Director of Public Prosecutions v Bankal
[2018] VCC 1274
•7 August 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL JURISDICTIN | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-18-00407
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SANTINO BANKAL |
---
| JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 27 June and 7 August 2018 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 7 August 2018 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bankal |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 1274 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr D. Porceddu | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms D. Lamovie. | Victoria Legal Aid |
HER HONOUR:
1Santino Bankal, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle collision. The maximum penalty applicable for that offence is ten years' imprisonment or a fine of up to 1200 penalty units.
2You have also agreed to me hearing two summary charges pursuant to s145 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and have pleaded guilty to driving whilst disqualified (Summary Charge 4), which has a maximum penalty of 240 penalty units or two years' imprisonment, and driving an unregistered motor vehicle (Summary Charge 5), which has a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units.
3It is not necessary for me to outline in great detail the facts of this matter as it has been opened in some detail by the learned prosecutor consistent with Exhibit A. I sentence you on the basis of the summary as discussed during the course of the plea hearing and consistent with Exhibit A.
4It is sufficient for present purposes to simply say the facts in this case are most serious and disturbing.
5At the time of the collision you were 28 years of age.
6I turn to your offending.
7At approximately 7.20pm you and Ms Hastings went to a Coles store in Balaclava. You drove Ms Hastings' 1993 Holden Commodore, which she had purchased in approximately April 2017 and transferred into her name. Ms Hastings had received a letter from VicRoads advising her the vehicle was not registered and it had not undergone a roadworthy test. At the time of driving Ms Hastings' car it was unregistered (Summary Charge 5).
8At the time of driving Ms Hastings' car you had been disqualified from driving for 17 months by an order of the Ballarat Magistrates' Court on 14 March 2017 (Summary Charge 4).
9According to Ms Hastings, the vehicle was ‘… in pretty good condition’, however a friend of hers who was a mechanic had told her the vehicle needed a lot of work to pass a roadworthy test.
10After attending the Coles store you and Ms Hastings drove to Aldi in Inkerman Street. You again drove that vehicle. You and Ms Hastings entered the store intending to purchase alcohol, however left without the purchase.
11You both decided to go to Dan Murphy's on Nepean Highway, Brighton. Again, you were the driver. You entered the store and purchased some alcohol.
12You both returned to the car and you got into the driver's seat, Ms Hastings into the front passenger seat.
13Both of you sat in the car for about ten minutes talking and smoking cigarettes before deciding to go home. You then drove out of Dan Murphy's car park into the service lane which feeds onto the Nepean Highway.
14Moments before the collision, Warwick Oakley, an Uber Eats delivery motorcycle rider, was stationary at traffic lights at the intersection of Nepean Highway and Bay Street. He then saw a motorcycle on his right coming from Bay Street which had then turned right into Nepean Highway and headed south. Mr Oakley stated:
“I heard him hit the accelerator and rapidly accelerate up through the gears of his motorcycle. He gunned it. I watched him as he accelerated, he moved from the far left lane all the way across to the far right lane …”
Mr Oakley also stated:
"… I believe his speed was well in excess of the 80 kilometre speed limit I would say closer to a 100 kilometres/h."
15Before you entered Nepean Highway and travelled south, you and Ms Hastings stopped and looked for traffic. Ms Hastings saw in the distance what appeared to be a motorcycle coming towards you. According to Ms Hastings, the motorcycle looked a long way away but it appeared ‘… to be going quick’.
16You drove onto the Nepean Highway slowly intending to get into the far right lane in order to perform a U-turn and head north towards home. Ms Hastings said you had the right hand indicator operating to signal to other drivers your intention.
17A witness, Jackson Brazzale, noticed you drive from the service lane onto the Nepean Highway. His attention was drawn to your car because it appeared to cross the lanes at an angle.
18A motorist, Mr Hong, was travelling south in the second lane of Nepean Highway and noticed the motorcyclist overtake him in the right hand lane. It appeared the motorcycle was getting faster. Other than the speed of the motorcycle he said that ‘he was riding okay’.
19As you moved towards the right lane, Ms Hastings heard a ‘boom’. The next thing she remembered was you tapping her and saying ‘something has hit us, we have to get out, the car is on fire’.
20Mr Oakley heard the motorcycle decelerate back to idle followed by a fireball and the sound of an explosion. Mr Brazzale who was 20-30 metres away from the collision, observed the impact caused your car to rotate 180 degrees so instead of facing south it was facing north towards the city.
21As Ms Hastings sat in the car, she noticed the car was on fire. You opened the rear driver's side door and retrieved a dog. Ms Hastings opened her door and could see a motorcycle lying on the road. Ms Hastings then returned to the vehicle a couple of times to retrieve her belongings.
22Immediately after the collision and when witnessing the fireball, Mr Hong pulled over. Before approaching the vehicle he noticed you get out of the burning vehicle and run around the car a couple of times. Mr Hong also noticed that you had your hands on your head.
23Before exiting his car Mr Hong lost sight of you. Mr Hong got out of his car and tried to approach the vehicle, but was pushed back by the intensity of the fire. Mr Hong returned to his car and called 000.
24Another witness, Ophelia Holloway, saw you get out of the burning car and move across to the other side of the road. She looked towards the crash scene and then back towards where she had last seen you, however you disappeared from view.
25Aaron Ostilly also noticed you and Ms Hastings walking slowly across the road, describing you as ‘very calm and very together’.
26Ms Hastings recalled you returned to the car to try to get the keys but were driven back by the flames.
27In the meantime, Ian Roberts, who saw the fireball in his rear view mirror, stopped and reversed his vehicle to provide assistance. Mr Roberts and other witnesses ran over to the motorcyclist and fought hard to put the flames out. A medical practitioner commenced CPR on Ashleigh Gason.
28Ms Hastings spent a short time searching and calling for the dog. As she did that, she heard a woman saying the motorcyclist was dead. You then said to Ms Hastings ‘let's just go home and we'll sort out what we're going to do when we get home’.
29You and Ms Hastings then crossed Nepean Highway. A male and female followed you, asking if you were all right. At one point Ms Hastings lost sight of you and commenced calling out for you. A short time later she found you and you both walked away heading home. Failing to render assistance after the collision (Charge 1 on the indictment).
