Director of Public Prosecutions v Demirtel
[2021] VCC 1011
•22 July 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-20-00825
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| RASIM DEMIRTEL |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE LEIGHFIELD | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 9 July 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 22 July 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Demirtel | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1011 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal Law
Catchwords: Sentence – intentionally cause serious injury – offence gravity at lower end of range of intentionally cause serious injury offences – relevant prior criminal history – plea of guilty – drug and alcohol issues – bipolar disorder – application of principles in Wright v The Queen [2015] VSCA 333 – no reduction of moral culpability –impact of COVID-19 – guarded prospects of rehabilitation
Sentence: 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment – 629 days of pre-sentence detention – s6AAA declaration 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and six months’ imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr Daniel Porceddu | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr Tim Sullivan | Chris McLennan Barristers & Solicitors |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1Rasim Demirtel, you have pleaded guilty to a single charge of intentionally causing serious injury. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years' imprisonment. Further, intentionally causing serious injury is a Category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act [1991] (Vic). In your case, none of the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a)-(e) of section 5(2H) apply. Accordingly, I must impose a custodial sentence upon you for the offence and the custodial sentence cannot be combined with a Community Correction Order.
2This offence arises from an incident which occurred on 1 November 2019. At the time, you were 49 years of age.
Circumstances of the Offending
3The full circumstances of the offending are set out in the summary of prosecution opening dated 7 June 2021 which was tendered as Exhibit A on the plea.
4
However, in brief compass, on 1 November 2019, the victim in this matter
Mr Carlos Capodiacasa visited your home. The two of you have known each other for about 10 years. He attended at approximately 1.30 pm and remained throughout the afternoon. Also present at your home during the afternoon was your then partner Ms Marshall and her son Jack.
5At some point during the afternoon, Mr Capodiacasa was lying on the couch and talking. You were drinking out of a cask of wine. Mr Capodiacasa said to you, 'You need to get a job, be a man and stop just sitting around the house.'
6
You then pulled a kitchen knife from your pocket, walked over to where Mr Capodiacasa was lying on the couch, and said, 'Sorry Carlos.' You then stabbed
Mr Capodiacasa three times whilst he was still lying on the couch; once to the neck, once to the chest and once to the groin. Despite being in pain,
Mr Capodiacasa managed to get off the couch, kick you in the stomach and then leave the house.
7As Mr Capodiacasa was leaving the room, Ms Marshall came into the room. She saw you cleaning a small knife on your t-shirt. Once the knife was clean you handed it to Ms Marshall and told her to get rid of it. You then also left the house.
8After Mr Capodiacasa left your house, he attempted to walk home, however, ended up calling an ambulance due to loss of blood. He was treated close to the scene, firstly, by police and also by paramedics. Ultimately, he was transferred to hospital and treated for his injuries. As a result of you stabbing him, Mr Capodiacasa had three stab wounds, one each to the neck, chest and abdomen. The wound to the abdomen penetrated into his abdominal cavity, causing internal bleeding and injury to the small bowel which resulted in a portion of the bowel being surgically removed. According to expert opinion, this was a medically serious condition with potential life-threatening complications. This conduct constitutes Charge 1, intentionally cause serious injury.
Investigation, Arrest, Interview and Remand
9At approximately 7.15 pm, you returned to your home and were approached by police members who were guarding the scene. You appeared to those police officers to be affected by alcohol, as your breath smelt of alcohol and you were unsteady on your feet. After being given your caution and rights, you had a conversation with police members in which you stated (amongst other things) that:
· the victim was a 'bad egg' and a paedophile;
· you told your partner, 'I'm going to kill this fuckin' dude – bad tamp';
· he (the victim) kept going on;
· you put a knife in his stomach and his neck; and
· you had hidden the knife in the manhole downstairs.
10You were then taken to the Broadmeadows Police Station and ultimately remanded into custody on that day. You have remained in custody since that day and as a result have now served 629 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today.
Victim Impact
11I have been advised that Mr Capodiacasa is now deceased. Accordingly, there was no victim impact statement tendered on the plea.
