Director of Public Prosecutions v Czaplinski

[2020] VCC 747

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 18-02355

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MILOSZ CZAPLINSKI

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE GWYNN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 February 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v CZAPLINSKI
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 747

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  Arson, possess a drug of dependence
Catchwords:  Drug-induced psychosis
Legislation Cited:  Sentencing Act 1991

Cases Cited:Brown v R [2020] VSCA 60, Marrah [2014] VSCA 119, Tannous v R [2017] VSCA 91, DPP v Milosz Czaplinski [2015] VCC 835

Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms S. Joosten	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Casement	James Dowsley & Associates

HER HONOUR:

1Milosz Czaplinski, you have pleaded guilty on indictment to one charge of arson and one charge of possessing a drug of dependence.  In addition, you pleaded guilty to one related summary offence, of commit indictable offence whilst on bail.  Each of these charges occurred on 7 June 2018.

2The offence of arson carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for possessing a drug of dependence is one year imprisonment in circumstances where the court is satisfied that the offence was not committed for any purpose related to trafficking.  In any other case, the maximum penalty is five years.  The summary offence has a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment.

3In terms of the circumstances of your offending, they are set out in a document which is detailed and titled, 'Prosecution Opening Upon Plea', dated 29 March 2019.  This is an agreed document and represents an acceptance by you of the elements of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty and the factual basis on which I am to sentence.

4The direct victims in this matter are Alan Monahan and Chieh Quek. 
Mr Monahan owns a property located at 30 Ulm Street Laverton in which you had been residing for about seven months as of 7 June 2018. 
Mr Monahan was in the process of evicting you from 30 Ulm Street.  Mr Quek lives next door at 32 Ulm Street Laverton.

5On 7 June 2018, you lit a fire in your bedroom at 30 Ulm Street by igniting combustible materials.  The fire spread throughout the remainder of the house.  You caused damage to the rear of 32 Ulm Street by lighting combustible materials in a shopping trolley.  Furthermore, you caused fire damage to the driveway of 32 Ulm Street, which was consistent with a Molotov cocktail type of ignition.  These three separate acts form the basis of Charge 1, arson.  Fortunately, no person was at home at either address.

6At approximately 1.10 pm on 7 June 2018, Ltevia Zafirovski saw smoke coming from a house in Ulm Street.  She saw you walking out of the smoke-filled yard at 30 Ulm Street and used her mobile phone to make a video recording.  Police attended at the scene and were informed by the Metropolitan Fire Brigade that there were two separate fires, one at 30 Ulm Street, and the other at 32 Ulm Street.  Police viewed the footage obtained by Ms Zafirovski.

7At approximately 2.20 pm, police received a 000 call report of a male trespasser at the RAAF base situated in Maher Road, Laverton.  Police attended and located you sitting at a table within the grounds of the base with a lighter in your hand, wearing the same clothing and backpack depicted in the video provided by Ms Zafirovski.  You had a black soot type mark on your hands, neck, and face area and smelt strongly of a chemical type accelerant. 

8Police also located a clear resealable bag containing methylamphetamine in your clothing. This is the basis for Charge 2 - possess a drug of dependence.  I accept that your possession of the drug was for your own use and not for the purposes related to trafficking in a drug of dependence.

9To police members you appeared highly drug-affected, and made comments about being from another universe.  When asked about the fire in Ulm Street, you stated, 'I like a good burn' but would not elaborate further.  You were arrested and conveyed to the Altona North police station where you were deemed unfit for interview.

10As a result of the fire at 30 Ulm Street, the house was extensively damaged, and all other tenants were required to move from the property.  The cost of the damage is estimated to be $94,187.  As a result of the fire at 32 Ulm Street, fire damage was caused to the exterior of the house.  Fire damage was located in the driveway, fly screen external door, and baseboards of the house.  The cost of damage is estimated to be $5,200, indeed, compensation is sought in that amount.

11No victim impact statements have been tendered from either of the owners or other inhabitants of those addresses.  Nevertheless, I accept that they would have been affected by the fires that occurred.

