Director of Public Prosecutions v Creswell
[2024] VCC 534
•23 April 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-01820
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ANTHONY CRESWELL |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE TODD | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 April 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 23 April 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Creswell | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 534 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords: Prohibited person possess firearm; recklessly cause injury; possess drug of dependence
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) s 5(1); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 18; Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s 73(1); Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 30A(1); Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) ss 7(1)(a), 72
Cases Cited:R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Ramezanian v R (2013) 37 VR 92; Markovic v The Queen (2010) 30 VR 589; Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; R v Liszczak & Phillips [2017] VSC 103.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of three years and six months imprisonment; non parole period of two years and three months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms V. Worrell (plea) Ms B. Yildiz (sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms N. Freijah | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Anthony Creswell, you have pleaded guilty to:
(a) one charge of using a firearm as a prohibited person, which carries a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment or 1200 penalty units;[1]
(b) two charges of recklessly causing injury, (one for each victim) each charge carrying a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment;[2] and
(c) one charge of possession of a drug of dependence, being methylamphetamine, which carries a maximum of one year imprisonment or 30 penalty units or both.[3]
[1]Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) s 5(1).
[2]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 18.
[3]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s 73(1).
2You also agreed to have uplifted and you pleaded guilty to these summary charges:
(a) committing an indictable offence (being recklessly causing injury) while on bail, with a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment or 30 penalty units;[4]
(b) using an unregistered motor vehicle on a highway, with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units (this being a subsequent offence);[5] and
(c) fraudulently using a registration label, with a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment or 60 penalty units.[6]
[4]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 30B(1).
[5]Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) s 7(1)(a).
[6]Ibid s 72.
Circumstances of offending
3A summary of prosecution opening dated 1 February 2024 sets out the circumstances of your offending. I will refer just to parts of it in summary form here.
4On 3 January 2023 at 11:09 pm, Ali and Mursal Mohseni were sitting in their car, a white Honda, on Pump House Crescent in Clyde. Your co-accused, James Bartlett, lived on Pump House Crescent.
5At 12:04 am, Mr Bartlett received a message from someone relating to the parked Honda, which for some reason not clear here, had aroused suspicion. Mr Bartlett responded:
'yeah bro I'm already onto it, I'm going to go past them in a min and look through the cunts haha and when I get back I will have the 12 haha'.
6So at 12:13 am, Mr Bartlett left home in his car, a white Ute, and drove to your house in Clyde.
7At around this time, Mr Bartlett had a conversation with his partner via text message. He told her that you would be at the Honda in 15 minutes and that you would ask who they were “[your] way”.
8At this point, another unidentified car drove by.
9Mr Bartlett returned to Pump House Crescent and drove past the Honda before doing a U-turn and stopping.
10You then, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, got into Mr Bartlett's car. The two of you then drove back toward the parked Honda, where the Mohsenis, unaware of any of this, were sitting having a conversation.
11Your offending, and the movements of Mr Bartlett's car afterwards, were captured on CCTV.
12At 12:35 am, you got out of the car, holding the shotgun. Nearby CCTV captures audio of you talking to Mr Bartlett before going over to the Honda. You can be heard saying:
'this is them. Is that Joe Fucking Rosse'.
13You then went to the driver's side window of the Honda and attempted to speak to the driver. You said 'Joe Rosse? What…'. As you turned and walked back to the middle of the road, Ali Mohseni started the car.
14You turned back to the driver and said, 'What's your name cuz?'.
15Mr Mohseni started to drive away; as he did so, you raised the shotgun and discharged a round, which went through the rear driver's side window of the Honda and into the back of the driver's seat.
16Mr Mohseni drove along Pump House Crescent then east on Strathcona Avenue. The unidentified car seen earlier drove along Pump House Crescent in the same direction as the Mohsenis' car.
17You and Mr Bartlett drove west on Pump House Crescent and turned south onto Eliston Avenue, before driving through surrounding streets. The two of you eventually turned to Eliston Avenue, near the intersection of Pump House Crescent, and came to a stop. The unidentified car parked behind yours.
18You got out of the car with the shotgun, initially thinking the unidentified car was the white Honda you had shot at earlier, and said
'…thought…was the Honda for a minute…get shot'.