12Mr Porceddu, however, took me to the final paragraph of the victim's statement which was made only hours after the incident. At that time Mr Capodiacasa said:
I can't believe this happened. I want Rasim charged. I want him remanded and I want him to go to gaol. I can't believe he was my friend and did this.
13I also note that Mr Capodiacasa was required to undergo surgery and remained in hospital for seven days as a result of your actions.
14I take this impact on the victim into account.
Prior Criminal History
15You have a lengthy and relevant prior criminal history, having been sentenced in respect of six charges of recklessly causing injury and seven charges of unlawful assault between 1990 and 2017.
16
You first came before the court for a
violence-related offence in 1990 at which time you were sentenced in the County Court to a 12-month community-based order for intentionally or recklessly causing injury.
17
In 1992 you were convicted and fined $500 for unlawful assault. In 2003 you received a six-month intensive correction order for multiple offences on a consolidated plea, amongst which were two charges of unlawful assault. Then in 2012 you were sentenced to one month imprisonment, wholly suspended for
12 months for the offence of recklessly cause injury. You breached the suspended sentence imposed in 2012 through further offending, which included a further charge of recklessly cause injury for which you received an aggregate term of
70 days imprisonment with the restored term of one month served cumulatively upon that sentence.
18You received further terms of imprisonment for multiple offences, including charges of recklessly causing injury and charges of unlawful assault in 2014, 2017, and 2018, being sentenced to aggregate terms of imprisonment of 15 months with a nine-month non-parole period, four months, and 14 months with a non-parole period of eight months, respectively. Of particular note, the recklessly cause injury offence for which you were sentenced on 16 December 2014 also involved you using a knife to stab the victim – albeit, on that occasion the stab wound was to the leg.
19Your lengthy history of violence-related offending requires that substantial weight be given to the purposes of specific deterrence and community protection as part of the sentencing synthesis. It also bears upon the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, a matter which I will return to in due course.
Plea of Guilty
20It was submitted by your counsel that, despite the period of time which has passed since you were arrested and charged and despite having run a contested committal in the matter, that your plea should still be considered to have been entered at a relatively early stage and should be considered to have significant utilitarian value.
21Whilst you ran a contested committal, the only witness cross-examined was an expert witness who dealt with the discrete issue of the seriousness of the injury sustained by the victim. You did not seek to have your victim cross-examined. Subsequent to the committal and after you had been committed to stand trial, a further medical statement was obtained by the prosecution in relation to the injuries. The matter was ultimately referred to emergency case management and resolved at case conference before me on 10 May 2021 with you entering plea of guilty to the charge on 13 May 2021.
22Given the timeline of the proceedings, I accept that the plea was made at a relatively early stage in the proceedings. I also accept that your plea is indicative of an acceptance of responsibility for your conduct, with you at all times having intended to plead guilty to an offence arising out of this incident, the issues largely revolving around whether the injury was a serious injury and as to whether your actions were reckless or intentional.
23Your plea has saved the cost and time of a trial being conducted and has facilitated the course of justice in circumstances where the victim is now deceased. The value of your plea is also enhanced in the current circumstances of the pandemic which is causing unprecedented disruption to the smooth running of the criminal justice system. Accordingly, I accept that you are entitled to a significant discount on your sentence by reason of your plea of guilty.
Personal Circumstances
24You are now 51 years of age. You were born in Turkey and came to Australia from Turkey with your parents when you were approximately 4 years of age. You have a brother of whom you speak highly and a sister from whom you are estranged and who has been the victim in a number of the criminal proceedings which you have faced.
25You completed Year 11 at school and commenced Year 12. You enjoyed school and performed well academically. You also played tennis and squash and worked a night shift at McDonald's from Year 9 through to Year 11. When you were partway through Year 12 your parents separated and you subsequently left school.
26You then had a very varied employment history. You initially purchased a car detailing business but sold it after a year. You moved on to the Australian Document Exchange, also working there for a year before purchasing and managing a takeaway shop for a year. You then travelled to Turkey in 1994 and met your wife. You married the next year and returned to Melbourne in 1995 with your wife. You then worked in car sales for a period of two years after your return to Australia, however, in 1996 when you were 26 years of age, you started to become mentally unwell and have engaged in limited work since that time. You have been on a disability support pension since 2000 as a result of your mental health issues.
