Director of Public Prosecutions v Connor
[2016] VCC 467
•21 April 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT SALE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No.CR-15-02263
CR-15-02266
CR-15-00671
CR-15-00672
Indictment No. C1409790
C1409790.2
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ROBERT CONNOR |
| and |
| BAYDEN NEAL |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARRISH | |
WHERE HELD: | Sale | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 13 April 2016 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 April 2016 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Connor & Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 467 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – arson – burglary – theft – knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime – handling stolen goods – possession of a drug of dependence – possessing cartridge ammunition (Neal only) – using a drug of dependence, namely Cannabis L (Neal only)
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958; Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; Criminal Procedure Act 2009; Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited:Boulton & Ors v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342; The Queen v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] 35 VR 43; R v Merrett, Piggott & Ferrari (2007) 14 VR 392; R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269; DPP v O’Neill [2015] VSCA 325
Sentence: 6 months imprisonment followed by a 2 year Community Correction Order.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors | ||
| For the DPP | Mr P Triandos | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions | ||
| For the Accused Connor | Mr A Marshall | Sullivan Braham Pty Ltd | ||
| For the Accused Neal | Mr J Anderson | Warren Graham & Murphy Pty Ltd | ||
HIS HONOUR:
1 In respect of Indictment C1409790, each of you was charged with the following offences:
Charge 1: At Briagolong in Victoria, on 6 March 2014, you entered as trespassers a building at 1282 Freestone Creek Road, with intent to steal therein.
Such offence of burglary is contrary to s.76(1) of the Crimes Act1958 and carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.
Charge 2: That you both at Briagolong in Victoria, on 6 March 2014, stole a generator and firearm belonging to Roger Bradley.
The offence of theft is contrary to s.74(1) of the Crimes Act1958 and carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.
Charge 3: That you both at Briagolong, on 6 March 2014, intentionally and without lawful excuse, destroyed by fire a building at 1282 Freestone Creek Road.
The offence of Arson is contrary to s.197(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
Charge 4: That you both at Sale and diverse places in Victoria, between 7 March 2014 and 16 March 2014, dealt with proceeds of crime, namely a generator and a firearm, knowing that the property was the proceeds of crime.
Such offence of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime is contrary to s.194(2) of the Crimes Act1958 and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
2 At your arraignment on 31 March 2016, you both pleaded guilty to Charge 1 (the burglary), Charge 2 (the theft) and Charge 4 (knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime). You both pleaded not guilty to the offence of Arson and both stood your trial in relation to that offence. On 12 April 2016, a jury found you both guilty of that offence.
Circumstances of the offending
3 On 6 March 2014 you both had been hunting in bushland during the day, and came across the premises situated at 1282 Freestone Creek Road. The premises were owned by Mr Roger Bradley, and consisted of a mostly mud-brick house at the end of a reasonably steep driveway from Freestone Creek Road, near McKinnon’s point north of Briagolong.
4 The premises was connected to a solar power unit and also had a petrol generator for electricity. Mr Bradley and his family did not live there fulltime, but would visit the house regularly.
5 Both of you entered the premises, went into the house, stole a firearm and its case situated within the house, and also a generator from outside the house.
6 Later, the generator was “swapped” for a couple of unregistered cars, and the stolen firearm sold to a man in Cann River. Ultimately, the generator was recovered and returned to Roger Bradley.
7 In relation to the offence of arson, the jury verdict must be interpreted to mean that it accepted that the fire which destroyed the premises commenced at about 6.40pm on 6 March 2014, and both of you were still present at the premises to light that fire. During the trial there was some evidence from an arson chemist that residue of hydrocarbons was found in one of the rooms of the razed premises, consistent with being used as an accelerant, at least in that part of the premises.
8 It was submitted by the prosecution that such fire was commenced by you to hide the theft of various materials. On 17 March 2014 you, Bayden Neal, were arrested and interviewed. On the same day you, Robert Connor, attended the police station voluntarily. You were each charged with burglary and theft following records of interview undertaken on that day, and bailed to the Sale Magistrates’ Court on 16 June 2014.
9 On 7 July 2014, you were both charged with arson and thereafter the following has occurred:
(a) Plea offer made by you, Bayden Neal – to all the charges except arson;
(b) 5 March 2015 – plea offer rejected;
(c) 21 and 22 April 2015 – contested mention;
(d)31 March 2016 – trial commences and, when arraigned, you both as I say, had pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2 and 4, and not guilty to the charge of arson.
10 In respect of Indictment C1409790.2, each of you is charged with various offences:
Charge 1: That you, Robert Connor, at Airly in Victoria between 19 February 2014 and 20 February 2014, entered as a trespasser, premises situated at 226 Airly Estate Road, with intent to steal therein.
Such an offence of burglary is contrary to s.76(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 and carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.
Charge 2: That you, Robert Connor, at Airly in Victoria between 19 February 2014 and 20 February 2014, stole a printer cartridge.
Such an offence of theft is contrary to s74(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 and carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.
Charge 3: That you, Bayden Neal, at Sale in Victoria on 17 March 2014, dishonestly handled stolen goods, namely a printer cartridge, knowing or believing such goods to be stolen.
The offence of handling stolen goods is contrary to s.88 of the Crimes Act1958 and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
Charge 4: That you, Bayden Neal, on 17 March 2014 had in your possession a drug of dependence, namely Cannabis L.
Such offence of possession of a drug of dependence is contrary to s73(1)(b) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and carries a maximum penalty of 30 penalty units and/or one year’s imprisonment..
11 On 13 April 2016 you, Robert Connor, pleaded guilty to Charges 1 and 2 and you, Bayden Neal, pleaded guilty to Charges 3 and 4.
12 Pursuant to s.145 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, two summary charges were uplifted for a plea hearing on 13 April 2016, in relation to you, Bayden Neal. On that date you, Bayden Neal, pleaded guilty to the following offences:
Charge 5: That you, at Sale on 17 March 2014, did possess cartridge ammunition while not the holder of a licence under the Firearms Act 1996.
