Director of Public Prosecutions v Crockett

[2020] VCC 647

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

 Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-18-01957

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JAMIE CROCKETT

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 May 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Crockett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 647

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  
Catchwords:            
Legislation Cited:    
Cases Cited:            
Sentence:                

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms S. Thomas	Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. McGrath Mr W. Blake	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1 Jamie Crockett, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of car-jacking. The maximum penalty applicable to that offence is 15 years’ imprisonment. You have also agreed to me hearing, pursuant to s.145 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and have pleaded guilty to one charge of breach of parole (Summary Charge 5). The maximum penalty is 3 months' imprisonment, 30 penalty units or both.

2       Your crimes arise out of events which took place on 29 January 2018 and involved the victim of your offending, Rhys Armstrong (“Armstrong”).

3       It is not necessary for me to recount in great detail the facts of this matter, as they are on transcript, the matter having been opened in some detail by the learned prosecutor consistent with Exhibit A.  I proceed to sentence you on the basis of the facts as summarised by the prosecution and discussed during the course of the plea hearing.  It is sufficient for present purposes to simply say the facts in this case are most serious and disturbing.

4       I turn to a summary of it.

5       At the time of this offending you were 21 years of age and Armstrong 32 years of age.  You and Armstrong were not known to each other prior to this incident.

6       At approximately 8.20pm on 29 January 2018, Armstrong was driving his black Holden utility along Clyde Road, Berwick, intending to go to Cranbourne Bunnings and then to a friend’s home.  As he drove along Clyde Road, he saw a four-door silver Mazda 3 sedan in front of his vehicle being driven erratically.  Armstrong described it “driving all over the road”.

7       Both vehicles continued along Clyde Road to the roundabout and turned right into Thompsons Road.  Armstrong’s vehicle was in the left lane, the Mazda in the right lane.

8       The two vehicles then travelled west on Thompsons Road, through a roundabout and then through a roundabout at Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road.  As the vehicles were driving through the roundabout, the Mazda lost traction and slid across the path of the utility.  Armstrong had to brake heavily to avoid a collision.

9       Armstrong saw three males in the Mazda, two in the front seats and a third in the middle of the back seat.  The occupants of the Mazda were giving him “the bird” and began throwing food and drinks at his vehicle.  The food and drink landed on the front of the utility.

10      The Mazda turned into Bunnings.  Armstrong turned into Bunnings also and at that stage could not see the Mazda and believed it had gone.

11      Armstrong unfastened his seat belt and prepared to park in front of the trades section of Bunnings.  As he did so he was pulled out of his car by the shirtfront by the driver of the Mazda (you).

12      Armstrong saw the Mazda parked up against his car.  You punched him to the mouth as you pulled him from the car.  Armstrong saw the front seat passenger in the Mazda move into the driver’s seat.

13      You then punched Armstrong to the head a few times.  Armstrong did not fight back because he saw the male in the front seat of the Mazda was armed with a piece of black piping.

14      Armstrong did not recall you saying anything.

15      You jumped into the utility and locked the doors before Armstrong could get up.  The silver Mazda drove off towards Hungry Jack’s, Armstrong’s vehicle followed (Charge 1, car-jacking).

16      CCTV footage was later obtained from Hungry Jack’s in Cranbourne.  That footage showed the two vehicles leaving Bunnings driving through a roundabout in convoy.

17      Armstrong entered Bunnings and sought assistance from staff who phoned ‘000’ at approximately 8.22pm.

18      In that phone call, Armstrong told the ‘000’ operator there had been an incident in the traffic where the offenders had thrown things on his car and done things they should not have done.  That he had been punched with a fist.

19      He told the ‘000’ operator there were “two in the car” and “one jumped out and came to my door and opened it”.  The other vehicle was a silver Mazda 3 sedan.

20      Armstrong said the male who attacked him had tattoos down both arms, white skin, was wearing a t-shirt, jeans and was 22 or 23 years of age.

21      Police attended the scene at approximately 8.30pm.

22      I note the prosecution was not relying upon any injury caused to Armstrong for the purposes of this plea hearing.  That was discussed with both counsel and I proceed on that basis.

23      On 1 February 2018, Armstrong attended Narre Warren Police Station, viewed a photo board of 12 images and identified you as the person who attacked him three days earlier.

24      Police located the black utility on 9 February 2018 when it had been involved in a single vehicle collision in Cranbourne at approximately 8.58am that day.

