Director of Public Prosecutions v Cassells
[2022] VCC 1746
•3 October 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-21-01531
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| KEARAN CASSELLS |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CARLIN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 October 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 October 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Cassells | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1746 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr M. Turner | The Office for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr B. Newton | Chester Metcalfe & Co |
HER HONOUR:
1
Kearan Cassells, you have pleaded guilty today, 3 October 2022, before me, to
three charges.
2 The first is a charge of aggravated burglary. The second is a charge of criminal damage and the third is a charge of common law assault.
3 It now falls to me to sentence you for your conduct. Your plea of guilty today followed a sentence indication on 29 September 2022, wherein I indicated that if you pleaded guilty to those charges I would impose a sentence which would not require you to serve any more time in custody than you already had and would be combined with a community corrections order.
4 I also indicated that the corrections order that I would impose would include a punitive element, in other words, work hours, not just rehabilitation.
5 On that day, 29 September, through your counsel, you indicated an acceptance of that indication and that is how you came to plead guilty before me today.
6 At the sentence indication your counsel, Mr Newton, submitted that I should impose a sentence, not only that did not require you to spend any more time in custody, but should simply be a corrections order without any time in custody. His back up position was that if I were to impose a sentence of imprisonment it should not exceed the pre-sentence detention.
7 I indicated to him on that day that in my view, the matters were too serious and that taking into account all your mitigating factors, I still needed to impose a term of imprisonment and that remains the case today.
8 In arriving at an appropriate sentence I am required by law to have regard to a variety of factors, which I will outline in these sentencing remarks. Some tend towards leniency and some point the other way. No one factor automatically prevails over any other. Rather, I must have regard to them all and give each the weight it deserves to arrive at a just sentence.
9
The agreed facts upon which I sentence you are as follows: In May 2019, you were employed as a full-time labourer in a company called
APT Brick and Block Laying. That was a construction company which was managed by Andrew Teekens. The office of that company happened to also be his home address, which was at Munro Avenue, Mount Waverley.
10
Although you were a full-time employee, during the period of 10 to 15 weeks in the lead up to your offending you had only worked one day and had only been paid for that one day. You did not resign from the company and there were negotiations, or perhaps I should say communications, between you and your mother and the company as to the status of your employment. It appears that
Mr Teekens wished you to resign but you maintained that you had not done so.
11 In late February 2020, your mother, who has played some role in the facts that I am describing, as she was acting as your bookkeeper at the time, contacted the complainant, being Mr Teekens, requesting a certificate of separation to allow you to start receiving Centrelink payments. Mr Teekens indicated that he was referring this request to his payroll staff.
12 On 3 March 2020, at about 7.00 am, you contacted Mr Teekens via text message and what you said was this. 'Andy, why the fuck are you refusing to give me my separation certificate? You don’t give me work for 15 weeks and now you won't even help me get Centrelink after 15 weeks of no work and this is how you treat me'.
13
At some point which is not clear on the exhibit in the hand-up brief,
Mr Teekens responded to that text message and said, 'Saw your calls now. My bookkeeper is looking at it. I'll get it to you ASAP'. So, that was via text message. As I say, the timing of his message is unclear. You responded to that text message saying, 'I requested a separation certificate over a week ago, then yesterday. It will take you no more than 30 minutes to complete. I'm not waiting anymore. Do it today'.
14
At 6.44 pm on 3 March, you sent another text message to Mr Teekens saying,
'Andy, I requested a separation certificate three weeks ago. You are a liar. All I need is your signature. That's all I need. You have put me in debt for your inability to provide suitable work. You cannot keep me on at your desire. You are now affecting my family'. It is not clear whether Mr Teekens responded to that.
15 The next day, 4 March, at about 8.00 am you called Mr Teekens again demanding a separation certificate and demanding that one be signed that day. At about 2.57 pm, Mr Teekens sent an email to your mother, Carol Scott or at least it was to her email address but was addressed to you, querying whether you had resigned from your employment or not. Between 4.34 and 6.45 pm you called Mr Teekens 10 times and sent him two further text messages, demanding the certificate and calling him a liar.