19Mr Bartlett got out of the car for a short time, before you walked back to the car and said '…oi Ash Mills lets go'. Both cars then drove off.
20Mursal Mohseni called Triple 0 and stayed with Ali Mohseni in the area until Police arrived. Mursal Mohseni gave an account of the incident to police.
21The next day, 5 January, Mursal Mohseni, who was in fact a neighbour of Mr Bartlett, went to Mr Bartlett’s house and told him about the incident that she and Ali had experienced.
22On 6 January 2023, Mr Bartlett went to VicRoads to replace his 'lost' registration plate and was issued with a new one.
23You sent Mr Bartlett a message on 8 January 2023 saying,
'call me asap bout your Nebiour(sic) yeah'.
Investigation and arrest
24The Honda was later examined by police: two pellets were removed from the rear of the driver's seat. Ballistics analysis established that the damage to the driver's seat was consistent with damage caused by the passage of small or a partial charge of shot fired from a shotgun.
25Ali Mohseni was admitted to hospital overnight on the discovery of three metal fragments in his back. He suffered cuts to his upper back, caused by the bullet fragments, and Mursal Mohseni suffered cuts and bruising to her arm. I have seen the photographs of these injuries.
26On 12 January 2023, Mr Bartlett was arrested.
27You were arrested on 16 January 2023 and the following things were found in your possession:
(a) a zip lock bag containing multiple zip lock bags with a total of 1.9 grams of methylamphetamine inside;
(b) an Apple iPhone; and
(c) a motorcycle registered to you with a false registration attached.
28On 18 January 2023, you asked to participate in a recorded interview. You gave mostly no comment answers, but made a number of statements that contradict what you have since accepted as the factual basis of your plea.
Co-accused
29Your co-accused, Mr Bartlett, pleaded guilty to two charges of recklessly causing injury, committing an indictable offence while on bail, contravening a conduct condition of bail, driving while suspended, failing to appear and possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption or approval.
30Mr Bartlett provided a statement to police implicating you, which was taken into account at his plea hearing and resulted in him receiving a significant discount on his sentence. In the Melbourne Magistrates' Court he was given a sentence of 120 days' imprisonment (being time served) and an 18-month community corrections order without conviction.
31I have been provided with a copy of Mr Bartlett's prior criminal history.
Nature and gravity of the offending
32You discharged a shotgun into the window of a car with people in it. You did this at night time, in a residential street. You were in company. You brought the shotgun. You had no idea who was in the car; they turned out to be people completely unconnected to you, who had nothing to do with whatever conflict you thought you were pursuing.
33It was put that your offending took place in the context of a heavy drug addiction, consequential decline in your mental health and association with anti-social peers. This all provides the context, but no excuse.
34Your behaviour suggests you put yourself into an agitated, drug addled, and paranoid state. This then combined with a sense of entitlement to inflict harm on others.
35What you did is deeply serious and outrageous behaviour; you shattered the sense of safety of your victims and you brought an aggressive brutality into the quiet of a normal suburban street where people were going about their lives, and who had the right to have a conversation in a car outside their house without being shot at.
36The fact that you held no ill intent towards your actual victims does not reduce the gravity of what you did, it just expands the category of your potential victims. It is just so random.
37You did all this while subject to a Community Correction Order.
38While the actual injuries sustained by your two victims were thankfully relatively minor, the manner of their infliction, by random gunshot into a car late at night, elevates the gravity of your offending into a very serious category.
39You used the shotgun while being a prohibited person; you have a prior conviction for possession of a firearm as a prohibited person. I am conscious of the need not to doubly punish you for what you did and I will apply that principle in my sentence of you. However, the use of the firearm while being prohibited from doing so is in itself a serious matter and you will receive a measure of additional punishment for that.
Victim impact
40Your victims were both just 19 years old.
41Mursal Mohseni used to feel that home was a safe haven for her. She does not feel that way anymore. She blames herself (obviously without reason) for the effect your offending had on her cousin: “if only I did not ask him to drop me off that night”, she thinks. She has lost touch with what makes her feel happy, safe, and fearless. She went to visit your co-accused, her neighbour, the day after the event, to kindly warn him to stay safe. She lost weight, worried at night and fell behind in her studies. These hardships, only some of which I have repeated here, were caused by you.
