Director of Public Prosecutions v Debavay

[2015] VCC 1769

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 14-01145

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JULIA DEBAVAY

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE COHEN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 November 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 November 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Debavay
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VCC 1769

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  Sentencing; plea of guilty

Catchwords:  False accounting; deletions in employer’s records; no finding of personal gain; aged 59 and no prior offending; long delays

Legislation Cited:     Sentencing Act 1991 s 6AAA
Cases Cited:            R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo [2007] VSCA 102

Sentence:Without conviction, CCO for 12 months; 120 hours unpaid community work; assessment and treatment for mental health.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Accused	Mr K. Armstrong	Galbally and O’Bryan
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr N. Hutton	OPP

HER HONOUR:

1Julia Debavay, you have pleaded guilty to a single charge of false accounting.  The maximum penalty for this offence is ten years' imprisonment, which is an indication by Parliament of the potential seriousness of an offence of this nature.  However, in the circumstances you will not be receiving a term of imprisonment.

2There is much background in time and circumstances leading up to, and following, this offending, some of which is set out in the prosecution opening.  I shall only summarise it to the extent necessary for the context and seriousness of the offending to be assessed, or where otherwise relevant to this sentence.  In doing so, I note that there are several factual issues on which there was no agreement between prosecution and defence; at least in part because they relate to ongoing disputes between you and Mr Alex Robins, which ultimately may need to be determined in the Family Court, or elsewhere.  Unless necessary for this sentence I shall not be making findings of fact about those issues.

3In about 2002 you met and began a friendship with Mr Alex Robins.  You say - but he apparently denies - that your friendship developed into a de facto relationship.  In any event, the relationship was close enough for him to assist you in your purchase of a home for yourself and your daughter in Kew, in mid-2006.  The assistance extended to his arranging payments of your mortgage loan from a company run and owned by him and his brother called A & C Robins Constructions Pty Ltd ("the company").

4From 27 June 2006 to 10 March 2011 the company made payments to your mortgage loan for that residence.  Although there is dispute between you and Mr Robins as to whether those payments were made as loans or gifts to you, the payments were made, and entered into the company's records, and this commenced more than a year before you started working for the company.  Some were entered as payments to "Willsmere Loan" and some as "A. Robins - Personal".

5In August 2007, after termination of the employment of another employee for theft, Mr Robins invited you to come to work for the company.  You agreed and became Office Manager - whether as a direct employee or contractor is in dispute and not necessary for me to decide.  Your original duties included direct responsibility for the keeping of the company's accounts - which operated under the MYOB software - but you had no accounting qualifications or experience and struggled with the direct keeping of the accounts, and apparently left them in a less than satisfactory state.

6By February 2008 a bookkeeper was retained to carry out the day to day entries and keeping of the MYOB records for the company, and after that bookkeeper left another was employed.  By no later than August 2008 an outside firm of accountants was retained to prepare the company's income tax returns, and it would annually attend the offices, download a copy of the company's MYOB accounting records for the relevant preceding financial year, and retain that copy.  Mr Robins apparently kept a close eye on the company's bank statements and signed all cheques.  Matters continued satisfactorily until 2011. Neither bookkeepers nor the outside accountants had questioned that the ongoing payments to your mortgage were authorised by Mr Robins.

7In early 2011, Mr Robins engaged a business consultant; Ms Helen Lazenkas, to take a role in relation to the company's accounts.  She discovered some discrepancies in the company's MYOB records and found that some of those records had been altered or deleted.  You were approached about this and became angry.  On 3 May 2011 your employment with the company was terminated.  By then amounts believed by Mr Robins to have been $180,000 to $200,000 had been paid by the company on the mortgage repayments on your home loan.

8

The limits of the charge to which you have pleaded guilty are that on an unknown date between 13 July 2009 and 27 January 2011 you deleted some entries from the company's MYOB records.  Amongst other things you deleted some of the records relating to payments made to “Willsmere Loan” and “A.Robins – Personal”, which were all payments made from company funds to your home mortgage.  One effect of these deletions was that the company had no MYOB records of those particular payments made to your mortgage by the company.  A list of 11 specific payments - the entries for which were deleted - is set out in paragraph 15 of the prosecution opening, and includes payments by cheque from the company between 29 February 2008 and

31 March 2009 totalling $69,249.  You apparently recall deleting about

15 entries, but do not recall the date you did this.  All of these payments were traceable through bank statements, or the recipient's records, and a backup copy of the MYOB records had been created without your knowledge.