12Photographs of the damage caused were tendered.  The damage to 30 Ulm Street particularly was extensive.  At the time of this offending, you were on bail to attend the Werribee Magistrates' Court on 25 June 2018; this is the basis of the summary charge, commit indictable offence on bail.  I am told that that related to a charge of theft.

13I take into account your personal circumstances, which have been meticulously outlined in both written and oral submissions and materials tendered on your behalf.  You were born on 25 February 1987, to parents Stan and Barbara.  Your parents were of Polish heritage.  You were raised in the St Albans area.  Your father was some 25 years older than your mother and was a retired flight engineer.   He was 62 years of age at the time of your birth.  Your mother worked as a cleaner before qualifying as a sociologist.  You describe your father as an excessive user of alcohol, who was occasionally violent towards your mother and yourself, but overall, you had a good relationship. 

14When aged 10 to 11, your mother contracted ovarian cancer and unfortunately died.  You apparently did well at school, despite this loss, but commenced using cannabis in Year 9.  When aged 16 years, you had the further misfortune to find your father deceased when you returned home from a party.  You were assisted to some degree by a nearby god parent for a period of about eight months after your father's death, but otherwise, from that point in time, you largely had to fend for yourself.  Your father had left you the sum of $150,000 and the family home.  You eventually moved back to your original family home and had to financially support yourself through a combination of your inheritance - these funds being administered by state trustees given your youth - and Centrelink. 

15In your late teens, you met Catherine, with whom you had a relationship for some nine years.  She was a significant support for you in a life that had to commence upon the death of each of your parents. 

16To your credit, and undoubtful effort on your part, you did obtain a Year 12 education.  Upon leaving school, you commenced a mechanics apprenticeship at Preston Motors but were made redundant after a period of about two years.  You managed to maintain the educational component of your apprenticeship and became a qualified mechanic in 2010, when you began to work with Alan Mance Holden in Footscray and thereafter, as a diesel mechanic with a firm in Campbellfield.

17By 2008 to 2009, when in your early 20's, you commenced using amphetamines and methamphetamines.  You saw it as being recreational use at that time and you were able to maintain both your employment and your relationship.  Eventually, your drug use took its toll and your relationship broke down because of your use of both heroin and ice.  At this point in time, you were around the age of 25 years.  You began using heroin and ice in greater quantities, and your employment consequently ceased.  You have not worked consistently for at least the last two years.

18As a further direct consequence of your drug use, you have been admitted to psychiatric hospitals on 10 occasions, between 2013 and 2018, the last being in 2018 just prior to this offending.  You had seven admissions between December 2013 and June of 2015.  You had managed until aged around
28 years before that drug use also led you to intersect with the criminal justice system.

19Your recorded criminal history commenced on 19 June 2015, when you were dealt with at the Melbourne County Court for charges of theft of motor vehicle, attempted theft of motor vehicle, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, two charges of attempted armed robbery, and assault with a weapon.  That offending occurred in a drug-induced state.  The circumstances of that offending are outlined in the decision of His Honour Judge Smallwood, dated 19 June 2015, to which I have had recourse.

20In short compass, you tried to steal a vehicle from Alan Mance Motors, a previous employer and when another employee tried to stop you, you hit him and knocked him to the ground, leading to a charge of reckless endangerment.  You then reversed from that workshop, hitting two other cars, causing damage.  Subsequently, you attended the suburb of Sunshine and tried to steal a delivery van before walking to Sunshine Plaza where you tried to pull a woman from her car by pointing a large knife at her.

21Other persons observed you with the knife, and you were approached by a security guard who you then also threatened.  You subsequently approached another female driver with the knife, screaming at her to give you the car.  Police subsequently attended.  This offending occurred not long after your release from a psychiatric admission for drug-induced psychosis.  You were sentenced by His Honour Judge Smallwood to 205 days imprisonment, with a therapeutic community corrections order for a period of three years.

22In sentencing you, His Honour Judge Smallwood stated, and I quote,

'This offending was of such a nature that were you to lapse back into extended amphetamine use and relapse back into psychosis, I think you must understand yourself if you are going to commit offending like this with a big knife, the chances are that one day, you are going to get a very, very big gaol sentence from a judge sitting with red robes.  You must understand, I'm sure you do, the consequences not only for yourself using Ice again, but innocent people going about their business'.

