Director of Public Prosecutions v Bambridge
[2016] VCC 653
•18 May 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR 15-01702
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DAVID BAMBRIDGE |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 15, 21 April 2016 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 May 2016 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bambridge | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 653 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms C Sedgwick Mr S. Zebrowski | OPP |
| For the Accused | Mr W. Barker | David Barrese & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1 David Bambridge, you pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in methamphetamine, one of trafficking in cannabis and one of handling stolen goods.
2
The trafficking charges are between dates, covering a six-month period from
1 September 2013 to 6 March 2014. On the agreed summary, you were the principal offender in respect of the methamphetamine trafficking, and your partner, Julie Purdue, was the principal in relation to the cannabis trafficking. Your niece and her partner were also charged with trafficking in methamphetamine and cannabis.
3 As I understand it, they ranked below you and your partner in terms of their roles.
4 You told police were arrested that you had been using ice for two and a half years on a regular basis, and on a less regular basis for the two years before that. You said that you began selling in order to subsidise and then to completely cover the cost of your own ice use. You were open about charging those to whom you on-supplied more than the price you paid your supplier.
5 It is clear this was a significant business. You told the police your methamphetamine purchases escalated from buying half a gram on a Friday to more regular purchases of a single gram, then 2 g at a time and then ultimately to what was called an 8 ball or one-eighth of an ounce or 2.5 g.
6 Although you denied when interviewed selling cannabis yourself, the telephone intercepts reveal that you were fielding telephone calls from potential purchases, and agreeing to provide it on request. And of course, you pleaded guilty to trafficking cannabis as well as methamphetamine.
7 On the day the execution of the warrant on 6 March 2014, police also located a black GT Ford Falcon at your premises. You told the police you knew it was stolen. And it is possession of that gives rise to the charge of handling stolen goods.
8 In addition, you have pleaded guilty to uplifted summary charges: one of possession of ammunition without being the holder of a license or permit; and one of dealing with $1,270 cash suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
9 Ms Purdue, your niece and partner were all dealt with following the entry of guilty pleas by them to these and associated charges in the Magistrates' Court. You too entered pleas of guilty in the Magistrates' Court to the charges that are now before me, but the magistrate declined jurisdiction in respect of your matter.
10 There appears to be no difference in the circumstances of your trafficking, and that of Ms Purdue, save for the fact that you appeared to be the prime mover in relation to the methamphetamine and she in relation to the cannabis, but each of you were charged and then pleaded guilty to involvement in what appears to be each other's primary venture.
11 There was no significant difference in the nature or gravity of the charges in addition to the trafficking charges to which Ms Purdue, or the other co-offenders pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court and the additional charges that you face.
12 The only basis that I can discern for the magistrate declining to exercise jurisdiction in relation to you whilst being prepared to sentence your co-offenders is that amongst your previous convictions, you were sentenced in December 1998 in the Supreme Court to serve a term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of three years and three months for manslaughter.
13 In addition to this conviction, you have been dealt with on four occasions between 1994 and 2013 for unlawful assault, and on two occasions for relatively minor dishonesty offences. You have no previous convictions for drug offences.
14 Your most recent offence however was dealt with in the Magistrates' Court on 27 July 2013, just two months before the commencement of the period of trafficking the subject of Charges 1 and 2 before me. That means, you were two months into a 12-month period of suspension of a three-month term of imprisonment at the time that the trafficking started. And the period of suspension of the three-month term of imprisonment endured for the whole period covered by the two trafficking charges.
15 Although Mr Barker initially submitted that I could deal with the breach of suspended sentence here, he ultimately acknowledged that as it had been imposed in the Magistrates' Court, and there was no summons before me in respect of that, I was unable to deal with it. So that is a matter that is still pending.
16 You were arrested and charged on 6 March 2014, and your guilty pleas were ready to be heard in the Magistrates' Court in December of that year. Your co-offenders were all dealt with or had all been dealt with by December 2014.
17 Ms Purdue was sentenced to a two-month term of imprisonment followed by a 15-month community corrections order. Your niece and her partner each received 12-month community corrections orders. That means that their sentences have long expired.
18 There has been a considerable delay since the magistrate declined jurisdiction. Some of it is attributable simply to the time it takes for a matter to proceed through the committal stream of the Magistrates' Court and plea stream of this court. Some of it, however, is attributable to delay on your part.