30Various CCTV footage was viewed by me (Exhibits C, D and E). Exhibit E showed you at the scene for approximately 60-80 seconds before leaving.
31You and Ms Hastings hailed a taxi from near the collision scene.
32After arriving home, you were unable to get into the apartment as the house key was in the vehicle. Ms Hastings called the emergency number. I discussed with Ms Lamovie that despite Ms Hastings potentially having a phone, one was not used at the scene of the collision, although I can draw no conclusions from that. You eventually gained entry to the apartment through a window.
33After gaining entry you and Ms Hastings discussed what had occurred and that you would hand yourself in on Monday after discussing the matter with your Corrections officer (this collision having occurred on Friday).
34Ms Hastings said you were vomiting, crying and shaking.
35The motorcyclist was identified as Ashleigh Gason.
36Detective Senior Constable Miller from the Major Collision Investigation Unit arrived at the scene at approximately 8.30 pm. Photographs were taken and were before me (Exhibit F) and also a plan of the collision scene (Exhibit B).
37Detective Leading Senior Constable Robert Hay, attached to the Collision Reconstruction Unit, attended the scene and performed tests to determine the cause and speed of the vehicles. After reviewing all the available evidence he determined the motorcycle was travelling at a minimum of 112 kilometres per hour prior to impact, and that just prior to colliding, the motorcycle had braked heavily.
38You were interviewed by police on 8 July 2017 and, amongst other things, you said you just heard a bang from behind the car and the car twist. You said you freaked out and ran away. You did not know what to do. You said you were driving. You did not know where the bike was coming from, speeding and hitting you from the back. You said you did look when entering Nepean Highway. The road was clear. There was nothing there.
39You knew the car did not have any registration.
40You saw that the motorcycle had crashed, but you did not see the rider, although I note recently you told Mr Coffey you did see the rider. You did not know what to do. You got scared because you saw the fire.
41You said you stayed around the car for about five minutes, although I note CCTV footage showed you at the scene for considerably less than that. You said you did not talk to anyone at the scene or do anything. When you went home you freaked out and got confused, not knowing what to do. You told police in the interview that you were going to go to the police ‘tomorrow’ (that is, the Sunday 9 July). That delay you said was because there would be no one to look after the cats. You said you had a learner's permit.
42An aggravating feature of your offending was that you were on a 12 month Community Correction Order imposed at the Ballarat Magistrates' Court on 14 March 2017. This offending before me occurred approximately four months after being placed on that Order. I am, of course, not sentencing you for the breach of that Order.
43In addition, on this occasion you were driving whilst disqualified (Summary Charge 4), having been disqualified for 17 months at the hearing in March 2017. You had also been fined on 14 March for driving whilst unlicensed and failing to exchange names and addresses after a collision. This offending therefore occurred during the period of disqualification and whilst on a Community Correction Order, with a prior relevant to obligations following a collision.
44Pursuant to s61(6) Road Safety Act 1986 as a result of your offending referrable to Charge 1 on the indictment, you are to be disqualified from obtaining any licence or permit for at least four years, and I will return to that order later.
45According to VicRoads certificates within the depositions, and acknowledged by you, you have never been licensed to drive a motor vehicle.
46There was a filing hearing on 12 July 2017 and a plea offer was made on 11 October 2017 and accepted on 17 October 2017.
47A summary jurisdiction application was listed for 4 December 2017, however, you failed to appear and a warrant was issued for your arrest. Bail was subsequently granted on 7 December 2017. The application for summary jurisdiction was refused on 26 February 2018 and the matter then came to this Court.
48You have admitted a number of prior Court appearances commencing in 2011, involving dishonesty offences and violence. On 31 May 2011 at Melbourne Magistrates' Court you were without conviction placed on an undertaking for a period of 12 months. You next appeared on 27 October 2014 for dishonesty matters and failing to answer bail. The matter was adjourned to 27 October 2015 with a conviction recorded.
49You next appeared at Ballarat Magistrates' Court on 1 August 2016 on a charge of possessing cannabis and were convicted and fined $300.
50You then appeared on 14 March 2017 at Ballarat Magistrates' Court on two charges of criminal damage and contravening a Family Violence intervention order and placed on a Community Correction Order without conviction (breached by this offending). Also unlicensed driving, two charges of possessing cannabis, exceeding the concentration of alcohol and failing to give your name and address to an owner. Fines were imposed and your licence was cancelled and disqualified, breached by this offending.
51There are a number of victim impact statements before me. The victims have suffered considerably in the manner described in their statements and I shall return to those later in these sentencing remarks.
52Your offending, in my opinion is very serious. Your obligation was to render assistance at the scene of the collision, you did not. That obligation was not determined by your desire to discuss it with a Corrections officer three days later, nor you wanting to go home and think about what to do, nor the need to look after the cats. Nor was your obligation negated by, as was urged by Ms Lamovie, you thinking there was nothing you could do to help the deceased.
53Your failure to render assistance in the circumstances as presented to you, in particular, three fires clearly visible (see CCTV footage, Exhibit C) and to you, including the fire referrable specifically to Mr Gason was callous in the extreme. The collision scene was spread out over some distance, your car in front, the motorcycle some metres behind the car and Mr Gason in between. You could have rendered assistance to Mr Gason without needing to go near the car or the motorcycle that was on fire.
54There is no doubt you knew you had been involved in a collision, given the extensive structural damage to the car.
55Your failure to render assistance was inhumane, callous and cowardly. You left without offering assistance for no good reason other than, I merely suspect, concern about yourself having breached the Community Correction Order and while driving whilst disqualified, at least a possibility conceded by Mr Coffey to which I shall shortly refer.
56As previously stated, the CCTV footage shows you remained at the scene following the collision for approximately 60-80 seconds. In that time you walked/ran around the car a couple of times, let the dog out of the car, walked to the opposite side of the road over multiple lanes before leaving the scene on foot. What you did not do was tender assistance to Mr Gason, that job left to other motorists and passers-by. Whilst others attempted to help him, your obligation to render assistance was not negated by their presence.
57When assessing your remorse, I note that after you left the collision scene you made no attempt to contact police. You did not attend at the police station of your own volition on 8 July, despite on your instructions knowing Ms Hastings was going to advise police of your involvement in this offending. You stayed at home, police had to come to you.