16
Mr Teekens did not answer your calls and claims not to have seen the text messages until after the incident, which is the subject of the charges. At
6.50 pm that day, 4 March 2020, your mother sent Mr Teekens an email indicating that you had not resigned from APT and that all you wanted was your separation certificate.
17 At 7.43 pm that day you attended at Mr Teekens home address, which as I say was also his office address, and started banging on the front door, shouting for Mr Teekens to open it. You said, 'I know you're home, open up. I've warned you time's up'.
18
Inside the house was not only Mr Teekens but also his wife, Donna and their
19 year old daughter, Bridie. I am not satisfied that you knew that anyone other than Mr Teekens was home but you were certainly reckless as to whether anyone else was home.
19
Mr Teekens and his family did not open the door but instead called Triple 0. You then kicked the door open, so causing damage to the door. And that comprises the charge of criminal damage and also the charge of aggravated burglary. You entered the premises and were immediately screamed at by
Mr Teekens' wife, Donna, to get out of the house. You turned towards her, at which time Mr Teekens stepped between you and his wife and you then punched him to the face with your righthand, causing him to fall backwards. Once he was back up on his feet you punched him again, knocking him backwards again and then kicked him whilst he was on the ground. During the assault his glasses fell off. Mr Teekens backed away from you and you then left through the front door, saying as you were leaving, 'This isn't the last of it'.
20
That whole incident, from the time you entered into the property belonging to
Mr Teekens and by that I mean the boundary of the property, not the home, till when you exited the property took less than three minutes. That is known because your entrance and exit from the property was captured on
CCTV footage.
21 Once you had left, Bridie the daughter called Triple 0 again and she detailed what had just occurred.
22 As a result of your assault, Mr Teekens received minor abrasions, swelling and a cut to head and left ear and developed soreness in his neck.
23
Police attended the Teekens residence soon after and spoke to the occupants. Contemporaneous statements were taken from them. Two days later on
6 March 2020, at approximately 9.30 in the morning, police attended at your address, arrested you, cautioned you and explained your rights. You were taken to the Oakleigh Police Station and participated in an interview, in which you mainly provided no comment answers but did call the complainant,
Mr Teekens, a liar.
24 You were then remanded in custody and you remained in custody until granted bail on 28 April 2020. And as I understand it, that was your first bail application.
25 So, they are the circumstances of the offending and that is the basis upon which I am sentencing you.
26 I am going to turn now to your personal circumstances. These were outlined in defence submissions and also in various letters I have received from your mother. You were born in December 1987, in Penrith in Sydney and you are now 34 years old. You have one half-brother, Terry Scott, who is 14 years older than you. Your mother and your father both had a good work ethic, which has rubbed off on you. Your mother, Carol Scott, worked full-time within administration of senior secondary schools. And your father worked in office administration and sales and eventually performed security work.
27
You grew up in Sydney, New South Wales. During your very early years you exhibited hyperactive behaviour, which led to you being diagnosed with ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, by the time you were
four years old and you were commenced on Ritalin soon after.
28 You went to a government primary school and then to a private Christian school and then to Xavier Catholic Secondary College at Penrith. In your formative years you were exposed to family violence in the nature of your father regularly beating your mother in your presence. On several occasions the beatings were so severe that you were afraid that your mother would be killed. You were also punished by your father in a way that you accepted, but which could be considered to be physical abuse.
29 By the time you were aged 10, your parents were sleeping in separate rooms and by the time you were 13 years old they had separated. You chose to live with your mother and you have not spoken to your father in the past eight years.
30
Shortly before you turned 16, your mother was diagnosed with stage 5
breast cancer which required immediate and aggressive medical treatment. It also required hospitalisations and they occurred during your final years of school, Years 11 and 12. Despite the fact that this would have been a very difficult time for you, you managed to successfully complete your Year 12 and obtain your high school leaving certificate and that is to your credit.
31 You played sport at school, field hockey and ended up playing in local and representative teams for New South Wales. After you left school you lived in Brisbane for about three years, then returned to Sydney to live with your mother before returning to Brisbane again.