25      At the time, that vehicle was displaying false registration at the front.  Two men in the vehicle at the time of the collision decamped from the scene (Michael Erenshaw and Jake White).

26      You knew Jake White and communicated with him on the day of the
car-jacking.

27      I will not repeat details of the investigation as it was conceded by Ms Thomas that the paragraphs in Exhibit A referable to the investigation were relevant to evidence relied upon at your then trial where identity and other matters were in issue.  It is not put by the prosecution this was ‘car-jacking to order’.

28      You were interviewed at Pakenham Police Station on 30 January 2018 on a number of matters including your offending before me.

29      At that time you said you were not involved in the car-jacking on 29 January 2018.  That you had spent the evening of 29 January 2018 at your father’s home in Pakenham and at a pub.  You said you were driven back to your father’s home from the pub by a friend, “Dot”, arriving at that address at approximately 9.35pm.

30      At the time of this offending you had approximately six weeks prior been released on parole on around about 13 December 2017 (Summary Charge 5).

31      Turning to the timing of your plea of guilty, this matter ultimately resolved on 23 October 2019, five days prior to your trial starting.  By way of the chronology attached to Exhibit A, a contested committal hearing (and
cross-examination of Armstrong) was conducted on 20 and 21 September 2018 following which you were committed on all charges then before the court.  Bail was granted.

32      At the final directions hearing on 27 August 2019 it was confirmed this matter was proceeding to trial, at that time you disputing you were involved in the offending.

33      The charges before the Magistrate led to discussions with the prosecution as to an appropriate Indictment and the matter finally resolved and you were arraigned on 28 October 2019.  I accept Mr McGrath’s submission that the evidence given at the committal provided ‘some benefit’ to fruitful discussions with the prosecution.

34      You have pleaded guilty to these two charges and you are entitled to have that fact taken into account in your favour and I do so.  By your pleas of guilty the community has been spared the time and cost of a trial, and witnesses spared the ordeal of having to give evidence upon your trial, in particular Armstrong, although I note he was cross-examined at a contested committal.

35      Yours was not an early indication to plead guilty.  You have, however, pleaded guilty, and such has utilitarian value.  You are entitled to have your pleas of guilty and the stage at which your pleas were entered taken into account in mitigation of sentence.

36      In the circumstances I am prepared to accept your pleas of guilty indicate some remorse for your offending.  I am concerned, however, about the extent of your remorse, including your offending so soon after release on parole and your criminal history.  You have, however, pleaded guilty and that is indicative of some remorse.

37      The victim of your offending has suffered considerably as a result of it and I shall return to that later in these sentencing remarks.

38      You have admitted an extensive criminal history for your age.  As I discussed with the prosecutor, the first appearance noted on the criminal record was an appearance at the Dandenong Children’s Court on 30 May 2014.  I discussed reference to hearings on 6 December 2013 and 21 February 2014 and was told Forfeiture Orders were the only Orders made on those dates.

39      At your appearance on 30 May 2014, amongst a number of other charges, you appeared on theft of a motor vehicle (multiple charges), dishonesty charges, destruction of property, displaying number plates not assigned to a vehicle.

40      You next appeared at Melbourne County Court on 22 May 2015 and were sentenced for offences of aggravated burglary, person present, also on that date offences including false imprisonment and three charges of theft.  In total, the sentence imposed was 2 years and 2 months’ Youth Justice Centre.

41      You next appeared at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 2 December 2015 on charges of contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order and assaulting an emergency worker on duty.  You received 3 months’ detention in a Youth Training Centre.

42      You were again before the Court for theft of a motor vehicle at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 24 August 2016.  Your licence was cancelled and you were disqualified for 6 months.  On that same date, you were also sentenced on a number of other offences, including dishonesty offences, possession of a drug of dependence (prescription drug); and theft of a motor vehicle.  You received 6 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre.

43      Your next appeared at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 9 February 2017, it seems a consolidation, including dishonesty offences; theft of a motor vehicle; dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime; unlawful assault; contravene Family Violence Intervention Order; possess imitation hand firearm; possess methylamphetamine; intentionally damage property, for which you were sentenced to 1 year and 3 months’ imprisonment with a
non-parole period of 8 months.  You were released from that sentence in December 2017, your offending before me, as I have said, approximately six weeks later on 29 January 2018.  Arguably car-jacking is an escalation in your offending in your prior history involving multiple charges of theft of cars over the years.

