Director of Public Prosecutions v Cookson (a pseudonym)
[2023] VCC 1390
•9 August 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| RICHARD COOKSON (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE D SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 4 November 2022; 7 November 2022; 8 November 2022; 9 November 2022; 10 November 2022; 14 November 2022; 15 November 2022; 21 June 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 9 August 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Cookson (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1390 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sexual Penetration of a Child or Lineal Descendant; Common Assault
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991; Sex OffenderRegistration Act 2004
Cases Cited:Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; DPP v Walsh (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 172; The Queen v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Victor Williams (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 35; Poursanidis v The Queen [2016] VSCA 164; Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 286; DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 13 years’ and 9 months’ imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms E. Phillips (Sentence) Ms D. Caruso (Plea) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms C. Fazakas (Sentence) Mr N. Goodfellow & Mr C. Tom (Plea) | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Richard Cookson,[1] on 15 November 2022 a jury unanimously found you guilty of three charges of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, and one charge of common assault, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment. The sexual penetration charges are Category 1 offences, meaning that I must impose a term of imprisonment for each charge, as none of the statutory exceptions apply in your case. Furthermore, these offences are standard sentence offences, and the standard sentence for these offences is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[1] A pseudonym.
2As conceded by your counsel during plea submissions on 21 June 2023, as a result of the jury’s verdicts, it is appropriate that I sentence you on the basis of your daughter’s account of the offending. I proceed to sentence you on the basis that the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the account of your daughter Suzette.[2] Furthermore, I am conscious of the need to ensure that any findings made by me must be consistent with the jury’s verdicts, and any findings of fact made against you must be arrived at beyond reasonable doubt.[3] I also proceed on the basis that the jury must have rejected your version of events, where you denied any sexual misconduct, as outlined in your police interview.
[2] A pseudonym.
[3]Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1.
Circumstances of your offending
3The account of your daughter Suzette with regard to your offending is contained in the police VARE, which took place on 19 October 2021, and in her evidence at the special hearing, conducted on 25 May 2022. The details of Suzette’s account were summarised in the amended summary of prosecution opening for trial dated 10 October 2022.
4The victim in this matter is Suzette Cookson, your biological daughter. Between January 2019 and October 2021, you engaged in ongoing sexual abuse of Suzette when she was aged five to seven years old. The offending took place at the family home.
5On 18 October 2021, when Suzette was seven years old, she was walking home from primary school with her mother, Amanda Morrison.[4] At some point Suzette became separated from her mother, and ultimately called Triple Zero. Upon speaking with police, Suzette made disclosures of physical abuse, which led to her being taken into protective custody. She later made additional disclosures of sexual abuse to workers from the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, which led to the police VARE interview being conducted the following day, 19 October 2021. In that VARE interview, Suzette made numerous detailed disclosures with regard to your sexual offending, which she essentially confirmed in her evidence at the special hearing. Suzette essentially referred to you engaging in various acts of sexual penetration involving the insertion of your penis into her vagina, anus, and mouth, and your finger into her vagina, with the first incident of sexual abuse occurring in 2019 when she had first started at Primary School, and the last incident occurring in 2021.
[4]A pseudonym.
6In her VARE, Suzette also referred to other sexual touching committed by you upon her, namely sucking her breast area and playing with her vagina.[5] I have taken into consideration these uncharged acts, to provide a proper context in relation to the charged offences on the Indictment.
[5]Video and Audio Recording of Evidence of Suzette Cookson on 19 October 2021 at Q/A 63-65 and 221-224.
Charge 1
7Charge 1 is a course of conduct charge, incorporating approximately 10 occasions of penis/vagina penetrations and a number (unspecified, but more than one) of finger/vagina penetrations. Between 1 January 2019 and 19 October 2021, you penetrated the vagina of your young daughter Suzette with your penis on approximately 10 occasions. According to Suzette, this activity would take place in your bedroom, on the couch in the lounge room of the family home, and whilst you were in the shower together, with you holding her whilst you penetrated her.