Such offence is contrary to s.124(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 and carries a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units.
Charge 6: That you, at Sale on 16 March 2014, did use a drug of dependence, namely, Cannabis L.
Such offence is contrary to s.75 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act and carries a maximum penalty of five penalty units.
The circumstances of that offending
13 The prosecution has prepared a written summary of the circumstances surrounding the offending in respect of Indictment C1409790.2 and the two summary charges. Such summary has been marked as an exhibit (Exhibit 2) and has been accepted by you and your counsel as an appropriate representation of the offending.
14 Between 19 and 20 February 2014, you both drove to the Airly Primary School in Airly, in a vehicle driven by you, Neal.
15 At that primary school, you, Robert Connor, forced entry into the administration area of the school (Charge 1 - burglary) and stole a new and unused printer cartridge (Charge 2 – theft).
16 On 17 March 2014, police executed a search warrant at your home, Bayden Neal, and located the following items:
(a) A stolen printer cartridge (Charge 3 – handling stolen goods);
(b)A bowl of tobacco and cannabis mix (Charge 4 – possession of Cannabis L and related Summary Charge 8 – use of Cannabis L);
(c)Two boxes of .22 calibre Winchester brand ammunition related to Summary Charge 5 – possession of cartridge ammunition, and also a bolt-cutter.
17 When interviewed you, Bayden Neal, disclosed the circumstances of the burglary at the Airly Primary School, but told police that you had remained in the car and denied participating in the burglary and theft.
18 You, Robert Connor, were arrested and interviewed the same day in relation to the burglary at Airly Primary School and admitted you had gone into the school and stolen the box containing the printer cartridge.
Criminal records of each of the accused
19 The Victoria Police criminal history report relating to you, Bayden Neal, was tendered and you agreed that the contents of such record were correct and admitted. Such record records the following:
(a)On 4 June 2012, you were found guilty of possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence or permit, obtaining property by deception, and theft. You were convicted and fined an aggregate sum of $500 in relation to both offences;
(b)On 17 December 2012, you were found guilty of burglary, theft, going equipped to steal and cheat, attempted burglary, and obtaining property by deception. At that time, without conviction, you were placed on a community correction order for a period of 12 months, with the added conditions beyond the core conditions, of performing 50 hours of community work and undergoing treatment and rehabilitation in relation to both drugs and alcohol abuse;
(c)On 29 January 2013 at the Sale Magistrates’ Court, you were found guilty of setting off fireworks without permission. You were convicted and fined $400;
(d)On 3 September 2013, at the Sale Magistrates’ Court, it was proved that you contravened the community correction order made on 17 December 2012. That order was cancelled.
Also on that day, you were convicted of theft of a motor vehicle, obtaining property by deception, burglary, theft, threat to inflict serious injury, and going equipped to steal/cheat. You were sentenced to a further community correction order for a period of 12 months commencing on 3 September 2013, with the added conditions beyond the core conditions, that you be assessed and treated for drug and alcohol abuse and attend offending behaviour programs as directed.
20 The subject offending occurred while you were on a community correction order. Your counsel informed me that subsequent convictions have occurred since the subject offending. In particular, I refer to:
(a)On 9 October 2014, at the Latrobe Valley County Court, you were convicted of the offence of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 and released on an adjournment to 9 October 2015, and ordered to pay $500 to a charity. This offence was longstanding, and occurred prior to the subject offending;
(b)On 19 January 2015, at Sale Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of driving while authorisation suspended and possessing a controlled weapon without excuse, and fined an aggregate of $600;
(c)On 7 September 2015 at the Sale Magistrates’ Court, it was found proven that you contravened the community correction order made on 3 September 2013. Furthermore, on 7 September 2015, you were convicted of the following offences: Refusal to provide a sample of oral fluid, driving while authorisation suspended and using an unregistered motor vehicle, the possession of cannabis, and a further refusal to provide a sample of oral fluid. You were sentenced to a further community correction order for 12 months, commencing on 7 September 2015 with the condition, beyond the core conditions, that you perform unpaid community work for a period of 60 hours and your licence cancelled, and disqualified for a period of nine months, effective from 7 September 2015.
21 The Victorian Police criminal history report relating to you, Robert Connor, was tendered. Such report records that on 4 November 2013 you were convicted at the Sale Magistrates’ Court of the offences of theft for a motor vehicle and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. You were convicted and sentenced to a community correction order for a period of three months commencing on 6 November 2013, with the added condition beyond the normal core conditions, that you perform unpaid community work for a period of 50 hours. You agreed that the contents of such record were correct and admitted.
Victim impact statement
22 A Victim Impact Statement from Mr Roger Bradley declared on 13 April 2016, was tendered in relation to Indictment C1409790 (see Exhibit 3). Mr Bradley did not desire that such statement be read in Court. In that statement, Mr Bradley describes the impact on him and his wife as a result of the premises being burnt down. His opening comment is:
“Where does one start when one ill-conceived event turns a family’s life upside down.”
23 Mr Bradley describes purchasing the premises in November 1992, where his wife and two sons lived for many years in what he refers to as being in this “beautiful, peaceful environment in a mud-brick dwelling”. He continued to live in such dwelling until approximately four years ago.
24 Mr Bradley describes how he spent many thousands of hours in the house and garden, extending and renovating the property, and describes such experience as being his “slice of heaven”, surrounded by wildlife, providing his own power, water, and raising children there - all memories that he cherishes.
25 He describes how he feels very depressed and angry to know that the work he has put in over the years and the legacy they tried to create in this “wonderful house” is gone. Although they were not living at the property at the time of the fire, the family had continued to have significant events, like 18th, 21st and 50th birthday celebrations at the house, and it was intended that his older son would live in the house after completing his university degree.
26 In particular, he states:
“From my perspective, the effects are numerous; anger, depression, hurt and loss of trust in my fellow man. I have always been the type person that was not quick to judge and gave people the benefit of the doubt, but the knowledge that the house and property were violated is hard to reconcile and I am less trusting of my fellow human beings now.”