19 Even taking into account the delay that can be attributed to you, there is as I said in the course of the plea, a real concern about the effect of the difference in treatment of you and your co-accused, and the delay in bringing your matter to a conclusion when there is no apparent reason for the distinction drawn between your case and that of your co-offenders. The prosecution was unable to identify any reasons given by the magistrate for declining to deal with you whilst dealing with the others. And as I have made clear, there is nothing on the face of the materials, apart from the possibility of your previous Supreme Court appearance that could justify the difference in course.
20 You are 52 years of age and I was told you had a good history of employment until recently. You left school young. You worked as concreter or labourer for five years. You then had a ten-year history, I was told, of working as a machinery driver for VicRoads, and for the last 22 years, I was told, you were self-employed as a panel beater and car restorer.
21 Although your manslaughter conviction arose from the killing of your then-partner, it appears from the history I was given that you have had no trouble before or after then in establishing and maintaining intimate relationships.
22 You have a number of children from previous relationships, some of whom you still have contact with, some of whom you have not had much contact with; and they range in age from adults to young children.
23 I was told that apart from a short period of using ecstasy when in custody in 1999, you had never used drugs. Following your release until you began your relationship with your co-offender Ms Purdue. I was told that she was a drug user, and that you were introduced to her lifestyle which included methamphetamine use. I was told that you had since stopped using methamphetamine, have done so almost immediately after the offending and did not perceive yourself to have a drug problem.
24 I was told that as a result of poor mental health, you had been unable to continue to operate your panel beating and car restoring business over the last two years; that you were in default on your mortgage on your home and were in the throes of having it repossessed, and that you appeared to be overwhelmed and paralysed by your problems. And I was told that you had worked very little during the previous two years as a result of what was said to be a number of factors including your mental health and your preoccupation with the proceedings in relation to your home. I was told this morning that that has now come to a head and that you received a notice of eviction for the 25th of this month.
25 So far as the mental health issues were concerned, I was told that you had not consulted doctors, that you had not sought any medical intervention and did not have great confidence in treatment from the medical profession.
26 Therefore, Mr Barker was - not surprisingly in those circumstances - unable to identify what the mental health issues were that you suffered from or the effect of them on you.
27 He submitted that I should regard you as having good prospects for rehabilitation. He relied on the fact that I was told that you no longer used drugs, and had been abstinent since being charged for these offences; that you required assistance in relation to mental health more than in relation to drug use; and that you have remained by and large drug offence-free since your arrest.
28 You do have or did, at the time the plea submissions were made before me five weeks ago, charges pending before the Magistrates' Court for unlicensed driving, breaching an intervention order and possession of methamphetamine. It was a little unclear from what I was told on the plea as to whether the pending methamphetamine charge was one simply of possession or one also of trafficking - and whether that trafficking related simply to possession or to some other evidence.
29 Whatever the case, the timing of those pending charges did to some extent cut across what I had been told about your abstinence following your arrest and the degree of confidence could be held in the fact that you said you were drug-free.
30 In the course of the CCO assessment which was undertaken on 15 April 2015, straight after the plea hearing, you disclosed that you had recently had what you described as a puff of cannabis and you told the assessor that you did not believe you had used methamphetamine this year. Your account to the assessor of your drug use during the period of offending was of a significantly lesser usage than the account you gave to the police when interviewed and relied on to explain the circumstances of the trafficking.
31 It was hard to get a clear picture of your circumstances. I have referred to the contradictory material in terms of your drug use. The Bar table assertions in relation to your mental health, was not supported by any evidence of diagnosis, treatment or assessment by a qualified expert, and a confusing or conflicting picture put in relation to your financial circumstances and the operation of your business.
32 By the conclusion of the plea submissions on 15 April, I formed the view that parity considerations, and the effect of delay by reason of the decision of the magistrate to refer sentencing you to this court justified the imposition of a sentence no greater than that imposed upon Ms Purdue, and perhaps one that involved a community correction order alone without a term of imprisonment, if the CCO conditions could adequately address the necessary punitive and deterrent elements of a sentence for drug trafficking of this nature and extent.
