Director of Public Prosecutions v Ditchburn
[2011] VCC 2028
•14 November 2011
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-11-00280
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECTUIONS |
| v |
| CARL JAMES DITCHBURN |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 15 September 2011 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 November 2011 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ditchburn | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2011] VCC 2028 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – Plea of guilty - Trafficking in a drug of dependence-Manufacture – Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception - Extensive criminal record – Drug dependency – Impairment of mental functioning – Experts differ as to nature of impairment – Forensicare report - Some causal link to offending – Unable to make properly reasoned and informed judgments
Legislation:Crimes Act 1958; Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981
Cases:R v Sebborn [2008] VSCA 200; Baensch v R [2010] VSCA 191; Verdins v R 2007 16 VR 269
Sentence:Total Effective Sentence of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months’ imprisonment – 301 days pre-sentence detention declared as being served – s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 declaration
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms D. Tang | Mr C. Hyland, Solicitor for Office Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Mandy | Melasecca Kelly Zayler |
HER HONOUR:
1 Carl James Ditchburn, you have pleaded - no, take a seat. You have pleaded guilty to two charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception and one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence; namely, methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty in relation to Charges 1 and 2 is ten years' imprisonment and the maximum penalty for Charge 3 is 15 years' imprisonment.
2 Ms Tang, for the prosecution, opened the matter as follows.
3 She said that you were 26 years of age, born on 10 February 1985 and were aged 24 years at the time of the offending.
4 She said that the basis for the obtaining financial advantage by deception charges were that you had used credit cards which did not belong to you in order to avoid payment of debt and the basis for trafficking was by means of manufacture.
5 It was alleged that on Wednesday 27 January 2010, Victoria Police commenced an investigation into a burglary which occurred at Budget Bin Hire, 258 Lower Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe. On Monday, 1 February 2010, police were advised that three credit cards stolen during this burglary had been used in a series of transactions. It is not alleged that you were involved in the burglary.
6 As a result of enquiries with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and ANZ Bank, as well as various retailers where the credit cards had been recorded as used, police identified you and your defacto partner at that time, Carly Ronan, from closed circuit television footage which had been provided by some retailers.
7
You were identified as being involved with the fraudulent use of the stolen credit cards on 27 occasions over a period of six days, between
26 January 2010and 31 January 2010. The total cost of the deceptions amount to $3,387.58. The particulars of each transaction are detailed in Schedule A on the Indictment and these are said to encompass both Charges 1 and 2. The difference between Charges 1 and 2 is that the owner of the credit card in each case is different.
8 On 5 February 2010, at about 9.55 am, police executed a search warrant under the Crimes Act 1958 on a property at 15 Dakota Drive, Thomastown. They seized items of clothing, being a wig, credit cards and other items relating to the deceptions.
9 Also found at the address were various pieces of equipment and substances that had been used in the manufacture of a drug of dependence, which gives rise to Charge 3.
10 The house was contained and specialist police from the Clandestine Laboratory Squad attended. A subsequent search warrant pursuant to the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 was obtained to enable the processing of the scene by a forensic chemist from the Victoria Police Forensic Science Centre. A total of over eighty exhibits relating to the manufacture of methylamphetamine were seized. These included:
(a) a plastic bag containing .1 gram of methylamphetamine (Item 114);
(b)a strainer with a piece of paper towel containing methorphan and pseudoephedrine in a 34.8 gram substance (Item 105);
(c)a glass baking dish containing methorphan and pseudoephedrine in a 306.8 gram substance (Item 106); and
(d)109 cold and flu tablets (Items 107 to 112).
11 Also found were:
(a)approximately 759.4 grams of a substance containing methylamphetamine found in various bi-layered and decanted liquids and solids;
(b)methorphan and 9 grams of pseudoephedrine in various bi-layered and decanted liquids;
(c)methylated spirits (Items 53 and 102), phosphorus (Items 36, 79 and 92), iodine (Items 65 and 91) as well as phenyl-2-prophanone; and
(d)equipment such as scientific glassware, submersible pump, portable gas stove, funnels and gas cans.
