Director of Public Prosecutions v Farrell

[2020] VCC 818

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-19-02353

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

TAYLOR FARRELL

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE O'CONNELL
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 May 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 June 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Farrell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 818

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:  Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16; Single, rolled-up charge comprising four instances of penile/vaginal penetration of the victim; Offending occurred over two year period; Victim aged between 12 and 14 years at the time of the offending; Accused aged between 18 and 21 years of age at the time of offending; Presumption of harm to the victim not rebutted; Early plea; Delay; No prior or subsequent convictions; Low risk of re-offending; COVID-19 considerations; Young offender principles militate against general deterrence being given full emphasis; Just punishment; Denunciation.

Legislation Cited:           Sentencing Act 1991; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004.

Cases Cited:Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; Best v The Queen [2019] VSCA 124; R v G [2008] UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92.

Sentence:3 months’ imprisonment in combination with 18 month Community Correction Order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms J. McGarvie	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Offender	Mr R. Lawrence	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

1Taylor Farrell, on 15 May 2020 you pleaded guilty to one charge that at Sunbury and other places in Victoria between 1 April 2012 and 20 June 2014, you took part in acts of sexual penetration with the victim, who I shall refer to as Melissa McCallum[1] for the purpose of these sentencing remarks, who at that time was a child under the age of 16.  The charge is rolled-up to comprise four instances of penile/vaginal penetration of the victim.

[1] A pseudonym.

2Ms McGarvie, who appeared on behalf of the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, tendered and read to the court a prosecution opening for plea[2] which set out the circumstances of your offending.  Mr Lawrence, who appeared on your behalf, accepted the accuracy of that opening and it will form the factual basis for sentence.

[2] Exhibit A.

3Relying on that opening, your offending can be summarised as follows.

Circumstances of offending

4In the earlier part of 2012, you were 18 years of age and were about to turn 19 in April.  Melissa McCallum was 12 years of age, having been born in 1999, and was in Year 7 at school. You were then a gymnastics student at Gymnastics Unlimited in Kealba.  You also coached students at that gym. Ms McCallum's brother, Louis McCallum[3], was in the same gymnastics class as you, and those classes were held three or four times a week.  David Harris[4] was the coach of that class.

[3] A pseudonym.

[4] A pseudonym.

5Sometimes, Ms McCallum would accompany her brother to gymnastics classes and it was in this way that you met her.  You formed a relationship and would often communicate with her through Facebook Messenger.  You were aware of the victim's age – indeed it was displayed on her Facebook profile.

6On one occasion in early 2012, you picked up the complainant from her home at around 10pm at night.  She had snuck out from her home without her parents knowledge.  You drove the complainant to a nearby park, where you talked for some time.  In her statement to police, Ms McCallum described how you paid her compliments, such as suggesting that she had 'good assets' and that she was pretty. 

7Thereafter, a pattern developed where you would pick Ms McCallum up late at night from her home – perhaps several times a week – and you would take her to your house to spend some time together.  Usually you would both watch television in your bedroom and cuddle on the bed.  On one occasion when you were taking Ms McCallum to your house you told her, 'If anyone in the house asks how old you are tell them you are 16'.  Ms McCallum agreed.

8A housemate of yours told investigators that he recalled having a conversation with you about the victim.  He stated that you told him that you were aware Ms McCallum was only around 13 years of age.

9On one occasion, Louis McCallum heard Ms McCallum sneaking out of the house and asked her what she was doing.  She told him that she was meeting you.

10Ms McCallum told investigators that towards the end of April 2012, she snuck out of the house on a school night and you picked her up and took her back to your house in Sunbury.  You watched television together and you asked her whether she wanted to have a shower with you.  She declined, and you showered alone, but returned shortly after only wearing a towel.  You then sat next to Ms McCallum and started kissing her.  You removed the towel, took the victim's clothes off and moved your hand down to her vagina and digitally penetrated her.  That act was not the subject of a charge.  Ms McCallum said she felt uncomfortable when this occurred.

11You then kissed the victim's chest and breasts, continuing kissing her down to her stomach, towards her vagina.  You then licked the exterior of her vagina and then penetrated her vagina with your tongue.  That act was also not charged.