27Your mother also has a history of mental health issues requiring in-patient treatment. Between 1991 and 2009, your mother was regularly in contact with local area mental health services and also experienced some periods of hospitalisation. It appears that she was diagnosed with schizophrenia some time during the 1990's. In 2009, whilst intoxicated, your mother poured petrol over your father in the backyard of the home and set him alight. As a result, your father suffered extensive burns to various parts of his body as well as respiratory issues which required surgery, admission into the intensive care unit, hospitalisation for a month, and then further hospitalisation at a rehabilitation facility. A year later he required further plastic surgery to manage the contraction of skin, scarring and pain caused by the burns. You were living at home at the time of this incident and the reasons for sentence in your mother's case describe you as being present and hearing your mother say, 'Let him burn.'
28Your mother was initially remanded for a period of four months on charges including attempted murder but she ultimately pleaded to and was convicted and sentenced on a single charge of intentionally causing serious injury for which she was placed on an adjourned undertaking for a period of five years with a number of conditions attached regarding compliance with mental health treatment and medication. Your father ultimately passed away in 2012.
29You have two adult daughters from your marriage. Whilst you do not currently have much contact with your daughters, you are hopeful of being able to have a good relationship with your daughters into the future.
30Subsequently, you have been involved in two other relationships, the most recent was with Ms Marshall, with that relationship commencing just prior to the offending in late September 2019. You and Ms Marshall remain friends despite your arrest and remand.
History of Drug and Alcohol Issues
31You do have a history of drug and alcohol issues. You commenced smoking cannabis at 19 years of age and continued until you were 22 years of age, whereupon you stopped for a few years due to related anxiety issues. You then smoked cannabis again between 1999 and 2001.
32More significantly, you commenced using MDMA in 1996. You abused MDMA for six months, leading up to your first psychotic episode in 1999/2000. You then ceased using illicit drugs until 2004 when you again commenced using drugs, this time methylamphetamine. You have continued using methylamphetamine whilst in the community since that time. You report that you were using methylamphetamine on a daily basis at the time of committing this current offence, having commenced using again immediately upon your release from custody in July 2019.
33You have also been alcohol dependent since 2001. When in the community, you typically consume a cask of wine per day. You similarly immediately relapsed into drinking upon your release from custody in July 2019 and had also been drinking alcohol on a daily basis at the time of the current offending.
Mental Health Issues
34As noted earlier, you first developed mental health problems in 1996 when you were 26 years of age. You developed anxiety whilst smoking cannabis. You were prescribed anti-psychotic medication. You then experienced a prolonged period of depression, followed by your first manic episode in 1996 resulting in your first involuntary inpatient admission to Royal Park. You were formally diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder and were commenced on mood stabilising medication.
35Since that time, you have been admitted to inpatient units on at least fifteen occasions due to manic, psychotic or depressive episodes. You have been variously diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder and schizoaffective disorder in that time. You have also suffered a number of sustained depressive episodes over the years since 1996, leading to multiple suicide attempts, the most recent in November 2020 whilst on remand for the current offending. You have received mental health care in prison in the past, including an admission to Thomas Embling Hospital during your last period in custody and you are currently being medicated in custody.
36You advised Dr Deacon, who prepared a report dated 6 July 2021 for the purposes of this plea hearing and which was tendered as Exhibit 1 on the plea, that following your release from custody after your previous sentence, you did not engage with your designated Area Mental Health Service as you did not wish to be placed on a Community Treatment Order. Accordingly, in the months leading up to the current offending, you received no psychiatric treatment in the community nor did you take any medication. Rather, you abused alcohol and methylamphetamine on a daily basis – including on the day of the offending.