27 Mr Bradley also describes how his wife has “struggled”, and that her perception of a safe and secure place has been shattered. Even where she lives currently, she has worries about security at that property.
28 Mr Bradley also comments that although the house was insured and that settlement with the insurance company was “efficient and timely”, they will never be able to replace the home they cherished, as new regulations following recent bushfires would require them to spend well over $100,000 more than the insurance payout. In such circumstances, he notes that the family have decided it is financially unviable for them to contribute or borrow the extra money to cover the cost of replacement.
The personal circumstances of the accused Bayden Neal
29 Your counsel tendered the following documents:
(a) “Outline of submissions on plea” (Exhibit C);
(b)Report from the consultant psychiatrist, Dr Lester Walton, dated 6 August 2014 (Exhibit D). Dr Walton examined you on 5 August 2014;
(c)The report of the clinical and forensic psychologist, Ms C. Lechner, dated 11 May 2014 (Exhibit E). Ms Lechner examined you on 8 May 2014;
(d) A bundle of documents consisting of:
(i)Certificate from AusChem Training, dated 5 August 2014, certifying that you have successfully completed the requirements of the AgVet chemical users course;
(ii)Certificate from Wodonga Institute of TAFE, dated 29 October 2014, certifying that you have fulfilled the requirements for Certificate III in Rural Operations;
(iii)Statement of Attainment from Wodonga TAFE, dated 8 February 2015, certifying that you have attained competency in the operation of tractors;
(iv)Academic statement from Wodonga TAFE, dated 29 October 2014, certifying that you have successfully completed a course in the study of rural operations Certificate III;
(v)Letter from Powertrain Pty Ltd dated 15 August 2015, noting that you have enrolled for a Diploma of Agriculture to be conducted online.
(vi)Statement of Attainment issued by Australian Safe T Training Pty Ltd, dated 7 August 2014, in respect of a certificate in civil construction plant operations (control traffic with stop/slow bat and implement traffic management plan).
(e) Letter from Ms Angela Corbett, dated 12 April 2016 (Exhibit G);
(f) Statement from your parents dated 13 April 2016 (Exhibit H).
30 Your counsel also called your sister, Latitia Locker, to give evidence on your behalf. Mrs Locker described herself as a disability caseworker with the Department of Human Services in Sale, having a Bachelor of Community Welfare and Counselling.
31 Partly based on that material, and further submissions made by your counsel, I note the following:
(a)You are presently 22 years of age and were 20 years of age at the time of the offending;
(b)You were born on the Gold Coast and raised in the Sale area. You attended local state schools and then attended Sale Secondary College, which you left after completing Year 10. You have a younger brother, Tharen, and also, as already recorded, a sister, Latitia, who is two years older than you. You consider that you have had a good relationship with your parents over the years;
(c)At the age of 12 or 13, you were diagnosed with ADHD, and prescribed Ritalin. At that time you only had a couple of friends, and were often bullied and teased for the way you looked – you were significantly overweight. In your early years at secondary school, you made plain that you were “gay” by way of sexual orientation;
(d)Halfway through Year 10, you report that you were raped by your former best friend. Although this became “public knowledge”, you did not report the incident as you did not wish to undergo the ensuing court procedures. An Intervention Order was obtained against the perpetrator, and you attended for counselling. The night after the rape you attempted to hang yourself and ended up in the Sale Hospital. Because of ongoing bullying after this event, it caused you to leave school in Year 11;
(e)Your conviction on 9 October 2014 for indecent act with a child under the age of 16, relates to circumstances where, at the age of 17, you had a relationship with a boy aged 14, which was consensual. Seemingly, Dr Walton (the consultant psychiatrist) and Ms C Lechner (clinical forensic psychologist) were retained at or about the time you were confronting that charge. Both the specialists obtained histories that, following the rape, you became particularly depressed and there were various episodes of self-inflicted harm (burns and lacerations), and some further attempts at hanging. Dr Walton records in 2014 at that time, you had been prescribed a variety of antidepressant medication which included Zoloft, and a recent change to Pristiq which you did not find particularly satisfactory, and hoped to return to Zoloft;
(f)On leaving school, you worked in a fast-food chain for about three months, as a mechanic’s labourer for about eight months, and obtained various certificates from TAFE and, as at 2014, according to Ms Lechner, you were the recipient of a Newstart allowance.
32 In particular, I refer to the evidence of Latitia Locker, who I found to be an impressive and balanced witnessed. She confirmed that your mental health deteriorated after the rape and that there were many episodes of self-harm and some suicide attempts. She also confirmed that, on leaving school, you had short bursts of employment, during which you received much bullying about your sexual orientation.
33 She considered that at this time you had low self-esteem, and would start treatment and disengage, as you became frustrated that you did not get “quick fixes”.
34 She estimated that you commenced using cannabis at the age of 16, the time of the sexual assault, and that such use causes you to stop thinking about bad times.
35 In particular, your sister gave evidence that over the last two years there has been dramatic improvement in your condition – your cannabis use has decreased, and you have been working on farms, which you enjoy very much. On completing your Certificate III in Rural Operations in 2014, you found work on an alpaca farm in Yallourn in 2014 and then started working for AC Dairy Farm, and had been the second-in-charge of the dairy for about six months. For the last 12 months, you have been working on a farm in Glengarry as a farm hand, and enjoy the work, taking a lot of interest in the animals. There has been no suicidal behaviour in the last 12 months. Your sister gave evidence that, on seeing you that morning on remand, there was evidence of friction burns caused by you rubbing your arms against your shirt – what she described as a type of self-harm behaviour.
36 At the time of his examination, Dr Walton was of the opinion that you suffered from Chronic Depression, which had commenced at about the time of the sexual assault. In particular, Dr Walton stated:
“Mr Neal’s chronic depression may have led to some eroding of his judgement regarding his decision to become intimately involved with the victim ….” (Referring to the relationship with the younger boy for which you were charged and sentenced by his Honour Judge Smallwood on 9 October 2014.)
37 In her report, Ms Lechner, as at May 2014, also diagnosed you to be suffering from Major Depression, but also with features of Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder. Again, she considers that your mental health deteriorated after the rape.