44      You have a concerning criminal history.  You have not been deterred by detention/sentences to Youth Justice Centre or prison.

45      Your counsel, Mr McGrath, tendered written submissions which he addressed during your plea hearing (Exhibit 1).  Within that material were details of your personal history and circumstances.

46      Much of that history was in the report of Mr Cummins, which I have read and to which I shall later refer.

47      Your relationship with your parents and family members was described within the written submissions, your counsel referring to your father, when you were younger, being violent towards you.  Your relationship with him now, however, is close.  Reference was made to you also having been sexually abused by a half-brother when you were younger.

48      Mr McGrath referred to the report of Mr Cummins, and his opinion you suffered from a trauma and stressor-related disorder, with a history of nightmares and flashbacks regarding the physical abuse by your father and by your brothers.

49      Mr Cummins concluded from your self-report it “lent support to the conclusion you are suffering a Major Depressive Disorder … of at least moderate severity” and for many years from your early teenage years.

50      Mr McGrath urged your mental health problems would become more entrenched the longer you spent in custody.

51      Whilst he concluded you suffered complex PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder in the opinion of Mr Cummins that did not enliven R v Verdins & Ors.[1]  That concession was an appropriate concession based on the material before me.  It is clear this offending occurred in the context of your drug use, which had been a problem for you since your early teenage years.

[1](2007) 16 VR 269.

52      Details were provided of your education and of being bullied at school until you became a healthier person following surgery to your left hip, when you got into a number of fights.

53      You have two children with different partners.  You hope to develop a relationship in the future with your eldest child and I discussed with your counsel your need to cease using drugs if you want to develop that relationship being aware that DHHS are involved.

54      Reference was made to your long history of drug dependence since age of 15, including methylamphetamine, GHB, amphetamines and cannabis.

55      Turning to previous Court Orders, Mr McGrath referred to the earlier 2 year and 2 month Youth Justice Centre Order.  You re-offended during the active period of youth parole.  Following your subsequent release from Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre, you were again subject to a Youth Parole Order which was cancelled due to poor compliance and alleged re-offending.  I note you did not do well on previous parole orders nor on the adult parole order at the time of this offending.

56      Regarding your mental health, you had been prescribed anti-depressants at the age of 13 following your hip replacement, and thereafter at various times.  I was told you currently receive Mirtazapine in custody.

57      Mr McGrath conceded your concerning criminal record and history of substance abuse.  You acknowledged your previous pattern was release from custody, abstain for a period (usually relatively short), then using drugs again.  A previous attempt at residential rehabilitation at Windana, I was told, had been unsuccessful.

58      Mr McGrath correctly noted your success in the community depends on your ability to abstain from drug use.  You realise the likelihood of re-offending is increased if you do not refrain from illicit drug use.

59      Mr McGrath referred to your release on parole.  Things, you said, were going well until you had an argument with your father and an argument with your partner.  The weekend prior to this offending, you said you started using drugs again.

60      Mr McGrath referred to remorse expressed by you to Mr Cummins for your victim.

61      Since your initial release on bail from custody for this offence you lived with your father with bail conditions which allowed you to attend the birth of your child, Eli, at Ballarat Hospital.

62      You were then remanded on 24 November 2018 for unrelated assault and firearms offences, however, remained on bail for this car-jacking offence.  At a mention of this offending on 27 March 2019 (for the purpose of revoking your bail on the offence of car-jacking), your bail was revoked.  In total you had spent 430 days in custody as pre-sentence detention, up to and including 3 May 2020.

63      Mr Cummins concluded you were a moderate risk of re-offending and that you would probably benefit from an anger management program.  I agree as discussed with your counsel.

64      16 drug screen results were tendered (Exhibit 2), clear for illicit drugs.  An early “dirty urine” involved buprenorphine.

65      Whilst in custody, you have completed a number of programs and also undertaken work within the prison (Exhibits 3 and 5), including basic emergency life support, a six hour ice effects program, working as a billet, completing a 24 hour relapse prevention program, commencing individual counselling in a Caraniche drug and alcohol program, having as at 23 February 2020 participated in 19 such sessions.

66      I was told you had engaged well with Ms Rene Pirrotta, your Caraniche drug and alcohol counsellor.  I note correspondence from Ms Pirrotta dated 23 March 2020 which referred to you having commenced individual counselling on 14 October 2019.  You have participated in 19 sessions as at the date of that correspondence and have, I was told, recently re-engaged.

