Director of Public Prosecutions v Chamma

[2024] VCC 1843

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-23-01943

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

OSMAN CHAMMA

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE GAMBLE
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 November 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Chamma
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1843

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence.

Catchwords:              Dangerous driving causing serious injury – Fail to provide name and address following motor vehicle accident – Offender drove through an intersection against a red light and collided with victim’s vehicle at approximately 80 km/h – Offender initially checked on seriously injured victim and rang for an ambulance but then departed the scene on foot without providing his details to the victim – Offender undergoing a period of licence suspension at the time – Relevant prior criminal record for driving offences – Plea of guilty – Some remorse – Prospects of rehabilitation fair tending to moderate but guarded – Some limbs of Verdins case engaged warranting a modest reduction in moral culpability and to the weight to be given to deterrence and denunciation.

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958, s 319; Road Safety Act 1986, s 61; Sentencing Act 1991, ss 6AAA, 18, 87P, 89.

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of 3 years and 2 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.

s 6AAA:But for the plea of guilty, a sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months would have been imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J. Kelly (Plea) Ms A. Roberto (Sentence)	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L. Barker	SLKQ Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1Mr Chamma, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment[1] containing a single charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury,[2] for which the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.

[1] Indictment P10357434.1.

[2] Charge 1 laid pursuant to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

2You have also consented to this court hearing and pleaded guilty to a related summary offence of failing to provide your name and address following a motor vehicle accident.[3] As this is a subsequent offence,[4] the maximum penalty is a fine of 240 penalty units or a term of imprisonment of not less than four months but not more than two years.

[3] Summary Charge 5 laid pursuant to s 61(4) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).

[4] On 12 October 2017, the accused was convicted of failing to stop vehicle after a motor vehicle accident, being an offence against s 61 of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic). By virtue of the operation of s 61(7) of that same Act, that is deemed a relevant prior offence for the purposes of determining the applicable maximum penalty for the current charged offence.

3These offences arise from a motor vehicle collision that you caused on 29 December 2022. You were then aged 26 and undergoing a 12 month period of licence suspension which had commenced on 16 September 2022.[5] You are now 28, having been born in August 1996.

[5] On 16 September 2022, pursuant to a traffic infringement notice issued for speeding by 45km/h or more on 12 June 2022, the accused was suspended from driving for a period of 12 months.

Circumstances of the offending

4The full circumstances of your offending are set out in the typed Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea,[6] which your counsel acknowledged could be treated as an agreed statement of facts for sentencing purposes. The basis on which you fall to be sentenced was also discussed during the plea hearing. I have had regard to that opening and to those discussions when determining the appropriate sentence.

[6] Dated 17 September (exhibit A).

5For present purposes, your offending can be summarised as follows.

6At approximately 6:03am on the day of the collision, a 31 year old male named Sanchit Bhatia was in the driver’s seat of his silver 2019 Hyundai i30 vehicle at the intersection of Cooper Street and Sydney Road in Campbellfield. He was stopped  in the left-most lane at a red light and intending to travel through the intersection and south on Sydney Road.  

7When the light changed to green, Mr Bhatia commenced to drive into the intersection.  Within seconds, his vehicle was struck to the passenger side by a stolen 2011 Mercedes Benz ML350 vehicle that you were driving, Mr Chamma. You had  entered the intersection from Cooper Street heading west against a red light.  

8The nature and force of the collision caused those two vehicles to lose control and make contact with a Nissan vehicle being driven by a man named Shawn Pulimoottil, who had entered the intersection on a green light while travelling south on Sydney Road.

9Mr Bhatia’s vehicle ultimately came to a rest facing southwest across the northbound lanes of Sydney Road. After spinning, the Mercedes vehicle came to a stop on the south side of the intersection, facing north back up Sydney Road. Mr Pulimoottil was able to move his vehicle through the intersection and park on a median strip on Sydney Road.

10Sydney Road ran in a general north to south direction with three lanes dedicated for traffic passing directly through the intersection. For each direction of travel, there were also two lanes that allowed traffic to turn right into Cooper Street and an additional lane allowing traffic to turn left into Cooper Street.