Your counsel’s plea in mitigation
38 Your counsel submitted the following matters to be relevant in mitigation of any sentence to be imposed on you:
(a)Although conceding that Arson is a serious offences, and in the circumstances of this matter, has had a significant impact on the owner of the premises, it was submitted that the Arson did not involve any significant premeditation or planning and was not motivated by violent intention;
(b)Again, also conceding that in times past, the offence of Arson generally resulted in a period of imprisonment unless there was exceptional circumstances, it was submitted such cases largely occurred in circumstances before the repeal of suspended sentences and the handing down of the Court of Appeal decision in Boulton & Ors v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342;
(c)Given that you were 20 years of age at the time of the offending, you must be viewed as a youthful offender and reference was made to the leading cases of R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 and, in particular at page 241 per Batt JA and Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] 35 VR 43 and, in particular, at paragraphs [34]-[36] per Redlich JA. In this respect, it was submitted that rehabilitation of young offenders is a paramount consideration. Furthermore, reference was made to Boulton (op cit) where it addresses the issue of young offenders at paragraphs 183 to 190 of that decision, and at paragraphs nine to 10 of the appendix;
(d)Reference was also made to the principles enunciated in R v Merrett, Piggott & Ferrari (2007) 14 VR 392 and, in particular, as to what is set out at paragraphs 34 to 38, highlighting that where there has been a “lengthy period of rehabilitation” from the date of the offence up to the date of sentence, the punitive and deterrent aspects of sentencing should not be allowed to prevail to possibly destroy the results of that rehabilitation;
(e)Consistent with the psychiatric and psychological evidence available, it is highly probable that you were suffering from depression at the time of the hearing (see both the evidence of Dr Walton and Ms Lechner) and, according to Ms Lechner, also some symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and features of Borderline Personality Disorder. In such circumstances, it is submitted that Principles 1, 5 and 6 of the principles set out in the well-known decision of the R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269 are applicable (see generally paragraph 32);
(f)It is submitted that, whereas leading into the offending you suffered psychological difficulties primarily arising from the sexual assault suffered by you and various bouts of bullying over the years as a result of your sexual orientation, you have shown and demonstrated a maturation over the last couple of years, which ought to be fostered. Further, there is a greater cause for optimism, given your lack of offending over the last couple of years. A period of imprisonment would weigh heavily on you, not only for the reasons already advanced, consistent with Verdins (op cit), Principles 5 and 6, but also as a result of your vulnerability because of age, history of bullying and being a victim of male sexual violence.
39 I note the reference from Angela Corbett dated 12 April 2016, wherein she describes knowing for you for over six years. Over the years she describes you as someone who has been willing to lend a hand with everything and be of assistance to Ms Corbett and her family. In particular, she describes that over the past several years she has witnessed you “grow up and start to take responsibility for himself and his actions”. In this sense, she describes how you have matured immensely and that you are “very proud” of your recent achievements and holding down your current stable position, which you thoroughly enjoy. She notes that you have stayed away from trouble and that you are starting to make a good life for yourself.
40 I also note the statement from your parents dated 13 April 2016. They also describe that, leading up to 2014, you had been in quite a bit of trouble and suffered mental health issues, which included self-harm and suicidal tendencies stemming from you being sexually assaulted. Your parents also note that since your arrest in 2014, you have attempted to turn your life around, doing the various courses for which certificates have been tendered. They also note that as a result of these courses, you have been able to obtain fulltime work for the last couple of years and in particular, perform farm work, which you are enjoying. They also note that for the last six months you have been living back at home and have noticed some promising changes in your behaviour, such as decreasing drug habits, more positive self-esteem and no episodes of self-harm or suicide. Your parents also note that, although your mental health has been improving, there have been signs during the course of the trial that you have not been coping and you seem to be “genuinely terrified” that you may spend time in custody.
41 Ultimately, your counsel submitted that an appropriate sentence would be the ordering of a community correction order standing alone or, alternatively, a brief period of imprisonment followed by a community correction order.
The personal circumstances of the accused, Robert Connor
42 Your counsel tendered the following documents:
(a) Outline of submissions on plea (Exhibit B);
(b) Statement from Ms C. Blank (Exhibit A);
(c)Your counsel also called Mr Adam Kerr, a friend who has known you for about three-and-a-half years.
43 Partly based on that material, and further submissions made by your counsel, I note the following:
(a)That you have just turned 22 years of age and, that at the time of offending, you were one month shy of turning 20;
(b)You were raised in the Sale area, living and working on a dairy farm approximately 20 kilometres from Sale. Both your parents are in good health and you continue to have a good relationship with them, and they have supported you throughout these matters. You have two brothers, and you continue to have a good relationship with them also;
(c)You finished Year 12 at the Sale College. Thereafter, you have completed a number of courses at TAFE, including warehousing, welding, woodwork and achieved attainment for working on an elevated work platform. You have had limited employment since leaving school and, to the extent that you have been employed, has been mainly in the dairy industry. Your counsel submitted that one of the reasons you have been unable to settle yourself in ongoing employment is having these criminal matters hanging over your head;
(d)You entered into a relationship at or around the time of the Arson offence and currently reside with your partner and her two children from a previous relationship, the children being aged 10 and eight. Furthermore, you and your partner have a baby son, Andrew, who is now six months old. The birth of Andrew was particularly stressful, as he was born five weeks premature and spent a number of weeks on life support. Since then, he has suffered some degree of ill health.
You have a good relationship with the two older children;
(e)You and your partner are currently on social service benefits and are just making ends meet financially. You rent your current premises, but have no large debts;
(f)Your major interest outside your family is motorbikes.