58Regarding Summary Charge 4, driving whilst disqualified, you had never been licensed, at most in the past you had a learner's permit. Ms Lamovie said you could offer no explanation for driving whilst disqualified, other than a suggestion that Ms Hastings was not licensed although I note from her statement she had driven earlier that day (Depositions p.22). Nor could you offer any explanation for driving an unregistered car.
59Turning to the offence of driving whilst disqualified, Ms Lamovie conceded you had a relevant prior for unlicensed driving, however urged on this occasion there was nothing aggravating about your driving such as speeding or not exercising care on the road. That was not to the point. You should not have been driving at all, in any manner.
60As I discussed with your counsel, you had several opportunities to desist from driving. At Coles, Aldi and Dan Murphy's. You chose to drive whilst disqualified.
61Regarding driving an unregistered motor vehicle, you accepted it was the responsibility of the driver to make sure the car was registered before driving. You told police you were aware the car was not registered.
62Your counsel, Ms Lamovie, prepared a written outline of submissions and addressed them during the course of your plea hearing. She submitted your plea of guilty was entered at the earliest opportunity and I accept that is so. You are entitled to have the fact of your pleas of guilty and the timing of them taken into account in your favour and I do so. The community has, by your pleas of guilty, been spared the time and cost of a trial and witnesses have been spared the ordeal of having to give evidence upon your trial.
63Further, I take into account in your favour you intimated early your intention to plead guilty to these charges. The matter could have been dealt with a little earlier had you turned up to one of the earlier hearings on 4 June 2018. I accept your pleas of guilty indicate some remorse for your offending, although I am concerned regarding the extent of it, given your failure to voluntarily report your offending and involvement in the collision to police.
64Ms Lamovie referred to you also acknowledging your guilt in fleeing from the scene, in your record of interview with police. You said you left because you were scared and confused. I have no doubt you were concerned about yourself. Your explanation in the interview for your departure from the scene was not for any concern for the welfare of the victim.
65Regarding your remorse, Ms Lamovie referred to the statement of your now ex-partner, Ms Hastings. Following the collision she said you and she talked about what had happened, and you said you were going to hand yourself in on Monday (10 July) when you went to the Corrections meeting. Your relationship with Ms Hastings had now broken down. You are now apparently in a relationship with Ms Fenton, who I note was in Court during the last hearing to support you.
66You were, until your remand, living in Ballarat and had been referred to a trauma counsellor at the Community Health Services in Lucas through Centacare. You had attended on at least six occasions and Ms Lamovie sought time to obtain a report from your counsellor, such received yesterday by me.
67Addressing your prior criminal history, Ms Lamovie referred to your most recent appearance on 14 March 2017. Appropriately Ms Lamovie conceded your then failure to exchange your name and address after a collision was a relevant prior.
68Regarding that offending, you instructed your explanation for leaving the scene of the collision was because the driver of the other car was very angry and aggressive and that you felt intimidated and therefore did not provided your details to the driver. That did not, of course, relieve you of your obligations.
69Ms Lamovie referred to you having been placed on a Community Correction Order for offences against Ms Hastings with conditions including supervision, assessment and treatment for drug use or dependency and alcohol abuse or dependency, amongst other conditions.
70She said you had attended six Men's Behavioural Change counselling sessions and eight of the ten supervision appointments.
71Ms Lamovie tendered a Contravention Report, relevant to that Community Correction Order dated 10 October 2018 (Exhibit 3).
72You had engaged, it says, in a positive manner. You were assessed as a high risk of re-offending. Due to your offending before me you had not been assessed by ACSO. You failed to attend for supervision and failed to attend Men's Behaviour on two occasions with no medical documentation provided to support those absences.
73Ms Lamovie also referred to your subsequent offending relevant to your rehabilitation prospects. You had been dealt with for contravening that Community Correction Order by re-offending to which I have previously referred. Your explanation was that you were confused regarding the Court date. On 7 December 2017 you were re-bailed from Ballarat Magistrates' Court and on that day a small amount of cannabis was found in your prosthetic leg. You were fined for both those offences.
74Regarding contravening a Community Correction Order, the order was confirmed and varied for a further 12 months on the same terms and conditions. That order was to continue until 12 December 2018.
75It was appropriately conceded by Ms Lamovie that you were on a Community Correction order at the time of this offending and such was an aggravating feature.
76Ms Lamovie also appropriately conceded that this was a serious example of this offence, conceding Charge 1 on the indictment fell ‘towards the high end of the scale of seriousness’. She submitted it was your intention, however, to eventually attend police. Your offending, she urged, resulted from fright and immediate panic, not to evade detection or prosecution. It was clear, however, in my opinion, you knew that you had breached your Community Correction Order and were disqualified from driving.
77Ms Lamovie submitted your detection and prosecution was inevitable as it had taken place in the presence of your partner who had witnessed the collision. That may be so, but that did not relieve you of your obligation to render assistance to Mr Gason at the collision scene.
78Ms Lamovie submitted your evasion of police was short-lived. I disagree. Ms Lamovie urged there was no evidence that the impact of your departure had any deleterious consequence upon the deceased. The latter is not to the point.
79Ms Lamovie conceded that general, specific deterrence and denunciation were relevant sentencing considerations, also your relevant prior history. She is correct.
80Ms Lamovie urged you were remorseful and relied upon your admissions to the police, the statement of Ms Hastings and observations of Mr Cummins in his report of 20 November 2017.
81Addressing your rehabilitation prospects, Ms Lamovie urged you had been responsive to the Community Correction Order until this incident (albeit I note some unacceptable absences). Since this collision, you had successfully reduced your consumption of alcohol, a factor contributing to your previous offending and had reduced your cannabis use. You had not re-offended since being dealt with for contravening the Community Correction Order and remained willing to engage with Corrections.
82Details were provided regarding your background and history. You were born in Sudan in 1989. You were 27 years of age at the time of the offending and are now 28. Your mother died when you were 5 years of age and you were then looked after by your father.
83When you were 6, you were shot in the leg and suffered throughout your childhood with the resultant pain when the wound failed to heal. That injury was not successfully attended to until you settled in Australia.
84When you were 12 or 13 years of age, your father died from injuries after being hit by a truck and you were then raised by your older sister and her husband.