12You then said to Ms McCallum, 'Let me know if it hurts', and inserted your penis into her vagina.  That act constitutes the first instance of penile/vaginal penetration comprising the charge on the Indictment.  Ms McCallum felt uncomfortable, and after some time you asked her if she wanted you to put a condom on.  She said she did and once you did so you continued to penetrate her, eventually ejaculating into the condom.  You then got off the victim and went into the bathroom whilst she dressed.  When you came out of the bathroom you watched some TV but did not have any further conversation.  You drove her home at about 3am that morning.

13Following that incident, you would meet with Ms McCallum up to two to three times a week and engaged in the same kind of routine.  You would typically pick her up at about 10.30pm or 11pm and drive her back to your house, where you would watch television, and take her home at around 2am or 3am. You would have penile/vaginal sex about once a week.

14On some of these late night occasions you took her to the Gymnastics Unlimited studio.  As an instructor you had a key to those premises.  In her statement to police, Ms McCallum described an occasion where she recalled having penile/vaginal sex with you in the foam pit at the gymnastics studio when she was 13 or 14.  That act constitutes the second instance of penile/vaginal penetration comprising the charge on the Indictment.

15Ms McCallum also told police that she engaged in penile/vaginal sex and oral sex on a number of occasions with you in your car.  That conduct is not the subject of a specific charge.

16On another occasion you had penile/vaginal sex with Ms McCallum in your car at a lookout in Sunbury.  That act constitutes the third instance of penile/vaginal penetration comprising the charge on the Indictment.

17Ms McCallum also recalled another specific occasion where you engaged in penile/vaginal sex with her in the carpark at Sunbury Park.  That act constitutes the fourth instance of penile/vaginal penetration comprising the charge on the Indictment.

18On Ms McCallum's 13th birthday, she recalls that she told a friend that she was having sex with you.  More recently, at her brother's 18th birthday, she told her brother and David Harris that she had ‘lost her virginity' to you when she was 12.  Because of your position as a gymnastics coach, Mr Harris felt obliged to report the matter to Gymnastics Victoria, which in turn resulted in the matter being reported to police.

19You were arrested and interviewed in respect of this matter on 19 November 2018.  Initially, you denied knowing Ms McCallum or her brother Louis McCallum, however after the interview was suspended and recommenced you admitted to knowing Ms McCallum.  You maintained that you did not have any sexual relationship with her.  You also denied knowing that she was aged 12 when you first met her.  You said that you thought she was at least 15 years old when you first met her.  You did admit to picking the victim up from her house on a number of occasions, late at night, but you stated your relationship was never sexual and purely one of friendship.

Victim impact

20Turning to the impact that this offence has had on Ms McCallum.  Ms McCallum did not provide a victim impact statement.  On the plea there was some discussion as to whether or not the presumption of harm to child victims of sexual offending might be rebutted in the circumstances of this case.  In that context, I was referred to the complainant's first statement of 7 November 2018.  She was 19 years of age when she made that statement.  She describes telling her friend about having sex with you on her 13th birthday.  She stated:

I needed to tell someone because I felt shit about doing it.  It was strange because every time I had sex with Taylor I felt disgusted and felt shit within myself.  It was a hard year for me, I was struggling being that age, I always wanted to do well at school and with my riding, I put a lot of pressure on myself.

21Ms McCallum concludes her statement with the following comments:

I see now as a 19 year old what Taylor did to me was wrong.  I knew it was wrong at the time.  It felt wrong and I felt shit about myself after it happened every time.  I was conflicted because he was my friend.  I realise looking back at how young I looked in photographs of myself at 12.

22For reasons I will explain shortly, I am not at all satisfied that the presumption of harm has been rebutted in this case.

Procedural history

23Turning to the procedural history in this matter.  You were arrested and interviewed on 19 November 2018, however you were not charged until 13 May 2019.  The matter proceeded to a contested committal on 26 November 2019 but resolved on that day without cross-examination after you indicated that you would plead guilty. The plea hearing proceeded on 15 May 2020.

24The Crown accepted that the entry of your plea of guilty was at an early stage and you will be sentenced on that basis.  Also arising out of that procedural history is the fact that there has been an 18 month or so delay before the finalisation of this case, and I note from the materials tendered on your behalf that the anxiety you experienced awaiting the outcome of this hearing has had a punitive effect.

