Director of Public Prosecutions v Carter
[2018] VCC 358
•22 March 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-17-00598
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BENJAMME CARTER |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR CHIEF JUDGE KIDD | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 March 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 22 March 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Carter | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 358 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal law – Sentence.
Catchwords: One charge riot – Metropolitan Remand Centre Riot June 2015 – Late plea – Offending at the lower end – Guarded about rehabilitation prospects.
Legislation Cited: ss 6AAA, 15 Sentencing Act 1991.
Cases Cited:DPP v Luca [2016] VCC 1573; R v Caird (1970) 54 Cr App Rep 499; R v McCormack & Ors [1981] VR 104; R v Sari [2008] VSCA 137; De Castres v The Queen; Kent v The Queen [2011] VSCA 377; Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 145 ALR 408; DPP v Fikhman (Unreported, Judge Montgomery, 18 August 2017); DPP v Benson [2017] VCC 409; DPP v Ditchburn [2018] VCC 174; DPP v Kumas [2017] VSCA 287; Fridey v The Queen [2014] VSCA 271.
Sentence: 15 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms J. Malobabic (Plea) Mr P. Raimondo (Sentence) | Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr S. Anger | Cameron Marshall & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Benjamme (Benjamin) Carter, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of Riot[1]. The maximum penalty for this offence is ten years’ imprisonment.
[1]Contrary to the Common Law.
2 You were 30 years old at the time of this offending. You are now 33 years old.
Circumstances of the offending
3 A prosecution opening was tendered as Exhibit A on the plea, detailing both the overall events of the riot and your specific role in it. There is no dispute as to those facts.
Overview of events
4
I have previously sentenced some of your co-offenders, including Johnathon Luca[2] for their roles in this riot. The prosecution opening was in the same terms as that put on the Luca plea, at least insofar as the overview is concerned.
I adopt the same remarks I made previously regarding the overview of events. They are accepted by you through your counsel.
[2]DPP v Luca [2016] VCC 1573 (‘Luca’).
5 On 30 June 2015, 200 to 300 prisoners at the Metropolitan Remand Centre (“MRC”) were involved in the largest riot in Victoria’s correctional history. Evidence indicated the protest by prisoners on 30 June 2015 was planned, with the intent of disrupting the routine of the prison, to force authorities to suspend, amend or reverse the “no smoking” policy. A total smoking ban was due to commence in Victorian prisons on 1 July 2015. Peaceful protests were held by prisoners at the MRC in the days leading up to the riot.
6 During the riot, fences were breached, prison vehicles, including a tractor, were used to cause damage to gates and fences, the Central Movement Control, which I will refer to as the “CMC”, was stormed twice, the canteen was looted and multiple accommodation and non-accommodation units were significantly damaged. That damage included the use of makeshift weapons to smash windows, damage to equipment and fixtures inside the units and the lighting of fires, both inside and outside the units.
7 It took 15 hours for prison officers, police and fire brigade personnel to restore order to the prison and secure all prisoners. The riot appeared to have been in an acute state for a shorter period of time, from approximately 11.40 am, when some of the prisoners began congregating and chanting for tobacco, through to the late-afternoon, when the CMC was breached for a second time. It had essentially finished by 11 pm.
8 Prison officers and public servants were forced to flee the grounds for their own safety. A number of prison officers reported minor physical injuries, including inhalation of chemical agents, which were thrown back at them by prisoners. Other minor injuries occurred during physical clashes with rioting prisoners at the CMC. Some staff reported psychological injuries, such as recurring nightmares and ongoing stress, as a direct result of the threats and fear inflicted by the prisoners.
9 Following the riot, a large number of the prisoners had to be relocated to other prison facilities, due to large parts of the MRC no longer being operable.
10 As at 11 April 2016, the Department of Justice had incurred $12.1m worth of costs relating to the riot, of which approximately $6.89m related to repairs and maintenance of the MRC. In all, 102 offenders have been charged in relation to the riot.
Your specific role
11 I will move to your specific role in the events of 30 June 2015.
12
You were serving a sentence at the MRC for unrelated matters, housed in
Area 2 in the Billingham Unit on the day of the riot.
13 At the time of the routine headcount, around 11.45 am, you left your cell and you joined a group of prisoners who were gathered together at the basketball court in Area 2.