23It appears that His Honour's warning went unheeded. 

24Your next appearance was at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 14 October 2015 when you were dealt with for charges of shop steal, theft, burglary, attempted theft, theft of motor vehicle, possess morphine, go equipped to steal, and unlicensed driving.  You were convicted and placed on a community corrections order for a period of 12 months, which included community work and treatment. 

25On 28 January 2016, you again appeared before His Honour Judge Smallwood for contravening the community corrections order which he had imposed upon you on 19 June 2015.  The order was cancelled, and you were convicted and sentenced to a period of 18 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months.  254 days were reckoned as having already been served.

26On 12 February 2016, you appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court in relation to contravening the community corrections order that had been imposed upon you by that court on 14 October 2015, as well as for offences of intentionally damaging property, committing indictable offences whilst on bail, and theft from a shop.  You were convicted and effectively sentenced to
80 days' imprisonment.

27On 4 August 2016, you were dealt with in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court for criminal damage and wilful trespass and sentenced to 60 days' imprisonment.  On 8 December 2017, you were fined in relation to a charge of theft.  You have been on remand since 7 June 2018 for the charges before me.

28Your matters originally came before me on 20 February 2020, at which time a psychiatric assessment from Forensicare was ordered upon request of your counsel.  Your plea was adjourned to 22 May 2020, so that that report could be obtained.  A report dated 19 May 2020 authored by Dr Vennela Kalluru, consultant forensic psychiatrist, has now been provided.

29In that report, she speaks of evidence of your early maladjustment in your developmental history, given the death of each of your parents and lack of other family support.  You spoke to her frankly of your experience of drug-induced psychotic episodes, when you experienced confusion, fear, and delusions, including that of a government conspiracy against you, of being a hero in a corruption scandal, and that you would engage in highly risky behaviours such as dangerous driving.  You also report persecutory delusions, with Russian and Nazi themes influenced by your father's experience of the second World War.  You reported experiencing both auditory and visual hallucinations during your psychotic episodes.

30In her opinion, you do not present with any major mental disorders such as a psychotic illness or mood disorder.  There is clear evidence that you suffer from what is described as dependent syndrome, which you had developed by the age of 26 years, and essentially relates to your misuse of illicit substances.  Dr Kalluru notes that you have never engaged in any form of drug rehabilitation program, and that you have not been able to moderate your substance use to any real degree.  You expressed your shame and told Dr Kalluru that you were sorry for your offending.  I accept these expressions as genuine.

31In her opinion, you were suffering a drug-induced psychotic episode at the time of your offending and your actions were influenced by the illicit substances.  You perceived military lights flashed in the house, and believed aliens were making threats to harm you.  It was in that context, that you sought to protect yourself through fire rather than a desire to specifically cause harm or damage by way of revenge.  You will be sentenced on the basis of Dr Kalluru's findings.

32Her risk assessment of the likelihood of your re-offending largely depends on your misuse of illicit substances.  She notes the seriousness of your offending has escalated over the years, and that frankly, unless you achieve abstinence from illicit drugs, the risk of you re-offending remains high.  It is hard to quibble with that finding.  Dr Kalluru's report was not challenged, and I accept its contents in its entirety.

33In terms of the arson offence, it is perhaps trite to say that arson is a very serious offence.  You came to reside in Ulm Street when you met Mr Monahan following a release from prison.  I am told that you initially managed to get yourself on a methadone program and work in a bakery.  You also obtained employment as a mechanical plumber.  You rented premises from
Mr Monahan who was a support to you.  The arrangement then became one where you would not pay rent, in exchange for assisting with the management and rental of properties which Mr Monahan owed.

34Unfortunately, you returned to drug use in the weeks leading up to your offending.  Between 23 and 30 May 2018, you were hospitalised in a psychiatric ward, presenting with a drug-induced psychosis.  You continued to consume and demand drugs during this hospitalisation.  No evidence of an enduring mental illness was found at that time.