Personal history

25Turning to your personal history.  You were born on 5 April 1993 and are now 27 years of age.  You were between 18 and 21 years of age during the timeframe of the Indictment.  You have no prior or subsequent convictions.

26You grew up in Meadow Heights and the Sunbury area.  Your father worked as a data analyst and your mother is now a school administration officer.  You have one sister who is four and a half years older than you.

27Both your mother and your older sister provided very helpful personal references in support of you on your plea.  Your mother describes an incident occurring when you were 10 years of age when your father punched your sister with a closed fist whilst she was seated in the back of your car.  Your parents’ marriage, which had been strained for some time, ended at that point.  You remained living with your mother whilst you initially spent alternate weekends with your father.  Your mother states:

Unfortunately Taylor was exposed to, and in the middle of, a messy breakdown of his parents relationship which was very damaging to him emotionally.

28You attended three primary schools and completed Year 7 to 10 at Sunbury Secondary College.  Your schooling was problematic.  It was thought that you might have some cognitive deficits and underwent assessment at the Royal Children's Hospital.  You were found not to have an intellectual disability and the tentative diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder was given.  There was also a suggestion that you may have had an autism spectrum disorder, but that is dismissed by your assessing psychologist, Mr Stephen Gault.

29At times you refused to go to school and you were bullied, both physically and verbally, and therefore found it very difficult to make friends.  Because you were disliked by your male peers, you tended to make friends with girls so as not to be alone and to keep out of trouble.  You had some dyslexia, struggled with school work and engaged in truancy.  You did not like school and left after completing Year 10.  You then enrolled in a TAFE course in building computers.  You struggled with the theory component of the course and did not pass.

30The one constant in your life, until this offending was disclosed, was gymnastics which you had been involved in since the age of five.  You trained two or three times a week and clearly must have been very talented.  By the age of 16, in 2009, you became a certified gymnastics coach.  At 19, you were coaching six days a week at different gymnasiums.

31Your mother describes moving from her residence where you were living in August 2011 and living on the other side of Melbourne.  You were 18 at the time and because of your gymnastics work in the area you decided to move in with your father.  That relationship quickly deteriorated and you then began living temporarily with friends.  It was at about this time that the offending occurred.

32Your sister describes you, at this time, in the following terms:

Taylor has always been very immature for his age, and at the age of 18 to 21 he presented as a much younger teenager in the way he would speak and behave.

33Your coaching licence was suspended when this matter came to light and you found some work in door to door sales of solar panels and at a call centre.  More recently you have been unemployed.

34You were assessed for the purposes of your plea by Mr Stephen Gault, a clinical psychologist, who provided a report of 24 March 2020.

35As part of his examination of your history, he notes that there has been some heavy alcohol use and abuse of hallucinogens over recent months, albeit there is no connection between substance abuse and this offending.  He also notes that you have had mental health problems.  In particular, you were admitted to hospital in 2017 after an overdose of opioid medication.  This occurred in the setting of being suspended from Gymnastics Victoria for a period of time for a matter which was not substantiated and having your car wrecked by a drunk driver.  You were discharged after several days.

36Importantly, you have been attending on a treating psychologist,
Mr Jerry Wang, since November 2019.  You have seen him on 14 separate occasions in respect of ongoing management of depression and anxiety, for which you have been engaging in cognitive behavioural therapy and taking antidepressants.

37Mr Gault documents a history of age appropriate relationships and there appears to be no suggestion you have a paedophilic sexual orientation.  He states:

I base this judgment on his relationship history with age appropriate women in the absence of past convictions for paedophilia, or other sexually deviant behaviour.  I would characterise Mr Farrell's offending against the complainant as opportunistic rather than being driven by an underlying, unstable predisposition to legally prohibited sexual behaviour.  Mr Farrell had an established connection with the complainant as a result of his association with her brother through gymnastics and he took advantage of that connection.

38I have previously noted that in your record of interview with police you denied any sexual relationship with the complainant.  When you saw Mr Gault on
15 March 2020, you continued to deny that there had been any sexual relationship with Ms McCallum.  He states:

Mr Farrell admitted that he was seeing the complainant late at night, without her parents knowledge, but denied they had a sexual relationship.  He said, "I didn't have sex with her, I didn't sleep with her".  He said that it was the complainant that wanted their meetings to remain a secret from her parents.  He said, "I shouldn't have seen her, I shouldn't have taken her out.  I was an idiot".  When asked why he did it he said, "I was lonely".

