Director of Public Prosecutions v Coates
[2020] VCC 822
•10 June 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT BENDIGO SITTING AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-20-00555
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DYLAN COATES |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN | |
WHERE HELD: | Bendigo sitting at Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 27 May 2020 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 June 2020 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Coates | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 822 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D. O'Doherty | Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr N. Rolfe | Rolfe Criminal Law |
To ensure there is no possibility of identification, this sentence has been anonymised by the adoption of pseudonyms in place of names of the victims and family or witnesses
HER HONOUR:
1 Dylan Coates, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of damaging property, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years' imprisonment; one charge of aggravated burglary, the maximum penalty 25 years' imprisonment; common law assault, maximum penalty 5 years' imprisonment; and causing injury intentionally, maximum penalty 10 years' imprisonment.
2 The prosecution withdrew Summary Charge 6 upon your pleas of guilty to the charges to which I have just referred.
3 Your offending occurred on 10 November 2019 and involved victims of your offending Kayden Rhodes[1] and Louise Hopper.[2]
[1]A pseudonym.
[2]A pseudonym.
4 It is not necessary for me to recount in great detail the facts of this matter as it was opened in some detail consistent with the prosecution opening (Exhibit A). I sentence you on the basis of the prosecution opening and as discussed with counsel during the course of your plea hearing. It is sufficient for the present purposes to say that your offending behaviour is concerning and serious. In addition, you have a relevant and concerning criminal history.
5 At the time of this offending you were 22 years of age and at the time of sentence also 22. Your victim Ms Hopper ('Hopper') was 19 years of age at the time of your offending. She lived with her mother, Kayden Rhodes, and her brother, Jacob Rhodes.[3] Hopper and you had previously been in a relationship.
[3]A pseudonym.
6 Hopper had previously been protected by a family violence intervention order with you named as respondent. Hopper and Brayden Armitage[4] (‘Armitage’) were also previously in a relationship, and Hopper and Armitage have a child, Kaisha Hopper,[5] born in 2019. The child also lived at the address where Hopper lived with her mother and her brother.
[4]A pseudonym.
[5]A pseudonym.
7 I turn to the events leading up to your offending.
8 On 9 November 2019, between 8.30 pm and 9.00 pm, you arrived at Hopper's address and spoke with her.
9 At 10.48 pm on the same day, 9 November 2019, you drove a white Ford station wagon on Williamson Street, Lyttleton Terrace and Mundy Street before parking in Hargreaves Street, Bendigo. You were in the vehicle with a passenger, Fraser Brook.[6] You and Brook sat in the vehicle drinking alcohol.
[6]A pseudonym.
10 At 11.26 pm, you and Brook left the vehicle and lined up in a queue to enter the Metropolitan Hotel.
11 Hopper went to the Metropolitan Hotel, also known as 'Pug's' or ‘Metro' at about 12.30 am on 10 November 2019 where she saw Fraser Brook.
12 At 1.36 am you returned to your vehicle alone and drove towards Hopper's address.
13 You arrived at that address and spoke with Kayden Rhodes. You were crying and said the bouncers had kicked you out. You asked Rhodes, 'Can I come in and talk?' Ms Rhodes declined your request.
14 Hopper saw you in a Street in Bendigo at 3.40 am, although you did not speak.
15 Hopper came home with her brother Jacob at about 4.30 am. Armitage arrived at the address shortly after and Jacob went to bed.
16 At 5.06 am you drove Brook and parked in [redacted].
17 Hopper, Armitage and the baby Kaisha were sitting on the couch underneath the lounge room window and you walked approximately 75 metres to that address.
18 You threw eggs at the lounge room window of the address, such being heard by Rhodes, Armitage and Hopper. You dropped the egg carton in the front yard.
19 You yelled obscenities towards Hopper such as 'Fucking whore', 'Slut', and 'Come outside, you little whore'. Hopper opened the front door slightly and told you to 'Fuck off'.
20 I turn to Charge 1, criminal damage. You then kicked the front door, smashing a glass pane approximately 60 centimetres by 40 centimetres. You then used an outdoor chair which had been underneath the lounge room window on the veranda and smashed a 2-metre by 2-metre lounge room window causing it to shatter. You then removed glass pieces from the window frame.