8Furthermore, between 1 January 2019 and 19 October 2021, there were occasions, according to Suzette, where you penetrated her vagina with your fingers. Suzette recalled a particular occasion when you digitally penetrated her vagina whilst on your bed.
Charge 2
9Between 1 January 2019 and 19 October 2021, according to Suzette, you penetrated her anus with your penis on approximately seven occasions. According to Suzette, these acts occurred during the occasions when you had also inserted your penis into her vagina, and you would use your own spit as lubricant when committing these acts.
Charge 3
10Between 1 January 2019 and 19 October 2021, according to Suzette, you penetrated her mouth with your penis on approximately seven occasions. In her police VARE, Suzette referred to this act as you making her 'suck his private'. According to Suzette, you would often give her lollies as an inducement to suck your penis.
Victim impact
11A Victim Impact Statement dated 23 May 2023 was filed on behalf of Linda Christos.[6] Ms Christos has known Suzette all her life, having been the permanent carer for Suzette’s mother when she was younger. According to Ms Christos, she had Suzette in her care for a period of seven months in 2022 and 2023, after the offending. She noticed sexualised behaviours being exhibited by Suzette. In her Victim Impact Statement, Ms Christos set out the sentiments expressed by Suzette when asked by police to detail the impacts of the offending upon her. Suzette referred to her bowel being affected, and always needing medication. She referred to not being able to sleep without thinking someone is there in her bed, and every day she still thinks it is her fault.
[6]A pseudonym. Exhibit 3.
12A Victim Impact Statement dated 12 April 2023 was also filed on behalf of Suzette’s mother, Amanda Morrison.[7] In her statement, Ms Morrison refers to her feelings of confusion, anger, and sadness with regard to your offending. She also refers to the destructive impacts of your offending upon her relationship with her children, experiencing significant periods of limited contact with them as a result of the consequences of Suzette’s disclosures to the authorities.
[7]Exhibit 2.
13Clearly, the dynamics within the family home were complex, and the involvement of protective services appears to have expanded beyond the initial disclosures of sexual abuse with regard to Suzette. However, it is equally clear that your offending has had extremely significant adverse impacts upon your daughter Suzette and the family unit as a whole. Both Suzette and her brother have spent considerable periods of time away from their mother, and both Suzette, her sibling, and her mother, will live with the consequences of your offending for many years to come. There is no medical evidence before me with regard to any physical consequences of your offending against your young daughter. She does, in her Victim Impact Statement, refer to bowel problems. However, given the young age of your daughter and the nature of the sexual penetrations, I proceed to sentence you on the basis that your offending must have had some physical impact upon her.
14Leaving aside the physical impacts, Suzette essentially referred understandably to no longer feeling safe in her own bed.
15Victim Impact Statements are an important means through which victims of crime, and those close to them, can meaningfully participate in the sentencing process, by informing the Court of the often long-lasting impacts of crimes upon them. In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have taken into consideration the impacts of your offending upon your victim and those close to her.
Nature and gravity of your offending and your culpability for it
16Sexual penetration of your child is an incest offence. The seriousness of such an offence is reflected in the maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment and in the standard sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. The community rightly regards such offending as repugnant and abhorrent. As the Court of Appeal stated in the decision of Walsh:[8]
'Incest involving a child is an appalling crime. It involves a breach of trust of the most fundamental kind, and an inexplicable abdication of parental responsibility. Just as seriously, it involves a cynical exploitation by the parent of the opportunity for sexual contact which being in that position of trust presents.'
[8]DPP v Walsh (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 172, 1.
17Later, in that same judgment, the court stated:
'Incest involving a child is, by definition, an offence of very high culpability, since it is so obviously contrary to every tenet of parental care for children and since every parent is taken to understand that sexual activity is absolutely prohibited.'[9]
[9] Ibid 33.