85In Sudan you attended school until Grade 3. Your family fled to Egypt when you were 13 and you lived in a refugee camp until 17. Your education in Egypt was not constant.
86You arrived in Australia in 2006 at the age of 17 on a refugee visa with your sister and her children.
87You attended NMIT TAFE in Collingwood for two years, studying English. From 2006 to 2008 you lived with an uncle in St Albans, but were asked to leave because the house could not accommodate the whole family.
88You then went to live with your sister and her seven children from 2009 until the end of 2010, at which time she asked you to leave as there was a lack of room for everyone in the house.
89In 2010, when you were 20, your leg was amputated below the knee and thereafter you spent 12 months in hospital undergoing rehabilitation.
90Since leaving hospital you had intermittent periods of homelessness, sleeping on friend's couches and engaging with agencies such as the Salvation Army.
91Between 2012 and 15 you were in a relationship, however broke up in part due to hostility from her family. There is a son of that relationship who I understand is nearly 5.
92In early 2015 you were living in your sister's garage with Ms Hastings, before moving to Ballarat in 2016. You were assisted by Centacare, who found you accommodation in Ballarat.
93You had limited employment due to the difficulties with your leg as you could not stand for extended periods of time, and continued to suffer with pain in the stump of your leg and also with back pain.
94Whilst you continued to live in Ballarat until remand, you expressed a desire to move to Melbourne to be closer to your sister and her family. You had also re-established a positive rapport with the mother of your son and visited him on a regular basis.
95You were on a disability support pension.
96Ms Lamovie referred to your disadvantaged background and I discussed that with her.
97In DPP v L'Eveille[1], a Crown Appeal, the Court considered the principles in Bugmy v R[2]. Referrable to analysis of disadvantaged background was that respondent's background of his father being extremely violent and an alcoholic. The charge then before the Court involved violence, specifically intentionally causing serious injury.
[1] [2018] VSCA 60
[2] (2013) 249 CLR 571
98The prosecution at L'Eveille conceded at the plea hearing, that Bugmy principles applied. The Court questioned the Crown's acceptance on the plea that the history of the respondent engaged Bugmy principles. The respondent contended the sentencing judge was correct to give ‘full weight’ to the respondent's deprived background relying on Bugmy.
99The Court provided some explanation of ‘full weight’ referred to in Bugmy:
“… However, this is not to suggest, as the appellant’s submissions were apt to do, that an offender’s deprived background has the same (mitigatory) relevance for all of the purposes of punishment. Giving weight to the conflicting purposes of punishment is what makes the exercise of the discretion so difficult. An offender’s childhood exposure to extreme violence and alcohol abuse may explain the offender’s recourse to violence when frustrated such that the offender’s moral culpability for the inability to control that impulse may be substantially reduced. However, the inability to control the violent response to frustration may increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender.” [28]
100The Court urged caution in determining the extent and relevance of deprived/disadvantaged background when sentencing.
101In Marrah v R[3], further assistance is provided:
“The frequency with which criminal conduct can be explained by such disadvantage does not relieve each sentencing judge of the obligation to take such matters into account. Though they do not provide an excuse for offending behaviour, they must be given due weight in the sentencing calculus. That is not to say that an offender’s social disadvantage has the same mitigatory relevance for all of the purposes of punishment.18 It may so explain the offender’s conduct that the offender’s moral culpability may be substantially reduced, yet it will increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender. It will not diminish the need for the sentence to vindicate the dignity of a victim and reflect the community’s disapproval of the offending.” [16]
[3] [2014] VSCA 119
102As I discussed with Ms Lamovie, whilst I accept your disadvantaged background has some relevance when sentencing you, I am also required to consider the particular offending that is before me.
103In DPP v Terrick& Ors[4], the Court referred to sentencing involving disadvantage in general (aboriginal disadvantage in particular), the latter of course not your situation (paragraph 46).
[4] (2009) VSCA 220
104In my opinion, on the material before me (based entirely upon your self reporting), mitigation of sentence given the offences that are before me as a result of disadvantaged background is at best minimal, and in part, I rely upon the opinion of Mr Coffey.
105Ms Lamovie referred to your immigration status and the possibility you may be deported. You had, she submitted, the opportunity of obtaining citizenship being a permanent resident, however, such may be adversely impacted upon if a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more was imposed. I was referred to Konamala v R[5] which confirmed Guden v R[6]. I accept your time in custody, being aware of your status, and that potential will weigh heavily upon you.
[5] [2016] VSCA 48
[6] (2010) VR 288
106I was referred to the reports of Mr Jeffrey Cummins, Consultant Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, dated 20 November 2017 and 8 February 2018. Mr Cummins concluded you were ‘slightly below average intelligence’ and ‘traumatised as a child’. He was unable to ascertain whether an appropriate diagnosis was chronic adjustment disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder and possible complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Ms Lamovie sought time to obtain a further report to attempt to clarify and confirm or otherwise any such diagnoses, and thus the report of Mr Coffey to which I shall shortly refer.
107In the opinion of Mr Cummins, at the time of this collision you were feeling psychologically directionless and simultaneously dependent on alcohol. I stress the latter not part of your offending before me and I am well aware of that. He proffered the opinion you were additionally traumatised by the collision on 7 July 2017. In the opinion of Mr Cummins, your mental state would inevitably deteriorate and your prospects for long-term rehabilitation decline if incarcerated. In his opinion, you required ongoing trauma counselling.
108You described at that time seeing a counsellor, Lisa, at Community Health Services in Lucas, Ballarat. Regarding the collision, you said you were totally confused and did not know what had happened the car you were driving ‘had just got spun around’. There was a fire and you saw a person, the motorcyclist, who was not alive. Then Chantelle started walking off and you followed her and then you caught a taxi back to her place. You said you felt terrible about the whole situation. You said you felt really bad about the fact the cyclist lost his life, however, you said the rider was the one who ran into your car. You accepted you should have remained at the scene at the collision and tried to give some assistance.
109There was a further report prepared by Mr Cummins, dated 8 February 2018, prepared in part it seems as a result of the prosecution raising concerns about his earlier report. No further assessment of you was conducted by Mr Cummins for the second report.