37
In his report, Dr Deacon was of the opinion that your most likely diagnosis is Bipolar Disorder. He noted that, leading into the date of the offending, your mental health was not being treated and had likely destabilised through a combination of alcohol and methamphetamine misuse. However, in his opinion, whilst your precise mental health status at that time remains unclear, he was of the view that you did not appear to be grossly unwell and that there is a lack of evidence to substantiate that you were overtly manic or psychotic at the time. Indeed, having viewed the footage of your interaction with the police immediately after the incident,
Dr Deacon was of the view that the footage did not suggest that you were overtly manic or psychotic. You did however appear to Dr Deacon to be mildly to moderately intoxicated based on a subtle slurring of your speech. This would be consistent with your own report of your use of alcohol and methylamphetamine at that time.
38In dealing with any nexus between your mental health issues and your offending behaviour, both historically and in the current matter, Dr Deacon had this to say:
Mr Demirtel has a history of aggression and interpersonal violence. It is unclear whether his criminal history has a clear nexus with his mental illness and/or whether it more closely aligns with antisocial personality traits.
Whilst there is information lacking in this matter, there is not a clearly defined nexus between his mental illness and the offence.
39Despite this, Dr Deacon is of the view that, as a result of your mental illness, which does require ongoing active treatment and management in custody, that you are a relatively vulnerable prisoner. He is further of the view that you will require indefinite ongoing treatment in custody and the community for your mental health issues, as well as intensive drug and alcohol counselling.
40I note that this view is supported also by Ms Hannah Child, Senior Clinician from the Mental Health Advice and Response Service who provided a letter to the Court dated 8 July 2021 which was tendered as Exhibit 2 on the plea. Ms Child advised that whilst you are currently compliant with your mood stabilising medication for bipolar disorder, that you still continue to exhibit some symptoms of mania in custody and would require ongoing treatment and monitoring in the community if released. No doubt, you also require that same treatment and monitoring throughout any time you remain in custody.
41Turning now to submissions of counsel in respect of the manner in which I should take your mental health into account when sentencing you.
42Mr Sullivan submitted on your behalf that, despite Dr Deacon's opinion that there is no clearly defined nexus between your mental health and your offending, that I could still find on the evidence before the court, namely – the pervading context of the report, and the evidence as to your conduct throughout and after the offending – that your impaired mental functioning at the time of offence had the effect of impairing your ability to exercise proper judgment and make calm and rational choices. Whilst Mr Sullivan conceded that the principles in Wright v The Queen [2015] VSCA 333 are seemingly applicable in this case, he maintained that it was open for me to be satisfied that your moral culpability was reduced, which would then allow for a modest reduction in sentence. In further support of that submission, Mr Sullivan referred me to the conclusions of Justice Coghlan in your mother's case, submitting that your present situation is analogous to hers and accordingly, I could be satisfied, as Justice Coghlan was in your mother's case, that your moral culpability was reduced.
43Mr Porceddu, by contrast, submitted that there is no basis upon which I could be satisfied to the requisite standard that your moral culpability is reduced. In particular, he relied upon Dr Deacon's opinions that you were not manic or psychotic at the time of the offending, that you did not appear to be grossly unwell, and that there was no clearly defined nexus between your mental health and your offending conduct. Further, Mr Porceddu submitted that, even if I was satisfied that your moral culpability was reduced, given the particular circumstances of your case, a greater emphasis would need to be placed on community protection, which would effectively even out any benefit you may have otherwise received on sentence through a finding of reduced moral culpability.
44
I accept Mr Sullivan's submission that there are a variety of ways in which an offender's impaired mental functioning at the time of the offending may reduce moral culpability, many of which do not require a causal link between the impaired mental functioning and the offending. For example, an offender's moral culpability may be reduced if their impaired mental functioning had the effect of impairing the offender's ability to exercise appropriate judgment, impairing the offender's ability to make calm and rational choices or to think clearly, making the offender disinhibited, impairing the offender's ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct, or obscuring the intent to commit the offence – none of which require a direct nexus between the mental illness and the offending. However, there still needs to be some evidence that the offender's mental illness was the factor which caused the relevant impairment and not some other intervening factor such as drug or alcohol use. This, in my view, is made plain in Wright v R [2015]
VSCA 333, [39]-[52] and the cases cited therein.