18You are Suzette’s biological father. Your fundamental duty as a parent involves nurturing and caring for your young child, and keeping her safe. Instead, over a sustained period of time between 2019 and 2021, when she was just five to seven years of age, you repeatedly engaged in penetrative activity of the most serious kind. You repeatedly penetrated her vagina with your penis and fingers. You repeatedly penetrated her mouth with your penis. And, most concerningly, you repeatedly penetrated your young daughter’s anus with your penis.
19Your serious sexual offending against your daughter took place in the family home, a place where she was entitled to feel safe. As evidenced by the sentence of Suzette in the Victim Impact Statement, through your offending you have robbed her of that safety.
20There were inducements offered by you in the form of lollies with regards to Charge 3.[10] On occasions, your offending persisted over Suzette saying 'No'.[11]
[10]Video and Audio Recording of Evidence of Suzette Cookson on 19 October 2021 at answers 80 and 85.
[11]Ibid at answers 47 and 92c.
21Suzette also referred to you saying that at least some of the offending was payback for being naughty, in my view enhancing the degrading and humiliating nature of your offending. Bearing in mind just how young Suzette was at the relevant time, she referred in her VARE to you generally calling her a 'slut', 'bitch', and 'dickhead'. Indeed, in your police interview you admitted calling your young daughter 'a little bitch', 'a pain in the arse', and 'a cunt'.[12] At one point in her police VARE,[13] Suzette refers to you asking if she was going to be your 'little slut' before sexually offending against her. This represents, in my view, thoroughly repugnant behaviour on your part, aggravating the seriousness of your conduct.
[12]Ibid at answer 499 and onwards.
[13]Ibid at answer 128-132.
22Overall, I agree with the prosecution that your sexual offending must be seen as extremely serious, involving a catastrophic breach of trust in your victim’s home, and it sits somewhat above the mid-range in terms of objective gravity of your offending.
23Charge 4 on the indictment, common assault, relates to a discrete incident between 18 September 2021 and 12 October 2021, during school holidays, when you struck your 7 year old daughter in the face, this act causing her head to slam into a mirror beside the bathroom sink, causing the mirror to crack. Whilst, as indicated in the psychological report material, you now appear to accept some responsibility for this, when interviewed by the police you denied this conduct and exercised your right to plead not guilty at your trial. Whilst clearly of a different nature to the other charges on the indictment, this nevertheless represents serious conduct on your part, striking your young child with such force that her head hit a mirror causing it to crack.
24Your counsel did not submit that your moral culpability for this egregious offending was in any way reduced by virtue of any mental impairment, and specifically conceded that Verdins[14] principles 1−4 are not enlivened in your case. Furthermore, nothing in the psychological reports tendered on your behalf provides any basis for a reduction in your moral culpability. Given this, and the nature of your offending, I regard your moral culpability as being extremely high.
[14]The Queen v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.
Applicable sentencing factors
25You are now 31 years of age. You were aged 26-29 at the time of the offending. You have no prior criminal convictions. Although previous good character is to be afforded less weight in the case of sexual offending against children than in cases involving other kinds of offending, it is not the case that previous good character is to be given no or wholly insignificant weight. Even in cases of sexual offending against children, previous good character remains a mitigating factor that I am bound to consider.[15]
[15]Victor Williams (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 35 at paragraph 18.
26You were born and raised in Gippsland. You are the eldest child, with two younger sisters from your parents’ marriage. Your parents separated when you were seven. Your father has apparently struggled with alcohol and substance abuse issues, and was physically abusive towards you and your sisters. Following your parents’ separation, you would only see your father on weekends. Your mother remarried and had two further daughters with your stepfather. Whilst initially a positive relationship, you developed a strained relationship with your stepfather, who apparently subjected you to verbal and some physical abuse. You have described a close relationship with your mother, who continues to be a significant support for you following your remand in custody. You apparently struggled academically at school and were the victim of bullying. You were diagnosed with ADHD as a child. You left school at the completion of Year 10, having attended three different secondary schools and engaged in what your counsel described as problematic behaviour at school which led to frequent suspensions.