12 Phenyl-2-prophanone can be used as a precursor for the manufacture of methylamphetamine; it can also be a by-product as the result of the manufacture of methylamphetamine. In this case, it does not appear that the prosecution are able to say which of these was the situation in your case and your counsel did not enlighten the Court with such information.
13 The total quantity of pseudoephedrine found was 21.9 grams. Methylamphetamine can be manufactured a number of ways including the use of pseudoephedrine and phosphorus. It was estimated that 8 grams of methylamphetamine could be manufactured using this method.
14 Fingerprints belonging to you were found on nine different exhibits.
15 You were arrested and taken to the Heidelberg Police Station. You were interviewed and answered “no comment” to questions put to you. Your alleged co-offender, your defacto partner at the time, is contesting matters with which she is charged and I was told she was awaiting trial.
16
You were remanded in custody on 5 February 2010. On 10 February 2010, the Adult Parole Board cancelled parole which had been granted in October 2009 in relation to offences for which you were sentenced on 19 February 2009. The sentence lapsed on 21 January 2011 (including serving a sentence for Sheriff’s warrants). You have been in custody for the matters for which I now sentence you since that date. Pre-sentence detention is therefore to be calculated from 5 February to 9 February 2010 and from
22 January 2011to the date of sentence.
17 I was told by the learned prosecutor that your parole was breached, not because of the commission of these offences but, rather, that you failed to report for drug counselling, failed to attend the Office of Corrections when required and due to the fact that you returned a positive drug test whilst on parole.
18 It was conceded by your counsel that the commission of these offences whilst on parole is an aggravating factor.
19 Although the offences comprised in Charge 1, in particular, do not come to a total that is the highest one seen in the Courts, it is of concern that you saw fit to offend on a repeated basis, knowing that you had no entitlement to use the credit card involved. The same goes for Charge 2, although you only managed to defraud to the extent of $150.
20 You also engaged in the dangerous business of manufacturing drugs in a clandestine laboratory. It would appear that this was the home which you shared with your de facto partner and her two young children. The potential to cause harm to the occupants of that household was significant; and notwithstanding this you chose to engage in this conduct, apparently to manufacture for your own use. The Crown reject that the manufacture was for your own use alone, and I will come to that now.
21 In the end, I am unable to deduce the extent of your trafficking in terms of whether it was just for you, or for others as well. I would have thought that it was safe to assume that your drug-dependent girlfriend was someone who was also a candidate at the very least for the methylamphetamine produced. However, I am unable to speculate in this regard. As I have indicated, I will sentence you for the matters to which you have pleaded guilty. In respect of the trafficking charge I sentence you on the basis of the facts alleged and make no finding one way or the other in relation to intended distribution.
22 I do take into account the fact that this manufacture was at the lower end of manufacturing in light of other cases involving such conduct, but this does not mean that this is at the lower end of the offence of trafficking itself. Rather than being a street dealer selling points of a gram, you were engaged in the manufacture of methylamphetamine productive of grams of the substance. In this regard, you had fairly substantial quantities of ingredients associated with the production of methylamphetamine. However, I sentence you on the basis of the methylamphetamine actually produced and the period of trafficking which is alleged to be on one day.
23 You have an extensive criminal history and have breached suspended sentences on a number of occasions and have breached parole previously on two occasions. You have received the benefit of community-based dispositions but have failed to derive any benefit from these apparently. You have an extensive criminal history dating back to 2002. You have numerous convictions for dishonesty offences – principally, burglary and theft – and you have one prior conviction for trafficking methylamphetamine which was dealt with by way of aggregate sentence on 19 February 2009. On that date you were dealt with in relation to numerous offences, including trafficking methylamphetamine, and were sentenced to an aggregate term of 24 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months.
24 Your trafficking on that occasion involved setting up a clandestine laboratory also. On my rough calculation, having taken account of the 149 days reckoned as already served in relation to that sentence, you were released on parole in about September 2009; and so it was approximately five months later that you were discovered by police with yet another clandestine laboratory. Some of the offences in that extensive consolidation for which you were dealt with on 19 February 2009 were dishonesty offences, and yet it was only about four months later that you commenced to use other people’s credit cards in order to commit the offences which are the subject of Charges 1 and 2. For the purposes of Charge 1, I take into account that you did this on a repeated basis over consecutive days, time after time.