21 I turn to Charge 2, aggravated burglary. You then climbed through the smashed window, cutting your hands and your jacket.
22 I turn to Charge 3, common law assault. You climbed through the window and went directly towards Hopper, pushing Kayden Rhodes out of the way.
23 I turn to Charge 4. You then punched Hopper with a closed fist to the left side of her jaw. She fell to the ground and you then kicked her three times, once to the head, once to the face and once to the leg.
24 At approximately 5.11 am, you fled the address on foot, went to your car and drove away. Police were called.
25 Hopper did not seek medical attention but sustained a bruise on her leg, minor swelling to her face and soreness for approximately two to two and a half weeks thereafter.
26 You were arrested in California Gully on 10 November 2019 in the company of Fraser Brook, your white Ford motor vehicle also located at that address. You were interviewed at the Bendigo police station, where you made admissions to this offending.
27 This matter resolved at the committal mention stage. The prosecution accept yours was an early plea of guilty and that it has utilitarian value and is a demonstration of your remorse. I agree.
28 You have pleaded guilty to these charges and I take that into account in your favour when sentencing you. By your pleas of guilty to this offending, you have saved the time and cost of a trial and witnesses have not been required to give evidence upon your trial, in particular the victims of it, nor was there a contested committal hearing. I also note you made admissions to this offending when first spoken to by police on 10 November 2019.
29 The victims of your offending have been advised of their rights to make victim impact statements. Ms Hopper's victim impact statement was read into the transcript by the prosecutor. The victim of your offending has suffered in the manner described therein and I shall return to her statement later in these sentencing remarks.
30 You have been remanded in custody for this offending since 10 November 2019. At the date of your plea hearing you had spent 200 days in custody by way of pre‑sentence detention up to and including 27 May 2020.
31 You have a relevant and concerning prior criminal history. Your first court appearance was in Bendigo Children's Court on 16 September 2013. Amongst other charges, you were before the court on reckless conduct endangering serious injury, recklessly cause injury and burglary. You were placed on probation for a period of nine months with conditions you attend psychological assessment and treatment and undertake counselling. You were also to attend a Justice Aggression and Consequential Thinking program. It seems you have had an anger issue for some time.
32 You next appeared at Bendigo Children's Court on 16 December 2013 on a charge of intentionally damaging property and were released on a good behaviour bond (for one year). You next appeared at Bendigo Magistrates' Court on 18 September 2017 for driving offences.
33 Most recently and concerningly you appeared at Bendigo Magistrates' Court on 16 February 2018 on a charge of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, threatening to inflict serious injury, intentionally damaging property, reckless cause injury, criminal damage, wilful damage and two charges of unlawful assault. I was told by your counsel Mr Rolfe this also involved your current victim and was a consolidation, as I understood it, of separate briefs. Reference was made to this offending in the report of Ms Cidoni (see page 3) which I discussed with Mr Rolfe. You received two months' detention in a youth training centre. Not even detention it seems was enough to deter you from offending in the violent way before me.
34 Your counsel Mr Rolfe prepared a written outline of submissions for your plea hearing and addressed them during the course of it.
35 Turning to your background and circumstances, you were born in Bendigo. When you were 2 your father passed away. You believed he had been stabbed by a neighbour. You were then raised by your mother. Your mother eventually re-partnered, although you described that as an abusive relationship. You have one brother and two half-brothers.
36 You described yourself as a very poor student, attending three secondary schools in Bendigo, nevertheless completing Year 11. You then completed a Certificate II in Engineering. You commenced a Certificate II in Automotive, although did not complete it.
37 You have always lived at home. You have had issues with alcohol and drug abuse since you were 15 and had been an Ice user since age 17. At the time of this offending you were using Ice on a regular basis.
38 You described only having one previous relationship and that that was with the victim Hopper.
39 Mr Rolfe submitted that based on the report of Ms Cidoni you had low-average cognitive functioning with a full scale IQ of 88. You are currently medicated for depression and high blood pressure.