Your counsel’s plea in mitigation
44 Your counsel submitted that the following matters should be taken into account in mitigation of your sentence:
(a)The offending – particularly the offending involving the offence of Arson – did not involve any long-term planning, as you only came across the house when out in the bush that day. Your counsel described it as a “stupid act by two very young men”;
(b)You only have one prior matter involving the theft of a motor vehicle and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime, for which you were sentenced and successfully completed a community correction order. This offence was committed, also, in company with Bayden Neal, but you have very little to do with him now;
(c)Given your age at the time of offending, you were then eligible for a youth training centre disposition and, to the extent that there has been some delay, such delay is not all of your fault;
(d)Given your age at the time of offending, you must be considered as a youthful offender and that, in such circumstances, rehabilitation is a paramount consideration;
(e)Although expressly denying any reliance on any of the principles set out in the decision of Verdins (op cit), it was submitted on your behalf that you will have difficulty if sentenced to a period of imprisonment, given that you are a young man who has had no experience of the criminal justice system and is not in a position to cope comfortably with incarceration;
(f)That you have strong support from your partner, parents and brothers, and your parents have real concern that if incarcerated, rather than rehabilitated, there may be some deterioration.
45 Adam Kerr gave evidence on your behalf and informed the Court that he had known you for about three-and-a-half years since moving to Sale. Kerr gave evidence that he has observed you mature over the last two years and particularly so since the birth of your son. He describes you as being very supportive of your partner, particularly over the difficult period when your son was born. Furthermore, you seem much more family-related now, and most of your friends have children.
46 Mr Kerr noted that you had seemed withdrawn with the advent of the Court proceedings, and over the course of the trial. Over the last three-and-a-half years he has seen you reasonably frequently and describes your attitude as one who seeks to assist and help.
47 Your counsel also referred to the reference from Ms C. Blank (Exhibit A). Ms Blank describes herself as being a very close friend of your partner and that when she first met you, you appeared “young and naïve and sometimes reckless”. She does note over the years she has seen a “big change” in how you behave and that you are “simply” not the same person today as you were back then. Furthermore, she describes how she observed you growing into a “caring, loving and responsible man” being the stepfather to two older children and also a father to your recent child.
48 Ultimately she describes you as a good and kind person who has strength and maturity.
49 Your counsel concedes that the Arson offence in particular, has led, necessarily, to great distress for the owner of the premises and his family. Furthermore, he has accepted that the notion of general deterrence – that is to say, deterring others from committing the crime of Arson is a relevant sentencing consideration.
Submissions on behalf of the prosecution in relation to sentence
50 Counsel for the prosecution submitted that, in particular, the offence of Arson is a serious offence. Further, it was submitted that general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community were all relevant sentencing considerations.
51 Although accepting that both of you are youthful offenders, counsel for the prosecution highlighted the contents of paragraph 44 of the decision of Azzopardi (op cit), wherein it was noted that the more serious the offence, the less weight given to youth.
52 Furthermore, in relation to you, Bayden Neal, counsel for the prosecution accepted that Principles 5 and 6 of the principles enunciated in Verdins (op cit) may have some relevance, but disputed that Principle 1 has any relevance, that is to say, impaired mental function lessened your moral culpability. In this respect, it was submitted, there is no expert opinion relative to the subject offending.
53 Ultimately, counsel for the prosecution submitted that a term of imprisonment was warranted in both cases and whether such term of imprisonment is coupled with a community correction order is entirely a matter for the Court.
54 The Court directed that each of you be assessed by the appropriate correctional officer as to the suitability for each of you to be sentenced to a community correction order. Both of you were assessed on 13 April 2016.
55 In regard to you, Bayden Neal, you were assessed as suitable for a community correction order. It was recommended that the following further conditions should be added to the core conditions – assessment and treatment, including testing for drug use; medical assessment and treatment; mental health assessment and treatment; offending behaviour programs; supervision and judicial monitoring.
56 It was suggested that the need for medical assessment treatment was required, given that you have lost a considerable amount of weight following your previous contact with the Sale Community Correctional Service. At the time of the assessment, you informed the officer that you had been feeling unwell for a considerable amount of time and perceived your weight loss to be a direct result of stress related to the outstanding County Court proceeding.
57 Community Correctional Services assessed your general risk of re-offending as being “high”, according to the Level of Service Risk Assessment Tool.
58 In relation to you, Robert Connor, you were assessed as suitable for a community correction order. It was recommended that the following further conditions should be added to the core conditions – assessment and treatment, including testing for drug use; mental health assessment and treatment; offending behaviour programs and supervision.
59 Community Correctional Services assessed your general risk of re-offending as being “medium”, according to the Level of Service Risk Assessment Tool.
Conclusions
60
In relation to the offences committed by you, Robert Connor, on 19 and 20 February 2014 at the Airly school – Charges 1 and 2 on Indictment
C1409790.2, I accept that such offences are not the worse examples of burglary and theft. However, such offending must be seen in the context that on 4 November 2013, you were convicted of offences involving the theft of a motor vehicle and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. At that time, you were placed on a community correction order, which would have been just completed at the time of your offending. Seemingly, such a community correction order did not deter you from such offending.
61 Similarly, the offending committed by you, Bayden Neal, of handling stolen goods – Charge 3 on Indictment C1409790.2, is not the worse example of such an offence. However, again, such offending must be seen in the context of your prior convictions on 4 June 2012 including, amongst other things, obtaining property by deception and theft; and on 17 December 2012, involving burglary, theft, going equipped to steal and cheat, attempted burglary and obtaining property by deception; and on 3 September 2013, when you were convicted of attaining property by deception, burglary, theft, threat to inflict serious injury, and going equipped to steal.
62 As a result of that conviction on 3 September 2013, you were placed on a community correction order for a period of 12 months and accordingly, the offence of handling the stolen printer cartridge occurred during the currency of such order. I consider such a circumstance to be an aggravating factor.
63 In relation to Charge 4 on Indictment C1409790.2, possessing cannabis, and Charge 8 of the summary charges – using cannabis – are offences for which you will be convicted and fined. In this respect, I do note and accept the evidence of your sister that you are attempting to diminish your cannabis use in more recent times.
64 In relation to Charge 5 of the summary charges – possessing cartridge ammunition while not the holder of a licence under the Firearms Act 1996, I also intend to convict and fine you.
65 I do note that both of you were interviewed in relation to the offences on Indictment C1409790.2, and each of you made full admissions and cooperated with police.