110Following receipt of the additional material, Mr Cummins confirmed you did not have an antisocial personality disorder or an antisocial personality style. He remained of the opinion you had a problem with alcohol and perhaps a problem with cannabis. He confirmed that if incarcerated you would require ongoing trauma counselling. Ms Lamovie also referred to you being an amputee and with limited English, which would make your time in custody more difficult than a more able-bodied person. You instructed you had some pain in relation to the amputation of your lower leg, and you were not currently on any medication, either for that or depression.
111I accept that the matters to which I have just then referred will make your time in custody more difficult, consistent with general sentencing principles although not relied upon as R v Verdins& Ors[7] principles.
[7] (2007) 16 VR 269
112Ms Lamovie was given the opportunity to obtain further material and further hearing of this matter was adjourned to today, being 7 August 2018.
113Following an adjournment of this matter, I received two additional reports. One from Sandra Fraser, Alcohol and Other Drug Clinician with Uniting Care at Ballarat, dated 25 July 2018. Her report confirmed you attended two appointments prior to recent remand on 12 April 2018 and 19 April 2018. In those two sessions, you showed the ability to abstain from cannabis use and reduce your alcohol use for a period. You stated you were aware alcohol had a direct effect on your mental health behaviours and possible work opportunities.
114You reported you had substantially reduced your alcohol intake although you were struggling. You also reported not using alcohol to manage your anger, stress and your anxiety, although it did explain some loneliness and difficulty you had creating new friendships. You acknowledged the need to talk about your issues. You said you are motivated to continue management of your thoughts, emotions and behaviours without the use of alcohol.
115There was also a report prepared by Guy Coffey, Clinical Psychologist, dated 1 August 2018, sought by your solicitor. That report provided an opinion regarding your psychological state currently and at the time of your offending.
116Further details were provided of your background and history, which I have read but will not refer to in any detail again. I do note that soon after your arrival in Australia, you began to use alcohol and cannabis and from age 18 were drinking alcohol daily, often heavily. When you were 19 you began smoking cannabis most days, that use continuing without periods of abstinence of more than a few weeks until the end of 2017 when you were 28. Reference was made to you having a son born in 2011. You described regular contact with your son, but there were tensions however between you and the child's carer.
117Whilst you had spoken to your son, you have not seen him this year. Apparently, there were difficulties with Department of Health and Human Services in arranging this.
118After the leg operation you lived in public housing, then in 2015 went to live in your sister's house, at that time having met Chantelle. An incident involving family violence between you and Chantelle caused you to live separately, and in 2016 you moved to Ballarat living in subsidised accommodation and receiving a disability support pension.
119You said that you would visit Chantelle and stay with her regularly in Elwood but that the relationship was unstable. You broke up after this offending before me.
120You said in Ballarat your alcohol consumption was your ‘main activity’.
121Reference was made to your Community Correction Order imposed on 14 March 2017. That you saw your Corrections officer every two weeks, attended a weekly support group and a number of counselling appointments as well as attending six Men's Behaviour Change counselling sessions.
122In custody you described cordial relations with prisoners and staff, and that you had not been involved in any altercations or incidents nor felt unsafe. You had not had any visitors because you could not remember your sister's phone number.
123You did not identify any other serious injury or illness in your childhood or adulthood apart from your leg injury and had never received medication for any extended period for any medical condition, other than treatment associated with your leg. You were not currently receiving medication.
124You had not received any psychological or psychiatric treatment prior to 2017.
125You have claimed you had not consumed alcohol since the end of 2017 and reported having ceased cannabis use at that same time.
126Regarding your offending on 7 July 2017, whilst you had commenced undertaking treatment requirements of the Community Correction Order you had missed, he said, a number of appointments with your counsellor and that you continued to abuse alcohol and cannabis most days of the week.
127In the months and weeks prior to this offending your mental state, he said, appeared to be much as it had been for many years (paragraph 46). He did not diagnose you with post-traumatic stress disorder. He described that at the time of this offending, your psychological state was unremarkable, with you not having consumed any alcohol or drugs that day nor had there been any dispute with Chantelle. In your recounting of your recollection of this offending, you said you saw a cyclist motionless on the ground and that you knew he was dead, although it was noted, as I discussed with your counsel previously, in your interview with police you said you had not seen the motorcyclist. You acknowledged you thought later in the evening you needed to get legal advice and should report the accident to police. However, as I have said before, I note you did not do that.
128You were interviewed on 8 July at 11.14pm. Based on the transcript Mr Coffey thought there was no indication that you were at that time mentally unwell, or intensely fearful or anxious, although he conceded it appeared you were highly anxious and distressed by the collision and its aftermath. He noted your behaviour in the moments and hours after was reasonably organised and goal directed.
129When interviewed, you said you may not have had a clear understanding as to your legal and moral obligation to render assistance in the event of a collision. That you may not have been aware of that because you did not have a licence and had not undergone driver training apart from obtaining a learner's permit, but you at least knew, in my opinion, from your previous Court appearance, you should have exchanged name and address where there was a collision.
130Mr Coffey interviewed you on three occasions. Your presentation was described in the report (paragraphs 57-59). He concluded you were not clinically depressed, reported no thoughts of self-harm and with no formal thought disorder that might suggest a psychotic illness. At the time of interviews, Mr Coffey concluded you were not suffering from a mental illness, rather from alcohol use disorder and cannabis use disorder, both in early remission. Whilst not meeting the diagnostic criteria of post-traumatic stress disorder, you were experiencing a range of post-traumatic symptoms (paragraph 65).
131Mr Coffey did not believe that at the time of this collision you were experiencing aspects of your past trauma and you did not show signs of disassociation or re-experiencing post-trauma.
132Mr Coffey noted in relation to this offending, you denied when interviewed that you were conscious of wanting to avoid detection in relation to your driving disqualification, however, that was he considered, of course a possibility.
133It was possible in the opinion of Mr Coffey that you might have thought you would be implicated in the death of a motorcyclist operating on your mind at the scene of the collision. In his opinion, you were highly anxious and shaken by the collision and in a state of emotional turmoil (and I accept that that is likely). You may well have been, but that did not in my opinion, override your obligations.
134Mr Coffey considered it was possible you were less capable of resisting an impulse to leave the scene than a person of normal emotional intellectual capacity, although he did not suggest you were incapable of choosing to stay at the scene of the collision and render assistance.
135Providing you receive an appropriate program of assistance, he concluded the probability of your recidivism is reasonably low.