9A police investigation was instigated in May 2011 which involved allegations against you of theft, or obtaining amounts from the company by deception.  Your bank records were obtained by subpoena, and a search warrant was executed at your home on 12 August 2011 and various documents taken by police.  It was not until 28 January 2013 that you were charged with any offences.  At that stage the offences charged were much more extensive, and as I have said, included charges of multiple thefts, or attempted thefts.

10A committal hearing was held on 25 June 2014 at which you maintained pleas of not guilty to all charges, which at that stage were of obtaining financial advantage by deception and false accounting.  It was not until almost a further year later that the first indictment was served on you, containing 49 counts of theft, and one of attempted theft.  A small number of charges were then severed from that indictment.

11

On 28 August of this year a second indictment for trial containing one charge of theft based on a course of conduct, and one of false accounting, was created.  The trial was due to commence on 31 August this year but

Mr Hutton, on behalf the prosecution, concedes that it was realised during his preparation for that trial that the theft charges could not be proved against you.  On 31 August you agreed to plead guilty to one charge of false accounting, being the charge now before me.

12Offences committed by a person against that person's employer - especially when the nature of the offence is based on the person's access to accounting records - must be treated as serious. That is not only for the inherent dishonesty, but also because such offences involve a betrayal of the position of trust in which the employee has been placed.  Nevertheless, the limits of the charge against you here do not involve you having stolen money from your employer, and although the offence is said to have occurred within a period of some 18 months, it is not alleged that it was a continuing course of conduct by you, but rather that it was on an unknown date during the period that you actually caused this deletion of multiple entries in the accounting records.

13The action of deletion of records was an offence in this context, as it was without the company's permission, and not for a legitimate purpose of the company, but it does not mean that the transactions - the records of which were deleted - were not, in themselves, legitimate transactions.

14In assessing the seriousness of the offending and your role in it, I take into account that the prosecution accepts that there were other deletions in the company records than those attributed to you under this charge, and also, that there were some large gaps in the records.  I note that in Ms Lazenkas' statement to police - none of it complimentary to you - she said that within the first ten minutes of working at the company she found inconsistencies in the accounts, and found assets in liabilities and liabilities in assets all mixed up.  It seems to me that the latter cannot be attributable to you.

15Both sides invite me to make a finding as to your motivations for this offending, but disagree about what that finding should be.  The prosecution submits that I should infer that your motivation in making the deletions was to benefit yourself.  I am invited to infer that from the fact that all of the deletions made by you - and as set out in paragraph 15 of the prosecution opening - were of payments to your mortgage.  It is submitted that I should infer that the act of deleting them must have been to your benefit.

16Your counsel submits that your reason for making the deletions was not for personal gain, but in a misguided attempt to do what you thought would assist Mr Robins himself, as you say that he had told you that he was concerned that there was to be a tax audit.  As pointed out by the prosecution, there is no actual evidence - only what your counsel had related of your instructions - about you having that conversation with Mr Robins.  Without hearing evidence on this issue I am not able to make any finding about your motivation - even on the balance of probabilities, if it were to be a finding of fact in your favour, let alone beyond reasonable doubt, if it were to be a finding against you.  Therefore, I am left with no reliable information as to what your motivation was in committing this offence, and I proceed on that basis.

17

Also relevant to the overall seriousness of the offending was that it was a relatively unsophisticated action, and although causing disruption and time and effort to trace, it did not, of itself, cause harm to the company's finances.  As I have already mentioned, it was inevitable that there would be other documentation - including bank statements of the company's accounts, as well as the bank or recipient end of the transactions. As the deletion is said to have occurred at some time between mid-July 2009 and January 2011, and concerned transactions in the two preceding financial years; that is, up to

30 June 2009, at least some of those would presumably have already been contained in the company's tax returns.  Moreover, there were, at the time, external accountants handling the company's accounts, and they were likely to have - and, in fact, did have - records which would shed light on the deleted transactions. Finally, it turns out that a second copy of the MYOB records was, in fact, being kept without your knowledge.  That being said, I am told that there has been much time spent, and it is impossible to exactly localise the entirety of the deletions that you made, or when they occurred.