11Cooper Street ran in a general east to west direction with two lanes dedicated for traffic passing directly through the intersection. For each direction of travel, there was also one left and one right turning lane into Sydney Road.

12The intersection was controlled entirely by traffic lights, with traffic lights posted to each entry into the intersection from both Cooper Street and Sydney Road. All traffic lights were functional on the day of the collision, with traffic cameras posted to the intersection.

13The intersection was flat and the applicable speed limit for both roads was 80km/h.

14As a result of the force of the collision, the airbags in Mr Bhatia’s vehicle deployed. He experienced a lot of pain and struggled to get out of his vehicle.

15Once he was out of his vehicle, you approached him and asked if he was okay. At the same time, you were on the phone to emergency services requesting the assistance of an ambulance. Shortly afterwards, you returned to the Mercedes vehicle before walking away from the collision in a westerly direction. Your failure to provide your name and address to Mr Bhatia before departing the scene on foot forms the basis for Summary Charge 5, failing to provide name and address following a motor vehicle accident.

16A short time later, emergency services arrived and Mr Bhatia was conveyed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital.

17At 8:00am, he underwent a trauma laparotomy. During surgery, 'extensive mesenteric tearing with associated small bowel traumatic division including free floating segment of [the] mid small bowel' was found. Approximately 50cm of his small bowel was found to be 'unsalvageable' and removed, along with an approximate 10cm sigmoid resection.

18Mr Bhatia was found to have sustained the following injuries:

·Traumatic mesenteric injury and serosal tears;

·L10-11 rib fractures; and

·Low grade splenic laceration.

19Mr Bhatia remained in hospital for six days and was discharged on 4 January 2023.

20As of 6 February 2023, Mr Bhatia reported that he had no feeling in his right shoulder and weakness in his right (dominant) hand. He was unable to work, clean his house and walk his dog and found sitting down for extended periods painful. He also found sleeping difficult as he was unable to sleep on his front due to surgical scars, on his right side due to fluid retention, or on his left side or back due to pain from the rib fractures.

21Further, he was informed that he could not fly to his own wedding in India which had been scheduled to take place sometime in February 2023.

22As of 15 November 2023, Mr Bhatia was still receiving treatment for gastrointestinal issues arising from his injury and had not yet returned to work.

23Members of the Major Collision Investigation Unit and the Collision Reconstructionist Unit attended the collision scene. The collision reconstructionist concluded that the Hyundai was travelling at approximately 34km/h when it was struck by the Mercedes which had entered the intersection on a red light while travelling at 83km/h. The collision then caused the Hyundai to spin and then impact the Nissan.

24DNA testing was conducted on biological samples taken from the airbag and keys of the Mercedes vehicle, which strongly implicated you as being one of the contributors to the mixed profile found. Forensic analysis of your mobile phone records confirmed that your phone was the one used by the driver of the Mercedes to call 000 and was likely to be in the relevant areas at the time of and surrounding the time of the collision.

25The CCTV footage that police obtained from the traffic cameras located at and in the vicinity depicts the collision and its aftermath. The relevant footage was played to this court during the plea hearing and tendered in evidence.[7]

[7] Exhibit F.

26The manner in which you drove the Mercedes vehicle and the resultant injuries sustained by Mr Bhatia provide the factual basis for the offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury alleged in Charge 1 on the indictment.

Charge and remand

27You were ultimately arrested in relation to this matter on 16 February 2023. After declining to be interviewed, you were charged and released on summons. At that time, you had been on remand for other matters since 31 January 2023. You were subsequently remanded in custody for this matter on 24 February 2023 but then released on bail on 27 April 2023. Your bail was then revoked on 9 August 2023. The total period of pre-sentence detention for this matter is therefore 527 days, up to but not including today's date. A formal declaration to that effect will be made shortly.