66 Each of you also pleaded guilty to Charge 1 (entering the premises at 1282 Freestone Creek Road with intent to steal), Charge 2 (stealing the generator and firearm belonging to Roger Bradley) and Charge 4 (dealing with the proceeds of crime) in relation to the disposition of the generator and firearm of Indictment C1409790. In general, I consider such offences more serious than the earlier offences, given the nature of the items stolen and their potential value. I do note that the generator was ultimately recovered, but not the firearm.
67 Of course, such offending occurred only a few weeks after the offences relating to the Airly school. Again, you Robert Connor, had just recently completed a community correction order in relation to a theft offence and you, Bayden Neal, were the subject of a community correction order made on 3 September 2013. Again, I consider that in your case such circumstances to be an aggravating factor in relation to the offences at the premises.
68 I do consider the offence of Arson – Charge 3 on Indictment C1409790 to be a particularly serious offence, as is made manifest by the maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. The jury found you both guilty of this offence after a trial lasting eight or nine days.
69 Such offence resulted in the destruction of the premises at 1282 Freestone Creek Road. Such premises consisted of a mud-brick dwelling which had been purchased by the owner in November 1992 and had been the primary residence for him and his family for many years up to two years before the subject offending. Since then the dwelling had been used for various parties and celebrations, and also for accommodation. It was intended that the premises be used by one of the sons of the owner after completion of his university course.
70 When one reads the Victim Impact Statement of the owner it is clear that, over the years, he spent many years at the premises in what he describes as his “slice of heaven”, being surrounded by the bush and various wildlife. Ultimately, although an insurance claim was paid out in relation to the premises, new building regulations make it financially prohibitive to reconstruct the premises. In this sense, the destruction of the premises with its memories has been quite devastating to the owner and his family. The owner also notes how his wife continues to feel unsafe in their town premises, given what she knows happened.
71 The burning of the premises also had, clearly, the potential to ignite surrounding bushland, which would impact on other surrounding properties and various camping areas.
72 It is unclear what your motive was for commencing the fire. It was suggested by the prosecution that such fire was commenced effectively to “cover your tracks” in relation to the theft of the generator and firearm. As pointed out by your respective counsel during your trial, why would such a course be undertaken when it would have been obvious, in any event, that the generator, which was outside the premises, and the firearm case, would have been missing, notwithstanding the fire.
73 Although I accept that the decision to burn the premises most probably occurred shortly prior to the act and accordingly, such offence did not involve any premeditation or the intention to harm any person, I tend to the view that the offence was a wanton, stupid act carried out with no real consideration of the consequences.
74 At the time of such offending you, Bayden Neal, were 20 years of age and you, Robert Connor, were just shy of turning 20 years of age. I do consider you both to be youthful offenders.
75 I refer to Azzopardi (op cit), and in particular, paragraphs [34]-[36] wherein Redlich JA stated:
“There are a number of considerations which underlie the general primacy of an offender’s youth as a sentencing consideration. Firstly, young offenders being immature are therefore ‘more prone to ill-considered or rash decisions’. They ‘may lack the degree of insight, judgment and self-control that is possessed by an adult’. They may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct. As Vincent JA explained in Director of Public Prosecutions v SJK & GAS:]
‘In the case of young people, to some extent, the law incorporates an acknowledgment of aspects of immaturity. By reason of the stage of development that an offender may have reached, he or she may not fully appreciate the seriousness and real consequences of the offending actions. However, it does not follow that this is always the situation or that, as teenagers, offenders cannot be held appropriately accountable for their conduct in engaging in serious criminal activity.’
Secondly, courts ‘recognize the potential for young offenders to be redeemed and rehabilitated’. This potential exists because young offenders are typically still in a stage of mental and emotional development and may be more open to influences designed to positively change their behaviour than adults who have established patterns of anti-social behaviour. No doubt because of this potential, it has been stated that the rehabilitation of young offenders, ‘is one of the great objectives of the criminal law’. The added emphasis for the purposes of sentencing on realisation of a young offender’s potential to be rehabilitated is further justified because of the community’s interest in such rehabilitation, not only at a theoretical level, but because the effective rehabilitation of a young offender protects the community from further offending. As stated in R v Lam & Ors,
‘A primary objective of the criminal justice system is to achieve crime prevention to protect the public. The rehabilitation of an offender should not be seen as a consideration inimical to that objective. Crime prevention to protect the public and the rehabilitation of the offender are interlinked objectives. In sentencing there is thus a broad public interest in taking into account the youth of the offender.’
Thirdly, courts sentencing young offenders are cognizant that the effect of incarceration in an adult prison on a young offender will more likely impair, rather than improve, the offender’s prospects of successful rehabilitation. While in prison a youthful offender is likely to be exposed to corrupting influences which may entrench in that young person criminal behaviour, thereby defeating the very purpose for which punishment is imposed. Imprisonment for any substantial period carries with it the recognised risk that anti-social tendencies may be exacerbated. The likely detrimental effect of adult prison on a youthful offender has adverse flow-on consequences for the community.”
76 However, I also refer to paragraph [44] of the same judgment, wherein Redlich JA stated:
“The general propositions which flow from these authorities is that where the degree of criminality of the offences requires the sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community to become more prominent in the sentencing calculus, the weight to be attached to youth is correspondingly reduced. As the level of seriousness of the criminality increases there will be a corresponding reduction in the mitigating effects of the offender’s youth.[44] But only in the circumstances of the gravest criminal offending and where there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation may the mitigatory consideration of youth be viewed as all but extinguished.”
77 I accept that, consistent with the evidence called by each of you, there are signs that over the last couple of years each of you have matured in your own way. For you, Robert Connor, the birth of your child has no doubt had a profound effect on your life, more so given his health difficulties at the birth. It would appear that you have not been the subject of any further offending since these offences and that when assessed for a community correction order, your risk of re-offending was assessed as being “medium”.