67      When previously in custody, you also completed a number of courses including a barista course, OH&S course, micro business, and another 24 hour drug program.

68      I discussed with Mr McGrath your behavioural issues on remand (see Exhibit 7), however note recent improvement in your behaviour and in particular drug counselling since October 2019.

69      You had commenced a VCAL Year 10 equivalent and have three modules to complete.  You were employed in the prison as a billet, as I have already said.

70      The COVID-19 virus restrictions had impacted your ability to see your son and partner in particular not having actual face-to-face in person contact.  I discussed this with Mr McGrath noting your behaviour in prison had led to loss of visitor rights previously.  I accept recent limitations in your visits by your partner and son are distressing for you (Re Broes).[2]

[2][2020] VSC 128.

71      Your prospects of rehabilitation, Mr McGrath noted, as do I and Mr Cummins, would depend on you abstaining from drugs.  Mr McGrath urged you had made inroads into that by your clean urine screens, employment history in the community and your willingness to be involved in treatment.

72      You are 23 years of age at sentence.  I am aware of R v Mills[3] and young/youthful offenders.  The principles stated therein are not however of automatic or usual application.  Each case depends on its own circumstances, including circumstances of the offending and the offender (DPP v Lawrence).[4]  In that regard, I note your extensive and concerning criminal history.  Regarding youth see also R v Tran[5] and Azzopardi v The Queen.[6]

[3](1998) 4 VR 235.

[4](2004) 10 VR 125.

[5](2002) 4 VR 457, 462.

[6](2011) 219 A Crim R 369.

73      Regarding your rehabilitation prospects, I have guarded optimism, given your repeated, persistent, and extensive offending over the years.  Terms of detention and imprisonment have not deterred you.  In assessing your prospects, I do note the recent efforts by you on remand including drug and alcohol counselling, and courses undertaken.  It is clear you have significant drug/alcohol, anger and mental health issues which you need to address to ensure you do not re-offend when you return to the community.  You are, I note, aware your drug use leads to anger (Mr Cummins report paragraph 28).

74      Turning to current sentence practices, the offence of car-jacking is a Category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act 1991. As such, I must make a Custodial Order for Category 2 offences unless you fall under one of the exemptions. Mr McGrath did not submit any exceptions applied to you and that was an appropriate concession on the material before me.

75      Mr McGrath conceded the need for general and specific deterrence when sentencing you, also just punishment.  He is correct.

76      You have also provided a number of references (Exhibit 4).  From your sister, Charmaine.  She described the household where you grew up as having “a lot of alcohol and violence”, not a “normal” family.  She described you as very intelligent with great grades in school.  When initially released on parole, you started a position with your father’s employer and were doing well, earning your own money and awaiting the birth of your son.

77      You had expressed your remorse for your offending to her and you felt sorry for the victim of your offending.  You had assured her you wanted to change and to better yourself.  She said you were a hard worker, with strong morals when you were “clean”.

78      There was a reference from Brittany Staples dated 19 April 2020, a family friend of over 11 years.  She saw you spiral downhill, getting wrapped up in drugs and getting “messed up” with the wrong crowd at a young age.  Your upbringing “wasn’t the easiest”.  You also had a toxic relationship with your ex‑partner the mother of your eldest child and had difficulty gaining access to your son.  You had expressed remorse for your actions, in particular, the choices you had made in the past.  Brittany saw a change in you in prison most recently in that you were positive, wanting to come out, be better and prove you can do it.  You were motivated to become a better father.

79      A reference from Jasmine Crockett dated 28 April 2020, your sister.  She confirmed you grew up around alcohol, drugs and violence.  In Year 7, you were the target of a gang bashing and hospitalised as a result.  From then you had to fend for yourself and as a result started mixing with the wrong people and using drugs.

80      When you are “on track” you are caring, trusting and loving.  You regret your actions and for your victim.

81      There was a reference from your partner, Chantelle Beatty, dated 30 April 2020.  Ms Beatty attended your plea hearing.  Your son is 18 months of age and she lives in Ballarat with her mother and Eli.  She described you as family oriented, caring and respectful.

82      

Over the last 18 months, she regularly visited you with your son, and you had become determined to better yourself and be a better father.  Despite

COVID-19 difficulties in prison, where visits had been stopped, you were having video calls which enabled you and your son to interact.