14 At around 12.15 pm, you were with a group of prisoners as they advanced towards the CMC. You and other prisoners entered the CMC via a gate which had already been forced open. At this time, you pulled the green jumper you were wearing over your head, in an effort to disguise yourself.
15 Amongst a crowd of prisoners, you went through the CMC to the canteen, which had already been breached. Prisoners had been looting from the canteen. You exited from the canteen, carrying an item in your hand. You were still wearing your jumper around your face, but were now also wearing sunglasses you had taken from the canteen.
16 About 12.30 pm, you gathered with other prisoners near an outdoor shelter in the Area 3 yard.
17 At approximately 1.20 pm, you and other prisoners (some disguised and some armed) approached a fence in Area 3, between the Burnside and Bellbridge Units. You crouched down and tugged at that gate. It is alleged by the prosecution that you were attempting to breach that gate, to allow access to further areas of the prison.
18
Later, around 1.37 pm, the main entry doors to the Billingham Unit were breached. You and other prisoners rushed into the unit. You were still wearing your disguise. You reached over the Officer’s Post counter and pressed
a button, unlocking the door to the A side of the unit. You pointed to the door and a number of prisoners entered in the A side, including one who was wearing a Breathing Apparatus (“BA”) mask and armed.
19 You went over the counter to see if the door to the B side of the unit was open, but it was not. You then went back over the counter and pushed the button to open the doors to the B side. You then pointed at a prisoner who was armed and that prisoner opened the door to the B side. Prisoners went through to that area of the unit. You then left unit and that concluded your participation in the riot.
20 During several prison recorded telephone conversations in July 2015, you made statements regarding the riot. You said that you “sort of did” become involved in the riot, but “didn’t”. You said it was “sort of hard not to” get involved.
Victim Impact Statements
21 I now turn to the victim impact statements concerning the riot offence. The prosecution tendered 14 victim impact statements on the plea. These statements have been made by Corrections officers who were working at the MRC on 30 June 2015. There were a number of common themes arising out of the victim impact statements regarding the impact of this event on the officers. Primarily, that the riot had a significant negative impact on those working on that day. Several have reported difficulties in both their professional and personal lives since the riot. Some have experienced flashbacks, which have disturbed their sleep. The stress has affected their satisfaction at work and also affected their home life and relationships with their families. Some sustained physical injuries, although it is not put by the prosecution that you were responsible for inflicting any of these injuries directly. It has affected the way that they now interact with the prisoners on a day-to-day basis.
Legal principles
22 Insofar as the legal principles in relation to this riot offence are concerned, in Luca,[3] I detailed the relevant the legal principles regarding the offence of riot which emerge from both the Victorian and interstate authorities[4]. Your counsel accepted that they accurately reflect the legal principles. I adopt the remarks I made in Luca about the relevant legal principles.
[3]Luca [2016] VCC 1573 [17]-[18].
[4]R v Caird (1970) 54 Cr App Rep 499, 505-508; R v McCormack & Ors [1981] VR 104, 108-109; R v Sari [2008] VSCA 137 [62]-[65]; De Castres v The Queen; Kent v The Queen [2011] VSCA 377 [1] [10] [26]-[36].
Gravity of the offending and your role
23 I turn to my assessment of the gravity of the offending and your role. I am required to assess the gravity of the overall riot and your contribution to the riot, in light of the legal principles concerning the offence.
24 As I said in Luca, I consider this to be a very serious example of this type of offence. Your counsel conceded that this was a serious example. It is hard to make a comparison of riot offences, given there are so few, but the sheer scale of this prison riot makes this riot a very troubling disturbance of a very high order. That is so, whether it is measured by the number of participants involved in the rioting group, 200 to 300 prisoners; its duration, many hours over the course of a day; the fact that the rioters acted against law enforcement officers or prison officers in the execution of their duties; the breadth of personnel required to restore order to the prison and secure all the prisoners, namely prison, police and fire brigade personnel; the potential danger to which these officers were exposed; the level of harm which this riot generated; the sense of complete anarchy depicted in the CCTV footage; or the breathtaking scale of damage and loss actually incurred.