18A Victim Impact Statement from Mr Robins was tendered, and I have read it.  Your counsel submits that much is irrelevant, and what may remain relevant should be given little weight.  It is not for the prosecution to edit or give advice in the drafting of a victim impact statement, however Mr Hutton concedes that the premise at the outset of that statement, and in at least some of its content, is that you stole from the company, and there is no charge against you of theft that comes before me for this sentence.

19That being the case, I disregard all aspects of Mr Robins’ Victim Impact Statement based on that premise, including that your actions contributed to the company going into voluntary liquidation.  Further, Mr Robins complains that he, or the company, incurred a very large amount in costs in defending proceedings in the Fair Work Commission, a WorkCover claim, and an action in the Family Court.  None of those could be attributable to the offence for which I sentence you, and I do not have regard to the alleged consequences of any of those proceedings to either Mr Robins or the company, including as to your offending being the reason for the company eventually going into voluntarily liquidation and Mr Robins declaring bankruptcy.  It is clear that there are also ongoing disputes between you and Mr Robins arising out of your personal and financial relationships with each other. 

20

I accept, in general terms, that

Mr Robins feels betrayed by your actions in deleting company records, and is attributing much emotional and financial loss to you.

21I turn now to your personal circumstances.  You are now aged 59.  You live in the Willsmere property with your daughter, who is in her early 20s and a university student.  Since your father's death in 2012, your mother, who also has failing health, has lived with you, and you receive a carer's benefit for your role in caring for her.  You also assist your sister.  I am told your sister lives independently but has impairments after her own major illness.

22I am told that you were raised in a loving, stable and responsible family, completed school with good results and undertook an Arts degree at Melbourne University.  Years later you completed a Masters' in Business at Victoria University, and I am told did three out of four years of a Bachelor of Architecture course at RMIT.  You have undertaken work in a number of fields including marketing, and as a lecturer and tutor at tertiary level, including - at least in 1999 - at the University of Suva in Fiji.

23Between August 2007 and May 2011 you were Office Manager for Mr Robins' company.  I am told that since the loss of that employment - which as I have said, was in May 2011 - and with many stressors in your life, including the police investigation and charges laid against you, you have been unable to work full time, and have supported yourself and your daughter through some part time child minding, and since 2012 have been in receipt of a carer's pension in relation to the care of your mother.

24I am told that you had a relatively brief and unhappy marriage in the early 1990s, marred by violence, and which you left with your then very young daughter some 19 years ago.  You have supported your daughter and yourself ever since, with little or no contributions from your former husband. 

25You have no prior criminal record, and that is consistent with the description of an otherwise responsible background and lifestyle. The court treats you as a person of good character, coming before a court for the first time and at the age of 59.  That attracts considerable credit, and therefore mitigation of your sentence.  It is consistent with character references from people who have known you for many years.  In my view, it is also an indicator that you are not likely to re-offend - especially as you have had to endure what will have been a salutary experience of being the subject of a police investigation for some years, with subsequent multiple charges, and this whole matter having taken four and a half years to reach this point. I am satisfied that this part of the experience alone is likely to have been a deterrent to you, to deter you from committing any further offences.  With your past good record I accept that there is minimal need for your sentence to act as what we call “specific deterrence”; that is, to try to deter you from future offending.  I am satisfied that there is a low risk of you offending in similar, or any other way, in the future.

26I have read detailed references from four close friends of yours, and I am told that there is a small, but very loyal group of friends, who have been very supportive of you over the period since this issue arose.  The references are from people who have known you from between 15 to 35 years.  They all speak of your own moral integrity, and that each regards this, or any offending, as totally out of character for you.  They all speak of you taking responsibility in life, being hardworking, and praise your commitment to raising your daughter, and also being supportive, over recent years, of your parents -and more recently, your mother - since your father's death.

27Two of those references describe the effect of the investigation and court proceedings on you, and your close friend of 35 years says she has been very concerned about both your mental and physical health.  She describes how you have not been able to work or carry on a normal social life, being consumed by dealing with the trauma of all that has been occurring, which has caused huge financial and emotional costs for you.  All of these references describe you as remorseful for committing this offence.

28

There is material before me relevant to your mental health, and where it relates to considerations in sentencing you.  Your only period of emotional turmoil before 2010 was apparently during your marriage and its breakup, but you did not seek professional treatment for it at the time, and for the next

15 years or so, did not suffer any significant symptoms. 