39Despite that continuing denial, the psychologist assessed you as being a low risk of re-offending.  Finally, Mr Gault does suggest that you have a propensity to self-harm and that if you receive a custodial sentence you may become depressed and require treatment.

Defence submissions

40Turning to the submissions made on your behalf.  Mr Lawrence relied on a number of matters in mitigation, including the fact that you were a young offender at the time of the commission of this offence.  You were relatively immature, you had no previous or subsequent convictions, you pleaded guilty at what is accepted as an early stage of the proceedings, and that there was little or no evidence that the victim had suffered, or was likely to suffer from the offending.

41It was said the age difference in this case was relatively small – six years and two months.  The relationship began as a friendship.  The victim's description of the relationship suggested genuine affection between the both of you and there was no abuse of trust.  It was submitted that you did not take advantage of the victim.

42The sentencing principles, it was submitted, relating to young offenders were not directly applicable to you but remained relevant because of your age at the time of the offences.  It was submitted that there should be greater emphasis on rehabilitation and that general deterrence should be moderated to some extent.  There was no need to emphasise specific deterrence.  The sentencing considerations relevant to the COVID-19 crisis were certainly relevant and apposite in your case.  In all these circumstances, the imposition of a Community Correction Order (‘CCO’) alone, it was submitted, would adequately address the competing sentencing purposes.

Prosecution submissions

43In response, the prosecutor emphasised that this charge comprised four instances of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 and that the first instance occurred when the victim was 12 years of age.  There was no evidence led to rebut the presumption of harm and this was not an exceptional case of the kind referred to in Clarkson v The Queen[5].  The age gap was not as large as might be seen in other cases but it was certainly significant, as was the period of time over which the instances of sexual penetration occurred. 

[5](2011) 32 VR 361, (‘Clarkson’).

44It was also suggested that you had groomed the victim by paying her compliments in the early stages of the relationship and that there was some element of aggravation because a condom had not been used at the start of the first instance of sexual penetration. 

45It was submitted that you were well aware that the complainant was 12 years of age and you clearly understood that what you were doing was wrong.  Despite your young age at the time of the offending, it was submitted that the protection of children required emphasis on general deterrence and denunciation.  It was therefore submitted that a CCO – either alone or in combination with a term of imprisonment – was 'wholly outside the range of available sentences open to the court and a term of imprisonment should be imposed'.

Consideration

46In considering these submissions, I have reviewed the reasons for decision in Clarkson, and also in Best v The Queen[6].  In Clarkson, it was said that the sentencing court should examine the nature and gravity of the offence and the offender's culpability by reference to at least the following matters:

a)the relative ages of the offender and the victim;

b)whether the offender was in a position of trust or authority with respect to the victim which facilitated the commission of the offence;

c)the situation of the victim and the degree to which she/he was taken advantage of; and

d)what the evidence shows about harm already suffered or likely to be suffered.[7]

[6][2019] VSCA 124, (‘Best’).

[7] Ibid n 2, at [42].

47Here, the age disparity is six years and two months.  I accept the prosecutor's submission that that is a significant disparity.  It is somewhat more than the examples of the more exceptional cases given in Clarkson.  Moreover, it seems to me that it is not the age difference per se which is significant, rather it is the very young age of the victim – that is, 12 years of age initially – taken together with that difference.  Relevantly, the complainant describes herself as being young for someone in year 7 at the time of the first act of sexual penetration. 

48On the other hand, although your chronological age was just on 19, it is apparent from your sister's description, which I accept, that you presented as a much younger teenager in the way that you spoke and behaved and that you were quite immature.  Your experiences as a child also meant that you tended to be more comfortable in the presence of girls rather than male peers.

49In that context, the way in which you formed this relationship with the complainant is more understandable.  It was not, and could not be suggested, that you used the position of trust or authority in order to gain access to the victim and exploit her – quite the contrary.  Ms McCallum described casually chatting 'about stuff' with you whilst watching her brother at gymnastics and developing a friendship in an apparently genuine way.  She made her statement as a young adult and from that perspective she still described you as a friend.