83      You had been undertaking counselling, including regarding drugs, anger and personal development.

84      You wanted to be a good father and a role model.  She believed you were remorseful for your actions and that you felt bad for the victim.

85      There is undated correspondence from you in which you referred to your 18 months in prison and having remained drug free, with 21 urine screens.  You referred to the programs you had undertaken, and counselling with Caraniche.  You said you have been working hard to prepare yourself for the future with your family.  You wanted to be a good member of the community.

86      I received a psychological report from Mr Jeffrey Cummins dated 23 April 2020, prepared for this plea hearing.  Material available to him included medical notes of 27 May 2015 which confirm you were prescribed an antidepressant and had a history of dependency on methamphetamine, alcohol and cannabis.  Later notes dated 6 June 2016 referred to earlier surgery on your left hip at age 13.  A note was also made of you having been repeatedly bullied at secondary school and physically assaulted by your father.

87      According to Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre correspondence dated 3 February 2016, you had been diagnosed with aggressive behaviour and depression in 2015.

88      You were at that time medicated on Endep (anti-depressant).  You now described your father as “like my best mate”.

89      You referred to your father’s physical violence towards you when you were 14.

90      You have minimal contact with your sister and your mother.

91      You describe around 5 or 6 being sexually abused by one of your
half-brothers.  Police were not involved.

92      You attended Courtenay Gardens Primary School, Cranbourne and then Pakenham Hills Primary School, in a wheelchair for maybe three or four months and then on crutches at Pakenham Secondary School as a result of the hip replacement.  You attended four to five secondary schools and were bullied throughout your time at secondary school.  You stood up to them and got a bit of a reputation for that and were therefore “kicked out” of a number of secondary schools.  You left school when you were 15.

93      When leaving school, you were already dependent upon cannabis and using methamphetamine.  From the ages of 16 and 21 you intermittently worked with your father in the boiler-making/metal fabrication industry and as a crane jockey in building caravans.  Your employment history was erratic because of your abuse of illicit drugs and alcohol.  You never obtained your probationary driver’s licence.

94      You referred to various surgeries to your left hip as a young child and then a left hip reconstruction at age 13.

95      You take two Panadol tablets daily for your hip pain.

96      You described your history “after getting out of jail, drifting back into abusing alcohol and drugs”.

97      At the time of this offending you thought you “probably would’ve been off my head – probably on GHB and maybe on ice and maybe I’d also had some cannabis”.  You admitted hitting “the guy” once.

98      Mr Cummins assessed you as moderate risk of further violent offending.  You accepted you must participant in an anger management program being aware when heavily under the influence of illicit drugs your feelings of anger come to the foreground.

99      You expressed empathy for your victims.

100     Against your background, Mr Cummins assessed you as having a complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  You were most probably functioning intellectually at slightly below average.  Your presentation at interview supported Mr Cummins’ conclusion that you were suffering a Major Depressive Disorder of at least moderate severity from your early teenage years.

101     In the opinion of Mr Cummins, your mental health problems would become more entrenched the longer you spent in custody.

102     As a result of COVID-19 and restrictions within prison, you had been not as adversely affected as others given your work hours.

103     Mr McGrath referred to a number of authorities in a chart (Exhibit 8) where the offence of car-jacking had been considered by the court.  As I discussed with him, it is very difficult comparing cases factually as facts vary enormously case to case, as do all matters in mitigation and personal to an offender.  I note in Leishman v The Queen[7] referable to sentencing and comparison with ‘other cases’ also.  I have read those authorities.  Ms Thomas, for the prosecution, was given an opportunity to read those cases and provide any written submissions relevant to them, if she wished.  None have been received.

[7](2019) 90 MVR 421, 426 [16].

104     A Victim Impact Statement was before me from Mr Armstrong and I have read it.  He described the saddest part for him was waking up in Bunnings car park on the ground, his car gone and not understanding what had happened.  To this day, he was confused when thinking about what you did and did not understand it.  Your offending had stopped him going to any Bunnings store, even into the car park due to his paranoia.

105     The incident had taken away his appetite.  He was often lethargic.  Prior to your offending he was an outgoing person.  He now no longer hung around with friends as much.  It had taken a toll on him mentally.  He was a lot quieter and felt down most of the time.  His medication was changed to help his levels of self-esteem.  He did not understand why the car-jacking had happened.  Now when he gets into a car, the first thing he does is lock it.  At his home he always parks in the garage.