29However, from 2010 a series of events are said to have overtaken you, increasing your stress and making it increasingly difficult for you to cope. Your father's diagnosis with a terminal illness in 2010, and the prolonged illness he experienced from then until his death in 2012, had had a considerable impact on you.  Your mother's deteriorating health and increasing care needs, and your daughter's final year of schooling, which was in 2010, had, in combination, taxed your coping resources, and you had developed a range of depressive symptoms from that time.

30

Your general practitioner at the time - Dr Walker - has provided a report confirming treating you between March 2011 and October 2012 on a number of occasions for stress, insomnia and depression.  She referred you to a psychiatrist, Dr Shutz, who diagnosed an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood in relation to significant stressors.  An antidepressant, Zoloft, and an anti-anxiety medication, Valium, had been prescribed - your GP said with some benefit - although I note that you told

Mr Newton recently that you ceased taking the medication due to fear of side effects.

31A report from Dr Shutz confirms that you consulted with him between October and December 2011.  He diagnosed an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression in relation to a number of psychosocial stressors.  When he last saw you in December 2011, you had ongoing issues in relation to stress, but were not feeling depressed.  You did have some anxiety, but there was no evidence of psychosis.  You did not return to him for further appointments so he could not give an opinion about your response to treatment, but you had seemed to get some benefit from supportive therapy and seemed to find Diazepam helpful.

32I also have read a report from Mr Patrick Newton, forensic psychologist, who assessed you for this case two weeks ago.  He took your history, including the period of treatment in 2011 with Dr Shutz, although he has it recorded as being in October 2012.  He notes that you have no history of problematic alcohol use, or use of illicit drugs, and no history of problematic gambling.  He noted that you reported experiencing significant symptoms of depression since early 2012, and that you still frequently find yourself tearful and emotional, and this was evident during your interview with him. Activities that used to restore you and give you pleasure you find difficult to motivate yourself to participate in now.  You reported that your sleep continues to be mildly disturbed and you have a growing sense of tiredness, depleting your emotional resources.  In turn, your concentration and capacity for clear thought have been adversely effected.  Mr Newton confirmed that a proportion of your current depression has arisen as a reaction to your ongoing legal predicaments, but that explanation alone is not sufficient to account for the intensity of your symptoms, or for their duration.  He assessed your intelligence as in the high end of the average range, and that this would be a positive prognostic indicator.

33Mr Newton’s opinion is that you remain emotionally vulnerable, and that there is a real risk that your level of mood disturbance could worsen if you were to be placed under additional distress, or failed to access the treatment you require.  The main treatment he feels you need at present is to address your depression though personal counselling, but if your condition were to worsen significantly it would be prudent to consider antidepressant medication.  He did not consider there were any psychological impediments to your completing a community based disposition by way of a sentence.  He set out a number of factors leading to his conclusion that the likelihood of you being brought before a court again is relatively small.

34It is submitted on your behalf that the evidence that you have been suffering from a depressive disorder since 2010, which has been exacerbated over the last four years by the stress of legal proceedings - including these criminal proceedings - enlivens what lawyers call Verdins principles; especially numbers five and six.  That is, on the basis of Mr Newton's evidence it is submitted I should find that your depressive symptoms are likely to worsen if a term of imprisonment were imposed, and also, are likely to make the burden of serving time in prison more onerous for you than for someone not suffering from your condition.

35I accept that these principles do apply in this case.  I am not satisfied that there is evidence relating your condition to the cause of your offending, because the timing of your offending is unclear, and the charged period commenced well before your symptoms are documented to have commenced.  However, as I have already said, whilst not specific to depressive symptoms, I am satisfied that the experience of having these court proceedings, and the threat of criminal charges hanging over you for the period they have has delivered what specific deterrence is needed for you. I also take into account the effect of that stress on your depressive symptoms as moderating the need for general deterrence, to a small degree, in this case.

36

I do allow considerable mitigation in this case for your plea of guilty.  Although it came only shortly before the trial was fixed to commence, I accept that in the circumstances that should not be viewed as a late plea of guilty. 

I accept that until that time you were facing - either in number or magnitude - other charges, which you have always denied, and which the prosecution no longer pursues; that is, charges alleging either theft, or that you dishonestly obtained financial advantage by deception.