50It follows that this was not the sort of predatory behaviour that this court sometimes sees in this context.  There is no evidence, I should add, of pressure or manipulation.  The prosecution submission that you engaged in grooming seems to me to be misplaced.

51Although it is aggravating not to have used a condom initially during the first instance of sexual activity, that was remedied at your suggestion within a short time and should not, in my view, weigh too heavily in the sentencing calculus.  Nevertheless, you were well aware as the relationship developed that engaging in sexual activity with her was unequivocally wrong.  You told Ms McCallum that if anyone asked her at your house how old she was she was to say that she was 16. 

52The four instances of sexual penetration span a period of two and a quarter years, when she was between the ages of 12 and 14, and you understood that you were committing this offence right throughout.

53In Clarkson, reference was made to the House of Lords decision in R v G[8], in which Baroness Hale spoke of the policy reasons behind the prohibition of this sort of conduct.  Her Lordship stated:

Penetrative sex is the most serious form of sexual activity, from which children under 13 (who may well not yet have reached puberty) deserve to be protected whether they like it or not.

…

… anyone who has practiced in the family courts is only too well aware of the long-term and serious harm, both physical and psychological, which premature sexual activity can do.[9]

[8] [2008] UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, (‘G’).

[9] Ibid, at [49].

54These considerations gave rise to the presumption of harm and the five member Bench in Clarkson went on to examine how that presumption might be rebutted:

On ordinary principles it is open to an offender to seek to demonstrate, to the requisite standard of proof, that the sexual activity in question did not have (or is unlikely to have) the harmful impact on the victim which the law presumes it to have.  Put another way, it is open to an offender to lead evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of harm.  To the extent that such a submission relied on the consensual nature of the sexual activity, the court would draw on its assessment of the circumstances in which the consent came to be given, in particular the age difference between the offender and the victim, the nature of the relationship between them, and the circumstances in which the sexual activity was initiated.

We think it is likely that such an attempt at rebutting the presumption would succeed only in very limited circumstances.  For obvious reasons, a statement from the child victim would be unlikely to satisfy the court that no harm had been caused or that there would be no long-term consequences.  Independent expert evidence to that effect would ordinarily be essential.  Moreover, it would only be in a very clear case that such evidence would warrant a material reduction in sentence.  The task of a sentencing court is difficult enough without having to deal with gradations of harm to a child victim, particularly when much of the assessment of harm involves predicting long-term consequences.[10]

[10] Ibid n 2, at [52] and [53].

55Suffice to say, there is nothing about this case which in my view displaces that presumption.  On the contrary, the parts of Ms McCallum's statement which I have extracted when referring to the impact of your offending, make it clear, in my view, that as might be expected, your offending has been harmful.

56There are some matters personal to you which very much tell in your favour. The lack of previous convictions and the fact that you have not offended since the commission of these offences, a period of six years, is significant.  Even though you had quite a number of problems as you were growing up, you retain the support of your mother and sister and you have voluntarily sought assistance for your mental health problems.  You do not appear to suffer from any particular sexual disorder that might pre-dispose you to further offending and in that sense your prospects for rehabilitation appear to be quite good.

57It is of some concern that you denied these offences to the police and continued to deny them at the time of your psychological assessment.  Nonetheless, I am prepared to accept that your risk of re-offending, as the psychologist found it to be, is low.

58Beyond that, you have pleaded guilty and the sentence I will impose in respect of this matter will be substantially reduced because of that plea.  The victim of these offences was never cross-examined and your plea has saved the costs and resources that would have been necessary if the matter had proceeded to trial.  I will also take into account the delay in the finalisation of this matter and the sentencing considerations relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic.

59In addition, Mr Lawrence's submission, that whilst you were no longer a young offender, the principles applicable to young offenders remain relevant because you were between the ages of 18 and 21 when you committed this offence, is well-made.  Even though you are now 27, those principles I think still militate against full emphasis on general deterrence.

60Whilst this case does not fit into that exceptional case category, involving two young persons of roughly comparable age, when regard is had to your age and level of maturity at the time of the offending, it seems to me that there should be some reasonable attenuation of the other punitive sentencing purposes.  For those reasons, I am not persuaded of the Crown's submission that a term of imprisonment in combination with a CCO is 'wholly outside the range of available sentences open'.