32
In January 2012, you moved to Melbourne to work alongside your half-brother,
Terry Scott. You have a very good employment history. It started when you were at school when you would work as a brickie's labourer during the school holidays and it became full-time once you finished Year 12. So, initially you worked as a brickie's labourer but you also worked for some time in the hospitality industry and once you came to Melbourne in January 2012, you worked full-time with your brother's employer who did residential brick work all over Melbourne. You worked with him for 12 months before working for another employer lugging steel and then between the ages of 27 and 30 you worked for a business, trading as Exacta Scaffolding and you worked there for three years full-time, erecting scaffolding for other trades people. This work involved you running crews of four men or more, depending on the job size. Your employer from that business has provided a reference for these court proceedings.
33
When you were 31 you started working for a family owned business, trading as
Brick By Brick, doing bricklaying and in that business you taught apprentices the role of brickie's labourer. In May 2019, you started work full-time, as I have already said, with Mr Teekens' business, APT Brick and Block Laying.
34
Once you were released on bail you were at first not able to obtain work but then obtained full-time employment on 1 February 2021, with a business called
Lock Up Scaffolding and that work continues until today. Your employer for that business has also provided a reference. You have obtained another job, which is due to start on 10 October 2022 and that is as a rigger at Vamp Cranes, based in Moorabbin. This is a job that you are very much looking forward to and have been worried about, in terms of how the court proceedings were going to affect it.
35
To your credit, you have obtained a number of qualifications to do with your work, including a high risk work licence, which you obtained in June 2020, a
Certificate III in scaffolding and that certificate has within it various
sub-qualifications.
36
You are now living with your mother in South Morang. You are working
full-time, as I have indicated and get up very early at 5.00 am for work.
37 I am now going to turn to the objective gravity of your offending and your moral culpability. They are two factors of central importance in determining any sentence. If there was any doubt about the seriousness of your offences, particularly the aggravated burglary, the maximum penalties make it clear.
38
The offence of aggravated burglary is punishable by a maximum term of
25 years. Criminal damage is punishable by a maximum term of 10 years and common law assault is punishable by a maximum term of 5 years.
39 It is clear that you had a dispute with your employer in the lead up to these offences as to the status of your employment and as to why he was not providing you a certificate of separation. Whilst you may have had a legitimate grievance, attending his home, albeit it was his work address as well, in the evening, knowing he would be home when he was entitled to expect he would be safe, kicking in the door, going in and assaulting him in front of his wife and his daughter was completely outrageous behaviour. No matter how annoyed or frustrated you were, you were simply not entitled to take matters into your own hand in that way.
40 I accept and take into account the fact that you attended with a separation certificate and that your decision to commit the aggravated burglary, that is, to go in and assault Mr Teekens, only arose once you got to the premises and once the door was not opened, so it was of short duration. There was no great pre-mediation, in fact, no real pre-meditation at all. So, that is a matter that is in your favour, in terms of the seriousness.
41 I also take into account that although it was evening it was daylight. So, it is not a case of you entering premises at night time, which is always a more frightening thing. I also take into account the fact that the whole incident took less than three minutes. So, it was not a protracted event and also you were not armed. Many aggravated burglaries involve weapons.
42
As serious as your conduct was, and it was, I consider it to be towards the
mid-range, or possibly less than the mid-range, of the spectrum of seriousness for the offence of aggravated burglary and likewise for the other offences.
43 I am also required to take into account the impact of your offending on your victims. I received today three victim impact statements from Mr Teekens, his daughter and his wife. It is obvious that what occurred on that night has had a lasting impact on them. They all speak about not feeling safe in their own home anymore. Mr Teekens talks about the physical pain that he suffered to his ear and jaw for about two weeks and his continuing, what he describes as brain fog and also his feelings of depression and anxiety. He indicates that his sleep has been affected and his relationship with his wife has suffered as a consequence of the anxiety that he feels. He indicates that he feels depressed because he was not able to protect his wife or daughter and talks about how now locking doors has become important for his whole family.
44 Similarly, Bridie Teekens, his daughter, as I said, talks about her anxiety, talks about getting flashbacks from the incident and also, not being able to focus afterwards. Donna Teekens, similarly, describes her sense of violation in terms of safety and security within her home, now being hyper-vigilant, also having flashbacks and being very upset at seeing how you assaulted her husband. I take into account those three victim impact statements.