37I accept that even at the late stage that the plea of guilty occurred, it had considerable utilitarian value in saving what I assume would have been quite prolonged evidence about accounting records and their reconstruction.  Your plea of guilty reflects acceptance by you of your responsibility for this offence, but this offence only, and is also consistent with the remorse you have apparently expressed to all close friends for becoming involved in any illegal activity at all.

38Given your background and the various references from friends, I accept that you feel remorse, and feel mortified at being before a court for an offence of dishonesty, and I also accept that you feel deep regret for the consequences to yourself and your family.

39

Also relevant in this case is the long period between the discovery of this offence and the matter reaching this court for hearing.  More than four and a half years has passed.  There are unexplained delays, including some

16 months after execution of a search warrant and seizure of personal documents at your home, before charges were laid; a further 17 months until committal hearing; and a further 11 months before the first indictment was served.  Even that was followed two months later by a different trial indictment.

40The effect of this delay has several features.  First, there is evidence through your friends’ references and the medical evidence, that you have suffered very considerable stress leading to referral to a psychiatrist in the later months of 2011, to which the stress of these investigations and threatened court proceedings at least contributed.  There is evidence that there has been ongoing stress on you ever since, including considerable financial, as well as emotional stress.

41When there is a delay in the bringing of charges to fruition at court it is well recognised that a person generally will have the stress of those charges hanging over him or her, and that that may be a factor in mitigation of the sentence.  In your case I accept there is actual evidence of the impact on you.  I accept that your ability to seek outside employment in that time has been constrained by the uncertainty of the outcome of these charges.

42Finally, notwithstanding the stress and depression you have suffered over this time, there is no suggestion that you have been involved in any further offending whatsoever.  I regard the delay as of considerable mitigation in this case.  As I have already said, I also regard it as having, in itself, acted as specific deterrence to the extent that that is necessary in your case at all.

43There is a serious aspect to the commission of an offence such as false accounting against one's employer, and that calls for some general deterrence to be reflected in your sentence.  However, for reasons I have stated, that general deterrence will be moderated a little.

44I consider that your sentence must include some tangible punishment to send a message to the community that offences of this type will attract real punishment.  As your counsel pointed out, there is little guidance for me on current sentencing practices in relation to a charge standing alone of false accounting where it does not occur, as it usually comes before a court, in conjunction with charges of theft or obtaining financial advantage by deception.

45For reasons already outlined, I find the offence which you committed to be at a relatively low end of seriousness for offences of this nature, and although I cannot make a finding as to your motivation, I accept that it was an isolated occurrence when you deleted certain entries from your employer's accounts, and that also points to it being at a relatively low end of seriousness for offences of this nature.

46That, taken together with your otherwise good character, your responsible lifestyle with the upbringing and care of your daughter, and now, the care of your elderly mother being central to your immediate responsibilities, and with the support of friends, who write of your integrity and remorse, and my assessment that you are of low risk of offending in the future in this, or any other manner, I have decided that a sentence well short of one of imprisonment can adequately reflect sentencing requirements.

47To the extent that your rehabilitation can be assisted through your sentence by facilitating, or being treated for your depressive disorder, I intend to include that in your sentence.

48I had you assessed for a Community Corrections Order and you have been found suitable, with a low-risk of re-offending according to the assessment tool used.  That, of course, is consistent with what I have already found as my assessment as to low likelihood of re-offending, and it is also consistent with Mr Newton's opinion on that.  You were thought capable of performing the proposed conditions.  I do not consider that supervision is required, but I will impose a Community Corrections Order with a period of unpaid community work to stand as your punishment, and a condition that you attend for assessment and treatment for your mental health as directed.

49I have also considered whether or not to impose a conviction for this offence, or to make a Community Corrections Order without conviction. This is open, taking into account the confined circumstances of this offence, and which I regard as at a relatively low level of seriousness for such an offence; also taking into account that you are of previously good character, and also taking into account your age, the field of your past employment, and what I infer could be some limitation on your ability to obtain future employment, although I have no evidence of that, if you were to have a criminal conviction involving dishonesty on your record.

50I have decided that there are grounds in this case not to impose a conviction, but rather there will be a finding of guilty against you with a penalty imposed.  That stands on your criminal record, but depending how a question is asked of you in future you will not have to admit to having a conviction.

51Stand up now please.

52

Julia Debavay, on the charge of false accounting you are found guilty, and I sentence you to be placed on a Community Corrections Order to last for

12 months, with conditions that you perform 120 hours of unpaid community work, and that you attend for assessment and treatment as directed in respect of your mental health.