25 I was told by your counsel that following this offending you were diagnosed with underlying mental difficulties which he said explains your drug abuse over the years and that there is - and he submitted that there is was causal link between your mental difficulties and your offending on this occasion. A report was tendered on your behalf prepared by Dr King, clinical psychologist, dated 29 July 2011 and 14 September 2011. He interviewed you on 26 July 2011. He said that, having conducted the MMPI Personality and Psychopathology Analysis, this pointed to major mental disorder “as the direction of appropriate diagnostic opinion, with the inescapable interpretation”.
26 According to Dr King, you suffer from psychotic disorder. He said that you have extreme elevations on measures of bizarre thinking and measures of paranoid ideation which, combined with a history of pre-existing difficulties relating back to school days, that you satisfy the criteria for the mental illness classification “emotionally unstable personality disorder” satisfying the criteria for impulsive type.
27 He said that this diagnostic classification runs parallel to the DSM-IV diagnostic grouping of borderline personality disorder. Therefore, according to Dr King, it is indicating that the symptoms of your mental difficulties are bizarre thinking and paranoid ideation. Although he then indicates that your psycho-pathology, to quote him “is sufficiently serious and severe as to significantly mitigate (your) responsibility for the various classes of erratic, stupid and illegal activities (you have) been involved in.”
28 I was unable to see how such symptoms had any causal nexus with your offending on first blush.
29 On the original plea hearing, your counsel ultimately submitted that the principles in R v. Verdins and I will give the citation, that will be read into the sentence, were applicable in your case, such that your moral culpability was lessened by reason of impairment of mental function and that time in prison would be harder for you than for others not so afflicted. It appeared to me that your offending took place in the context of a severe drug addiction which was the cause of your offending, as I say at first blush. Whilst it might well be the case that your drug addiction has come about because of a very sad past, I had some difficulty in finding a causal link between your offending and impairment of mental function. To that end, I ordered that a report be provided by Forensicare in a bid to more thoroughly explore this matter, and as you are aware this report is now to hand.
30 The report was prepared by Dr Dion Gee, Forensic Psychologist, the contents of which I take into account. He found that at the time that he examined you, you were not suffering from any formal thought disorder, and that, although he did not formally assess you in this respect, he found that you appeared to fall in the average range of intellectual functioning.
31 Dr Gee was of the view that you did not currently present with an acute mental illness, and that you were not suffering from any major depressive disorder, acknowledging that you were taking anti-depressant medication when he saw you. He said that you met the diagnostic criteria for Dependent and Anti-social personality disorder with avoidant features. He said that there was little evidence at the time of his assessment of you to support a diagnosis of unstable personality disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder, nor of psychotic disorder. He went on to say that the features which were observed by him at assessment were better accounted for by substance misuse, extended lockdown periods and difficulties managing separation from your partner. This last matter gives me some cause for concern in light of the fact that I was told on your plea that the relationship with your partner, who is also an alleged co-offender, was at an end.
32 Dr Gee said that the psychopathology which you presented with, does appear to have impacted on your behaviour as it has limited your ability to make reasoned, ordered and informed judgements and has set up a situation where you have needed to manufacture drugs or make money to feed your addiction.
33 Today Mr Mandy made further submissions following receipt of this report. He submitted that on any view of things you do have an impairment of mental function which warrants application of the principles in R v. Verdins. Ms Tang submitted that there was a weak causal link between any impairment of mental function and your offending, but that if I was satisfied that there was such a link, that very limited reduction ought result in terms of your moral culpability, and that I ought allow for a very limited reduction in the weight that would otherwise attach to specific and general deterrence.