78 In relation to you, Bayden Neal, I also accept, particularly on the basis of the evidence from your sister, that your life perhaps has become more stabilised with the advent of you performing work on farms and with animals. However, I do note that when assessed for the community correction order, it was considered that your general risk of re-offending was “high”. Also, I note that since such offending, you were convicted on 19 January 2015 of driving while authorisation was suspended and possessing a controlled weapon without excuse. Further, on 7 September 2015, you were also convicted of offences involving refusal to provide a sample of oral fluid, driving while authorisation was suspended and using an unregistered motor vehicle, the possession of cannabis, and a further refusal to provide a sample of oral fluid. As I have already recorded, you were placed on a community correction order at that time, commencing on 7 September 2015.
79 Reference was made by your counsel to the opinion of Dr Walton, who diagnosed you to be suffering from Chronic Depression at the time of his examination, on 5 August 2014. He opined that such depression may have “led to some eroding” of your judgement regarding the decision to become intimately involved with the younger boy. Your counsel submits that, based on such statement, it is open for the Court to consider that there was some eroding of your judgment when committing the offence of Arson. If so, the so-called first principle contained in Verdins (op cit) would have application.
80 I reject such submission and refer to the DPP v O’Neill [2015] VSCA 325, wherein at paragraph [59], the Court of Appeal consisting of Warren, CJ; Redlich JA and Kaye JA stated:
“Clearly, there must be an established evidentiary basis for moderating the principles of general deterrence in a particular case. For that to occur, it is not sufficient that the offender suffer from a particular mental impairment. There must be proper, and informed, consideration of how that impairment might have either materially diminished the capacity of the offender to reason appropriately at the time of the offence concerning the wrongfulness of his or her offending, or of how the offender’s condition might make the full application of the principles of general deterrence repugnant to the underlying sense of humanity which guides proper sentencing.”
I do not consider the comments of Dr Walton can be used in the way suggested by your counsel.
81 I do accept that Principles 5 and 6 of Verdins (op cit) have application. These principles are:
“5. The existence of a condition at the date of sentencing (or its foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal health. Where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender’s mental health, this will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment.
6. Where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender’s mental health, this factor may tend to mitigate punishment.”
I accept that most probably from the time of the significant sexual assault suffered by you, you have suffered various degrees of depression over the years, manifesting itself, at least in earlier times, in suicidal ideation and self-harm. I do accept that any sentence of imprisonment would weigh more heavily on you compared to a person of normal health and, indeed, may have a significant adverse effect on your mental health.
82 I have been urged by your respective counsel to sentence you to a community correction order or, alternatively, a short period of imprisonment, together with a community correction order.
83 I refer to the guideline judgment given by the Court of Appeal in Boulton (op cit) pertaining to the operation of community correction orders, which have been available in Victorian courts since January 2012. As that court stated, the community correction order is a radical new sentencing option, with the potential to transform sentencing in this State. Although a non-custodial order, such order has mandatory conditions laid down by the legislature, and the sentencing court can attach to a community correction order a range of conditions which are variously “coercive, prohibitive, intrusive and rehabilitative”. As pointed out by the Court of Appeal, a community correction order is a “flexible sentencing option”, enabling punitive and rehabilitative purposes to be served simultaneously.
84 I also refer to s.5(4) and s.5(4C) of the Sentencing Act1991, which respectively states:
“(4) A court must not impose a sentence that involves the confinement of the offender unless it considers that the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by a sentence that does not involve the confinement of the offender.
….
(4C) A court must not impose a sentence that involves the confinement of the offender unless it considers that the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by a community correction order to which one or more of the conditions referred to in sections 48F, 48G, 48H, 48I and 48J are attached.”
85 As the Court of Appeal has stated, s.4(4C) of the Sentencing Act prohibits the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment unless the sentencing court has paid specific and careful attention to:
(a)The purposes for which the sentence is to be imposed on the offender; and
(b)Whether those purposes can be achieved by a community correction order to which one or more of the specified (onerous) conditions is attached.
86 I also refer to Appendix 1 of the Court of Appeal judgment, which is headed “Community Correction Orders, Guidelines for Sentencing Courts”. Pursuant to that document, it is necessary that I first assess the objective nature and gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender. I am then called upon to consider whether:
(a)The crime, as so assessed, is so serious that nothing short of a sentence wholly comprised of an immediate term of imprisonment will suffice to satisfy the requirements of just punishment; or
(b)A community correction order, either alone or in conjunction with a sentence of imprisonment, will satisfy the requirements of just punishment.
87
As I have already recorded, the offending committed by you Robert Connor, in relation to Charge 1 (burglary) and Charge 2 (theft) in respect of Indictment
C1409790.2, and in relation to Charge 1 (burglary) and Charge 2 (theft), and Charge 4 (dealing with the proceeds of crime) in respect of Indictment
C1409790, followed on very shortly after your conviction on 4 November 2013 for similar offences. Furthermore, the community correction order to which you were sentenced on that date, seemingly had little impact on deterring you from other offending.
88 Similarly, the offending committed by you, Bayden Neal, in relation to Charge 3 (handling stolen goods in respect of Indictment C1409790.2) and in relation to Charge 1 (burglary), Charge 2 (theft) and Charge 4 (dealing with the proceeds of crime) on Indictment C1409790, occurred after your conviction on 3 September 2013 for offences involving deception, burglary, theft and going equipped to steal. At the time of the offending you were on a community correction order, which I consider to be an aggravating factor.
89 In relation to these offences, I consider that specific deterrence, general deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community are important factors.
90 In relation to the offence of Arson, I consider that such offence is a serious offence and denunciation, general and specific deterrence and protection of the community, are important considerations.
91 Taking all these matters into account, I consider that just punishment requires that both of you do serve a period of imprisonment. In reaching such a view, I am mindful that you are youthful offenders and accordingly I have moderated what would be otherwise lengthier terms of imprisonment for your offending. Although I consider that as youthful offenders, rehabilitation is a significant sentencing consideration, I would assess you, Robert Connor, as having reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and you, Bayden Neal, marginally less than that, given your past history and risk assessment by Corrections Services.