42I infer that her cousin, also in the car, would be experiencing similar difficulties and I have read the three victim impact statements provided by both your victims and seen the photographs of their injuries.
43Your offending has had serious, long-lasting effects on these young people, and I take those effects into account on this sentence.
44It is hoped that these proceedings and this sentence helps to clearly place the blame and responsibility where it belongs, which is with you, and to a degree Mr Bartlett, and allow the victims to stop any self-blame.
Prior criminal history
45You have a history dating back to 2011, commencing with relatively minor offending in Hobart. By 2012 you had been dealt with for breaching an intervention order and common assault.
46A range of dishonesty offending in Queensland follows, then, after a hiatus of about six years, driving, drug and weapons offending is recorded in Victorian Courts. In 2021 you were convicted for, among other things, possession of an imitation firearm. A firearm appears again in 2022 when you are convicted of being in possession of a firearm in contravention of a prohibited person order.
47You have prior convictions for possessing drugs of dependence, as well as offences against the Bail Act and Road Safety Act offences.
Personal circumstances
48You are 30 years old. You have a supportive wife, Erika, with whom you have two children aged 6 and 7.
49You were born in Hobart, and grew up with your mother, Angela. You do not know your biological father, however you have a close relationship with your mother.
50You went to primary school at Abbotsford Primary in Tasmania then Holy Rosary Catholic School. At the age of 8, you were diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and with learning difficulties. You went to secondary school at Montrose Bay High School, where you had no difficulty completing Year 12.
51After doing so, you commenced your Certificate III in Landscaping Construction. You finished your apprenticeship at Timeless Landscape, and they were your employer prior to your remand. Your boss has confirmed that this employment remains available to you upon release.
52Throughout your younger years, you experienced physical, psychological and emotional abuse by those close to you. You were subjected to abuse by your stepfather, and you were exposed to family violence directed from your stepfather towards your mother. When you were 10, while attending Holy Rosary Catholic School, you were sexually abused by a priest on multiple occasions.
53As a result of that trauma, you have found it difficult to regulate your emotions, and you have experienced periods of vulnerability to substance misuse. You began using alcohol at the age of 16, and cannabis at the age of 20, though you are not a heavy drinker or smoker.
54Your substance misuse increased in 2020 during the pandemic, when you began using methylamphetamine multiple times in a week. The frequency of this use escalated immediately prior to your remand. Your current offending and portions of your criminal history have occurred in the context of that addiction.
55Throughout your incarceration, you have taken proactive steps to address your mental health and substance misuse. You have remained drug free and are committed to maintaining this, and engaging with psychological treatment upon your release. I note that the difficulty of your period of incarceration has been exacerbated by the knowledge that your two young children are experiencing significant separation anxiety from you.
Sentencing indication-plea relationship
56In this case, some difficulty arose because matters put at the plea and sentence indication had substantial differences: the result of new counsel being briefed. Two examples are: Verdins[7] mitigation was not pleaded at the sentence indication, but was on the plea; exceptional family hardship was not pleaded on the sentence indication, but was advanced on the plea; extra-curial punishment was advanced on the plea. On the other hand, at the plea I received a further victim impact statement from one of the victims setting out the lengthy and serious difficulties in more detail than what was previously available, and I had the benefit of new prosecution arguments in reply to the new matters advanced.
[7]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.
57At the start of the plea hearing, I made it clear that new materials and arguments did not equate to an automatic reduction on the indicated sentence; this is not a 'two step' process but a practical one in which you are guaranteed a sentence no higher than the one indicated, and that is all. On the plea hearing, new materials pulled in both directions on the sentencing discretion.
Matters in mitigation
Pleas of guilty and remorse
58
Although a committal hearing was once listed, no witnesses were ever cross examined, and your case resolved to these pleas after a sentence indication on
19 March 2024.
59
Your pleas of guilty are a very significant matter in mitigation of your sentence; it is particularly valuable that you did not confront witnesses, particularly your
co‑accused Mr Bartlett, and spared him in particular the experience of that cross examination.