35Once again, it would have be drawn to your attention the link between your drug use and harmful and erratic behaviour.  There appears to be no dispute that your offending occurred in the context of another drug-induced psychosis.  Your counsel seeks to rely on the decision of Marrah [2014] VSCA 119 to reduce your moral culpability for your offending. In that decision, the court noted the causal connection between disadvantage and subsequent criminal behaviour by saying, and I quote,

'The common experience of the law is that very frequently, such disadvantage proceeds the commission of crime and often explains and contributes to an offender's criminal behaviour.  The frequency with which criminal conduct can be explained by such disadvantage does not relieve each sentencing judge of the obligation to take matters into account.  Though they do not provide excuse for offending behaviour, they must be given due weight in the sentencing calculus.  That is not to say that an offender's social disadvantage has the mitigatory relevance for all the purposes of punishment.  It may so explain the offender's conduct, that the offender's moral culpability may be substantially reduced, yet will increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender.  It will not diminish the need for the sentence to vindicate the dignity of a victim and reflect the community's disapproval of the offending'.

36By raising this decision, your counsel makes direct reference to the unfortunate death of each of your parents, and you having to survive on your own, and the resort that then led to drug use and offending behaviour.  That is how I understood the argument, in any event.  I have little doubt that the early loss of each of your parents and the responsibility of being on your own at a young age, would have been a challenging and difficult experience.  However, I see little connection between those tragic events and your subsequent resort to drug use and criminal behaviour such as to reduce your moral culpability for the offending before me.  I can only take into account, to a limited extent, those facts as part of your personal circumstances.

37Further, I find the submission that I should rely on the decision in Marrah to present some challenge to the submissions otherwise made - that you managed to obtain a good education and have had periods when you have complied with community's expectations - albeit those submissions were made to assist in the assessment of your future prospects.

38I note that Dr Kalluru's diagnosis of dependent syndrome is said to have been in existence by the time you were 26 years of age. 

39In this particular instance, your offending resulted in damage to two properties, in particular 30 Ulm Street.  Fire is something which can be difficult to control, hence persons were placed at risk, including persons in the general residential area - and this did occur in a residential area - and of course, emergency services personnel who attended.  It was indeed fortunate that no one was present at either residence.

40As a direct result, other residents at 30 Ulm Street lost their home, and probably belongings.  Whilst I accept your offending was of limited planning and relatively unsophisticated, it was very determined and remains extremely serious.  In the context of your well-identified risk of suffering drug-induced psychosis when using drugs, and your actions when in such a state, denunciation, and the need to protect the community loom large.

41As outlined, I do not find that your offending was in response to the decision to evict you from the address at 30 Ulm Street, where the more substantial fire damage occurred.  This would aggravate the offending and based on the expert report, I am not satisfied to the requisite standard that you were motivated by revenge.

42What is of particular concern in your history of drug-induced psychosis, is that it does and has subsequently led to what can only be described as serious criminal behaviour.  By the very nature of the arson, your regular hospitalisations for drug-induced psychosis - one of which is in close proximity to this offending - your insight into the nature of your delusions revealed in the psychiatric assessment, and His Honour Judge Smallwood's warning putting you on clear notice that any return to drug use placed you at risk of re-offending, you simply must have been aware that by taking drugs your judgment could be so effected that you would behave irrationally, or that it would affect your ability to exercise control.

43It is not sought that your self-induced mental state would constitute a mitigating circumstance or require me to moderate considerations of general or specific deterrence.  By the same token, I do not consider it an aggravating feature, nor is it sought that I do so.  However, your full knowledge regarding the potential for paranoia, persecutory delusions, and other forms of disorganised thought are of genuine concern and do elevate, in my view, your moral culpability.

44History would indicate that you will continue to struggle to alleviate your resort to drug use. This history would also indicate that on occasion of that drug use, you then place the community at risk.  You will not be punished for your prior criminal history a second time, but it remains relevant to the weight that needs to be given in sentence, to specific deterrence, that is - putting you off further offending - denunciation, and protection of the community, all of which are relevant to the sentence which must be imposed.

45In addition, your history is relevant to the weight that should be attached to your prospects for rehabilitation.  To date, you have not responded to terms of imprisonment or supervised orders.  This factor, combined with the assessment undertaken by the forensic psychiatrist, leaves me to form the view that your prospects for rehabilitation remain guarded and, until such time that you manage to overcome your drug addiction, you do present a risk to the community.  I accept in so saying, that any sentence imposed should not be disproportionate to that risk.