45In the current case, it is true that Dr Deacon speaks about you impulsively and intemperately reacting to a comment made by the victim by accessing a nearby knife and stabbing him. However, he also refers to you immediately leaving the property, knowing you had inflicted injuries and were in trouble. You then returned after a short period expecting to be arrested by police. There is no evidence that any impairment of your ability to exercise appropriate judgment or impairment to make calm and rational choices was as a result of your mental illness, as opposed to having been caused by your misuse of alcohol and methylamphetamine both prior to and on the day in question. It is apparent that you had made a choice to not pursue psychiatric treatment on your release from custody. You concede that you had been using both drugs and alcohol consistently since your release and had done so again on the day of the incident.
46Dr Deacon has proffered the opinion, having watched the video footage of you in the immediate aftermath of the incident, that you were not overtly psychotic or manic at the time and, indeed, appeared to be mildly to moderately intoxicated. I also note as a matter of completeness, that your case can be distinguished from your mother's on this point, in that the psychiatric material in your mother's case expressly supported a conclusion that your mother's subsequent behaviour indicated that she could not appreciate fully the wrongfulness of her conduct and that the impairments suffered by your mother at the time of her offending were partly caused by intoxication but also partly caused by her psychosis. Accordingly, despite Mr Sullivan's submissions, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your underlying mental health issues lessen your moral culpability.
47However, it is not in dispute, and I am persuaded on the evidence before the court, that you should be considered more vulnerable in gaol by reason of your mental health difficulties than a prisoner without those same difficulties. I accept that you are likely to experience prison as more onerous, given your mental health, than someone without your condition and I do take that aspect of the impact of your mental health into account in your favour in sentencing you.
Gravity of Offending
48Turning now to the gravity of the offending. The prosecution submits that this incident is a serious example of this type of offence for a number of reasons being:
·the complainant was stabbed three times, with the second and third stab wound being inflicted despite the immediacy of bleeding from the first wound;
·the offending was unprovoked;
·the complainant was unable to defend himself;
·the first stab was targeted in that it was in the neck, which is a vulnerable part of the body; and
·one of the stab wounds caused a life-threatening injury to the small bowel which required the injured section of the bowel to be removed and the resected ends of the bowel to be stapled together – an operation which is only undertaken if the risks of complication from surgery are outweighed by the risks of not taking action.
49Mr Sullivan, by contrast, submitted that your offending falls towards the lower end of the range of offences which are encompassed by the charge of intentionally causing serious injury.
50
As I had previously indicated during the case conferencing process, I am of the view that the offence, viewed absent any personal circumstances of the accused, does fall at the lower end of cases of intentionally causing serious injury. The injury itself falls at the lower end of serious injury and the first stab wound, which was targeted at the neck, was a superficial wound and is not the wound which has converted this offence from an injury offence to a serious injury offence. Rather, it is only the stab wound which perforated the bowel which elevated this offence. Similarly, whilst it is very clear from the context of the offending and the admissions made by Mr Demirtel at the scene that he intended to inflict significant harm on
Mr Capodiacasa, the offence requires the combination of both the intent and the end result so far as the type of injury inflicted.
51Ultimately, given the circumstances, I am of the view that the offending, considered in the absence of other factors, falls at the lower end of the spectrum for this kind of offence. However, having said that, it is still a serious offence and general deterrence as a sentencing purpose must still carry substantial weight in the sentencing exercise.
Impact of COVID-19
52You have been in custody since your arrest on 1 November 2019 – thereby having been on remand throughout the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic to date. During the period that you have been in custody, you have been impacted by the pandemic in a number of ways. I take into account that your time in custody to date has been more burdensome than it might otherwise have been due to the restrictions which have been imposed previously and which are now, again, in force as we contend with our fifth community lockdown in this State. As a result of these restrictions, your access to rehabilitative and work opportunities have been more limited than they otherwise would have been, you have reduced access to family and friends, and have been, and most likely will continue to be in the near future, restricted from having face to face contact with family and friends.
53I also accept that you are subject to heightened stress and anxiety by reason of your incarceration and resultant lack of control of the measures to reduce your risk of contracting the virus. This additional stress extends not only to concern about your own health in custody, but also the health of your family in the community, especially in circumstances where there have been a number of outbreaks of community transmission whilst you have been in custody. I take this added burden of imprisonment into account in sentencing you.