34 I must say that I am unable to deduce from the two reports that I have just referred to the precise nature of the mental impairment of mental functioning that you are operating under, as the experts appear to be in conflict with each other to some extent. But, on any view of it, it would appear that you were suffering from an impairment of mental function which had some link with your offending in that you were unable to make properly reasoned and informed judgements. I make some allowance for this in terms of your moral culpability, but bear in mind that your severe drug addiction itself would appear to be the driving force in the commission of these offences. Your appalling criminal history and the fact that you have chosen to reoffend, would ordinarily lead to significant weight being placed on specific deterrence. Also, significant weight would ordinarily apply to principle of general deterrence, so that a strong message would be sent to those tempted to behave as you have, that such conduct would be met with appropriate penalty.
35 The significant weight which should attach to both general and specific deterrence is somewhat reduced in your case, although to a limited extent in all of the circumstances.
36 I was told of your very sad background – that you had a recollection of Pentridge Prison as you had visited your stepfather there when you were a child. You have also visited your stepfather and mother in Odyssey House, as they had spent a good deal of time there when you were a child and teenager. They have also suffered the scourge of drug addiction for many years and have committed offences including setting up clandestine laboratories themselves.
37 You were abandoned by your biological father when quite young but went to stay with him for a time when you were aged 11. You had already started to smoke cannabis when you were ten years old, having discovered this buried in the backyard. At 13 you commenced taking heroin and in your mid-teens you commenced taking amphetamine.
38 From the ages 13 years to 18 years, you were in youth training centre every year and as an adult you have served periods in gaol of three months, eight months, 12 months and now it would appear in excess of some 18 months to date.
39 You are a methylamphetamine addict and as a result of your unfortunate upbringing, you developed a knowledge as to how to make this.
40 I was told that when released on parole in relation to the last offences you were required to received drug and alcohol treatment and were referred to North Richmond Health Service which was run by the Office of Corrections. I was told that, surrounded by other people in your situation, who were also drug-addicted, you recommenced substance abuse. I was then told that at that time you resided with your girlfriend who had three children. Your girlfriend was also a drug user and this also impacted on your falling back into drug use.
41 On the original plea hearing plea, I was told that, as at the time of that hearing, you had spent eight months or so in custody for these matters and 12 months before that because of the cancellation of your parole to which I have previously referred. I take into account that you have been incarcerated since 5 February 2010 and, in doing so, I take account of the principle of totality when sentencing you. Of course, I will also make a pre-sentence declaration in terms of the number of days’ gaol you have served pertaining to these matters before me.
42 Mr Mandy submitted that the reason that you were dependent on drugs was because of the appalling history that you have had, and was also a bid by you to self-medicate in respect of your difficulties with mental health issues. This may well be the case, but you are now 26 years old, and whilst there is a danger that you may be institutionalised, I must also take into account that the community must be protected from you and that other sentencing considerations must be given their appropriate weight. In doing so, I am most mindful that you are in need of a sense of hope and it is certainly not my intention to impose a sentence which is crushing. On the other hand, your conduct is deserving of just punishment and must be denounced, in all of the circumstances, one of which is your reduced moral culpability.
43 Mr Mandy also put to me that imprisonment for you would be harder than for someone without your impairment of mental function. Having received the Forensicare report and having considered Dr King’s report, I am prepared to make some allowance for this, although to a limited extent.
44 Mr Mandy submitted to me that when you were released you needed to be supervised intensively and to this end, he submitted that you be released on parole in a measure of months to enable such supervision to commence, and for you to receive the necessary medication and treatment that your newly discovered condition requires. This submission was made on the basis that the diagnosis which Dr King had made was a first for you. Apparently, despite psychological assessment and counselling in the past, these matters were not explored or if explored were not recognised. According to Dr King, your treatment would require medication and a close enduring relationship with a therapist.
45 However, Dr Gee does not appear to agree with Dr King’s diagnosis of you. Although he would also recommend appropriate treatment and counselling, which would assist your mental health and drug addiction. On any view of matters, intensive supervision of you will be required upon your release on parole. It is to be hoped that a confirmed diagnosis regarding underlying mental difficulties can be made and appropriately treated, as well as your severe drug addiction. In that regard I take into account the somewhat more limited facilities which can assist in that regard whilst you are in gaol.
46 Insofar as the length of the non-parole period is concerned, I have borne your Counsel’s submissions in mind, but I must give appropriate weight to all sentencing considerations - not just what is best for you in terms of your rehabilitation.