46I also accept that your plea of guilty occurred at a relatively early stage, and has saved the court the time and expense of contested proceedings, and the need for witnesses to attend, be cross-examined, and re-live the events of 7 June 2018.

47Tendered on your behalf are letters of apology to your victim and to Melbourne Fire Brigade members.  I do not understand that these have been provided to their intended recipients, but this could in no way be held against you.  Those documents are both dated from May of this year and relatively self-serving.  Nevertheless, they demonstrate some insight by you as to how your actions have impacted others, and how your drug use affected your decision-making.  I take the contents of those letters into account and encourage you to hold on to the sentiments expressed.

48Combined with your expressions of shame and regret to the forensic psychiatrist in your plea, I am satisfied that your plea is also one of remorse.  All of these factors will be taken into account in your favour.  Of course the greatest way to represent this ultimately will be in the abstinence from drug use into the future. 

49It would also appear that you have used your time wisely whilst in custody.  I note that you initially sought Suboxone from other inmates whilst in custody, but since, have agreed to be placed on a formal methadone program.  Three clear urine screens have been tendered on your behalf.

50You have obtained employment whilst in custody, working in horticulture, metalworks, and the kitchen, which I understand to be a trusted position. 

51You completed practical education courses and a Certificate III in engineering.  You have also completed a number of rehabilitative courses, focusing on the reduction of your drug use, the acquisition of life skills, and generalised counselling.  Various certificates have been tendered on your behalf and I take them into account.  A letter has also been tendered dated 18 October 2019, from Dr Sara Salessi, provisional psychologist with Caraniche.  She confirms that you commenced individual counselling on 24 September 2019 and had attended four sessions at the date of her correspondence.

52You are presently well, indeed, your drug psychosis resiled after a four day period.  All indications are that you do not have a mental illness. You report coping well within the prison environment.  If you can transition your learnings upon your return into the community, there is likely to be a marked reduction in your potential risk.  I see your efforts in custody to be genuine.  As you presently have nowhere to live or any particular supports in the local community, your current hope is to return to Europe, to re-attach with other family.

53The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has also been raised on your behalf.  I have had recourse to recent decisions in terms of this pandemic and its relevance to sentencing.  In Brown v R [2020] VSCA 60, Justices of Appeal Priest and Weinberg considered how the pandemic might impact on sentencing. Their Honours stated, and I quote,

'In the absence of any adequate material concerning the impact of the virus upon the Corrections system as matters stand and given the situation is one that is rapidly evolving, we are hesitant to express a general statement of principle regarding how this court and others should deal with this crisis as regards to its effect upon relevant sentencing principles.  We do accept, however, that the situation is causing additional stress and concern for prisoners and their families, as it is for every member of the community.  The extent to which that may be taken into account if at all, will be a matter to be resolved in the particular facts of any individual case'.

54In your particular case, the current pandemic perhaps highlights your general isolation in that you have not had any visits during your remand period.  I accept the pandemic has prevented you accessing rehabilitative courses, where the evidence would otherwise suggest that you sought to improve yourself whilst in custody and in a variety of ways.  I also accept that the environment is more restrictive in terms of time out of cells and creates anxiety and fear that, whilst yet to do so, the COVID-19 virus will hit the prison system.  These factors will all be taken into account in the general sense.

55I make the ancillary order for disposal of scheduled items and await an update as to whether you consent the application which is made for compensation for Mr Quek in the amount of $5200.

56The basic purposes, which a court may impose a sentence, are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, and protection of the community.  In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of matters, such as the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances, and those of your victims.  I am also required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct, with the interests of the community and seeking to ensure as far as possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

57I have taken into account the relevant sentencing guidelines referred to in s.5 of the Sentencing Act were relevant to your case.  I have taken into account current sentencing practices for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty and have been referred to recent sentencing statistics. 

58On your behalf it is argued that I should consider the combination of a term of imprisonment with a community corrections order upon your release from any immediate term. I accept that such a course is available to me, pursuant to s.44 of the Sentencing Act.  I was also referred to the decision of Tannous v R [2017] VSCA 91.