136He said you did not suffer from mental illness, therefore imprisonment would not be more burdensome for you in that regard, but your chronic leg pain might be a source of additional difficulty for you and you would eventually benefit from counselling for your troubled childhood, that had never been addressed.
137As Ms Lamovie was not relying upon the principles in Verdins when sentencing you and on the material before me that was an appropriate concession. I do however, as I have said, take into account in particular your leg pain as likely making your time in custody more difficult for you, consistent with general sentencing principles and also the matters raised by Mr Cummins.
138There are a number of victim impact statements before me. They are eloquent and it is difficult in these brief sentencing remarks to do justice to them. As I stated in Court, I must of course be mindful that only admissible parts of such statements are considered. I also attempted at the plea hearing to explain that I am sentencing you for the three offences that are before me, and any sentence I impose for the charges that are before me will never be enough for Ashleigh's parents, extended family and friends. As I attempted to explain during the plea hearing, the accused, that is you, must only be sentenced for the charges to which you have pleaded guilty before me. I summarise those statements with that in mind.
139There was a victim impact statement from Mark Gason, father of Ashleigh. Following the collision the mental impact had impacted upon his life. His future had become meaningless and without purpose. His son was a hard worker and dedicated to completing his trade as a joiner/carpenter, and had also started another trade as a mechanical plumber. He now had no child, would never be a grandfather, and he feared growing old alone.
140Ashleigh and he had an extremely close relationship. He had not slept through one night, only achieving some sleep after excessive drinking to numb the pain. He had withdrawn from his family and friends. He had no desire to eat and had to force himself to eat.
141As a result of the collision he could not think clearly and make good decisions in his employment.
142His emotional state was deteriorating and the grief overwhelming. There was no escape.
143There was a victim impact statement from Elizabeth Archer, Ashleigh's mother. She struggled every day to find the happiness she had in her life prior to her son passing away. She had constant heartache and sorrow. Her life felt empty. She suffered from depression. She was having counselling and would continue to do so.
144She did not want to go out or meet people, preferring to be alone. She had anxiety attacks and often cried at work.
145There was a victim impact statement from Linda Varge, Ashleigh's stepmother. She had watched Ashleigh grow into an independent, responsible and caring young man, the son she never had. Their relationship was close.
146He was three months into his second apprenticeship in mechanical plumbing. The three of them shared a very special relationship. They would never see Ashleigh get married, buy his first home or start a family.
147There was a victim impact statement from Andrew Birrell, Ashleigh's brother. He felt constant sadness inside and cried a lot. He felt lonely and had lost his motivation for life. He constantly thought about the circumstances of his brother's death.
148There was a victim impact statement from Michael Clark, Ashleigh's brother. He thought about what a respectable young man Ashleigh was becoming. He found himself crying a lot, whether driving, working or just sitting on the couch watching television. He found it difficult at work to concentrate for long periods of time. He was very quiet at gatherings, functions and dinners.
149There was a victim impact statement from Kevin Gason, grandfather of Ashleigh. The death of Ashleigh had left he and his wife absolutely devastated. Ashleigh was a man of high principles and morals and had a great work ethic. Whilst time had passed since his death, the grief continued.
150There was a victim impact from Leigh Birrell, Ashleigh's uncle. He was completely and permanently devastated by the loss of Ashleigh. Emotionally, he felt like he too had lost a son. He often found himself crying. The impact upon him had led to a decline in his physical state, being depression and with sleepless nights. Life would never be the same without Ashleigh. He was a caring man with so much to give and contribute to life in the community.
151There was a victim impact statement from Phillip Gason, Ashleigh's uncle. Ashleigh was very much a part of the family's lives. An outstanding young man. He was in trauma counselling as were his own children. Ashleigh would spend hours and hours with his aging grandparents and always looked out for them.
152There was a victim impact statement from Jane Coutts. Ashleigh grew up alongside her own children, sharing special occasions and countless family holidays together. She observed Ashleigh's devastated father, traumatised at the loss of his only child. Her own children were struggling to understand why this happened to their friend. Her husband tried to support his childhood friend.
153There was a victim impact statement from Damian Coutts. Every morning he thought of the day his best friend lost his only son. Life would never be the same. The families used to do everything together. Friends since kindergarten with their children growing up together and sharing weekends. Holidays were never the same. They had been scarred for life.
154There was a victim impact statement from Paul Nevodinski. They were left with only memories of Ashleigh.
155A victim impact statement from Bianca Nevodinski. Ashleigh was not there to share special occasions with them. They would never get to see Ashleigh choose a partner or start a family. They would not get to see him grow into a man. She felt inadequate watching and supporting Mark and Linda. There was only profound heartbreak and loss.
156There was a victim statement from Michael Eade, family friend and best friend of Mark, Ashleigh's father. His family grieved the loss of Ashleigh. He was doing his best to support Mark emotionally.
157Also relevant is the notion of social rehabilitation. A number of authorities have referred to the effects upon a victim of offending, including DPP v Toomey[8] in which Vincent JA referred to social rehabilitation, citing DPP v DJK[9]. Whilst those cases refer to sexual offences which this is not, the principles nevertheless remain the same.
[8] [2006] VSCA 90
[9] [2003] VSCA 109
158The effects upon a victim are a relevant sentencing consideration (s5 Sentencing Act 1991). I am conscious however that I must not allow the effects upon a victim to swamp the sentencing process, and in particular in this case must focus on sentencing for the offences that are before me, mindful as I am that you are not charged with causing Ashleigh's death. As I stated in Court, any sentence I impose upon you for the offending that is before me will not lessen the pain felt by Ashleigh's family and friends.
159Turning to your rehabilitation prospects, I have at best guarded optimism given your prior and relevant criminal history, failure to comply with a Community Correction Order by further offending within four months of its commencement, and the counselling and treatment that is anticipated you will require. I must however, when sentencing you, seek to maximise your chances of rehabilitation as they may be.
160Ms Lamovie's ultimate submission was that I could consider the imposition of a Community Correction Order for your offending. Her secondary submission without abandoning her primary submission was that I could impose a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months' imprisonment together with a Community Correction Order. Her third submission, with abandoning her primary or secondary submission, was that if I considered a term of imprisonment was required, then I should be directed towards the imposition of a lower, non-parole period.