106     He described that when his car was found none of his items were there, including his concreting tools, personal paperwork with his name and address on it, some new clothes he had just picked up and keys to his new house.

107     As a result of his fear that you knew his address, he spent a substantial amount of money arranging home security.

108     The effects upon a victim are a relevant sentencing consideration.  I am, however, conscious that I must not allow the effects upon a victim to swamp the sentencing process.

109     Turning to sentence, Mr McGrath’s primary submission was that any term of imprisonment I impose should have a non-parole period of time served to date.  His secondary submission without abandoning his primary submission was that if further time was considered appropriate the non-parole period should ‘not be much beyond’ your pre-sentence detention.

110     The prosecution submitted a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period was appropriate.

111     As well as matters personal to you to which I have referred including your prospects of rehabilitation, as I find them to be, I must also take into account matters such as deterrence, especially general deterrence, which is of considerable importance in a case such as this.

112     There is also the need for specific deterrence when sentencing you given your extensive criminal history.

113     I must also consider the question of the protection of members of the community and bear in mind the likelihood of your re-offending.  This causes me concern, although note the efforts made by you in custody (courses and counselling).  The need to protect the community from you will be hopefully further reduced by you addressing your drug/alcohol, anger and mental health issues.

114     I am called upon by the Sentencing Act 1991 to manifest the community’s denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment.

115     So, I sentence you as follows.

116     On Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ and 6 months' imprisonment.  

117     On Summary Charge 5 you are convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment

118     Charge 1 is the base sentence and I direct that 7 days of the sentence imposed on Summary Charge 5 be served cumulatively upon Charge 1 (carjacking).

119     That results in a total effective sentence of 2 years 6 months and 7 days' imprisonment and I direct you serve 18 months before you are eligible for parole which is approximately four months' time but I have not counted the days.

120     I declare that you have spent 445 days in custody by way of pre‑sentence detention up to and including yesterday, which was 18 May 2020, and I direct that be entered into the records of the Court.

121 Pursuant to s6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty to this offending and been found guilty of it, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 3 years.

122 Now, I do not have any other orders except pursuant to s89(4) Sentencing Act 1991, and also being mindful of your rehabilitation referred to in R v Lefebure,[8] any licence to drive that you have is cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any licence for a period of two years from today's date.

[8](2000) 112 A Crim R 41.

123     Right.  Now, I need to just confirm.  On that licence, Ms Thomas, my recollection is there was not any minimum on that.  It is just at the discretion, is that right?  Are you there?  Ms Thomas, as you there?  Can you hear me, Ms Thomas?  Wave your hand.  Yes, we cannot hear you.  Now, I can.

124     MS THOMAS:  I think I have been unmuted now.

125     HER HONOUR:  Yes, you are unmuted now.

126     MS THOMAS:  All right.

127     HER HONOUR:  All right.  There is no minimum?

128     MS THOMAS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

129     HER HONOUR:  That is what I thought.

130     MS THOMAS:  There is no minimum.  There is a default minimum if no minimum is set - - -

131     HER HONOUR:  Yes.  Got that.

132     MS THOMAS:  - - - with respect to the licence disqualification.

133     HER HONOUR:  Very well.  And you got the maths?  I am not asking if you agree with it but you got the sentence written down accurately?

134     MS THOMAS:  Yes.  Yes, Your Honour.  2 years, 6 months and 7 days with 18 months non-parole period.

135     HER HONOUR:  Months.  Months.  Yes, got that.

136     MS THOMAS:  Yes.

137     HER HONOUR:  Are you happy with 445?  Does that agree with your record/

138     MS THOMAS:  Yes, 445 days up to the end of yesterday, Your Honour.

139     HER HONOUR:  All right.  Now, do you agree with the maths?  I am not asking if you like it but have you got the maths?  Are you all right with it, Mr McGrath?  The PSD is correct?

140 MR McGRATH: The PSD is correct, Your Honour, and just to clarify, the order under s87(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, disqualification of the licence is from today or from the date of the offence?

141     HER HONOUR:  No, from today.  Two years from today's date and I think - I have not done the maths so do not - you know, the sentence is as it is.