33 At the CCO assessment as I have already noted, you revealed a somewhat different history of drug use to that which had been put before me on the plea. You told the corrections officer that although you had not been to any doctors, you believed you were suffering from anxiety and depression. And so far as unpaid community work was concerned, you told Corrections that you had diabetes which you did not manage in accordance with medical advice. You said that as a result you experienced various symptoms which often made it difficult for you to undertake activities.
34 The assessment report noted that no clear answer could be obtained from you as to whether you would be able to do any type of community work. And again it made reference to your non-engagement with doctors. You also told Corrections that you suffered from anxiety, and that, along with the diabetes prevented you from undertaking activities that you had in the past and would currently prevent you from holding employment.
35 Not surprisingly in those circumstances, Corrections advised that a medical clearance would need to be sought from doctors before you could be cleared for community work.
The matter had been listed for sentence a week after the plea on 21 April. The Corrections report had been provided by then and it contained that reference to the need for medical clearance before Corrections would clear you as suitable for community work. On the resumed date, I was provided with a document from Rosebud Superclinic which was in these terms: "This is to certify that
Mr David Bambrdige is receiving medical treatment and for the period Wednesday, 20 April 2016 to Wednesday, 4 May 2016 inclusive he will be unfit to continue his usual occupation."
36 I was told you had consulted Rosebud Superclinic on 20 April and had been referred for a blood test in order for an assessment to be made about your diabetes and that some time was needed for the result of the blood test to be obtained, and for appropriate treatment, if needed, to be implemented and a assessment made as to your condition and any restrictions on your ability to work.
37 As a result I adjourned the matter for four weeks in order to give you the opportunity to obtain further medical reports, not only in relation to the diabetes but also in respect of your mental health and anxiety and any effect it would have on your capacity to perform unpaid community work and your preparedness to engage in treatment.
38 No further material has been provided in relation to the diabetes. Again, by way of Bar table assertion, I was told that the blood tests had revealed that your blood sugar levels were slightly elevated but not to an extent where any medical intervention was required. I was provided with two very brief documents described as psychological report, provided by Dr Derek Patton, psychologist. They recite that on 6 May 2016, you were referred by the Rosebud Superclinic to Dr Patton, who saw you on two occasions - on 9 and 16 May.
39 In Dr Patton's second report, he says that he administered two stress checklists. He reported on the DASS 21, you revealed scores of extremely severe for depression, mild for anxiety and moderate for stress. It is worth noting that the DASS 21 is a checklist which is based on symptoms experienced in the two weeks prior to the administration of the test.
40 It is a very scant basis for a proper diagnosis of anxiety or depression. In fact, as I said to Mr Zebrowski, the DASS 21 is expressly stated not to be used as a diagnostic tool for depression. It is no more than a snapshot of symptoms experienced over the previous two weeks which can provide a means for a clinician to then conduct further investigations to see whether a full diagnosis is warranted.
41 The other checklist test administered by Dr Patton was the post-traumatic stress disorder checklist. He indicated that you are close to a score on that which would predict some level of post-traumatic stress disorder.
42 That seems, in my reading of it, to fall short of a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, but Dr Patton said that the DASS 21 and PCL measures are supportive of each other and "the story of the actual events and his reactions which in his opinion are currently disabling him from effective engagement."
43 Dr Patton does not identify what he means by “the story of the actual events”, and does not recite any history obtained from you. There is no reference to any traumatic event which has been made to me or in Dr Patton's report to which any diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or identification of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms could relate. The report fall well short of what is required under the practice note in relation to expert reports for the court, even from a treater.
44 It was based on the results of those tests that Dr Patton said that you are incapable of dealing with extra commitments or projects until you dealt with the various challenges currently facing you and that you were unlikely to be able to face any difficult task or even to get out of the house to engage in activities to any level of productivity.
45 As I said to Mr Barker, both reports from Dr Patton read more as certifications of unfitness for work than recitation of history, revelation of diagnosis or at least provisional diagnosis, and material on which the diagnosis was based. They simply appeared to be in the form of unfit for work certifications. They do not meet the concerns raised by Corrections in their report and they do not meet the concerns raised by me - or address them I should say.
46 I am left in a position where I am simply unable to form any opinion or assessment as to the genuineness of any physical or psychological symptoms reported by you or referred to by Dr Patton. I am clearly of the opinion that you are unsuitable for unpaid community work, although I can form no conclusion as to whether the barriers to it are genuine, or simply assertions made by you in order to avoid such a condition being made part of the CCO.