25 While minor physical damage and psychological harm was caused to the victims, thankfully this was not a riot which resulted in serious physical harm or injury. I take this into account, but self-evidently, a prison riot of this scale carried with it a very high degree of risk to the personal safety and security of the prison officers and other public servants involved. It caused significant fear.
26 Now to your specific role.
27 Your active participation in the riot was quite short, over less than two hours, at least by comparison with the involvement with some of your co-offenders.
28 For most of that time, you attempted to disguise your face with your jumper and at one stage you were wearing a pair of sunglasses.
29 Your active participation in this period was quite limited and for the most part, was relatively passive.
30 You entered a number of different areas of the MRC, including the CMC, canteen and Area 3. As I mentioned before, you were observed taking an item from the canteen. You tugged at a gate in Area 3, at the very least, in an effort to see whether it was open or capable of being breached.
31 Perhaps, the most serious example of your participation in this riot is your conduct in assisting and encouraging other prisoners to enter the A and B sides of your unit, Billingham, by opening the doors and directing prisoners to go through into areas which were previously secured. You, yourself, did not enter these areas.
32 Your participation in the riot was not at that high level of some of your
co-offenders. In contrast to many of your co-offenders, you did not do some of the acts which characterised the violent and destructive nature of this riot; you did not assault or threaten anybody; you did not carry a weapon; you did not cause damage or light fires; you did not remove any cell doors or enter units other than your own; you were not involved in either the first or second breach of the CMC.
33 Your counsel submitted that in the absence of these aggravating acts and the lesser period of time amounted to a lesser involvement, by comparison with
a number of your co-offenders.
34 In a report dated 16 February 2018, forensic psychologist, Mr David Ball, records that you feared for your well-being and “just got caught up in the moment.” This report was tendered on the plea. Your counsel submitted that this provided an explanation for your offending, or at least in that aspect of
Mr Ball’s report, which concerned you being "just caught up in the moment." However, it was not offered as an excuse as such. As I indicated at your plea hearing, an atmosphere which might tempt participants to become swept up in this offending, will often be the setting for this offence and the trigger for people becoming involved. You did have a choice not to participate and it is not suggested otherwise. However, I accept that you sense of being caught up in the riot does provides some explanation for your participation in the offending and certainly shows you were not a leader or instigator.
35 In the end, your counsel submitted that your role in this riot was at the lower end of the scale, by comparison with your co-offenders who have been dealt with in this court. The prosecution accepted as much. So do I.
Plea of guilty
36 Your plea of guilty to this offence was entered after this matter was fixed for trial, but before pre-trial commenced. It is a relatively late plea of guilty.
37 Notwithstanding that your plea to the riot charge was relatively late, you still receive credit for the objective utilitarian benefit, through the saving of time and resources associated with running a contested trial.
38 I accept that your entry of the plea of guilty is also representative of an acceptance of responsibility for your offending and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice, as was submitted by your counsel.
Criminal history
39 I turn to your criminal history.
40 You have a substantial criminal history.
41 Your history commences in 2005, where you were sentenced twice in the Magistrates’ Court and received a fine and a wholly suspended sentence for drug and dishonesty offending, respectively.
42 You have a significant gap in your history, which I will come to in more detail shortly, of some eight years.
43 In 2013, your history effectively recommences, escalating in frequency and in seriousness, concerning mostly drugs, dishonesty and weapons offences. You were given two opportunities to undertake a community corrections order (“CCO”) in 2013 for offences, including trafficking cannabis. You breached both the original order and a variation. You subsequently received short periods of imprisonment for the breach and further offending.
44 On 18 June 2015, at the Warrnambool Magistrates’ Court, you received
a combined sentence of 120 days’ imprisonment, followed by an 18 month CCO, with both work and treatment and rehabilitation conditions for a number of charges of drug trafficking and other related matters. You had served, at the time, 120 days imprisonment. On the same day, in relation to a contravention of a suspended sentence, two months’ imprisonment was restored and required to be served cumulatively.
45 You were serving this sentence at the time of the riot.
46 After completing the two months, you were released in August 2015. However, you did not complete your CCO because of subsequent offending, which I will come to later.
Personal circumstances
47 Before I do so, I want to say something about your personal circumstances. As I have already stated, you are now 33 years old.
48 You grew up in Warrnambool, where you were raised by your mother, an only child. Your household was somewhat dysfunctional, with both of your parents struggling with an addiction to drugs or alcohol. Your parents separated when you were five years old and you do not have contact with your father.