40 Mr Rolfe referred to the report and assessment by Ms Gina Cidoni, consultant psychologist, in which she opined your testing reflected high anxiety, immaturity, depressed mood, poor coping resources, maladjustment, substance abuse, vulnerability and mild disturbed thought processes. In her opinion you suffered an adjustment disorder in your response to your relationship breakdown and Hopper partnering. I discussed this with Mr Rolfe. Clearly resolving 'domestic' disputes in the way you did is entirely inappropriate.
41 To explain your offending, Ms Cidoni 'felt' that suffering with this disorder along with high anxiety would have obscured your clear thinking. Your substance abuse would have made you disinhibited and disturbed your perception and judgment. Mr Rolfe also referred to you having consumed drugs and alcohol on this evening/early morning.
42 Referable to your adjustment disorder and the effect upon your offending, in my opinion the material relied upon, in particular given your overlying drug use at the time of this offending, does not enliven R v Verdins & Ors.[7] All citations will be provided, counsel. Mr Rolfe did not urge applicability of Verdins principles and that was an appropriate concession on the material before me.
[7](2007) 16 VR 269 ('Verdins').
43 Mr Rolfe submitted your behaviour in this offending demonstrated a high level of immaturity and a lack of insight into the effect of your behaviour on others. You were at the time, he said, just 22 years of age. I am conscious of your age.
44 Mr Rolfe acknowledged your previous two months' in a youth training centre in 2018 involved 'like' offending.
45 Mr Rolfe, as I said, relied upon your age at sentence of 22 and urged you had positive prospects of rehabilitation. I am aware of the principles in R v Mills;[8] however, the principles therein stated are not of automatic or usual application (for example, see DPP v Lawrence).[9]
[8] (1998) 4 VR 235 ('Mills').
[9](2004) 10 VR 125.
46 In R v Connolly,[10] Coldrey J referred to the principles in Mills and stated:
'No doubt a sentencing court will endeavour to implement these principles as far as is possible in sentencing a youthful offender, but they are not to be regarded as immutable. In the context of the variety of fact situations and offenders with which courts have to deal, such factors as the seriousness of the offence or offences committed (and the just punishment therefore); the need for deterrence (specific and general); the offender's prospects of rehabilitation; and the need to protect the community may need to be reflected in the sentence imposed.'
[10][2004] VSCA 24, [23].
47 That was confirmed in Gosland and McDonald v The Queen.[11]
[11][2013] VSCA 269.
48 In R v Tran[12] at 462, Callaway JA said:
'The rehabilitation of youthful offenders, where practicable, is one of the great objectives of the criminal law, but it is not its only objective. It is not difficult to cite cases where other objectives have had to prevail. It is true that, in the case of a youthful offender, rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence, but the word I have italicised [which is the word "usually"] is there to remind us that there are cases where just punishment, general deterrence or other sentencing objectives are at least equally important.'
[12](2002) 4 VR 457, 462 [14].
49 I note when assessing your rehabilitation prospects your relevant and prior criminal history. I am less convinced of your rehabilitation prospects. At best they are guarded. When sentencing you, however, I must seek to maximise the chances of your rehabilitation as they may be, mindful of the importance of rehabilitation when sentencing young offenders.
50 I accept consistent with general sentencing principles you are 22 and that this is your first time in custody and you will find imprisonment a burden to a degree.
51 Mr Rolfe conceded the need for specific and general deterrence when sentencing you and he is correct.
52 Your counsel submitted the appropriate disposition would be a combination of imprisonment and a community correction order.
53 I discussed with Mr Rolfe his submission that since 28 May 2020 until recently you had been spending 22 hours each day in lockdown and my concern about the accuracy of that without specific information from Corrections as I discussed with him. Mr Rolfe did not wish to pursue that submission.
54 I do, however, accept it is difficult in prison at the moment to undertake any courses due to COVID-19 restrictions. I also accept your limited opportunity for 'in person' contact with family/friends due to COVID-19 restrictions in effect from 21 March 2020.