47 Whatever the position, and as I said, I cannot make a decision one way or the other on the material before me, I am left in a position where, on the material before me, you are unsuitable for unpaid community work. That means I must consider the appropriate sentence for you with the knowledge that unpaid community work is unavailable as a punitive or deterrent element of a community correction order. Therefore, I must consider whether a community correction order without unpaid community work is sufficient to mark the seriousness of the offending in all the circumstances.
48 I say that, having regard to the matters that I do take into account in your favour - your early plea of guilty, the circumstances of delay, parity, the absence of like convictions – although you have one very serious conviction for manslaughter and otherwise a relatively minor record.
49 This is not a case where it is being suggested your moral culpability in respect of the offending could be reduced by reason of any mental illness or psychological condition, or where any proper evidentiary basis for the invoking of any of the other limbs of Verdins has been established.
50 In those circumstances, I consider that no sentence other than one involving a term of imprisonment is appropriate to mark the seriousness of the offending and the need for just punishment and general deterrence.
51 Consistently with the sentence imposed upon your co-offender Ms Purdue, I consider it appropriate to impose a term of imprisonment of the same length imposed on her - that is two months, followed by a community correction order. However, I consider the term of the CCO should be reduced to a period of 12 months rather than the 15 months imposed upon her by reason of the delay in the finalisation of your matter occasioned by the refusal of jurisdiction in the Magistrates' Court and the consequent delay in bringing the matter on before this court.
52 I cannot impose a community correction order unless you consent to it and therefore, before proceeding to formally sentence you, and to identify the sentences to be imposed in respect of the charges - none of which will interfere with or lengthen the term of imprisonment or impact on the CCO I propose to impose in addition to it - I must ascertain whether you consent to the imposition of a community correction order.
53 Mr Barker, do you want to go and speak to Mr Bambridge, please? Mr Barker, I am sorry, I should have said that of course, if Mr Bambridge does not consent to the CCO as part of that combination sentence, then that would leave me in a position where I would impose a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and a non-parole period of two months, but the time to serve would be the same as the time of the two months - but the non-parole period would be two months. Do you need to go back and speak to - - -
54 MR BARKER: All right. I did not explain it in that exact detail but I explained it in the sense that it will be a different sentence - - -
55 HER HONOUR: Well, do you wish to explain that to him and make sure he understand that?
56 MR BARKER: I will explain it to him. I can indicate that Mr Bambridge will consent to the making of the correction order that Your Honour asked.
57 HER HONOUR: Thank you.
58 So far as the charge of receiving stolen goods is concerned, I propose to impose a term of imprisonment to run concurrently with the term of imprisonment in respect of the trafficking charges.
59 So far as the uplifted summary charges are concerned, it is in my view appropriate to deal with the proceeds of crime charge by a term of imprisonment again to be served concurrently with the sentences for the trafficking. The proceeds of crime charge seems to be directly connected with the trafficking charges and I am doing this in order to avoid any double punishment. And the only penalty able to be imposed in respect of the ammunition charge is a fine.
60 Could you now please stand, Mr Bambridge?
61 On all charges to which you have pleaded guilty, you are convicted.
62 On Charges 1 and 2, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two months followed by a community correction order for a period of 12 months with the following conditions: supervision, drug assessment and treatment, and psychological assessment and treatment.
63 On Charge 3, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two months to be served concurrently with the sentence on Charges 1 and 2.
64 On the uplifted summary charge in relation to the possession of the ammunition you are fined $500; and on the uplifted summary charge in relation to possession the proceeds of crime, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of seven days to be served concurrently with the sentences on Charges 1, 2 and 3.
65 That makes a total effective sentence of two months.
66 I declare that you have spent one day in pre-sentence detention - that was the agreed time, was it?
67 COUNSEL: Yes.
68 HER HONOUR: And direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served. So far as the community correction order is concerned, that commences upon completion of the term of imprisonment and runs for a period of 12 months thereafter.
69 There are mandatory terms that apply to all community correction orders. They are these: that you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time that the order is in force; that you must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by regulation 17 of the Sentencing Regulations 2011.
70 That means you must not be impaired by drugs or alcohol when you attend at Corrections for any appointments, and you must submit to drug or alcohol testing if directed to do so.