Current Sentencing Practice and Sentencing Submissions
54Mr Sullivan did not make a specific submission in respect of disposition in this case or in respect of current sentencing practice generally.
55However, Mr Porceddu submitted that nothing short of a head sentence with a non-parole period is appropriate in this case. Mr Porceddu directed my attention to the Sentencing Snapshots for intentionally causing serious injury and in particular identified that the average length of sentence for intentionally cause serious injury has ranged for four years four months in 2015-2016 to five years and seven months in 2018-2019.
56As I discussed with Mr Porceddu on the plea, whilst sentencing statistics can act as a yardstick against which to measure a particular sentence, there are limitations to their use and they are insufficient on their own to establish current sentencing practices. This is particularly so for an offence such as intentionally cause serious injury where the circumstances of the offence itself can vary so greatly, even prior to factoring in the personal circumstances of the offender. Accordingly, whilst I have had regard to the sentencing statistics as a yardstick, I have sentenced you on the particular circumstances of your case and the application of sentencing principles to those circumstances.
Sentencing Purposes
57A sentence may only be imposed for a number of defined purposes. Those purposes are deterrence, both general and specific, denunciation, just punishment, rehabilitation and community protection. As I have already identified earlier in these reasons for sentence, given the nature of the offence and your significant prior criminal history of violent offending, the sentencing purposes of general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and community protection all carry substantial weight in the sentence which I am imposing today.
58
Insofar as your prospects of rehabilitation and facilitation of your rehabilitation is concerned, you have a poor history of compliance with rehabilitative orders which have been imposed by the court over time. You also have a history of failing to comply with your treatment and medication regime when released into the community, although, Dr Deacon noted that you have decided to comply with recommended treatment in custody and this was confirmed in the letter from
Ms Child. You have also been working whilst in custody, indicating that you do still have a capacity to work when your mental health issues are stabilised.
59It is apparent that your prospects of rehabilitation are dependent upon the extent to which you engage in and comply with treatment in the community for both your mental health and your drug and alcohol issues. Given your current commitment to treatment in custody, I am of the view that you have some prospects for rehabilitation, however, those prospects are guarded at best. Despite this, I am of the view that it would not be in the best interests of either you or the community for you to be released into the community without the opportunity for an extended period of supervision of you and your treatment in the community. Accordingly, I have allowed the opportunity for you to be given a reasonable period of time on parole to facilitate those attempts at rehabilitation and to enhance community protection, albeit, I am aware and have taken into account, that you may be required to serve every day of the sentence I have imposed.
Sentence
60Mr Demirtel, on Charge 1, intentionally cause serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years and nine months' imprisonment.
61I direct that you serve a minimum period of three years and three months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
Pre-Sentence Detention
62The period of 629 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today's date, is hereby declared as having already been served in respect of this sentence and I order that such declaration and its details be entered in the records of the court.
Section 6AAA Declaration
63Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that, had you pleaded not guilty to the charge for which you received a term of imprisonment today and been convicted of it, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and six months' imprisonment.
Ancillary Orders
64Pursuant to s.78(1) of the Confiscation Act [1997] (Vic), I make a disposal order in respect of the following items:
(i)knife;
(ii)white and black Nike shoes;
(iii)blue jeans;
(iv)white singlet;
(v)brown belt; and
(vi)other clothing.
- - -
HER HONOUR: So, counsel, are there any other matters that either of you wish to raise at this stage in respect of either the sentence or the reasons for sentence?
MR PORCEDDU: No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Porceddu.
MR SULLIVAN: No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Sullivan. Mr Porceddu, are there any additional orders sought?
MR PORCEDDU: No, Your Honour, that's great. Nothing else.
HER HONOUR: All right. Mr Sullivan, would like an opportunity, if we can get the unmuting working, to speak to Mr Demirtel?
MR SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: All right. All right, so I'll step off the Bench and we'll adjourn the court and we'll allow for you to have that conversation with Mr Demirtel, all right?
MR SULLIVAN: I'm grateful, Your Honour.
MR PORCEDDU: As the court pleases.
HER HONOUR: All right, thank you.
- - -
0