55 I turn to the report from Gina Cidoni dated 17 February 2020. You described your relationship with Hopper as tumultuous and that you felt rejected by her and her family. It also upset you that she had reunited with her ex-boyfriend, the father of her child. I digress and note I can understand you were upset about that; however, to offend in this way was not the way to resolve or solve it.
56 You said your mother did not approve of your relationship with Hopper. You said you were highly stressed and drinking to excess at this time, also using methamphetamine (Ice) and had little sleep the night prior to this offending.
57 Turning to your prior criminal history and your appearance on 16 September 2013, you had been at that time required to undertake counselling to reduce anger and consequential thinking, clearly not entirely successful if it was undertaken. You acknowledged you had issues controlling anger especially when you had been drinking. It is clear you need to address your anger in particular involving domestic relationships, as they will at times be challenging.
58 You said you met Hopper when you were 18 and were initially friends. You saw each other 'unofficially' for some time before she was with the father of her child and that relationship ended only three months after the birth of the child.
59 You then initiated contact and the two of you resumed your relationship. You said you stopped using drugs when you were with her. That relationship, however, you said, broke down around September 2019, and so you went to South Australia to work with your aunt, staying approximately two weeks. Upon your return, you said Hopper avoided you.
60 A family violence intervention order was granted after a 'scuffle' at McDonald's, to which I have previously referred and noted in Ms Cidoni's report (page 3), discussed briefly with your counsel.
61 In primary school you often had detention and were expelled from Bendigo South-East Secondary College after Year 7 due to your poor attendance and troublesome behaviour. You completed Year 8 and two days of Year 9. You again misbehaved and left that school. As I said, you then attended Bendigo Technical Education College, completing Year 11. Your attendance, however, was poor.
62 In addition to the two certificates to which I have previously referred, you had also undertaken some cleaning work at Tasman Meats and Anytime Fitness. At the time just prior to going into custody for this offending, you were working three days a week at Poultry Service, also working one night a week in a café.
63 In custody, I was told by Mr Rolfe, late last year you completed an anger management program to address re-offending and also one drug program. You had completed a total of five programs in custody, I was told. Mr Rolfe had been unable to obtain the relevant certificates.
64 Regarding your health, you said you had previously seen a psychiatrist when on a court order when you were younger and at that time were prescribed anti-depressant medication. You had also attended some counselling prior to age 16.
65 You described commencing binge drinking from age 14, however denied problematic consumption, although said you did have a tendency towards anger and to 'flip out' when drinking.
66 You began cannabis use at age 15, using 'off and on', until on remand and had also 'dabbled' in ecstasy.
67 You began Ice use around age 17, reportedly with Ms Hopper. You said you fell into use at times of stress and anxiety, largely influenced by your peer group.
68 You admitted you had experienced drug-induced psychosis while using Ice and that it would stop when you ceased use. Prior to remand your use of Ice was high.
69 Psychological testing indicated you had a full scale IQ of 88. Testing revealed you had difficulties coping with everyday demands of adult life, unreliability, irresponsibility, rebelliousness, difficulties in logic and concentration, as well as reduced ability to learn from experience or to plan ahead. Testing also indicated you resorted to drug use as a coping mechanism. You were likely, Ms Cidoni concluded, to experience prison as a greater burden than a person without your conditions and your age, 22, and I take that into account consistent with general sentencing principles.
70 The prosecution filed written submissions relevant to sentence dated 21 May 2020 (Exhibit C), noting the offence of aggravated burglary carried a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment. I was referred to DPP v Alsop[13] in which Redlich JA stated:
'It is incumbent upon this court to ensure the maintenance of appropriate sentencing standards in this State for crimes such as these which destroy people's domestic security and erode their capacity to feel safe in their own homes. The effect on the victims … should not be underestimated.' [26]
[13][2010] VSCA 325.
71 In the victim impact statement by Ms Hopper, she described your offending and the adverse impact upon her and her 14-month-old daughter. Her daughter was jumpy around males, frightened of them and scared of loud noises.
72 You had affected her relationships with her friends and her family. She always had to pick between family, friends and you. If she was not with you, she would get a lot of abusive calls and messages. Her family and she were always fighting because she let you control her.