45 I am required by law to have regard to current sentencing practices. Now, they may be gleaned from statistics or sentences imposed in other cases or both and the reason I am required to have regard to them is to promote consistency of approach in sentencing, particularly the application of relevant principles.
46
The most recent Sentencing Advisory Council sentencing snapshot,
December 2021, for the offence of aggravated burglary indicates that over
90 per cent of people sentenced for the offence over the five years between
1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021 received an immediate term of imprisonment, ranging from 23 days to eight years with three to four years being the most common sentence at 27 per cent. This wide variation of sentences reflects the vast disparity in seriousness of the offence.
47 As well as those sentencing statistics, I was referred by Mr Newton to two cases, and he indicated that there were many more he could have taken me to, where similar sentences were imposed, that is, where sentences other than a term of imprisonment were imposed. What all those cases and those statistics indicate is that it is an unusual course, in fact, a very unusual course not to impose a term of imprisonment for the offence of aggravated burglary.
48
As I have also indicated, having regard to current sentencing practices is just one factor that I need to have a look at. Other cases are informative but no
two cases are ever truly the same. Personal and mitigating circumstances always differ and there is no single correct sentence and sentences imposed in other cases are not binding. Ultimately, I have to decide what is the just and appropriate sentence in this case.
49
Turning to your plea of guilty and the issues of cooperation and remorse. You are entitled to a significant discount in your sentence for the fact you have pleaded guilty. You did not plead guilty at an early stage. Your trial is listed for
1 December, this year. However, you still are entitled to a significant discount. In so doing, you have in fact, facilitated the course of justice and you have taken legal responsibility for your crimes. You have spared your victims the ordeal of coming to court to give evidence again. They have already given evidence but you have spared them the ordeal of coming to court again.
50 Added to that, our Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised the high value of pleas of guilty entered during the pandemic and the need for sentences to reflect this high value by giving an appropriate discount.
51 Mr Newton did not, in his sentencing submissions, rely on you exhibiting remorse, but he did urge upon me your willingness to facilitate the course of justice. He submitted that the case against you was by no means certain and that you should be given extra credit for pleading guilty in those circumstances. As I said to Mr Newton, I am sentencing you simply on the basis of the agreed facts. It is impossible for me with the limited information I have to determine the strength of the case and I do not propose to do so.
52 As far as remorse, as I said, it was not urged upon me that you were remorseful. However, your treating psychologist, Bronwyn Francis, did say in her report dated 18 September 2022, that you deeply regret what transpired that day and that you had expressed genuine remorse regarding the incident, however, you believed the charges against you were not necessarily fully accurate and/or correct.
53 As opposed to that, the corrections assessment which was recently undertaken said that you displayed no remorse or regret for your offending and denied being guilty of the charges before the court. It went on to say, 'It is also concerning that Mr Cassells stated that the reason he is pleading guilty to the charges is to avoid going to trial with the possibility of being incarcerated for a lengthy period of time'.
54 I accept that you have some regret, indeed that you are in fact, regretful for what occurred on that day. But regret does not equate to remorse. True remorse is a desire to make amends or to atone for one's behaviour and I am certainly not satisfied that that is the case.
55 I am also not satisfied that your plea of guilty arises out of a desire of yours to facilitate the course of justice or that you should obtain any extra credit or extra discount for that. Your plea of guilty does in fact facilitate the course of justice, as I said, but I am not satisfied that that was your motivation for pleading guilty. Given what is in the Community Corrections Assessment Report, in my view the reason that you have pleaded guilty appears solely to be out of a desire to avoid getting a more severe sentence if you went to trial and were found guilty. Now, that does not mean that you get punished for not having remorse or for not having a desire to facilitate the course of justice. You do not. It just means you do not get a discount that you might have otherwise got, or more of a discount, if those things were there.
56 I am turning to your character and risk of re-offending. You have some prior criminal history and it dates back to 2006, in New South Wales and Queensland. In short, you have been dealt with for having a knife in a public place, common assault, resisting an officer in the execution of his or her duty, recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, destroy or damage property and also, most recently in 2011, contravene a direction or a requirement, which possibly relates to public transport.