49 Your mother, Sue, remains supportive of you. She attended at your plea hearing and provided a reference, which was tendered on your plea.
50 The reference from your mother indicates that growing up, you were always good at sports and won awards for both squash and cricket.
51 You had difficulties at school and left in Year 9. After this, you completed
a number of different odd jobs, before undertaking automotive studies at TAFE.
52 Your mother left to find work in Western Australia and you were left alone for
a period of time. You were smoking cannabis on a daily basis.
53 At age 19, after your initial contact with the criminal justice system, you found
a trade and stuck to it. You got into concreting and pursued this first as an employee, before setting up your own concreting business.
54 Around this time, you also commenced a serious relationship with your now
ex-wife. You and your then wife had three children, who are now aged 14, 13 and eight years old.
55 Between 2005 and 2011, you enjoyed a period of relative stability with your work and family life. You were also playing cricket at this time and you stopped smoking cannabis.
56 Another reference tendered on your plea of Ms Jess Remfrey, speaks of the friendship and support you provided to her and her young son, in the wake of her ex-partner stalking her. It spoke of your kindness in helping her with odd jobs and teaching her son to play indoor cricket.
57 However, you began drinking heavily and were having relationship difficulties by 2011. By late-2011, you and your wife separated.
58 Shortly after this, in 2012, work tools were stolen from your vehicle, which were worth around $15,000. This was a significant financial blow for you.
59 At this time, you also recommenced using cannabis heavily. Your drug use dovetailed into using methylamphetamine. Your usage was at a high level, of up to two grams per day. The re-emergence of your drug problem is evident in your criminal history from this time, where you were convicted of not just drug possession charges, but of multiple trafficking charges.
60 You have been in custody since February 2016. I will return to this part of your custodial chronology shortly. However, during this time, you have had some contact with your children by phone and letters. However, it has been agreed that they would not visit you in custody.
61 Your mother still lives in Warrnambool and has constant contact with your children, her grandchildren. She has visited you regularly in custody.
62 When you are eventually released, you hope to return to Warrnambool and at least initially to stay with your mother. You intend on being present in your children's lives and the thought of returning to parent your children has sustained you in custody.
63 I am also told that while you have been in custody for the last two years, you have abstained from any drug use. You have attended both Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) and Narcotics Anonymous (“NA”) meetings. In custody, you have focused attention on your drug addiction, this being the problem which precipitated your most recent offending, by attending these weekly meetings.
64 You have tried to use your time in custody otherwise productively. You are currently employed as the “education billet” and have participated in a number of other vocationally oriented and personal development programs.
Personality functioning
65 Two forensic reports of forensic psychologist, David Ball, were tendered on your plea. I have already made reference to one of them. Mr Ball previously assessed you and prepared an earlier report, dated 10 June 2016. This report was in almost identical terms to the 2018 report.
66 In both reports, Mr Ball observes that you present with an elevation on the scales used to assess dependent personality features, anxiety and depression.
67 Mr Ball assessed that while you had the capacity to act with good judgment, you were impulsive and you presented more recently with a history of drug dependence and anti-social features in your personality. Mr Ball further assessed that you had limited insight into your offending.
68 In Mr Ball’s opinion you had “a raft of anti-social personality features that narrowly falls short of the DSMV- 5 diagnostic criteria for anti-social personality disorder.”
69 Mr Ball observed that there would be a number of challenges to your safe management in the community. Mr Ball was of the opinion that you would require “intensive and structured cognitive behavioural treatment to address the anti-social aspects within [your] personality and drug relapse prevention.” He was also of the opinion that you may benefit from mood and anger management programs.
70 These matters are all relevant to my assessment of your prospects of your rehabilitation.
71 I note that no reliance is placed on any of these reports, in support of any limb under Verdins.
Subsequent matters and totality
72 As I have already noted, you were released in August 2015, after completing the sentence you were serving when you committed this riot offence.
73 You remained in the community until 13 February 2016, when you were remanded on new drug-related offending, including multiple drug trafficking offences, committed between November 2015 and February 2016.
74 You were later charged in April 2016 with further trafficking offences, whilst in custody on remand for the other matters. This charge was put upon the basis that you were giving directions to traffick drugs to individuals in the community.