47 I was initially told that your mother and stepfather would take you in, upon release on parole, but this proposal seemed to change in running. I was told that your stepfather has lived in the community without offending for the last twelve years and that your mother has not offended for some time either. After I expressed some concern about the desirability of these proposed arrangements, and following a brief adjournment, I was then told that your brother, Jessie, who has no prior convictions, would welcome you to stay with him. It would appear that you do have the support of your stepfather and mother, but in light of their background, I do have some concerns about the desirability of too much association with them, I must say. Your natural father has also expressed a wish to come back into your life, although I am unsure as to your attitude towards such a suggestion.
48 I take into account the plea of guilty that you have entered in this matter and the stage at which it was entered. You did choose to run a contested committal hearing, but indicated an intention to plead guilty at a directions hearing in this Court. In the circumstances, you are entitled to a not insignificant discount in the sentence that you would otherwise receive, although not as great as if you had entered pleas of guilty without the need to run contested proceedings at all. By entering pleas of guilty at the directions hearing stage, you have saved the community the time and expense of running a trial and you have saved the witnesses the time and trouble of giving evidence at trial. However, I do not see your pleas of guilty as indicative of remorse, nor am I convinced that you have any insight into your offending. This may be due to the fact that your mental difficulties deprive you of a capacity for remorse and insight, it may also be due to your savage drug addiction or both, but for whatever reason, I am unable to find that you possess these protective factors.
49 No doubt, your severe drug abuse, starting so young, has had a detrimental effect upon your faculties. In this regard, I note that Dr King has found that you do not have any major intellectual difficulty or major brain damage due to the use of amphetamines, although he then points out that amphetamines do have a significant and lasting deleterious effect on the brain.
50 In terms of your prognosis according to Dr King, in the absence of treatment you would continue to behave in an erratic and self-defeating manner with continued bizarre thought patterns concerning other people. He said that a positive outcome is possible following intensive therapy and that this was more readily achievable in your case, as you did not have significant intellectual deficits which would obstruct the benefits of therapy. You have frankly disclosed that you are unlikely to cease your drug taking. Dr Gee found you to be at moderate to high risk of re-offending. Taking on board all of these matters, and having regard to your criminal history, I find that you are at significant risk of further offending.
51 In all the circumstances, unfortunately, I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as rather poor; such prospects are very much dependent upon you successfully responding to treatment for substance abuse and psychiatric/psychological treatment. In all the circumstances, I must give significant weight to the need to protect the community.
52 Your counsel submitted that in light of the principle of totality, your plea of guilty, the circumstances of your offending which he put at the lowest level, and taking into account the weight that I must give to all sentencing considerations, that I ought impose a period of imprisonment that is measured in months, not years. He acknowledged that you had to serve a further period of imprisonment and that this would be something to your benefit in order to put appropriate arrangements in place before your release. He submitted that it would be in your best interests to undergo a sentence which allowed you a significant period whilst on parole to address your psychological/psychiatric and substance abuse issues.
53 Ms Tang pointed out that you had previously had the benefit of community-based orders, youth training centre dispositions and suspended sentences. Despite any of these, you had continued to reoffend; you had breached suspended sentences on a number of occasions and you had also breached parole on two occasions. As Ms Tang pointed out, your most recent breach of parole arose from the fact that you failed to report for drug counselling, failed to attend Corrections when required and had a positive drug test. On the other hand, it might well be said that as at this time, your underlying mental difficulties had not been discovered or explored as they now have been. Although as I have indicated it does not appear that a diagnosis has been confirmed. In this regard, I note that you were willing to have such further exploration attended to without hesitation, notwithstanding that there would be a delay in sentencing you for a period of two months or more.
54
The Crown submitted that a range of between three to four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of between two and two and a half years was appropriate in your case and agreed that for the purposes of sentencing, the trafficking offence was the most serious offence. The learned prosecutor rightfully pointed to the circumstances of you manufacturing methylamphetamine, pointing to the dangers in this regard and the fact that there were two young children and your girlfriend living in the house.