57
Now, I am not concerned with the most recent matter in 2011. It is of a completely different nature. The preceding matters in 2010 resist officer, recklessly cause grievous bodily harm and destroy or damage property involved your mother and they are concerning. She has put forward her version of what occurred and attempted to explain it in a letter to the court and I note that you received a bond to be of good behaviour for two years. So, obviously, the court did not regard it as a serious example of those offence. And prior to that there was a matter in 2007 of common assault in the Burwood Local Court in
New South Wales and before that in 2006, a custody of a knife in a public place.
58 In relation to the common assault, there is no information. You have no recollection of it. In relation to the knife in a public place, your mother has given instructions that it was a silver knife that she had bought in the form of a letter opener and it was not held by you for any serious purpose or concerning purpose.
59 What I can say about those prior matters is, you do not come before me as someone with no prior criminal history. If you had, I would have been much more optimistic about your future. However, they are dated and you received light penalties, indicating that in each case the court did not regard them as serious examples of the offences. Further, you were only between 19 and 22. So, you were a young man in a different space, a different situation to what you are in now and the fact there has been nothing between your 2010 offences and this incident does give me cause to hope that you are not likely to offend again.
60 I also take into account your character references and again, it is to your credit that your present employer and a past employer have been prepared to give references to this court and I have also read the reference of your brother.
61 I have also taken into account the Corrections assessment, which although it has those concerning aspects to it, ultimately finds that you are at low risk of reoffending.
62 Your good work history also bodes well for your future because you are a person who has demonstrated that you can be a worthwhile and contributing member of society and also, if you continue to work in the manner that you have been working you are less likely to get into trouble.
63
I also take into account, in terms of your future prospects the fact that you, of your own accord, saw a psychologist after this incident and have had
10 sessions with her. It is also significant that you are a person who is not currently, and it appears not for a long time, been using any illicit substances, nor do you appear to have any problems with alcohol. So, that is something that also gives me cause for hope.
64 You also have the support from your mother and from your half-brother and those matters also bode well for your future.
65 I also take into account that you were on bail for a significant period, including having a curfew for a period of time, and that you have complied with all your bail conditions.
66 All up, because of the fact you have had a history with some violence in it I have some concerns about your future prospects. I also have some concerns about the fact that you have continued to deny the offending, despite pleading guilty to it. But I consider your future prospects to be reasonable to good and that is mainly because of your long history between 2010 and this offence without committing any other offences.
67 Now, turning to some other mitigating factors. Your mother's health is one, in that she is a person with a number of health issues and whilst you work long hours you have also been supportive of her and she relies on you and is fearful of what will happen to her if you were to be incarcerated.
68
I also take into account the burden of imprisonment. The details of your
49 days have been set out in the defence submissions and it is obvious that your time in custody was not easy and it was not easy by virtue of where you were placed at various times, but also because anyone's time in custody during COVID has been harder. So, I take into account that you did do it tough when you were in prison and that any further time would be more onerous, given the effects of the pandemic.
69 Turning now to the purposes of sentencing. I am obliged not to impose a more severe sentence than is necessary to achieve the sentencing purposes of just punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. A custodial sentence must only be imposed as a last resort and then must be the absolute minimum required.
70 Further, when there are multiple charges as there are here, the total effective sentence must not offend the principle of totality. What that means is, you must not be punished any more than is proportionate and appropriate to your overall criminality and I must also be careful to avoid doubly punishing you for the same conduct. That is, whilst the aggravated burglary consists of you entering with an intent to assault, the assault is a separate matter that occurs after you enter.
71 For offences of aggravated burglary, general deterrence and denunciation is a primary sentencing consideration. That means it is necessary to impose sentences that deter people who might be minded to commit those sorts of offences from doing so. They need to know if they do it they will face severe penalties. In your case I think there is some need for specific deterrence to be addressed as well for the reasons I have said and also, some need for community protection.
72 Rehabilitation is an important factor because of your priors. You may not accept it, but it is obvious to me as a sentencing judge that you need to have your anger looked at and that is why I was looking at a corrections order with a component of programs to address your offending behaviour.