75 You were subsequently sentenced for these offences at the Warrnambool Magistrates’ Court on 16 June 2016, to a total effective sentence of two years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years. I shall refer to this sentence as “the Warrnambool sentence”.
76
The non-parole period of the Warrnambool sentence expired on 13 February 2018. Recently, you were denied parole. You have served a little over one month since becoming eligible for parole. I will proceed upon the basis that
a significant factor in the Adult Parole Board’s decision to refuse your parole, was the fact that this riot matter was still outstanding. That was submitted to me by your counsel and the prosecution accepted as much.
77 It follows that you have about eight months still to serve of the Warrnambool sentence.
78 The principle of totality requires that I take into account, in a general way, the Warrnambool sentence. That includes the period of time that you have been in custody, which itself includes the month or so since 13 February 2018, that you have served, after you became eligible for release on parole.
79 I am conscious that you were not released on parole and that one of the significant factors in the decision not to release you on parole, was the fact that this riot matter was outstanding.
Prospects of rehabilitation
80 I now turn to your prospects of rehabilitation.
81 It is a somewhat difficult task to assess your prospects of rehabilitation.
82 In the last five years, you have accumulated a significant criminal history of serious drug-related offences. You have continued to offend while on various court orders, including CCOs and suspended sentences. Your most recent subsequent offending, being the Warrnambool sentence, involved offences committed over a period of time after the commission of the riot offence and whilst you were on a CCO, imposed in June 2015.
83 The fact that you engaged in offending after the commission of the riot offence, is worrying.
84 Mr Ball’s observation about your limited insight into your offending behaviour and general psychological functioning, in addition to his opinion that you have a number of anti-social aspects with your personality, concern me. As I have observed, he spoke of these challenges to your safe management back into the community.
85 However, for the last two years, you have spent a sustained period in custody, where you have been abstinent from drug use for a significant amount of time, for the first time since you commenced using methlyamphetamine. You have also actively engaged with drug rehabilitation programs in custody. These are positive steps towards your rehabilitation. Your ability to remain abstinent in the community after such a sustained period of abstinence in custody, remains untested. Your ability to remain drug-free out of custody will greatly influence whether or not you are able to rehabilitate.
86 There are a number of other factors which auger well for your eventual reintegration into the community. I have noted that you have a significant gap in your criminal history of some eight years, which shows me that you have the capacity to be a constructive law-abiding citizen. Aside from your drug rehabilitation, you have the ongoing support of your mother, who you can live with upon your release. You have a demonstrated work ethic and trade qualifications, which means that you should be able to re-enter the work force. Finally, you have a strong motivation in your children to return to a normal, drug and crime-free lifestyle.
87 Other than these matters, the reference materials highlights that positive
re-engagement with sport could engender a sense of commitment and belonging. This would also have a role to play in your rehabilitation.
88 I am cautiously hopeful about your prospects, but I remain somewhat guarded.
Parity
89 Parity is also a relevant consideration. A number of your co-offenders have already been sentenced for their roles in this riot. I must take into account their sentences in fixing your sentence. In doing so, however, I must make due allowance for the respective criminality of each offender, for their differing antecedents, personal circumstances and mitigating factors.
90 Our Court of Appeal recently observed, in the context of one of these riot cases, the following:
"The application of the principle of parity to sentences imposed on
co- offenders, is a difficult enough task when the same sentencing judge is called upon to sentence a mere handful of offenders, particularly when there is great variation between their individual roles and personal circumstances, but it presents singular difficulties when a judge is faced with an offence such as that of the applicant, involving a very large number of offenders, all with different roles and personal circumstances, those co-offenders having been sentenced by different judges. In such a situation, a sentencing judge has no option other than to adopt a practical and pragmatic approach to parity."[5]
[5]DPP v Kumas [2017] VSCA 287 [33]-[34].
91 Reference was made at the plea hearing to the sentence imposed by me on Luca..[6] I sentenced Luca to two years' and five months’ imprisonment, adding 21 months to his total effective sentence and 12 months to his non-parole period.
[6]Luca [2016] VCC 1573.
92 Where your co-offender is already serving a sentence, like Luca, I must also consider each component of the sentence imposed, including the extra period of imprisonment which he will be required to serve, as a result of the riot.[7]
[7]See Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 145 ALR 408, 441.