92 Also, in respect of you, Bayden Neal, I have taken into account Principles 5 and 6 of Verdins (op cit), and have moderated your sentence accordingly. I would point out that the end result causes no disparity between you and Robert Connor, given that your antecedents involving two community correction orders are far more significant than that of Robert Connor.
93 I also have, of course, taken your pleas of guilty in relation to all the offences, save for the Arson, into account, although I am not persuaded that there really is any direct remorse in relation to any of the offending. I do accept that, given my findings, both of you are making attempts to lead crime-free lives and that is some evidence of remorse on each of your parts in that you have a desire to overcome your pre-existing problems.
94 Please be upstanding.
In respect to Indictment C1409790.2:
(a) In relation to Charges 1 and 2, you Robert Connor are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate period of imprisonment of two months;
(b) In relation to Charges 3, you Bayden Neal are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate period of imprisonment of two months;
(c) In relation to Charge 4, you Bayden Neal are convicted and ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $150 to the Registrar of the County Court.
In respect of Indictment C1409790:
(a)In relation to Charges, 1, 2 and 4, you are both convicted and each sentenced to an aggregate period of imprisonment of two months;
(b)In relation to Charge 3, you are both convicted and each sentenced to a period of imprisonment of four months. This sentence is the base sentence for each of you.
95 In respect of both of you, the Court directs that one month of the sentence imposed in relation to Charges 1, 2 and 4 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 3. The total effective sentence on this indictment is five months’ imprisonment for each of you.
96 In respect to Indictment C1409790.2, the Court directs that one month of the sentence imposed on you, Robert Connor, be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Indictment C-1409790.
97 In respect to Indictment C1409790.2, the Court directs that one month of the sentence imposed on you Bayden Neal, be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Indictment C-1409790.
98 The total effective sentence for each of you is six months’ imprisonment. I declare that each of you have served nine days' pre-sentence detention in relation to this matter, and I direct that such period be deducted administratively in relation to your sentence.
99 I further order on Charge 3 that at the end of such period of imprisonment, you, Robert Connor, are ordered to serve a community correction order for a period of two years. You must attend the Sale Community Correctional Services within two clear working days of completion of the term of imprisonment. In addition to the mandatory terms, there will be the following conditions:
(a)Pursuant to s.48B(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act1991, you will undergo assessment and treatment, including testing for drug use as directed;
(b)Pursuant to s.48D(3) of the Sentencing Act1991, you will undergo mental health assessment and treatment as directed;
(c)Pursuant to s.48D(3) of the Sentencing Act1991, you are to participate in programs and address factors relating to the offending as directed;
(d)Pursuant to s.48E of the Sentencing Act1991, you are to be supervised, monitored and managed as directed by the Secretary for the duration of the Order.
100 I further order on Charge 3 that at the end of such period of imprisonment you, Bayden Neal, are ordered to serve a community correction order for a period of two years. You must attend the Sale Community Correctional Services within two clear working days of completion of the term of imprisonment. In addition to the mandatory terms, there will be the following conditions:
(a) Pursuant to s.48B(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act1991, you will undergo assessment and treatment, including testing for drug use as directed;
(b) Pursuant to s.48D(3) of the Sentencing Act1991, you will undergo mental health assessment and treatment as directed;
(c) Pursuant to s.48D(3) of the Sentencing Act1991, you are to participate in programs and or courses that address factors relating to the offending as directed;
(d) Pursuant to s.48E of the Sentencing Act1991, you are to be supervised, monitored and managed as directed by the Secretary for the duration of the Order.
(e) Pursuant to s.48D(3) of the Sentencing Act1991, for you to undergo medical assessment and treatment
(f) Pursuant to s.48K of the Sentencing Act1991, you are to undergo judicial monitoring, with the first date for monitoring to be on 12 December 2016 at the Sale County Court.
101 In relation to Summary Charge 5 you, Bayden Neal, are convicted and ordered to pay a fine in the sum off $200 to the Registrar of the County Court.
102 In relation to Summary Charge 8 you, Bayden Neal, are convicted and ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $200 to the Registrar of the County Court.
103 In relation to Charges, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Indictment C-1409790 and Charges 1,2, 3 and 4 on Indictment C-409790.2 I order that pursuant to s.78(1) of the Confiscations Act 1997, property referred to in the Schedule be forfeited to the Commissioner of Police.
104 I further order that in relation to charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Indictment C1409790, that pursuant to s.464ZF(2) Crimes Act1958 that Robert Connor undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a scraping from the mouth in accordance with this Act, until a sample of sufficient standard is obtained for placement on the database. I must inform you that if at the time of request you do not consent to the taking of a mouth scraping under the supervision of an authorised member of the police force then the sample to be taken will be a blood sample and police may use reasonable force to enable that forensic procedure to be concluded.
105 I further order, in relation to Summary Charge 5 that pursuant to s.151 of the Firearms Act 1996 that the items in the attached schedule be forfeited to the Crown.
106 Yes. Anything to say, gentlemen?
107 MR ANDERSON: No, Your Honour.
108 MR TRIANDOS: 6AAA indication, Your Honour?
109 HIS HONOUR: Yes. I will send out some detail about that.
110 MR TRIANDOS: Yes.
111 HIS HONOUR: It is necessary the documents be signed by the accused. What I propose to do is remain on the Bench for that to be done. I will allow members of the family to approach the dock before the prisoners are taken away, after the signing of this document.
112 (Community corrections orders signed and acknowledged.)
113 Yes, I will allow members of the family to approach the dock if they want to at this stage.
114 COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honour.
115 HIS HONOUR: Members of the family, perhaps if I have your attention for a second, apparently - by all means I will give you a little bit longer there - but I think there is a distinct possibility that once the accused or the prisoners are back at the police station, you might have a further opportunity to speak to them. So you might be better placed to get to the police station now, I daresay, because rather than speak in this public area now, you might have a better chance of speaking down there.
116 So I will order the prisoners be taken away at this stage. Yes, continue talking until the van gets back and then I will adjourn briefly. I will just adjourn for a few minutes.
---
0
3
0