61That said, the fact that the victim was so young – that is, 12 years of age at the beginning of this offending – and the fact that the presumption of harm is not rebutted, means that general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation still have a role to play.  I am not satisfied that those sentencing purposes could be sufficiently served by a CCO alone.  Consistent with the principle of parsimony, I will therefore impose the shortest term of imprisonment that, in my view, does adequately achieve those purposes in combination with a CCO.

Sentence

62On the one charge of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16, you will be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months.  In combination with that order, you will be required to complete a CCO for a period of 18 months and the conditions that I propose with respect to that order relate to alcohol and drug assessment and treatment and that you undertake programs deemed suitable by the Office of Corrections directed to reducing the risk of recidivism.

63I will make a declaration under s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘the Act’) that but for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 21 months with a non-parole period of 15 months.

64Counsel, you have heard what I propose with respect to the CCO – that is, one of 18 months.  I may not have made the conditions I propose clear; that I want there to be drug treatment and assessment, alcohol treatment and assessment, programs to reduce offending and also supervision, and that the period of the order be 18 months.

65First of all I'll hear from you, Mr Lawrence, as to whether or not you wish to make any submissions about that?

66MR LAWRENCE:  No, Your Honour.

67HIS HONOUR:  Can I say to you, by way of explanation, that I do not suggest for a moment that there's any causal connection between your client's substance abuse problems, as they've been identified by the psychologist, and the offending, but given the nature of those problems as your client described them to the psychologist it seemed to me both protective and appropriate to have conditions of that kind in the order as well.

68MR LAWRENCE:  Yes, Your Honour.

69HIS HONOUR:  Ms McGarvie, did you want to make any submissions with respect to the form of the proposed community correction order?

70MS McGARVIE:  No, Your Honour.

71HIS HONOUR:  Yes, very well.  I will note in the records of the court that Mr Farrell is now required to adhere to the obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (SORA) for a period of 15 years by reason of his conviction in respect of this matter.  Is there anything else, Ms McGarvie?

72MS McGARVIE:  No, Your Honour.

73Mr Farrell, would you mind just standing for one moment?  You will be asked to sign a document in a moment and I just need you to understand one thing about it.  It is a document that sets out the conditions of your CCO.  The order is dependent upon you consenting to it – that is, agreeing to undertake its conditions – and essentially the core conditions are that you do not commit an offence whilst you are subject to the order and that you comply with the directions of the officers from Corrections that are tasked with supervising the order.  You are not allowed to leave the state unless you get permission and you should advise the Corrections office if you change your job.

74In addition, the special conditions that I have made in the order are that you be subject to supervision, that you undertake assessment for alcohol and drug abuse and that you participate in any courses that are directed to you avoiding offending of this kind in the future.

75Now, it is important that you understand that in agreeing to do this that you have to comply, and if you do not comply that you would be brought back before me and re-sentenced in relation to this, and if you are to be re-sentenced then you would be at risk of being sent back to prison for quite a considerable period of time.  Do you follow all of that?  And in light of that are you willing to agree to undertake such an order?

76OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

77HIS HONOUR:  Yes, very well.  I'll hand this down for signature.  The documents will be provided to you, Mr Lawrence.  If you wouldn't mind facilitating it?  There's two; there's the CCO but there's also the declaration with respect to the SORA legislation.

78MR LAWRENCE:  Yes, Your Honour.

79HIS HONOUR:  Mr Lawrence, I've made some comments in my sentencing remarks that go to the issue of custody management.  In your view is there anything else I should say in that respect?

80MR LAWRENCE:  No, Your Honour.  My understanding, unless this has changed since the plea, is that Mr Farrell is not currently taking any medication, and other than the anxiety and depression, Your Honour, I don't think there's any matters that need to be noted.

81HIS HONOUR:  Very well, all right.  Ms McGarvie, there's nothing else that you need to raise?

82MS McGARVIE:  No, Your Honour.

83HIS HONOUR:  Very well.  I wonder if the officers - if it's possible for Mr Farrell to remain in the dock for a short time after I leave the Bench so that counsel may speak to him?

84VOICE (from body of the court):  Yes, Your Honour.

85MR LAWRENCE:  Thank you.

86HIS HONOUR:  Thank you very much.

---