Guilty plea

28I note that this matter resolved following a second case conference, after a contested committal and a s 198B examination hearing had been held but before any trial date had been fixed. It is also relevant to note that the matter resolved in circumstances where the prosecution decided not to continue to pursue a charge of theft relating to the Mercedes vehicle. Whilst not to be treated as an early plea, it nonetheless has utilitarian value as the community has been spared the cost of a trial. Furthermore, by taking the course that you did in pleading guilty, the witnesses (and in particular, Mr Bhatia) have been spared the ordeal of giving evidence and thereby reliving their unfortunate experience. Those matters will be reflected in the sentencing discount that you will receive for pleading guilty to these charges.

Remorse

29I am willing to accept that you have shown some remorse by your plea of guilty. I am also prepared to accept that you had a genuine concern for the injured Mr Bhatia immediately after the collision as demonstrated by your approach to him and your 000 call. However, you then appear to have acted out of self-preservation when you left the scene and remained at large until arrested. And, up until the resolution of this matter, your defence was run on the basis that the prosecution could not prove that you were the driver of the Mercedes at the relevant time. More recently however, you appear to have shown some contrition, as can be gleaned from the report of Dr Anderson and the reference from Mark Galetti.[8] In such circumstances, whilst I am prepared to give some weight to remorse as a relevant sentencing consideration, it will, by necessity, have to be fairly modest.

[8] Exhibits 2 and 5, respectively.

Prior criminal history

30Mr Chamma, you have a very relevant and serious criminal history for someone of your age. Whilst care must be taken in reviewing your prior criminal record due to the fact that a number of the offences are repeated in subsequent breach proceedings, nonetheless, you have a shocking history for driving offences. This is not the first occasion on which you have driven dangerously or failed to fulfil your responsibilities as a driver. You have also chosen to drive whilst unlicenced or during a period of disqualification on past occasions.

31Whilst you are not to be punished again for those prior offences, your criminal record is of relevance to this court’s assessment of your level of moral culpability for this offending and of the weight to be accorded to specific deterrence, protection of the community and prospects of rehabilitation.

Personal circumstances

32I now turn to consider your personal circumstances, Mr Chamma.

33Your background has been extensively canvassed in a very detailed and recent report prepared by a clinical neuropsychologist as well as in the reports of two psychologists.[9] In his detailed written submissions, your counsel also outlines aspects of your personal history.[10] I have read and had regard to the contents of those reports and your counsel’s submissions when determining the appropriate sentence in your case, Mr Chamma.

[9] Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, respectively.

[10]Dated 27 October 2024.

34I simply note the following for current purposes.

35You are the second youngest of eight children in your family. Your parents were born in Lebanon and travelled to Australia in about 1980. You have a good relationship with most of your family. You had a particularly close relationship with your father with whom you shared a love of repairing and working on cars. His unexpected and tragic death in 2013 devastated you and continues to affect you deeply. It appears to have been the setting for a downward spiral in your life involving drug use, negative peer groups and criminal offending. Your counsel noted that it was sadly the case that your introduction to drugs and crime was primarily due to the influence of your own brothers.

36Apart from three years spent living in Lebanon, you and your family have resided in the northern suburbs, including St Albans and Altona.

37Whilst you performed very well in practical tasks at school, you struggled academically. You left secondary school early so as to complete an apprenticeship in motor mechanics, ultimately becoming qualified in 2015 at the age of 19. You then commenced to work for an auto racing team for several months until your problems with drugs and crime prevented you from engaging in any meaningful employment for several years.

38Whilst you occasionally drink alcohol in a social setting, it is in no way problematic.

39You commenced to use cannabis at age 15. At age 17, and following the death of your father, you began using various drugs, including ecstasy, ketamine and LSD. You also began to use GHB, which has been your drug of choice, although you have also used ice and heroin and abused various prescription medications.

40In the relatively recent past, you received some drug counselling in prison whilst undergoing sentence and whilst on parole. You managed to remain drug free from your initial release on parole in early 2021 until late 2022 when you relapsed following the death of a close friend you had known since childhood.

41During that period on parole, you managed to buy a tip truck and engage in paid employment for what your counsel described as 'a contextually significant period'.