93 Luca’s offending was significantly more extensive and objectively serious than yours. However, he had the benefit of an early plea, youth and a very limited criminal history.
94 Luca, of course, is not you only co-offender. I have had regard, in a practical way, to the general pattern of sentences imposed on all those who had been sentenced for their participation in this riot, including those who have been sentenced by me. Further, I take into account the sentences that I imposed in DPP v Ditchburn,[8] DPP v Benson[9] and DPP v Fikhman[10], and other sentences generally imposed towards the lower end of the scale.
[8][2018] VCC 174.
[9][2017] VCC 409.
[10](Unreported, Judge Montgomery, 18 August 2017).
Pre-sentence detention
95
There is no pre-sentence detention in this matter, as you have been serving
a sentence whilst being remanded on the riot charge. But as I said earlier, in imposing a sentence upon you, I take into account the principle of totality, having regard to the Warrnambool sentence which you are currently serving.
96 Mr Carter, would you please stand.
Sentencing
97 On the charge of riot, I convict and sentence you to 15 months’ imprisonment. This commences today.
98 I fix a non-parole period of five months.
99 You can sit down.
100 As I have already noted, there is no pre-sentence detention applicable to declare.
101 This sentence is to be served wholly concurrently with the balance of the Warrnambool sentence.
102 Given that your previous non-parole period for the Warrnambool sentence has expired, I am not required to fix a new non-parole period covering both sentences.
103
So this means, Mr Carter, that your total effective sentence from today is
15 months. The balance of the Warrnambool sentence, as I have said before, is approximately eight months. I therefore intend that my 15 month sentence extends your overall current imprisonment by approximately seven months.
104 Now whether or not the operation of s.15 of the Sentencing Act 1991, is such that the balance of your Warrnambool sentence of approximately eight months is suspended while you serve the five month non-parole period you are required to serve under my sentence, the effect of my intended overall sentence from today will be the same.[11] This is because the balance of my sentence after the expiration of your non-parole period, which would be ten months, is greater than the balance of the Warrnambool sentence, which is about eight months.
[11]Fridey v The Queen [2014] VSCA 271 [19] [63]-[66]. The Court observed that so long as the unserved portion of the sentence I impose on the riot charge is greater than the unserved portion that is owed on the Warrnambool sentence, the net effect will be the same [66].
105
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, but for your plea of guilty,
I would have sentenced you to 25 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months.
106 Now, gentlemen, you heard what I had to say there about s.15.
107 MR ANGER: Yes, Your Honour.
108 HIS HONOUR: I have indicated what my intended sentence is and if I have misunderstood the way it operates.
109 MR ANGER: Yes, Your Honour.
110 HIS HONOUR: Then you are at liberty to raise the matter with me.
111 MR ANGER: Nothing to raise, Your Honour.
112 HIS HONOUR: But on the way I read s 15, whether or not there is any suspension of the balance of the Warrnambool sentence, it has no practical effect in this case.
113 MR ANGER: Yes, Your Honour.
114 MR RAIMONDO: I agree with that, Your Honour.
115 HIS HONOUR: All right.
116 MR RAIMONDO: Your Honour, just one other matter.
117 HIS HONOUR: Yes.
118 MR RAIMONDO: I have got draft orders in relation to s.464ZF order that you made.
119 HIS HONOUR: Yes, I will sign that. There was no opposition to this, was there?
120 MR ANGER: No opposition to that, Your Honour.
121 HIS HONOUR: Yes, thanks Mr Raimondo. Yes, I have signed those, I will hand them back.
122 MR RAIMONDO: If Your Honour pleases.
123 HIS HONOUR: Is there anything else?
124 COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
125 HIS HONOUR: All right. Well if Mr Carter could be taken away please. Actually, did you want to speak with him?
126 MR ANGER: If I could speak to him briefly in the dock when Your Honour retires?
127 HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well I am happy for you to speak to him now, Mr Anger.
128 MR ANGER: If Your Honour pleases. Thank you, Your Honour.
129 HIS HONOUR: Thanks, Mr Anger. Yes, and Mr Carter can be taken away.
130 Thanks, Counsel, for your assistance. Adjourn the court please.
- - -
0
8
0