60I accept that remorse inheres in your pleas and indicates your willingness to accept responsibility for what you did.
Extra Curial punishment
61During your arrest, which involved the use of a police dog, you were injured. This occurred some weeks after the offending. Your barrister took me to the statements of 'Operators 147 and 163', who were the police with the job of arresting you. They describe you receiving 'puncture wounds to the leg' caused by a dog's bite and there is also reference to you bleeding from the mouth.
62On your plea, after submissions about the injuries, there was some challenge made by the prosecution. Ultimately, I allowed some time for the hospital records to be obtained as they did not form part of the materials on the sentence indication hearing nor plea.
63Hospital records were then provided and showed that you sustained, in the course of your arrest:
·
'An undisplaced fracture of the body of the right mandible (jaw bone) which extends through the right inferior alveolar nerve canal close to the root of
43 and 45'; and
· Three dog bites to the thigh which were treated surgically.
64It was put that you experience ongoing pain that remains unmedicated in custody.
65It was argued that these injuries, sustained in your arrest, ought be given 'significant weight' in mitigation of your punishment.
66I accept that the injuries you sustained during your arrest should be counted as 'extra-curial punishment' and this will have the effect of reducing the penalty that I apply. The nature of the injuries are that they have substantially resolved after one night's admission to hospital treatment. I do give some, but not 'significant' weight to this feature of your sentence.
Family Hardship
67It was put on your plea that the hardship for your young family, that they will experience during your sentence, falls into the 'exceptional' category, and therefore applies in mitigation of your sentence. The nature of that hardship was the cumulative effect of the following matters:
(a) the financial pressure suffered by your partner, who is now the sole carer for your two children;
(b) the decline in your children's mental health since your remand in custody (including their diagnosis of separation anxiety);
(c) the behavioural difficulties your son is experiencing at school;
(d) the decline in your partner's mental health; and
(e) the need to engage psychological treatment for your partner and both children.
68The standard for family hardship as a matter in mitigation is very demanding: it is only where this plea for mercy is exceptional and irresistible that the principle is engaged.[8]
[8]Ramezanian v R (2013) 37 VR 92, 98 [24] (Harper JA).
69I do not find that the hardship suffered by your family as the result of your imprisonment ascends into that 'exceptional' category, which allows mitigation of the direct kind considered in the authorities. Unfortunately, the matters put are common to so many families of the incarcerated.
70However, I do accept, that the more conventional mitigation, which accounts for the anguish that you experience as the result of knowing your family's predicament while you serve your sentence is certainly available to you. This makes, I am sure, the experience of your imprisonment more burdensome.[9]
[9]Markovic v The Queen (2010) 30 VR 589, 595 [20].
71I am not convinced that the hardship experienced by your family has a role for reducing the need for specific deterrence[10] in this case, given you have put your family in this predicament before while you served other sentences, and have again put them at risk of this suffering by conducting yourself in the way that you have.
[10]Ibid.
72I do accept however, that your upbringing was marred by the kinds of abuse, deprivation and instability described in the case of Bugmy v R,[11] and that the general principles of that case apply in the reduction of your sentence. Your experience growing up has left its mark upon you, compromising your capacity to mature and learn from experience.[12] It was not put that your background had some direct causal relationship to your offending such that your conduct on the night is explicable in that light. The principle does not directly reduce your moral culpability. The other side of the Bugmy sword, is of course, that these problems may introduce considerations of the protection of the community, to which I will return.
[11](2013) 249 CLR 571.
[12]Ibid 594 [43].
73Two psychological reports were tendered, authored by Mr Paul Grech[13] which set out a range of opinions in relation to your psychological health.
[13]Dated 4 February 2024 and 18 March 2024.
74Your second barrister argued for the application of 'Verdins Limb 5'[14] in that your psychological diagnoses earns mitigation as the burden of your imprisonment is increased on account of your psychological difficulties.
[14]R v Verdins (n 7) 276 [32].
