of these charges. I note that three continuing criminal enterprise offences are required to qualify you as a continuing criminal enterprise offender, pursuant to the provisions of section 6H(1)(c), and as a consequence I will record your status as a continuing criminal enterprise offender.
23 There are no victim impact statement filed in this matter. However, it’s clear, from the matters raised in the factual analysis, that there has, been considerable inconvenience occasioned to those persons who have lost their property, albeit for a limited period of time in some cases.
24 As was pointed out by counsel on your behalf, there are some mitigating factors. Firstly, you have pleaded guilty. You are entitled to have that fact taken into account in your favour, and I do so. The community has, by your plea, been spared the time and cost of a trial and/or trials. And, clearly, many witnesses have been spared the ordeal of giving evidence upon your trial and/or trials, and I can tell you that the sentence I intend to impose is far less than would have been imposed had you been found guilty after a trial and/or trials.
25 Further, I take it into account in your favour, you intimated relatively early your intention to plead guilty to these charges. The submissions made on your behalf with respect to these matters involved extensive negotiation in order to reach some agreement in relation to the particular offences to which you ultimately pleaded guilty. I will act, then, on the basis that you intimated relatively early your intention to plead guilty to the charges, notwithstanding your change of plea application, which was not pursued. You say that you were unsure of what the CCE charges meant and you changed solicitors as a consequence. But, in the event, it seems to me the only harm suffered is, ultimately, probably your own, given the delay in sentencing and the extended period you have spent on remand.
26 You were apprehended in the circumstances described in Exhibit 1. And I will act on the basis your plea does indicate remorse for your actions. I have been told a significant amount about your personal history and your circumstances.
27 With respect to you and your co-accused’s prior convictions, you have each admitted to a significant number. Mr Jomaa appeared on 33 occasions between 1992 and 2009, that is, over a period of 17 years, which is reflected in his 18 page criminal history report. He has been in prison before. The most recent offences occurred in 2009, were dealt with in the Magistrates Court and concerned various dishonesty matters similar to those with which I have to deal. On 27 May 2008 he was before the County Court in Melbourne and sentenced to imprisonment of 26 months, with a non-parole of 16 months, for sentences involving burglary, theft and various other matters. In 2007 there was a further jail offence.
28 With respect to you, Mr Atiyeh, there appear to be 18 court appearances between 1992 and 2009, that is, spanning a period of 17 years. Most recently, in 2009 you were in the Magistrates Court at both Melbourne and Heidelberg for matters of dishonesty, possessing weapons without approval. You were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. You were before the County Court at Melbourne on 7 November 2008, and sentenced to three years and three months, with a non-parole period of two years, with respect to a matter involving drugs. I have the advantage of the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Murphy of 31 October 2008, and that’s Exhibit B.
29 Your criminal history reveals, in 2005, matters of resisting police and assaulting police. But then, otherwise, in 2001 there are matters of dishonesty, involving handling and receiving or retaining stolen goods. In 1998, driving whilst disqualified. 1997, you were driving whilst your licence was suspended, as well as other matters involving assaulting police and resisting police. In 1995 there were matters of burglary and theft. In 1994, assaulting and resisting police, and other street offences. In 1993 and 1992 there were matters relating to possession and use of cannabis. In 1992, matters of theft and robbery. Clearly, the prior offences of dishonesty are relevant to my task of sentencing you today.
30 As I said, I have the advantage of the sentencing remarks of Judge Murphy. I also a report of Carla Leckner, Exhibit A. She has helpfully set out your personal history, as well as Judge Murphy. You are now aged 39. You’re the third of five children. You get on all well with all your siblings. And you have two sons, aged nine and – Noah – six. You are currently in a relationship with Kylie, aged 25. Your parents are of Lebanese origins, and you grew up in the northern suburbs. You completed Year 11 at Coburg Technical College, and you left school at the age of 17.
31 It’s clear that you had an unhappy childhood, that you described in some detail to Ms Leckner. There are also matters which you have specified, particularly a return to Tripoli, which caused you great unhappiness. After you completed Coburg Technical School you then began associated with what is described as “bad company” from the Housing Commission area. You worked in various aspects of the building and construction industry, and then moved into the hospitality area and had a catering company. You sought to establish a business at Moonee Ponds, but were swindled by your partner.