27Upon completing your education, you worked in a number of casual roles at fast-food outlets, in factories, and on dairy farms. You apparently struggled to maintain stable employment until 2018, when you commenced full-time employment as a caretaker at an Aboriginal Corporation, a role that you maintained until your arrest on this matter. You were in a relationship with Ms Morrison, who identifies as Aboriginal, from 2012 until your arrest. Together you have two children: your victim Suzette, and a younger son, Sonny.[16]
[16]A pseudonym.
28For the purposes of your plea hearing, you were assessed by psychologist Simon Candlish, with his findings contained in a psychological court report dated 1 February 2023, tendered at your plea hearing and marked Exhibit B. In addition to elaborating on your personal history details, Mr Candlish referred to your self-described problematic history with regard to alcohol and cannabis use, your history of epilepsy, and your history of depression and anxiety. You reported to Mr Candlish having been prescribed Zoloft and Valium approximately 12 months prior to your arrest, but that since being placed in custody you have ceased the Zoloft medication.[17]
[17]Psychological Court report by Mr Simon Candlish dated 01 February 2023 at paragraph 42.
29Mr Candlish undertook a number of psychometric tests, and ultimately expressed various opinions with regard to your psychological makeup and risk profile. According to Mr Candlish, you meet the diagnostic criteria for a paedophilic disorder. According to Mr Candlish, it remains unclear whether your deviant arousal has been longstanding or if it was situational in nature, based on your problematic attitudes, interpersonal issues, impaired empathy and poor coping.[18] According to Mr Candlish, you are considered to fall into the moderate-low risk category for sexual offending in the future. You have a mild personality disorder, and your problematic personality traits have impaired your empathy and contributed to mood instability, detachment, and poor coping.
[18]Ibid at paragraph 80.
30According to Mr Candlish, your sexual offending appears related to the sexualisation of your daughter in the context of an absence of sexual outlets, poor coping, problems in your interpersonal functioning, and impaired empathy, as well as distorted attitudes.[19] You may have sought sexual stimulation as a form of dysfunctional coping, distracting yourself from your negative mood.[20]
[19]Ibid at paragraph 103.
[20]Ibid at paragraph 111.
31According to Mr Candlish, your personality and psychological makeup appears likely to compromise your ability to cope as a result of sustained imprisonment. You are already prone to poor coping behaviours and appear to be experiencing heightened anxiety within the prison environment. You are likely to feel heightened stress and anxiety within such an environment, which will impact on your depressive symptoms. You are also likely to experience greater suicidal ideation. According to Mr Candlish, your mental health is more susceptible to fluctuation and deterioration compared to the general population. You are more prone to withdrawal and paranoid ideation. You are prone to acts of self-harm. Your depressive symptoms could worsen, and in this context you could be at greater risk for suicide.[21]
[21]Ibid at paragraphs 114-115.
32Based upon these unchallenged opinions, I am prepared to make a reasonably modest mitigatory allowance pursuant to Verdins principles 5 and 6, given the impacts of your psychological symptomatology in the custodial environment.
33As is now well known, the impacts of COVID‑19 in the custodial environment have made the conditions of imprisonment more arduous. Whilst the situation is by no means as acute as in recent years, COVID‑19 remains amongst us, and the custodial environment is no exception. As a result of COVID‑19 entering the custodial environment, there have been and continue to be restrictions with regard to freedom of movement, access to visits, and access to employment and other therapeutic activities. All prisoners, in addition, must live with the understandable anxieties associated with the incursion of COVID‑19 into the custodial environment, given the compromised demographic. A letter from Jenny Hosking, Assistant Commissioner, Sentence Management Division, Department of Justice and Community Safety, dated 20 June 2023, was tendered by the prosecution at your plea hearing.[22] That letter confirms that you have experienced some COVID related lockdowns, but have otherwise managed to obtain and maintain employment in the prison bakery, and have had access to visits. A further mitigatory allowance is warranted due to the impact of COVID‑19 on the circumstances within which you will serve your sentence of imprisonment, at least for the foreseeable future.