73 I have had you assessed for a community corrections order. You were found unsuitable and that was because of your attitude towards the offending. However, you indicated you were prepared to consent to such an order and I am still able to impose one, even though you were found unsuitable.
74 When I weigh up all the competing considerations there is no sentence other than one that involves an immediate term of imprisonment that is appropriate in my view but I do not intend to exceed that 49 days, as I have already indicated. But you have to understand that for this serious offending normally a term of imprisonment longer than that would be imposed. And as the statistics I read out to you show, the most common sentence is between three to four years.
75 It is because I do not consider that you have been punished anywhere near adequately enough by that 49 days that I am also going to impose or have in the community corrections order, a punitive element which will be the work hours.
76 Now, I will ask you to stand up, please? Because the offences are founded on the same facts I am imposing an aggregate sentence for all three of them. I convict and sentence you on all three charges to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 49 days and I declare that you have all ready served 49 days imprisonment, not including today in respect of this sentence and I order that this declaration be entered in the records of the court and the period be deducted administratively.
77
So, what that means is that you are not going to serve any more time. In addition to that term of imprisonment I am sentencing you or imposing on you a single community corrections order. The order will last for three years,
commences today, ends on 2 October 2025.
78 You must attend at the South Morang Community Correctional Services Centre and the address is in the order within two clear working days after the commencement of this order, which is today.
79
Now, the mandatory terms of the order are that you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time the order in force. You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by
regulation 17 of the sentencing regulations. You must report to and receive visits from the secretary or delegate. You must let a community corrections officer know within two clear working days of you changing your address or job.
80 Now, that is relevant because you are going to be changing your job soon. You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so. So, it is not a total ban on you leaving Victoria. You just need to get permission. You must obey all lawful instructions from and directions of the secretary.
81 The other conditions that I am imposing as well as those mandatory conditions are that you must perform 300 hours of unpaid community work over a period of three years as directed.
82 Now, you need to prioritise that. All right? You will need to. They will fit in with you, with your work. I know you work long hours but you do need to make sure you keep up with the work that I have directed.
83 You must also participate in programs and/or courses that are consistent with achieving the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation. That may include employment, educational, cultural and personal development programs as directed by the regional manager.
84 I am just checking actually whether - that wording does not seem right to me. What they have said is programs to reduce reoffending. Is there another clause? Let me just check that. The essence of what I am seeking to impose is programs to address reoffending. Sometimes the wording they use if quite long and I just want to make sure that what I have read out is what is actually intended.
85 So, I will just ask you to sit down while I check that. So, no, what I read out is not the correct condition.
86 So, it will be, you must participate in programs to reduce reoffending as directed. All right. So, once I get that printed out I will send that to you.
87 Now, for the sake of clarity I direct that none of the hours in which you participate in programs to reduce reoffending are to be counted towards the 300 hours. So, the 300 hours is on top of any hours you spend doing programs.
88 Now, Mr Newton will explain that order in more detail. As I said to you, you have got to make sure you comply with it because if you do not that is an offence in itself. So, you will be charged with breaching the corrections order, which is punishable by a maximum of three months' imprisonment. Not only that, you will come back before me and you will be liable to be re-sentenced for these offences. And upon a re-sentence, if you have not complied with the corrections order I cannot say what I would definitely do but there is a very high likelihood you would end up getting more gaol term time.
89
All right. So, the only other thing I need to tell you is if you had, in fact, been found guilty by a jury, pleaded not guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of three years six months, with a non-parole period of
two years and six month. So, do you understand the sentence I have imposed?
90 OFFENDER: I do, Your Honour.
91
HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you. Just have a seat and once we print that
out - all right. So, I've signed the order and we'll just get it taken up to you. Are there any other matters that I've neglected to cover? All right. Mr Newton?
92 MR NEWTON: No, Your Honour.
93
HER HONOUR: All right. Well, Mr Cassells I hope I do not see you again.
All right and I mean that in the nicest way. All right. I'll adjourn the court.
94 OFFENDER: Thank you, Your Honour.
- - -
0
0
0