32 In your late twenties and early thirties you worked in your mother’s business, which is a Lebanese business in the city. In 2004 you purchased a business known as Club Grill. Unfortunately, this was destroyed by a fire and you lost everything, as it was uninsured. Until that time you had been a regular cannabis user, with occasional use of amphetamines. In despondency after the loss of the business you had acquired, you started using crystal amphetamine, and it became a daily and expensive habit. That caused conflict with your partner, with whom, at the time of Judge Murphy’s sentence, you had an 18 month old child.
33 Before Judge Murphy evidence was called from Ms Seymour’s mother, Ms Sandra Seymour, who had known you since 2003, and apparently you gave her extensive assistance in a restaurant business she operated in St Kilda and she spoke very highly of you. She gave evidence at the time that you have insight into your behaviour, and you have taken action to address your addiction to drugs. She also said you had expressed your remorse to her for your conduct.
34 With respect to your employment, I see the observation of Ms Leckner that since leaving school you estimated that you have been unemployed about 70 per cent of the time. You’ve not really worked at all for the past six to seven years. After recounting your personal history, part of which I have referred to, dealing with your presentation at interview, your drug and alcohol history and your offending behaviour, Ms Leckner undertook some psychometric testing. Your score on the Beck Depression Inventory falls into the extreme range, and that was consistent with your presentation at interview and a diagnosis of clinical depression.
35 Ms Leckner also notes that you appear with residual symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and polysubstance abuse dependency problem, which is in remission on account of your contained environment. Further, it was her observation, after discussing the matter with you, that you had attended Odyssey House in March 2005 as a residential client for about three months. You had left the residential program, and had become an outpatient in Richmond. And you remained clean for about nine months, as it was described to me, and that was a record for you.
36 Further, there were materials presented to me in support of this submission, which comprise the material set out in the folder, which includes various urine drug screen tests, past medical history and correspondence with respect to those tests. I have read the documents in Exhibit D, and Exhibit E, a handwritten document from yourself, dated 23 June. I have had regard to these matters and understand that it’s the view that you have undertaken considerable steps to deal with your drug difficulties, which have clearly had a significant impact on your life for some time.
37 Balanced against this, of course, is the fact that you are to plead guilty to charges of theft of a motor vehicle, and a burglary at the premises of L’Oreal in St Kilda Road, which occurred on 15 December 2012. You will also plead guilty to unlicensed driving and what was described as evading police on 9 January 2013. These matters were described in Exhibit 6, at paragraph 6. As Mr Gullaci rightly concedes, this subsequent offending falls to be considered when determining your prospects of rehabilitation and remorse. In my view, your rehabilitation is best described as a work in progress, and your rehabilitation must be viewed with some circumspection in view of the subsequent matters.
38 Submissions were made on your behalf as to the applicability of the principles in the case of R v. Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269. In due course, Mr Gullaci eschewed any direct reliance on those principles. And I act on the basis that if there be a difference between submissions of your first counsel and Mr Gullaci, your instructions are to rely on the submissions made by Mr Gullaci. Although he did note that prison would be more difficult in your circumstances than that of the ordinary prisoner, for the matters particularly mentioned by Ms Leckner.
39 I accept, in your case, that the principle of totality applies, noting that there are multiple counts in respect of which you fall to be sentenced on the indictment. And, in addition to that, you have breached your parole, and that has ramifications for your sentence. As Justice of Appeal Redlich said in R v. Azzopardi (2011) VSCA 372, and I quote:
Once the sentence satisfies the punitive and mitigatory sentencing objectives for the offender’s overall conduct, the sentence is then proportionate to the offender’s criminality. No justification then exists for a more severe sentence, proportionality and just deserts defining the outer limits of punishment.
40 What is the current period of presentence detention, gentlemen?
41 MR ALBERT: 662 days.
42 HIS HONOUR: That agreed, Mr Habib?
43 MR HABIB: Yes, Your Honour.
44 HIS HONOUR: With respect to the issues of presentence detention, I have been informed that in your case that amounts to 662 days, and I declare that that period of time you have spent in custody is in respect of this sentence, and I direct that such be noted in the records of the court. Exhibit 7 sets out your presentence detention, and how it is to be added up. There is no contest as to the accuracy of that document as at the date it was prepared. And I note that it includes 11 days which are described as “Renzella time”, and I take that matter into account in your favour, as directed by the relevant authorities.