42Whilst not put as being mitigatory, your counsel sought to contextualise your current offending by putting your instructions that you were driving the Mercedes vehicle at the request of a friend. You had used GHB the night before and had little if any sleep leading up to you driving the next morning. You believe you were fatigued as a result but not otherwise still under the influence of the drugs that you had earlier taken. You remember pulling out to overtake a vehicle in front of you that was braking in reaction to the light changing to amber. Whilst you remember intending to continue driving through the intersection, you remember little else until the collision.

43Your counsel referred in some detail to the opinions of the clinical neuropsychologist, Dr Laura Anderson, who assessed you over the course of four sessions conducted between 13 August and 6 September 2024.

44Dr Anderson concluded that you clearly meet the criteria of ADHD and are highly likely to also meet the diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder.

45In her opinion, you present with a very complex and multi-faceted clinical presentation. Your longstanding difficulty with emotional processing, regulation and impulsive behaviour is over and above that expected from a ‘neurotypical’ individual. It affects how you interact with the world around you.

46Dr Anderson is of the opinion that there is a clear association between your overall clinical presentation and your pattern of offending. Your underlying neurodevelopmental divergence has, in her view, contributed to your difficulties in effective and adaptive emotional processing and regulation. In her opinion, you simply do not have the internal cognitive and emotional skillset to independently process and manage your emotional state in an effective manner. As such, you have turned to external coping mechanisms in an attempt to alleviate or avoid negative emotional experiences. Unfortunately, due to exposure to some family members and peers who demonstrated antisocial attitudes and behaviours, it seems that maladaptive and antisocial coping mechanisms have been consistently role modelled and normalised for you. As your counsel put it in his written submissions, it is no surprise given what Dr Anderson has found, that you fell into a cycle of drug use, bad company and offending following the difficult personal difficulties you faced, including the intense personal grief following the unexpected death of your father.

Matters in mitigation

47Your counsel was able to rely on a number of matters in mitigation on your behalf, including the following.

48You have pleaded guilty to these two offences and have demonstrated some remorse and victim empathy.

49You are now approaching your 30s but still capable of turning your life around for the better if you really want to effect long term change. I accept that you have expressed motivation in this regard and consider yourself better able than you have ever been to achieve such change. As confirmed by Mr Galletti, you did quite well for a relatively significant period on your last release from gaol, until relapsing.

50As the five negative urine samples you provided between 24 December last year and 24 September this year demonstrate, you have made a concerted effort to remain drug free whilst in custody.[11]

[11] The screen results for those samples were tendered as a bundle (Exhibit 6).

51You are a qualified motor mechanic and well regarded in that field. I accept that when you are not abusing drugs and mixing with criminally minded associates, you are able to be gainfully employed and display a good work ethic. Your referee, Mr Galletti, describes you as being a decent and hardworking man who he feels able to trust.

52You have faced a number of personal difficulties in your life, including the death of your father in 2013 and the more recent death of a childhood friend. Those deaths provide a framework in which to consider the opinions of Dr Anderson upon which your counsel seeks to rely in order to engage some of the limbs in Verdins case. As he put it, this court should, in sentencing you, view your moral culpability as reduced and give less weight to deterrence and denunciation. In light of the opinions of Dr Anderson, including the fact that you are predisposed to act impulsively, I am prepared to accede to your counsel’s submission but only by way of effecting a modest reduction in respect to those matters.

Gravity of the offending

53This court must also have regard to the gravity of your offending, Mr Chamma.

54Each of these offences are inherently serious in nature as reflected by the fact that Parliament has seen fit to fix the custodial maximum penalties that they have.

55In the particular circumstances of this case, the offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury committed by you must be viewed as a serious example of its type. In that context, it is relevant to note that your counsel did not quibble with the prosecution’s submission that it fell to be assessed as a mid-range example in terms of relative seriousness.

56In my view, having regard to the degree of seriousness involved in your driving and to the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the victim, your offence can be properly described as one that falls in the mid-range on the spectrum of seriousness for this type of offence.