142     MR McGRATH:  Yes.

143     HER HONOUR:  I have not calculated it but I think it is about four months to go.

144     MR McGRATH:  Yes, Your Honour.

145     HER HONOUR:  But I have not done the maths.

146     MR McGRATH:  Yes, Your Honour.

147     HER HONOUR:  All right?  So I do not want to be corrected on that if it is a day or a few out of it.

148     MR McGRATH:  No, no, no.

149     HER HONOUR:  But that is my rough calculation of it.

150     MR McGRATH:  Yes.  Yes.

151     HER HONOUR:  I am not saying that is what I intended.

152     MR McGRATH:  No.

153     HER HONOUR:  It is just I think if you do the maths, it means about four months.

154     MR McGRATH:  Yes, Your Honour.

155     HER HONOUR:  All right.  I think I have got everything else under control.

156     All right.  Now, Mr McGrath, you heard all that I hope?

157     MR McGRATH:  I did, Your Honour, but Mr Crockett - yes.

158     HER HONOUR:  Mr Crockett, you heard all that?

159     OFFENDER:  I did, yep.

160     HER HONOUR:  All right.  Excellent.

161     All right.  Well, now, what I am going to do is to make life a bit easier for you, I will give your counsel just a couple of minutes with everyone out of the room and the links all disconnected to have a quick word to you.  It has got to be a quick word.  You follow?  It is not a conference.

162     OFFENDER:  I've got a conference today.

163     HER HONOUR:  All right.

164     OFFENDER:  But, yeah, I - I'd appreciate that.

165     HER HONOUR:  Do you want the conference or do you want it do it now?

166     MR McGRATH:  We'll have both, Your Honour.

167     HER HONOUR:  All right.

168     MR McGRATH:  I will only be no more than about two minutes at this stage.

169     HER HONOUR:  Yes.  Well, that is all it could be.

170     MR McGRATH:  Yes.  Yes.

171     HER HONOUR:  All right.  I am not allowed to do this usually but I will.

172     MR McGRATH:  No, no, no, two minutes.

173     HER HONOUR:  All right.  So we are going to disconnect everybody.  Now, Ms Thomas, you are all right with that, are you?  That there is a - - -

174     MS THOMAS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Yes, Your Honour.

175     HER HONOUR:  All right.  Anything further from your end?  There were no other orders sought.

176     MS THOMAS:  Nothing.  No, nothing further from us, Your Honour.  There is no applications.

177     HER HONOUR:  Thank you so much for that.

178     Now, we are going to disconnect you, all right?

179     MS THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

180     HER HONOUR:  Thank you a lot.  Disconnect whoever else is there, the partner, I think.  Disconnect the police informant if he is there, get rid of him too.  I do not mean that in a nasty way.  Yes.  Yes.  No, we will get rid of her.  Sorry, madam, we are just disconnecting all the links, you follow?

181     Yes.  All right.  That should leave just - yes, all right.  Now, we are going to disconnect you, Ms Thomas.

182     MS THOMAS:  Yes, Your Honour.

183     HER HONOUR:  Yes, you are going.  Yes, I think a few are out of here soon.

184     MS THOMAS:  I am still there.

185     HER HONOUR:  Yes, I know, we are working on it.  It takes a bit of time.

186     MS THOMAS:  I will see if I can actually just leave the meeting.  See if that is possible.

187     HER HONOUR:  I think we are - we are working on it too.

188     MR McGRATH:  Well, if Ms Thomas turns off her computer or leaves the room, I do not think it will be any - I will only be brief, Your Honour.

189     HER HONOUR:  No, it is all right.  We have got it.

190     MR McGRATH:  Yes.

191     HER HONOUR:  She is gone.

192     MR McGRATH:  Gone.

193     HER HONOUR:  Excellent.  Right.  Now, my tipstaff has to stay.

194     MR McGRATH:  That is all right.

195     HER HONOUR:  It will not be recorded.  No one is going to be - he will not report back to me.

196     MR McGRATH:  No, that is all right.

197     HER HONOUR:  No one is interested.  So, why I say that, I do not mean - it means I have got other things to do rather than worry about you.

198     MR McGRATH:  Yes.

199     HER HONOUR:  And your client.

200     MR McGRATH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

201     HER HONOUR:  I mean from the point of view of reporting back.

202     MR McGRATH:  Yes, I understand.

203     HER HONOUR:  So, all right, you will have a few minutes, Mr Crockett, to have a quick chat to your counsel, all right?  I will leave the Bench and my associate will leave as well.  All right?

204     OFFENDER:  Thanks for the time.

205     All right. 

- - -