75The opinions in the first report, written after a single video conference, are broad and less than conclusive. Reference is made to a “moderate depression” and “symptoms of adult ADHD” without formal diagnosis of either condition. The psychologist makes a number of statements about risk, (i.e., “he is not considered to be a high risk to public safety”) without articulating the method of arriving at that opinion.
76A second report was then obtained. I note that it was written after a single telephone call with you. It is referred to as an 'addendum' but it repeats mostly, material in the first report, but then arrives at the diagnosis of “four untreated psychiatric conditions that were active at the time of the offending”. I here quote from Mr Grech's addendum report at page two:
In the examiner’s opinion Mr Cresswell meets criteria for a number of psychiatric conditions, namely ADHD (adult), Complex Posttraumatic stress Disorder (CPTSD; residual effects of childhood abuse) and Major Depressive Disorder. These were active conditions at the time of offending. Furthermore, he met criteria for Substance Use Disorder (Methamphetamine) and reports having experienced paranoia, auditory and visual hallucinations contemporaneous to the offending. due [sic] to the combined effects of withdrawal from methamphetamine and sleep deprivation. On the basis of the four (untreated) psychiatric conditions that were active at the time of offending Verdins principles are relevant.[15]
[15]Addendum report, 18 March 2024 page 2.
77The reports do little to assist the Court's understanding of your problems. Your first barrister placed no reliance on it other than for general background. However, from what I can safely gather, you have struggled with symptoms of ADHD from the time you were a young child. This was spoken of by your mother, as was the brutal treatment you experienced at the hands of your stepfather, and about which your mother still experiences guilt.
78Some or all of those difficulties have persisted into your adulthood. You are certainly powerfully distressed at your current predicament and miss your family very much, long to be with your children, and want to be released from prison so that you can be a father to them.
79Moreover, I accept that you are currently seeking redress for very serious wrongs committed against you in an institutional context, which no doubt have remained very troubling to you into your adult years, and for which you surely need support and treatment.
80It is also clear that perhaps because of some or all of these problems in combination, you have used a lot of drugs which have compounded your difficulties and turned them into serious legal problems.
81These things are all important, and cause your imprisonment to be very stressful. It is impossible to tease out where one difficulty begins and the other ends. I arrive at those conclusions without recourse to the psychological opinion which lacked rigour and cogency. I mitigate your sentence by reference to these difficulties, by taking your personal background and circumstances into account as I am obliged to do under the Sentencing Act 1991.[16]
[16](Vic).
82To be clear, I mitigate your sentence by reference to these problems, without finding, on the basis of the material before me, the formal engagement of limb 5 of the case of Verdins v R.[17] These things that I have just set out do increase the burden of your imprisonment; they go some way to explaining who you were when you committed the offences, and who you are, and who you hope to be in the future.
[17](n 7) 276 [32].
Burden of imprisonment
83I note here that your time in custody has been additionally difficult for a range of reasons, the mental health concerns I have just referred to among them. You were in the Melbourne Assessment Prison for a period of four months, where you were subject to lengthy lockdowns. You continue to suffer pain in your leg, which you are not provided medication for, and that occurs in the complex economy of pain medication in prison.
84Your own decision to not have your children visit you in prison is becoming increasingly costly for you.
Prospects for rehabilitation
85You still have, and for how long it is unknown, but at the moment you have the architecture of a good life around you: a partner who believes in you, children who want you home, other family support, and a history of qualification and employment. The letters of support tendered on your case spoke of others' affection, trust in, and love for you.
86You have done courses in gaol. You are seeking redress through lawyers for past wrongs. Your drug screens have been clear.
87Unlike so many of the people I sentence, you have not yet destroyed everything precious to you. Your partner's letter strongly suggests you do not have many chances left after this. You need to break up with your addiction to keep your family, and to stay out of gaol. It is probably as simple and as difficult as that. It remains to be seen whether you (and it is only you who can do this) can do the day in day out repair work on yourself to leave this chapter behind. While I find that you have that capacity, and the supporters are strong and keen, I have some hesitation in finding your prospects unequivocally good, given your history (the firearms history is particularly concerning) and the nature of your offending.