57In this context, it is worth noting that in addition to Mr Bhatia, there were multiple other motorists waiting for the lights to turn green. You drove into that intersection at approximately 80 km/h some seconds after the light you were facing had turned red. You appear to have made the deliberate decision to keep driving rather than stop when the light facing you turned amber, at which time you must have been quite some distance short of the intersection. To have driven in that fashion was very dangerous indeed given the amount of traffic in the vicinity. It was pure luck rather than by design that no one else was injured and that Mr Bhatia was not even more seriously injured.

58Mr Bhatia’s recovery from his injuries has been a difficult and lengthy one and is still ongoing. As recently as November 2023, almost 11 months after this collision, he was still receiving treatment and had not yet been able to return to work.

59And, it must not be forgotten, that driving as you did while under a period of licence suspension, represents an aggravating circumstance in relation to this, the most serious of the two offences that you committed on this occasion.

60Whilst clearly of a different magnitude in terms of its level of seriousness, the related summary offence was by no means a minor offence. It involved a separate and distinct level of criminality on your part and added to the overall seriousness of your criminal conduct on that morning. It warrants an additional level of punishment in this case.

Relevant sentencing principles

61General deterrence and denunciation are important sentencing considerations for offending of this nature. The community is understandably concerned about the physical and mental toll that dangerous driving occasions to innocent motorists who are seriously injured while simply going about their daily activities. And, there is a justifiable community expectation that the courts, when sentencing offenders for this type of offending, will denounce it in clear terms and impose a punishment which is designed to deter other like-minded people from driving dangerously.

62Specific deterrence is another important consideration in this case given the nature and seriousness of your current offending. Furthermore, you have a bad driving history and past sentences of imprisonment have proved an insufficient deterrent to you committing further offences.

63In this context, the prior offence of drive in a manner dangerous for which you were originally sentenced on 15 March 2017 to time served (31 days) in combination with a community correction order, which you later breached,[12] is worth highlighting by reference to the police summary extract cited in the further written submissions filed by the prosecution. It was in the following terms:

On Monday 3 October 2016, at approximately 1pm, this same vehicle was being driven by the accused CHAMMA in a southerly direction on Millers Road Altona North approaching the ramp at the Westgate freeway. The accused CHAMMA collided with a member of the public’s vehicle driven by victim Jacqueline LEEDER who had her three year old son… in the vehicle. LEEDER was turning onto Millers Road from the off ramp when the accused CHAMMA ran a red light and collided with her vehicle [causing] extensive damage to the other vehicle…[13]

[12] The contravention hearing took place on 12 October 2017.

[13] Exhibit C, [2]-[3].

64Whilst such sentencing principles must be subject to a modest reduction in weight in this case based on what Dr Anderson has said, they must still play a significant role in this court’s instinctive synthesis and in what constitutes a just punishment.

65There is also a clear need in this case, within the limits of the law, to provide a measure of protection to the community from you, Mr Chamma. It is worth noting in this context that past court orders prohibiting you from driving, appear to have gone unheeded.

66Your age and prospects of rehabilitation must also be considered. Whilst by no means a young offender, you have not yet turned 30 and are of an age where it is still possible to reassess your priorities with a view to leading a more productive life in the future. As your counsel was at pains to make clear on the plea, you recently managed to do reasonably well for a period of about 18 months while on parole until you faced some unexpected personal challenges. As he put it, there is no reason to think you cannot do so again and you are motivated to do so. But, you will need to bring the necessary commitment and discipline to that task on your release if you are to have any real chance of addressing your significant drug and mental health issues. Saying that you want to do it is one thing, achieving it is quite another. Despite being of a similar mind in the past, you have nonetheless relapsed. So, I do not underestimate the difficult task ahead of you in that regard.

67Doing the best that I can on the available material, I have concluded that your prospects are at least fair and tending towards moderate but also somewhat guarded.

68To the extent that the law permits, this court will facilitate and encourage those prosects by the fixing of an appropriate non-parole period. But, there are limits as to how disparate any non-parole period can be in relation to the head sentence. It cannot be so disparate as to effectively undermine the very sentencing principles that require emphasis.

69Totality is another relevant sentencing consideration in this case given that you fall to be sentenced for two offences that were committed within minutes of each other and which are, to a significant extent, interrelated. That fact requires there be some moderation in the punishment to be imposed for the related summary offence, including as to the extent of any order for cumulation.