53In addition, all usual terms of a community corrections order apply.  These will have been explained to you, but I will repeat them here briefly.  First, you are to report within two working days of today at the nearest Community Corrections office.  I understand the nearest such office to Kew will be Box Hill, and the address will be available to you.  This being Friday, you will be required to report by 4 pm next Tuesday.  Even though there are some arguments that that is not two clear working days that is how the system will record as the time limit for you to report there.

54During the 12 months of the Order you are to notify your Community Corrections office of any change of address in where you live, or where you work, within two clear working days of that change occurring.  You are to obey all lawful instructions or directions of Community Corrections officers, and you are to accept visits from them if required.  You are not to leave the state of Victoria without prior permission of Community Corrections officers, and very importantly, you are not to commit any further offences during the operation of this order; that is, over the next 12 months.

55If you contravene this order by failing to comply with any of the terms or conditions, or by further offending, you can expect to be brought back before me and dealt with for contravention of the order.  A contravention of a community corrections order is itself an offence, and can attract a separate punishment.  Depending on the circumstances of the contravention and your circumstances at the time, there would be various options open to me, including that I might vary the order by extending its duration or the conditions.  It might be that the order is confirmed, or it would be open to me to cancel the order and re-sentence you for this offence.  As I say, that would depend on all the circumstances at the time, including what the contravention had been.

56As I have also already said, I do not expect you to commit any further offence, and I do expect you will comply with this order, but I have to ask you formally, do you understand the terms and conditions of the order?

57ACCUSED:  Yes, Your Honour.

58HER HONOUR:  Do you agree to comply with this order?

59ACCUSED:  Yes, I do.

60HER HONOUR:  All right.  I state, as I am bound to do, what your sentence would have been had you not pleaded guilty to this charge, but had been found guilty of it on trial, and if all other factors had been the same; which is always an artificial assumption.  But for that purpose I state that I would have sentenced you to a Community Corrections Order, with conviction, to last for two years, and its condition would have been for you to perform 250 hours of unpaid community work.

61MR ARMSTRONG:  As Your Honour pleases.

62MR HUTTON:  Your Honour pleases.

63HER HONOUR:  The prosecution applied for an order for a forensic sample to be taken to enable your DNA to be tested and the results placed on the State's database.  The purpose of this is always for detection of other offences, sometimes past offences, but also for the future. I have a discretion in the circumstances of this case whether or not to make that order.  In my view it is unnecessary to do so, taking into account not only your prior lack of criminal history, but also the nature of the offence in question, which in no way involved, or could have involved, the use of DNA to trace the identity of the person concerned.  The deletions in the computer system had long since been made before the police investigation commenced with no saying how many people might have used any, or which computers involved.

64This is not the type of offending, in my view, for which DNA could be of much assistance in an investigation.  I am reinforced in my conclusion about this by my view, also expressed, that I believe it is unlikely that you will offend in the future in this or any other manner, so I have decided not to make that order.

65MR ARMSTRONG:  As Your Honour pleases.

66MR HUTTON:  Your Honour pleases.

67HER HONOUR:  You can take a seat, Ms Debavay, while that order is prepared, and its terms will have to be checked and then you'll be asked to sign it and I'll sign it.

68MR HUTTON:  Your Honour pleases.

69HER HONOUR:  Have I covered everything that I needed to cover?

70MR HUTTON:  Yes, Your Honour.

71HER HONOUR:  There were no other applications?

72MR HUTTON:  No.

73MR ARMSTRONG:  No, thank you.

74

HER HONOUR:  All right.  I'll have a copy of the draft CCO shown to both counsel to check.  If that's satisfactory, I'll have my associate take it to

Ms Debavay to sign.

75MR HUTTON:  Yes, Your Honour.

76HER HONOUR:  Ms Debavay, you've seen it's been checked by your counsel, but I'll ask you to read it through and be sure you understand it and then sign it if you agree.  All right, I've signed a copy of that Community Corrections Order.  There'll be copies made so you have one.  You can now leave the dock, Ms Debavay, and join your family and counsel in the body of the court.  I'll just sign the overall order also while you're here.

77What I'll do, I intend to stay on the Bench for the next part heard matter to come in - actually, we're not sure, I just suppose if - I'll leave the Bench, this matter's concluded, and I'll come back in as soon as the others are - the next one's ready.