73 There had been a financial cost of your offending, lots of things needing to be fixed or replaced, such as windows.
74 Being abused by you mentally and physically had made a big impact on her. She feared other males and what they were capable of. She did not feel safe. She feared going out in public, even just to shop. What you did to her was in front of Kaisha, which made her feel you could do it again around anyone else.
75 She described this as a traumatising incident that played on her mind constantly. She hoped it would never happen again and that she could keep her family safe.
76 The effects on a victim are a relevant sentencing consideration (see s.5 of the Sentencing Act 1991). I am conscious, however, I must not allow the effects of upon a victim to swamp the sentencing process.
77 The prosecution also referred to this offending involving 'family violence' and that such confrontations involving violence or threats of violence were viewed very seriously by courts where the target of the attack is a former domestic partner or a person against whom such other grievance is held. That is correct.
78 Mr O'Doherty submitted that general deterrence looms large in cases concerning family violence in this type of offending and I agree. I was referred to DPP v Meyers[14] and factors relevant when assessing the gravity of any particular aggravated burglary. In this case your intent was to assault. The mode of entry followed breaking windows. The time of day the burglary occurred was approximately 5.06 am and it was clear you were expecting the victim to be in the house at that time.
[14](2014) 44 VR 486.
79 Mr O'Doherty also referred to Hogarth v The Queen.[15] I am aware of these cases and others relevant to this type of offending and court's attitude when sentencing.
[15](2012) 37 VR 658.
80 The prosecution conceded there were mitigating factors in your case: your relative youth and early plea of guilty. The prosecution also noted a previous intervention order had expired. You had not previously been placed on a community correction order, that submission clarified during the court of your plea hearing.
81 The prosecution submitted yours was a serious example of family violence involving vulnerable victims in their own home following your surveillance of Hopper over the course of the evening into the early hours of the morning. I agree.
82 The prosecution also noted your previous two months in a youth justice centre for family violence offending, thus the need for specific deterrence when sentencing you in addition to general deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community. I agree.
83 The prosecution submitted your offending warranted a sentence that involved a non-parole period and that to impose a term of imprisonment together with a Community Corrections Order (as urged by Mr Rolfe) would not, Mr O'Doherty submitted, adequately or appropriately reflect all relevant sentencing considerations including not only your offending but all matters personal to you and in mitigation of sentence.
84 I agree the disposition urged by Mr Rolfe would not be appropriate in all the circumstances of this case. In so deciding I am aware of Boulton & Ors v R[16] and subsequent pronouncements of the Court of Appeal relevant to those principles. A Community Corrections Order has both a punitive and a rehabilitative aspect to it and in Boulton the court was urged to -
'Re-examine the conventional wisdom about the types of offending which ordinarily attract a term of imprisonment. For reasons which follow, such a re-examination is essential if the CCO is to fulfil its potential as a sentencing option, in accordance with the legislature's clearly-expressed intention'. [103]
[16](2014) 46 VR 308 (‘Boulton’).
85 Community Corrections Orders have been referred to and addressed in a number of cases since.
86 I did not, however, understand Boulton to remove the requirement that a sentencing judge must take into account all of s.5 Sentencing Act 1991, nor did I understand Boulton to mean that sentencing principles stated by the Court of Appeal and other courts relevant to your offending now amounted to nought, nor did I understand Boulton's decision to remove the instinctive synthesis when sentencing.
87 I also did not understand Boulton to remove the need for me to be mindful of the maximum penalties applicable to each of the charges. Further, I note Priest JA observed in Hutchinson v The Queen:[17]
'…it should not be thought that Boulton offers a "Get Out of Jail Free" card in situations where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary in a given case to satisfy the various purposes for which a sentence may be imposed.' [17]
[17](2015) 71 MVR 8.
88 As well as matters personal to you including your rehabilitation prospects, of which I have guarded optimism, although mindful of your age and hopefully that you will 'grow out' of this type of behaviour, I must also take into account the need for general deterrence, which is of particular importance in a case such as this.
89 There is also the need for specific deterrence when sentencing you given your criminal history and most recent, in particular court, appearance.