59The Crown position is that I should consider fixing a head sentence with a
non-parole period, given the gravity of the offending. As I understand the focus of those submissions, they really do relate to Charge 1, arson. With that in mind, I take the view that the charges of drug possession and commit an indicatable offence on bail pale in comparison to the substantive offence of arson. Section 16(3C) of the Sentencing Act 1991 requires that every term of imprisonment imposed on a person for an offence committed whilst released on bail, in relation to any other offence or offences must unless, otherwise directed by the court, be served cumulatively on any uncompleted sentence or sentences of imprisonment imposed on that offender whether before or at the same time as that term.

60Bearing that in mind, and my finding that your drug possession and bail offence are far less serious, and including the principle of totality as it relates to those two charges and the charge of arson, I propose to convict and discharge you on the bail offence, the subject of the summary charge.

61For Charge 2 on the indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to seven days imprisonment, which will be concurrent with the sentence I am to impose on Charge 1.

62Whilst in no way an indication of a likely outcome, and I hope I made that clear, I did have you assessed as to your suitability for a community corrections order. You were assessed as suitable. However, the assessment outcome report, dated 26 May 2020 brings to my attention an assessment of you as being at high risk of reoffending. The report refers to you having a poor history of engagement with community correctional services, having two orders cancelled due to poor compliance and further offending. In addition, the report refers to you as being somewhat ambivalent in providing consent to a further order, but you have corrected this part of the assessment. It may well be that there are other contents of this assessment report which are open to interpretation, and with which you disagree, and they will not be held against you. Factually, your compliance history is the most relevant. In my assessment, in all the circumstances, particularly having regard to the serious nature of this offence of arson, your poor record in complying with court orders, your age, and somewhat cloudy prospects of rehabilitation based on your history over the last five years, I have, after engaging in the deliberation required by s.5(4C) of the Sentencing Act, concluded that the sentencing purposes of just punishment, denunciation, both general and specific deterrence and in your case, protection of the community, cannot be achieved by a community corrections order even with onerous conditions.

63I have concluded in all the circumstances that I simply have no alternative but to impose an immediate custodial sentence and I am satisfied that that ought to include a non-parole period.

64On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to three years and four months imprisonment with a minimum of two years before being eligible for parole.  I do see that an extended period of supervision in the community, given your efforts whilst in custody, as best servicing your transition, in order to protect the community through access to treatment, or a swift response should you be
non-compliant.

65721 days will be reckoned as time already served, pursuant to this sentence. 

66Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentence that I would have imposed if you had not pleaded guilty.  If not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of four years and eight months imprisonment, with a minimum of three years and four months before being eligible for parole.

67Mr Casement, is there anything I missed?  Sorry, we have got you on mute.  Sorry, Mr Casement, anything I missed?

68MR CASEMENT: I missed the bottom on the s.6AAA. Three years and ‑ ‑ ‑

69HER HONOUR:  Four months.

70MR CASEMENT:  Four months, yes.  Thank you, Your Honour.  That is fine.  Your Honour, can I get some instructions about the order now and I mean, I am happy to do that - I can do it right now, if Your Honour likes.

71HER HONOUR:  Well, we have got the link.  I am happy to accommodate to you to some degree.  No issue, and you can speak to your client in a moment about that, and about anything else you wish to speak to him about, and I will put Ms Joosten in the lobby.  But I will not put her in the lobby just yet.  I will just check with her if there is anything that I have missed.

72MS JOOSTEN:  No, Your Honour.

73MR CASEMENT:  Thank you.

74HER HONOUR:  All right.  Well, can I indicate that if you have consent to that compensation order, it will be made.  That is not to put pressure on you or your client either, Mr Casement.  If it ends up being an issue, we can list that for a hearing, no problem.  I do not intend to return to the Bench after you finish your time with your client.  It is not an invitation to treat until 4.15.  But I will certainly give you the opportunity there obtaining instructions and advise him as to the sentence.

75MR CASEMENT:  Thank you, Your Honour.

76HER HONOUR:  Thank you to each of you for your assistance.  It is greatly appreciated in both of your cases.  I will close the court until 10 o'clock tomorrow, thank you.

---