[22] Exhibit 5.
34I turn now to a consideration of your prospects for rehabilitation. It is certainly to your credit that you fall to be sentenced as a man with an absence of prior convictions. You still, it seems, have the support at least of your mother; and I was informed, and accept, that you have the availability of stable accommodation upon your release from prison. You have a willingness to engage in mental health treatment, and I accept that you were a willing participant in the psychological assessments undertaken for the purposes of your plea hearing.
35According to Mr Candlish, you represent a moderate to low risk of sexual reoffending. Whilst you have been diagnosed by Mr Candlish with a paedophilic disorder, and you clearly maintain your denial of the sexual offending, according to Mr Candlish:
'This does not necessarily pose an issue for future treatment if he is willing to explore and address the relevant risk factors that contributed to his offending and if he is willing to utilise risk management strategies in the future.'[23]
[23]Psychological Court report by Mr Simon Candlish dated 01 February 2023 at paragraph 107.
36According to Mr Candlish:
'Should Mr [Cookson] engage in such treatment, there is reason to be optimistic about improvements in his coping, self-regulation and interpersonal relationships.'[24]
[24]Psychological Court report by Mr Simon Candlish dated 01 February 2023 at paragraph 118.
37Mr Candlish concludes by expressing the opinion that you appear to show good prospects for rehabilitation of your sexual offending behaviour based upon your presentation, your history and your assessed risk level. In these circumstances, I proceed on the basis that your prospects for rehabilitation are at least reasonable, and indeed could be described as favourable, provided you obtain the specialist interventions referred to by Mr Candlish in his report.
Relevant principles, and legislative requirements
38Charges 1, 2 and 3 on the indictment are course of conduct charges. Pursuant to s5(2F) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I must impose a sentence that reflects the totality of the offending that constitutes the course of conduct, and must not impose a sentence that exceeds the maximum penalty for the offence if charged as a single offence. Sentencing with regard to course of conduct offences is governed by orthodox sentencing principles.[25]
[25]Poursanidis v The Queen [2016] VSCA 164 at paragraph 11.
39In the course of my sentencing remarks, I have referred to the approximate numbers of occasions of sexual offending referable to Charges 1, 2 and 3. Some care needs to be taken, given that these numbers emanate from the VARE interview of a young child. However, I proceed to sentence you on the basis that each of the course of conduct charges involved multiple instances of the sexual offending referred to, over a sustained period of time between 2019 and 2021.
40Charges 1, 2 and 3 are standard sentence offences. The applicable standard sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to s5A(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991, this period:
'is the sentence for an offence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle of the range of seriousness.'
41Pursuant to the standard sentencing scheme set out in s5A and 5B of the Sentencing Act 1991, I am required to take the standard sentence into account as one of the factors relevant to sentencing. The standard sentence is a legislative guidepost only and does not affect the established instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing.[26] Pursuant to s5B(2)(b), I must only have regard to sentences previously imposed for the offence as a standard sentence offence when considering current sentencing practices for the offence of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant, imposed under the standard sentence scheme. Of course, in having regard to sentences previously imposed for standard sentence offences, I have had regard to the fact that current sentencing practices represent just one factor among many others that must be considered in reaching a just sentence.[27]
[26]Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 286 at paragraph 4.
[27]DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428.