90 There is also the need to protect the community from you and the likelihood of your re-offending. Unless you successfully continue to undertake relevant programs whilst in custody, or whilst on parole should you be granted parole, I will remain concerned in particular if you use drugs and/or consume alcohol.
91 There is also the need for just punishment and denunciation when sentencing.
92 When sentencing you I take into account the principles of totality and proportionality. I am also mindful all this offending in the charges before me (four charges) occurred in the same incident. I sentence you as follows.
93 On Charge 1, convicted and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment.
94 On Charge 2, convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment.
95 On Charge 3, convicted and sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment.
96 On Charge 4, convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.
97 I direct that Charge 2 is the base sentence and I order the following in relation to cumulation and concurrency.
98 I direct that 3 months of Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon Charge 2.
99 I direct that 1 month of Charge 3 be served cumulatively upon Charge 2.
100 I direct that 5 months of Charge 4 be served cumulatively upon Charge 2.
101 The orders for cumulation are upon each other and upon the base sentence. That results in a total effective sentence of 3 years' imprisonment and I direct you serve a period of 22 months before you are eligible for parole.
102 In sentencing you I have imposed what I regard as a shorter non-parole period.
103 Pursuant to s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty to these charges and been found guilty of them I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 6 months and set a non-parole period of 4 years.
104 Pursuant to s.18(4) Sentencing Act 1991, I declare you have spent 213 days in custody by way of pre‑sentence detention up to and including yesterday, 9 June 2020, and I direct that that be entered into the records of the court. I will have counsel confirm that or otherwise in a minute.
105 The prosecution made application for a disposal order. Your counsel did not oppose the making of the order and I make the order in the terms sought.
106 In addition, the prosecution made application for an order pursuant to s.86 Sentencing Act 1991 that you pay Kayden Rhodes compensation in the sum of $720. Again Mr Rolfe, who appeared on your behalf, did not oppose the making of the order and I make the order in the terms sought.
107 First things first, any other orders that I missed, Mr O'Doherty?
108 MR O'DOHERTY: No, Your Honour, that's the extent of the orders.
109 HER HONOUR: Right. What about days? 213 up to and including yesterday?
110 MR O'DOHERTY: Agreed.
111 HER HONOUR: Beg yours? Do you agree?
112 MR O'DOHERTY: Agree.
113 HER HONOUR: Sorry, couldn't hear you.
114 MR O'DOHERTY: Yes, that's correct.
115 HER HONOUR: Do you want me to go over the figures again for your benefit or did you get them?
116 MR O'DOHERTY: No, I've got them, thank you.
117 HER HONOUR: Great. Now, Mr Rolfe, back to you, do you agree with 213 days? Hello, Mr Rolfe.
118 MR ROLFE: Your Honour.
119 HER HONOUR: Yes, do you agree with 213 days?
120 MR ROLFE: I agree with the - yes, happy with that.
121 HER HONOUR: Great. Now, do you want help with the maths? I'm not asking you whether you like the maths, I'm just - do you want me to repeat any of the figures or did you get them down?
122 MR ROLFE: I got them down, thank you.
123 HER HONOUR: Great. Excellent. So is there anything outstanding from your perspective, Mr O'Doherty?
124 MR O'DOHERTY: No, Your Honour;
125 HER HONOUR: Anything outstanding from your perspective, Mr Rolfe?
126 MR ROLFE: No, Your Honour.
127 HER HONOUR: Great, thank you. Now, Mr Coates, I'm assuming Mr Rolfe will be in touch with you at some stage to explain the sentence today, all right? So he'll be - - -
128 MR ROLFE: Thank you, Your Honour.
129 HER HONOUR: I can't tell you when. He'll do his best to get there as soon as he can, but these things can take a bit of time in this restricted environment, if you know what I mean.
130 OFFENDER: Yep.
131 HER HONOUR: All right, good on you. In that case - and I gather there's nothing further, is there, Madame Associate? No, all right. Well, we're going to disconnect the link. Thank you, everybody, we'll disconnect the link. Thanks.
132 MR ROLFE: Thanks.
- - -
0
10
0