161Mr Porceddu who appeared on behalf of the prosecution, submitted an immediate term of imprisonment was the only appropriate disposition. He submitted, however, that a combination disposition including a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months imprisonment, together with a Community Correction Order would be within the appropriate range of dispositions.
162It was submitted by Mr Porceddu that Exhibit E and CCTV footage from Rec Xpress indicated you remained at the scene for approximately 60-80 seconds prior to leaving, that the witness Hong also referred to you staying at the scene for only a short time.
163Mr Porceddu submitted that in the time you were at the scene, you undertook clear and deliberate actions including circling the car twice, getting the dog out of the car and then leaving the scene. In his submissions, yours was a deliberate decision to leave, without the intention to remain and that you formed that intention to leave relatively quickly. There was no suggestion from the material, he said, that you appeared to be in ‘two minds’ about what you should be doing.
164Mr Porceddu submitted you saw the situation for what it was, that is, that you were on a Community Correction Order. That you would have been warned by the Magistrate regarding the issues that could arise from breach of the Community Correction Order, in particular by further offending.
165Mr Porceddu submitted that in relation to the witness Ostilly (page 69), you were then described as being ‘very calm and very together’. Mr Porceddu questioned whether you were actually panicking and that there was no observation of witnesses who said that.
166Ms Lamovie referred to you walking back and forward on the far nature strip prior to leaving the scene, and suggesting you were not calm and together. I do not think I can draw any conclusions from that, as the dog was also running around and it was possible you were looking for the dog, consistent with the statement of Mr Brazzale (Depositions p.58).
167Regarding the submission by Ms Lamovie that because it was so obvious Mr Gason was injured, your help would have been superfluous. That Mr Porceddu submitted, was not the test and I agree.
168Turning to the report of Mr Cummins, dated November 2017, Mr Porceddu noted Mr Cummins did not make any conclusive diagnosis.
169Further, his report did not raise any causal connection between your offending for any diagnosis. Mr Porceddu observed, as do I, Verdins was not being relied upon by Ms Lamovie in sentencing you.
170Mr Cummins also in the report did not say prison would be onerous upon you because of any particular vulnerability you had.
171Turning to the second 2018 report of Mr Cummins, Mr Porceddu maintained you did not have any antisocial personality disorder or antisocial style and that if incarcerated, it was likely you would become psychologically lost/traumatised. There was nothing in that report that raised Verdins despite Mr Cummins having the opportunity to reflect upon his earlier report. Ultimately his opinion had not changed.
172Regarding the recent reports we have received, particularly Mr Coffey's, Mr Porceddu submitted that you did not suffer post-traumatic stress disorder, you did not have formal thought disorders, you did not suffer with any mental illness and the conclusion was that prison would not be more burdensome due to your personal circumstances.
173Mr Porceddu conceded your potential deportation would weigh heavily on you while in custody and I have already referred to that, and I accept that is so.
174Mr Porceddu referred to you previously breaching a Community Correction Order as an aggravating feature of this offending.
175I was also provided with a summary of your offending relevant to failing to exchange your name and address. On 29 January 2016, you were driving a green Toyota vehicle with your ex-partner, Ms Hastings, and her sister in the car. The victim of your offending was stationary at the traffic lights in his vehicle, when your vehicle collided with the rear of his. The victim then moved his vehicle to the side of the road, but you left the scene in yours without exchanging details. The victim followed you and got out of his car and approached you, asking for your licence. You drove off. This matter was then reported to the police.
176Regarding your offending before me, Mr Porceddu submitted there were parallels between this offence of failing to render assistance and the offence of failing to stop (s61(1)(a) Road Safety Act 1986). I agree. Both s61(a) and (b) refer to obligations on drivers to (a) stop and (b) render assistance. Parallels, he submitted, were found in the maximum penalties applicable, also the need for general deterrence when sentencing for both, and in your case, the additional need for specific deterrence given your prior history. He submitted the authorities relevant to both failing to stop and failing to render assistance supported an immediate gaol term be imposed for such offending because of the seriousness of it, noting the increase in penalty from two years to ten years in 2005.
177I was referred to Duy ThaiNguyen v R[10], which I have read. Mr Porceddu submitted there was in that case very favourable plea material for the appellant. In your case, however, you had a relevant appearance four months earlier.
[10] [2014] VSCA 53
178I was referred to the decision of Wassef v R[11]. Mr Porceddu urged there were parallels with that decision referrable to failing to stop and the charge before me of failing to render assistance.
[11] [2011] VSCA 30
179Turning to the gravity of your offending, Mr Porceddu submitted it was high and your culpability was high. You stayed for 60-80 seconds then left the scene with no intention to report the collision or to go to police. You were, he submitted, trying to avoid the inevitable, that is, that you may be charged with further offences.
180Mr Porceddu referred to the thirteen victim impact statements before me which reflected the anguish for the parents and family of Ashleigh. The damage, he said, was irreparable. I am very conscious of that, however I must sentence for the offences before me.
181Mr Porceddu submitted there was a need for specific deterrence.
182Turning to remorse, Mr Porceddu submitted there was some remorse shown by you, but urged it was not significant. That you could have gone to police. Your conduct did not reflect remorse by you. I agree. He further questioned whether you were simply sorry for yourself and your own predicament, rather than remorseful for failing to render assistance to Mr Gason.
183Mr Porceddu conceded your plea of guilty was entered at the earliest opportunity.
184Regarding your prospects of rehabilitation, he urged they were guarded. I agree. You did have a relevant prior criminal history.
185Ms Lamovie in reply submitted the offending in Wassef was at a higher level than yours, however I note that decision as I discussed with her, was some seven years ago. In my opinion, recent pronouncements of the Court of Appeal stress the seriousness of this type of offending, be it s61(a) or (b). Ms Lamovie conceded you did nothing at all to assist the victim when you were at the scene.
186As well as matters personal to you, to which I have refereed including your prospects of rehabilitation as I find them to be, I must also take into account matters such as general deterrence which is of considerable importance in a case such as this.
187I was referred to a number of cases referrable to s61 Road Safety Act 1986. As I stated in Court, it is difficult comparing cases factually, as facts vary enormously case to case, as do all matters in mitigation and personal to an offender.