71 You must report to and receive visits from the Secretary or delegate; you must report to the Rosebud Community Correctional Services at Rosebud Justice Service Centre which is 2/843-849 Point Nepean Road, Rosebud within two clear working days after the commencement of the order.
72 You must let a community corrections officer know within two clear working days if you change your address or your job. You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so from the Secretary or delegate and you must obey all lawful instructions from and directions of the Secretary or delegate.
73 Now so far as that core condition in relation to reporting to Rosebud Community Correctional Services, that was done on the assumption that you would still be living at the address at Marshall Street, Tootgarook.
74 Because it is a condition of the order that you let Corrections know if you change your address or job, you will need, before your release or immediately on your release, if you are you going to live somewhere other than the Rosebud catchment area, you will need to let Corrections know before your release, and the prison authorities will assist with that.
75 If you are going to live back in the Rosebud catchment area, then on your first report within two days of your release, you will have to let Corrections know where you are living and what your new address is and if it is going to be outside the Rosebud catchment area, they will then direct you to the closest Corrections office to you. Do you follow that?
76 In addition to the mandatory terms, there are three additional terms that I impose. First, supervision: you must be under the supervision of a community corrections officer for a period of 12 months; and two treatment and rehabilitation conditions.
77 First, that you must undergo assessment and treatment including testing for drug abuse or dependency as directed by the regional manager; and second, that you must undergo any mental health assessment and treatment and that may include neuropsychological or psychiatric treatment, or treatment in a hospital or residential facility as directed by the regional manager.
78 Do you understand the effect and conditions of this order?
79 ACCUSED: Yes.
80 HER HONOUR: And do you consent to it being made?
81 ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour.
82 HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you. Mr Barker, can you take that down please and have your client sign it? Meanwhile, I will make the forfeiture and disposal orders requested. Do you have up-to-date copies of those, Mr Zebrowski?
83 MR ZEBROWSKI: I do not, Your Honour. I am sorry about that. I understand my - I have got an email that suggests that Word versions of those documents had been sent some time ago to Your Honour's associate.
84 HER HONOUR: Yes. I think they had, but they came. She had not amended the dates on them though, so they had the old dates - well, that is all right.
85 MR ZEBROWSKI: Well, I can - I will make sure that they are sent to Your Honour's associate today. Immediately upon us leaving the court.
86 HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. I will sign those forfeiture and disposal orders in chambers then when the updated ones have been provided.
87 MR ZEBROWSKI: Thank you, Your Honour. I understand the DNA order was also a 464 - was that provided to the court on the last occasion? I have a note that it was provided.
88 HER HONOUR: I do not - - -
89 MR ZEBROWSKI: Your Honour's associate is shaking her head and - - -
90 HER HONOUR: No. I do not - - -
91 MR ZEBROWSKI: - - - that does not fill me with confidence.
92 HER HONOUR: No, I do not have that. I think we had a discussion about whether it might have already been done, having regard to his priors. But I am pretty sure I do not have - - -
93 MR ZEBROWSKI: Well, that might be the case, Your Honour, I - - -
94 HER HONOUR: Yes, I do not have a 464 request. Thank you. And it was not on Ms Sedgwick's list of the ancillary orders either - - -
95 MR ZEBROWSKI: No, it was not.
96 HER HONOUR: No.
97 MR ZEBROWSKI: And I noticed that on the opening that I have read, but then Ms Sedgwick has written in red pen that "plus DNA" and her memorandum suggests that a DNA order was handed to the court. But Your Honour's associate says that is not the case. Your Honour, again, I will look into that and I have got a note that it was handed up and it was not opposed. But - - -
98 HER HONOUR: Mr Barker, do you remember?
99 MR BARKER: I do not have a copy. I do not think it was handed up, but I - - -
100 HER HONOUR: I do not have a note and a recollection of discussion, do you?
101 MR BARKER: No, no. It would not have been opposed, so perhaps it was raised and not handed up. There might be some confusion.
102 HER HONOUR: Well, I - - -
103 MR ZEBROWSKI: My note just says (indistinct) the DNA orders were handed up, not opposed. But we will look into that, Your Honour, and again, I will hand that up to Your Honour, given my learned friend's concession, but - - -
104
HER HONOUR: And is - do you mind if I ask Mr Bambridge this directly?