Purposes of sentence
88In the case of R v Liszczak & Phillips[18] Croucher J, in sentencing for a case where shots were fired at police in a car:
The courts must protect police – and the wider community – from such harmful and dangerous behaviour by denouncing it in the strongest terms and passing sentences that punish the perpetrators justly and stand as a deterrent both to them and any others who might be minded to engage in such behaviour.[19]
His Honour there is talking about both general and specific deterrence.
[18][2017] VSC 103.
[19]Ibid [71] (Croucher J).
89Your case of course differs from that one in a range of ways, but the need for denunciation and general deterrence is common for both. Given your history of possession of a firearm as a prohibited person there is also a need for you to be deterred specifically.
Parity
90I am sentencing you conscious of the need for your sentence not to inspire a sense of grievance in you as between your outcome and that of Mr Bartlett. As I have said, Mr Bartlett received a sentence in the Magistrates' Court to a plea to two charges of recklessly causing injury, as well as offences against the Bail Act, Road Safety Act and Control of Weapons Act. He did not have the prohibited person feature your case has. I have already set out the sentence that he received.
91
There are other very significant differences between his case and yours.
Mr Bartlett gave a statement to police implicating you. He undertook to give evidence consistent with that statement. He was not a prohibited person, nor was he on a community corrections order. Moreover, your roles in the offending were distinct: you brought the gun, you discharged it, you were the principal offender. For these reasons, justice requires a sentence that will be to some degree disparate from that of Mr Bartlett.
92I have considered a range of cases dealing with similar offending. No case is perfectly alike to yours, but I do sentence you in that landscape.
Disposition
93On Charge 1, using a firearm while being a prohibited person you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
94On Charge 2, recklessly causing injury (Ali Mohseni) you are convicted and sentenced to two years and ten months' imprisonment.
95On Charge three, recklessly causing injury (Mursal Mohseni) you are convicted and sentenced to two years and ten months' imprisonment.
96On Charge 4, possession of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment.
97On the related summary offences I sentence you in the following way:
98On summary Charge 12, committing an indictable offence on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
99On summary Charges 18 and 19, using an unregistered motor vehicle, and fraudulent use of a registration label/plate, you are convicted and fined an aggregate of $500.
100I make the following orders for cumulation:
101Charge 2 is the base sentence. Three months of the sentence on Charge 1 and five months of the sentence on Charge 3 will be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence on Charge 2, resulting in a total effective sentence of three years and six months.
102I fix a period of two years and three months to be served before you become eligible for parole.
Pre-sentence detention
103I will turn in a moment to the declaration of pre-sentence detention once I hear from counsel what that agreed number is and I will make that declaration pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act.
Section 6AAA
104I declare pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act that had you not pleaded guilty, but been found guilty after trial, I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment of four years and eight months with a non-parole period of three and a half years.
105Counsel, is there an agreed pre-sentence detention figure? Ms Freijah?
106MS FREIJAH: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. The figure should be 463 days not including - - -
107HER HONOUR: 463.
108MS FREIJAH: That's correct, not including today's date.
109HER HONOUR: Yes. Is that an agreed number, Ms Yildiz?
110MS YILDIZ: It is, Your Honour.
111HER HONOUR: Yes, all right. So pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act I declare that you have already served 463 days to be deducted from sentence.
112I do not have any additional ancillary orders do I Ms Yildiz?
113MS YILDIZ: No, Your Honour.
114HER HONOUR: Have I missed any orders?
115MR YILDIZ: I don't believe so, Your Honour.
116HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. In relation to the media application, do either of you seek to be heard?
117MS YILDIZ: No, Your Honour. I agree with your proposition just as long as the complainants' addresses aren't printed.
118HER HONOUR: Yes. So Ms Freijah, do you seek to be heard on that?
119MS FREIJAH: No, I also agree with that course Your Honour, thank you.
120HER HONOUR: All right. So the indictment and prosecution opening will be released subject to identifying personal matters being removed. That being then done, that completes this sentence. Thank you counsel for your assistance. Ms Freijah, if you want a moment to speak with Mr Creswell, my staff will facilitate that once I leave, thank you.
121MS FREIJAH: I'd be very grateful, thank you, Your Honour.
122MS YILDIZ: As Your Honour pleases.
- - -
0
7
0