45 With respect to the issues of parity with your co-accused, Jomaa, I note that you are to be sentenced on two more charges than your co-accused. However, he has a more extensive criminal history. That the amounts involved in the crimes committed by you are significantly more than the amount involved in the crimes committed by him. And, of course, finally, you fall to be sentenced in respect of four continuing criminal enterprise offences, and that means the maximum sentence with respect to those particular charges id doubled.
46 Of course, as well as those matters personal to you to which I have referred, including the question of rehabilitation, I must take into account such matters as deterrence, especially general deterrence, which, in my view, is of considerable importance in cases such as this involving, as they do, a significant and substantial series of criminal endeavours, resulting in a substantial amount of property being stolen. I note that approximately half a million dollars worth of property has been recovered, although that leaves, in your case, about $400,000 worth of property that has not been recovered. Specific deterrence, of course, looms large, given the nature of your prior convictions.
47 One must also consider the question of the protection of members of the community from you, and bearing in mind the likelihood of your reoffending, which I find to be significant, in view of your past criminal record, the subsequent offending to which I have referred and your problematic drug use over a very lengthy period. Of course, it’s to be hoped that your recent attempts at weaning yourself from your drug addiction will continue, and you will ultimately be successful in that regard. Certainly, you will have a lengthy period of time in jail in which to ensure that you re-emerge into the community drug-free.
48 There has been delay in the matter coming before me. The offending occurred nearly three years ago, and, of course, the time that has been spent in preparing the various documents and evidence necessary for the prosecution, then the settlement negotiations, and ultimately the plea, have been explained to me. Further, of course, with respect to you, there has been the additional delay occasioned by your change of solicitors and your change of plea application, which was, of course, ultimately withdrawn. I have no doubt that delay has been the cause of some anxiety. And, further, you did utilise part of that time to take steps towards your rehabilitation, and both of those matters weigh in your favour according to the sentencing authorities, and that will be reflected in the sentence.
49 As I say, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice, having regard to your prior convictions and the seriousness of your offending, that in all the circumstances I order that an intimate forensic sample, namely, saliva, be taken from you. That sample may be taken by a doctor or nurse or other authorised person. And a saliva sample is taken by wiping a swab inside your mouth. And although you have consented, if you change your mind I must inform you that the police may use reasonable force to enable that procedure to take place. And I’ve signed that order, and, as I say, it’s dated 7 April.
50 There’s one final matter to which I must refer before I announce sentence in this matter, and that is the consequence which attaches to the fact that you committed the charges during the parole period of a Commonwealth sentence that you were then serving. Exhibit 9 is a document entitled Sentencing Steps, which was helpfully provided by the prosecutor in this matter and not disagreed with by Mr Gullaci. I intend to act upon it. These are, without a doubt, very serious offences, in respect of which I have no alternative to the imposition of custodial sentences in the main.
51 Would you stand please, Mr Atiyeh. You are convicted and sentenced as follows and I will read these fairly slowly so you can make submissions as to the addition:
52 Charge 1, 18 months imprisonment;
53 Charge 2, 12 months imprisonment;
54 Charge 3, 18 months imprisonment;
55 Charge 4, a CCE offence, 18 months imprisonment;
56 Charge 5, a $500 fine;
57 Charge 6, 18 months imprisonment;
58 Charge 7, 12 months imprisonment;
59 Charge 8, a fine of $500;
60 Charge 9, 18 months imprisonment;
61 Charge 10, a continuing criminal enterprise offence, 18 months imprisonment;
62 Charge 11, theft, $500 fine;
63 Charge 12, burglary, 18 months imprisonment;
64 Charge 13, a continuing criminal enterprise offence of theft, 18 months imprisonment;
65 Charge 14, theft, $500 fine;
66 Charge 15, six months imprisonment;
67 Charge 16, 18 months imprisonment;
68 Charge 17, 18 months imprisonment;
69 Charge 18, a continuing criminal enterprise offence, two years imprisonment.
70 You may be seated for a moment, Mr Atiyeh. I just need a moment to – in regard to something.
71 Now, these are the orders of accumulation. The sentence on charge 18 will be the head sentence. That is two years. I direct that the following orders be made regarding accumulation.