Mr Bambridge, have you been required to provide a DNA sample in the past?
105 ACCUSED: Um, yes (indistinct).
106 MR ZEBROWSKI: My instructor has notification from the DNA branch that he is not on the database.
107 HER HONOUR: He is not on the register.
108 MR ZEBROWSKI: No.
109 MR BARKER: He might have provided it during an arrest and it was not retained (indistinct) some confusion. Twenty years (indistinct).
110 HER HONOUR: Yes.
111 MR ZEBROWSKI: He has not been profiled on the DNA database.
112 HER HONOUR: All right, well in those circumstances, oral application having been made for a DNA order under s.464, I will make that order when it is provided to me and note that it is not proposed. Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a term of imprisonment of 18 months with a non-parole period of nine months.
113 MR ZEBROWSKI: As Your Honour pleases.
114
HER HONOUR: Now, I have signed the CCO. When a copy of that has been made - can you do a copy of that straightaway so it can be provided to
Mr Bambrdige? Sorry, you can take your seat, Mr Bambridge, while we are getting you a copy of the order.
115 Mr Barker, that does leave outstanding Mr Bambridge's suspending sentence. If you are acting for him in relation to that, it would clearly be in his interest to get that on and heard before the Magistrates' Court as quickly as possible so he can avail himself of any concurrency that the magistrate decides to give.
116 MR BARKER: I do not act - I may - - -
117 HER HONOUR: Well, maybe you could give him some advice about that.
118 MR BARKER: Him being in custody might change the situation in relation to (indistinct) against the other things.
119 HER HONOUR: Yes, indeed.
120 MR BARKER: For the (indistinct).
121 HER HONOUR: Mr Bambridge?
122 ACCUSED: Yes.
123 HER HONOUR: You have got that - yes, so if you would not mind standing for the moment. You have got the suspended sentence pending from the Magistrates' Court - - -
124 ACCUSED: Yes.
125 HER HONOUR: That is not before me, so I cannot deal with it.
126 ACCUSED: Yes.
127 HER HONOUR: But your pleas have activated that. As you probably know, the Magistrates' Court is obliged to restore that sentence unless you can establish exceptional circumstances which arose since the magistrate imposed that suspended sentence.
128 It would be in your interests to do what you can and with the assistance of Mr Barker or the assistance of any legal aid lawyers who come to see you in prison, to get that on as quickly as possible so you can seek to have any concurrency that the magistrate might order with this sentence that I have imposed. Do you follow that?
129 ACCUSED: Yes.
130 HER HONOUR: And also in relation to those other matters that were before the Frankston Magistrates' Court, if they have not yet been dealt with and they are going to be dealt with by guilty pleas, again, it would be in your interests to do what you can with the assistance of any legal assistance you can get to get them on as quickly as possible to get again, give you any opportunity that the magistrate has to give you concurrency.
131 ACCUSED: Yes. I was due to go to court on Friday.
132 HER HONOUR: All right. Well, you probably still will but - - -
133 MR ZEBROWSKI: I will make arrangements there - - -
134 HER HONOUR: Yes, but it would be obviously in your interest if the matters could proceed to finalisation for you on Friday so that you do get the benefit on any concurrency you can. All right.
135 And that also means if the suspended sentence is restored, because it is three months, that is longer than the term that I have imposed, Corrections will administratively just extend the date for the start of your CCO to start on the time that you are released from prison.
136 So you need not be worried about being in breach if you have to do a bit of extra time before you are actually released. But again, I recommend that you get advice and assistance from Corrections and from either Mr Barker or from Legal Aid once you are in custody so you can try and get all this dealt with in a package as quickly as possible.
137 Thank you, could you remove Mr Bambridge, please?
138 HER HONOUR: I have got the ancillary orders and I will sign them out the back and send them straight out if you or your instructor would - - -
139 MR ZEBROWSKI: Your Honour, unfortunately they will not be ready.
140 HER HONOUR: No, they have been printed out.
141 MR ZEBROWSKI: You have got - you have printed them out. I am sorry. I did not hear what Your Honour said.
142 HER HONOUR: My associate has. I have not got the 464, but I have got the others. So if you or your instructor would not mind waiting for a moment, I will sign them out the back and - - -
143 MR ZEBROWSKI: No, of course not. Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. .
144 HER HONOUR: Thank you.
- - -
0
0