188I am assisted by statements of relevant sentencing principles, mindful when referring to other cases/decisions, it is very difficult comparing those cases as facts vary enormously case to case, as do all matters personal to an offender.
189In Tokay v R[12], the Court referred to the second reading speech which increased the maximum penalty for leaving the scene of an accident and failing to render assistance.
[12] [2014] VSCA 285
190In that speech on 5 May 2005, in support of a Bill to increase the penalty from 2 years to 10 years imprisonment:
“The Victorian community has been rightfully concerned about recent cases where drivers have left the scene of an accident in which a person has been killed or seriously injured without rendering assistance. Failing to stop in these circumstances is a despicable and cowardly act. The Bracks government has listened to community concerns about this very serious issue, and as a result the penalties for drivers involved in an accident in which a person is killed or seriously injured who fail to stop and render assistance will be substantially increased.” [footnore 14]
191In Tokay, Court of Appeal Santamaria JA referred to a description of such offending as, 'reprehensible' and was referred to the fact offenders must expect a substantial term of imprisonment.
192In Stewart v The Queen[13] the Court referred to failing to stop after an accident, (not your case), but in my opinion parallel principles apply also to s61(b).
[13] [2018] VSCA 55
193The Court referred to ‘current sentencing practices’ as one of the matters to which a Court is to have regard when sentencing an offender, rather was one of the considerations as part of the instinctive synthesis.
194In R v Mohamed[14], the offence was failing to stop after an accident, again not your offending. I note that decision was approximately nine years ago, and his reason for leaving was not the same as yours.
[14] [2009] VSCA 158
195In Wassef, the Court referred to the Second Reading Speech introducing the Bill to increase the penalty.
196Court of Appeal Redlich JA referred to R v Harding[15] and Court of Appeal Lasry AJA referred to failing to stop after a motor vehicle collision, again different from you.
[15] (2008) 50 MVR 413
197Your departure without rendering assistance to Mr Gason was, as I said, inhumane. You should have rendered assistance to him. It was your legal responsibility to do that, however you deliberately left and failed to do so.
198In Sarikaya v The Queen[16] a number of driving offences were before the Court including failure to stop and failure to render assistance. I note in your case, no attempt to drive away or disguise your car.
[16] [2015] VSCA 236
199The Court referred to some authorities relevant to failing to stop and/or failing to render assistance (paragraphs 22-23).
200The Court also referred to Parliament's intention that general deterrence be given significant weight in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.
201I must also take into account the need for specific deterrence when sentencing you, given your prior criminal history and breach of Court orders specifically a Community Correction Order and driving whilst disqualified, in your case.
202I must also consider the question of protection of members of the community from you, and bear in mind the likelihood of your reoffending. This continues to concern me.
203I am called upon by the Sentencing Act to manifest the community's denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment.
204I have carefully considered whether a Community Correction Order should form part of the sentence I impose. I am mindful of the decision in Boulton & Ors v The Queen[17] and subsequent pronouncements of the Court of Appeal relevant to those principles. A Community Correction Order has both a punitive and rehabilitative aspect to it, and in Boulton the Court was urged to ‘rethink the conventional wisdom about whether prison is really the only option’.
[17] (2014) 46 VR 308
205Community Correction Orders have been referred to and addressed in a number of cases since, including DPP v Maxfield[18], Alam v The Queen[19], Marocchini v The Queen[20] and Hutchinson v The Queen[21] and relatively recently Gul v The Queen[22].
[18] [2015] VSCA 95
[19] [2015] VSCA 48
[20] [2015] VSCA 29
[21] [2015] VSCA 115
[22] [2016] VSCA 82
206I did not however, understand Boulton to remove the requirement that a sentencing judge must take into account all of s5 Sentencing Act 1991 nor did I understand Boulton to mean that sentencing principles stated by the Court of Appeal and other courts relevant to your offending now amounted to nought.
207Nor did I understand Boulton's decision to remove the instinctive synthesis required when sentencing.
208I also did not understand Boulton to remove the need for me to be mindful of the maximum penalties applicable to your charge. Further, I note Court of Appeal Priest JA observed in Hutchinson that:
“… it should not be thought that Boulton offers a ‘get out of jail free ‘ card in situations where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary in a given case to satisfy the various purposes for which a sentence may be imposed.” [17]
209In my opinion, to impose either of Ms Lamovie's primary or secondary submissions on sentence would not adequately or appropriately reflect all sentencing considerations.
210In my opinion the only appropriate disposition involves a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period being set. I am mindful of the principles of totality.
211I sentence you as follows.
212On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
213On Summary Charge 4, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment.
214On Summary Charge 5, you are convicted and fined $200.
215I direct the following by way of cumulation and concurrency.
216Charge 1 is the base sentence and I direct that 1 month of Summary Charge 4 be served cumulatively upon Charge 1.
217That results in a total effective sentence of 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment and I direct you serve a period of 22 months before you are eligible for parole.
218Pursuant to s6AAA Sentencing Act, had you been found guilty of this offending following jury verdict, in other words if you had pleaded not guilty but been found guilty, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years.
219Pursuant to s18(4) Sentencing Act I declare you have spent 41 days in custody, (up to and including 6 August 2018) by way of pre-sentence detention and I direct this be entered into the records of the Court.
220The prosecutor made application for a forensic sample pursuant to s464ZF Crimes Act. This was not opposed by counsel on your behalf and I make the order in the terms sought. It will be for a saliva sample and I do so on the basis of the seriousness of your offending and your prior criminal history, and I must advise you the authorities may use reasonable force in order to obtain that sample.
221Regarding your licence cancellation and disqualification, you are disqualified from obtaining a licence for 6 years from today's date. In determining the length of that disqualification, I take into account the decision in R v Lefebure[23] relevant to rehabilitation.
[23] (2000) 31 MVR 131
222Any other orders?
223MR PORCEDDU No, Your Honour, no other orders.
224HER HONOUR: All right then, is there anything further? Any clarification sought on anything?
225MS LAMOVIE: No, Your Honour.
226MR PORCEDDU: No, Your Honour.
227HER HONOUR: Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr Bankal, you will need to go out now all right? Thank you. Thanks Mr Interpreter. All right, thank you both for your assistance.
228MR PORCEDDU: If Your Honour pleases.
229MS LAMOVIE: If Your Honour pleases.
- - - - - -
0
13
0