72 I direct that 14 months on charge 1, two months on charge 2, two months on charge 3, 10 months on charge 4, five months on charge 6, two months on charge 7, two months on charge 9, eight months on charge 10, two months on charge 12, eight months on charge 13, two months on charge 15, five months on charge 16 and two months on charge 17 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 18 and each other.
73 That means a total effective sentence of seven years and four months and I direct that you serve a minimum term of four years and six months before becoming eligible for parole. There will be total fines of $2000 and I make no order with respect to the time to pay those fines.
74 The sentence that I have just imposed will commence at the end of your outstanding sentence. That is, you will have to serve the unserved balance of your parole, which is one year and three months, and that, as I understand it, will begin today.
75 I will not make a recognisance release order and I am obliged to say why that is the case, in my view, because of the seriousness of your offending, the extent of your relevant prior convictions and, of course, the fact that you committed these offences whilst on that parole.
76 Pursuant to the provisions of s.6AAA, but for your pleas of guilty, I would have ordered a total effective sentence of eight and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six and a half years.
77 I also direct, pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing Act, that there be entered in the records of the court that I have sentenced you as a continuing criminal enterprise offender in respect of charges 4, 10, 13 and 18.
78 Finally, pursuant to the provisions of s.89 of the Sentencing Act, your licence possessed by you are cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any further licences for a period of three years. Now, gentlemen.
79 MR ALBERT: I think that’s for charges 4 and 18, Your Honour.
80 HIS HONOUR: Say again?
81 MR ALBERT: Charges 4 and 18.
82 HIS HONOUR: In respect of charges 4 and 18. Thank you. Now, Mr Albert.
83 MR ALBERT: Yes, Your Honour.
84 HIS HONOUR: Is there anything that I need to do that I haven’t done with respect to that sentence?
85 MR ALBERT: No doubt Your Honour will do that. But maybe it’s not – hasn’t been expressly mentioned in there to issue a warrant under s.19AS.
86 HIS HONOUR: Yes. That’s the matter you addressed in your submissions?
87 MR ALBERT: Yes. At paragraph 5. It’s a formal matter. It revokes the federal parole and authorises the – Mr Atiyeh’s detention.
88 HIS HONOUR: Yes. Thank you for drawing that to my attention. Indeed. In imposing the new sentence, I revoke the federal parole and I must issue a warrant authorising your detention under the provisions of s.19AS and I do so.
89 MR ALBERT: Now, in terms of the – well, Your Honour is not pursuing the recognisance release orders and your reasons had to be on the court record.
90 HIS HONOUR: Yes.
91 HIS HONOUR: Thank you very much for your assistance and your instructor, with respect to all of those matters, which have been, as I say, of great assistance to me. Mr Habib, anything further from you?
92 MR HABIB: No, Your Honour. I’m not in a position to make any further submissions. I will just seek leave to approach my client following this to make sure everything stands.
93 HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, I think, probably the best thing is to explain it all in the cells. As I say, there’s the opportunity if things aren’t technically accurate to revisit the sentence within a week to correct any technical issues.
94 MR HABIB: Yes, Your Honour.
95 HIS HONOUR: And no doubt you will – it’s my understanding that he will serve the balance of that parole period of one year and three months and there he will then begin serving my sentence which, effectively, will put him in jail for a further – whatever that non-parole period was. But, of course, he’s – there’s also all of that outstanding presentence detention. So there’s quite a few matters to be considered and, no doubt, you will explain all that to him in due course.
96 MR HABIB: As Your Honour pleases.
97 HIS HONOUR: The settled sentencing remarks will be available fairly shortly in any event.
98 MR HABIB: Thank you, Your Honour.
99 HIS HONOUR: But I thank you again, gentlemen, for your assistance with respect to this matter. It has been quite protracted. But I believe today it has concluded. All right. Mr Atiyeh, Mr Habib will explain all that to you, I am sure, in due course and that now concludes your matter. Thank you. Thank you, if you would go with the officer at the back of the court. Thank you.
---
0