Mr Mandy submitted that the range proffered by the Crown was very high and urged me to be mindful of the photographs which revealed a low level of manufacturing. He referred to the range given as ‘extraordinary’ and said he was unable to provide me with any authorities as to current sentencing practice, as he said that offending such as yours was ordinarily dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court.
55 Ms Tang helpfully provided me with the decision of R v Sebborn [2008] VSCA 200. I have had regard to that decision which involved a clandestine laboratory, where the offender was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment in respect of one count of trafficking where 2 grams of methylamphetamine was produced. I have also had regard to other sentences in relation to the offence of trafficking. In particular I have had regard to the decision of Baensch v R [2010] VSCA 191, in that case whilst the quantities of heroin trafficked were not large, the offending involved distributing to numerous customers, and did not involve manufacturing a drug. However, in that case, the total quantity of heroin trafficked was 8.3 grams.
56 The Court of Appeal held that a sentence of four years in respect of the particular count of trafficking which occurred over a five day period was not manifestly excessive. Like you, the appellant in that case had numerous prior convictions and had re-offended, in his case within a very short time of completing his parole in respect of the same offence. The Court regarded the fact that the appellant was a recidivist offender was a principal matter of real significance. This had been the third time that he had trafficked. In contrast to you, Mr Baensch was running his trafficking operation as a business with a high degree of organisation and played a pivotal role in that business. No Verdins considerations applied to his case. I have also had regard to the table in respect of other trafficking cases involving small quantities of drugs, which was annexed to that decision. I bear in mind the remarks of the Court on that occasion concerning the importance of consistency in sentencing, but also the need to factor in relevant differences between various offenders.
57 I have been somewhat assisted by the range provided by the Crown but in view of the fact that you have been in gaol since February 2010 and matters in mitigation, including the scope of trafficking involved in your case and Verdins considerations, I take the view that the range is not extraordinary, but a little too high.
58 Would you please stand up Mr Ditchburn?
59 I make compensation orders to the ANZ bank in the sum of $3,237.58 and to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in the sum of $150.00. I make the disposal and forfeiture orders sought by the Crown. I understand you do not oppose any of these orders.
60 In the end, I am of the view that in doing justice to all sentencing considerations that apply in your case, the following sentences are appropriate.
61 In relation to all of the charges you are convicted.
62 Charge 1 5 months’ imprisonment
63 Charge 2 1 month’s imprisonment
64 Charge 3 2 years 5 months’ imprisonment
65 I order that 1 month of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively with the sentence on Charge 3 but that otherwise the sentences that I have imposed be served concurrently with each other. This then produces a total effective sentence of 2 years 6 months’ imprisonment. I order that you serve 18 months’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole. In sentencing you I have taken into account the fact that you have been in gaol since 5 February 2010. I declare that in relation to the sentence which I have imposed that you have already served 301 days which will be reckoned as served.
66 If not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 3 years 4 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 27 months’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
67 Are there any further matters counsel?
68 MR MANDY: Your Honour it just occurred to me that the report of Dr Gee might not have been exhibited.
69 HER HONOUR: Yes. I have a copy of that report. Take a seat Mr Ditchburn. Madam Prosecutor do you tender a report? Sorry a copy or the original report?
70 MS TANG: Yes Your Honour.
71 HER HONOUR: In fact it came to the court direct didn't it. So what I'll do is I'll just mark it as an exhibit on the court records.
72 MR MANDY: Thank you Your Honour.
73 MS TANG: As Your Honour pleases.
74 MR MANDY: Otherwise there are no other matters Your Honour.
75 HER HONOUR: Thank you, yes in fact we have the original report, I beg your pardon, so I will mark that as an exhibit.
76 EXHIBIT - Report of Dr Gee.
77 Thank you, yes you may remove the prisoner.
78 MR MANDY: Can I just approach Mr Ditchburn very briefly. I have got a matter in the Supreme Court in ten minutes, I won't be able to see him in the cells.
79 HER HONOUR: All right, just stay there Mr Ditchburn for a moment.
80 MR MANDY: Thank you Your Honour.
81 HER HONOUR: Yes, we'll adjourn, thank you.
- - -
0
2
0