42Neither counsel were able to refer me to any comparable Court of Appeal authorities on the topic of current sentencing practices. The prosecution provided a table of both Court of Appeal and County Court sentences for incest and related offences with regard to standard sentence offences, again confirming that no comparable decision had been identified. Nevertheless, in formulating an appropriate sentence in your case I have had regard to previous sentencing decisions of this and higher courts, and the underlying principles relevant to the sentencing process for such offences.
43The individual sentences that I am about to impose on each of the sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant charges fall either just above, at, or just below the standard sentence. Having identified and considered the relevant factors in assessing the sentence – including the standard sentence, the objective seriousness of the offending, and matters available in mitigation – these are the sentences I have determined to be appropriate.
44Charge 1 is a course of conduct charge. Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991, therefore, for Charges 2 and 3 you will be sentenced as a serious sexual offender.[28] Protection of the community is therefore the primary sentencing purpose, and there is a presumption of cumulation.[29] As conceded by the prosecution, some of the offending relevant to Charge 1 occurred in the same episode as the offending relevant to Charge 2. However, the criminality encompassed by Charge 2 is distinct and, as indicated by the prosecution, particularly egregious. The offending captured by Charge 3 occurred separately to the conduct captured by Charges 1 and 2. The offending captured by Charge 4 is stand-alone, and obviously involves separate and distinct criminality.
[28]Sentencing Act 1991 s6B(2)(ac).
[29]Sentencing Act 1991 s6D and s6E.
45In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have had regard to the serious sexual offender provisions, and the need for an appropriate degree of cumulation, having regard to the factors I have just referred to, being cognisant as always of the overarching principle of totality. A disproportionate sentence was not sought by the prosecution, and in my view is not necessary, having regard to orthodox sentencing principles.
46The egregious nature of your offending requires me to impose a sentence that reflects the important sentencing purposes of denunciation, general deterrence, and, given your ongoing denials of your sexual offending, specific deterrence. You must be justly punished for your serious criminality. The community must be protected from you. In my view, your rehabilitation can be appropriately facilitated through a parole component to the sentence that I am about to impose. In that regard, I have determined in relation to the standard sentence offences that, pursuant to s11A(4)(c), it is not in the interests of justice to fix a non-parole period which is less than 60 per cent of the total effective sentence that I am about to impose. As should be readily apparent from the totality of my sentencing remarks, I have concluded that nothing short of a substantial sentence of imprisonment is warranted in your case.
Sentences to be imposed
47Mr Cookson, I am now about to impose the sentences with regard to the charges on the Indictment.
48On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
49On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 years and 6 months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
50On Charge 3, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
51On Charge 4, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment.
52I direct that 18 months on Charge 1, 18 months on Charge 3, and 3 months on Charge 4, be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence imposed on Charge 2, making a total effective sentence of thirteen years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
53I order that you serve a period of 10 years before becoming eligible for parole.
54Pursuant to s6F of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have been sentenced in relation to Charges 2 and 3 as a Serious Sexual Offender, and I order that this be entered into the records of the court.
55Finally pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare a period of 316 days has been served by way of pre‑sentence detention and I order that this amount be administratively deducted from the sentence that I have just announced.
56Firstly, Ms Phillips, any issues in terms of maths, ambiguities?
57MS PHILLIPS: No that maths is all correct on my view, Your Honour. Just the sex offender registration.
58HIS HONOUR: Yes, bear with me please. The offences for which you have been sentenced are registrable offences under the Sex Offender Registration Act 2004, the mandatory period of registration having regard to the offences upon which you have just been convicted is life. Accordingly, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sex Offender Registration Act 2004, I declare that you are a registrable offender and you are subject to registration for the mandatory period of life. Does that cover the Sex OffenderRegistration Act 2004 matter?
59MS PHILLIPS: Yes, that's suitable, Your Honour.
60HIS HONOUR: Thanks. Ms Fazakas, any issues arising from your end?
61MS FAZAKAS: No, nothing further, Your Honour.
62HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Thanks, adjourn the court.
- - -
0
7
0