Sentencing submissions

70In his realistic sentencing submissions, your counsel acknowledged that the seriousness of your offending left the court with no option but to impose a sentence of immediate imprisonment by way of a head sentence and non-parole period. However, he emphasised the mitigating matters upon which you were able to rely and urged the court to impose the least punitive sentence that was open, including by way of a lower, that is, a disparate non-parole period.

71For his part, counsel appearing on behalf of the Director drew the court’s attention to the seriousness of this offending, your relevant prior criminal record and the consequent need to give appropriate weight to such sentencing considerations as deterrence, denunciation and just punishment. The prosecution likewise submitted that only a sentence involving a head sentence and non-parole period was open in the particular circumstances of this case.

Analysis

72The sentencing submissions to which I have referred were entirely appropriate, in my view. This was serious offending engaged in by someone with a relevant track record when it comes to driving when he shouldn’t and in flagrant disregard of the road rules. Clearly, a head sentence with a non-parole period is the only available sentencing option available to this court.

Sentence

73Mr Chamma, after having carefully considered, balanced and weighed the relevant sentencing considerations in your case as best I can, I have decided to sentence you as follows.

74You will be convicted on each charge and sentenced to the following terms of imprisonment.

75On Charge 1, dangerous driving causing serious injury, 3 years.

76On Summary Charge 5, fail to provide name and address following a motor vehicle accident, 6 months.

77The sentence of 3 years imposed on Charge 1 will be the base sentence.

78I order that 2 months of the sentence imposed on Summary Charge 5 is to be served cumulatively on that base sentence.

79The total effective sentence is therefore 3 years and 2 months' imprisonment.

80In respect of that head sentence, I fix a non-parole period of 2 years.

Pre-sentence detention

81Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have served a total of 527 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today's date, in respect of today's sentence. I order that such period is to be reckoned as already served under that sentence and that the declaration and its details be entered in the records of this court.

Section 6AAA indication

82Pursuant to s 6AAA of that Act, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months.

Licencing orders

83In respect to any conviction imposed for a serious motor vehicle offence (of which the offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury is one), the court must cancel any driver's licences or permits held by the offender and disqualify that person from obtaining any other licences or permits for whatever period the court considers appropriate.[14] Further, in respect of an offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury, the court must not specify a period of disqualification that is less than 18 months.[15]

[14] See ss 87P(d) and 89(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

[15] Ibid s 89(2)(a).

84Accordingly, in respect of Charge 1, dangerous driving causing serious injury, I order that any driver's licences or permits held by you Mr Chamma are hereby cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any other licence or permit for a period of two years.

85Further, the summary offence of failing to provide name and address after a motor vehicle accident also attracts a mandatory licence disqualification order if a person suffers serious injury or is killed as a result of the accident.[16] For a subsequent offence, as is the case here, the court must cancel any driver's licences or permits held by the offender and disqualify that person from obtaining any other licences or permits for a period of at least eight years if a conviction is recorded.[17]

[16] See s 61(6) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).

[17] Ibid s 61(6)(b).

86Accordingly, in respect of Summary Charge 5, failing to provide name and address after a motor vehicle accident, I order that any driver’s licences or permits held by you Mr Chamma are hereby cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any other licence or permit for a period of eight years.

87In respect of all periods of disqualification, I order that such periods are effective from 29 December 2022 and are to run concurrently from that date.

Other matters

88Are there any matters that counsel need to raise at this stage in relation to either the sentence or the sentencing reasons, starting with you, Mr Barker?

89MR BARKER: Only that your Honour misstated Dr Anderson’s name as Dr Jackson on occasions, Your Honour.

90HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Ms Roberto?

91MS ROBERTO: No, Your Honour.

92HIS HONOUR: Mr Barker, you will be permitted to have a brief conversation with your client utilising the current video link, once I leave the Bench.

93MR BARKER: Yes, I won’t need long, your Honour. Thank you.

94HIS HONOUR: Very well. I will now stand down temporarily.

- - -