Director of Public Prosecutions v Ford
[2021] VCC 548
•7 May 2021
Correctly
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR 21-00087
Indictment No. L12521595
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JASON FORD |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 May 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 7 May 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ford | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 548 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Between dates cultivation of commercial quantity of cannabis; Theft of electricity; Possess Cannabis. Possess prohibited weapon; 47 year old principal offender. 159 plants weighing 26 kg. Early guilty plea.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr S. Davison | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Nikakis | Haines & Polites Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Jason Ford, you have pleaded guilty earlier this afternoon to one charge of cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis, one charge of theft of electricity and one charge of possession of cannabis. You have also pleaded guilty to a related summary offence of possession of a prohibited weapon.
The prosecution summary correctly sets out the various maximum penalties.
You are 47 years of age and you have a relatively limited history before the courts.
This matter was opened to me earlier today by the prosecutor Mr Davison in accordance with a written summary dated 9 April 2021. Your counsel Mr Nikakis informed the Court that it was an agreed summary.
As is usually the position, there were some photographs contained within the depositional materials which show the nature of this set up as well as the lease document and various invoices.
I will sentence on the basis of that agreed summary and I see no need to set out all of the facts in these my reasons. The agreed summary does that and it will remain on the court file.
So, I will say something only very briefly as to the facts so that anyone reading these sentencing remarks will have at least a broad understanding as to the nature of your crimes.
That agreed summary (Exhibit A), describes the nature of the crop that you were cultivating at your leased residential premises at 47 Middle Park Drive in Point Cook. As you know, a warrant was executed upon the home on 20 October of last year. You were not then present.
As the photographs and the summary disclose, there was a sophisticated hydroponic cannabis set-up with a number of rooms under cultivation as well as a bypass of the power meter, hence the theft charge. There were 159 plants weighing in at a touch over 26 kilograms. Also some bagged cannabis which forms the basis of Charge 3.
This is a quantitative based regime. You had over the commercial quantity by weight, just, and by plant number, comfortably.
Whilst you were not present on the day that the warrant was executed you voluntarily attended by arrangement at the police station some days later and you were interviewed. You made full admissions. The claim that the cultivation was for personal use is not pressed by your counsel. (See para 2 and 3 of the defence submissions). I do not doubt that you used cannabis but the scale of this set up plainly was not purely for personal use. Clearly, it had a commercial setting and that is conceded in your counsel’s written and oral submissions placed before me.
You have been on bail since being charged and you have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
In Mitigation
Mr Nikakis conducted the plea on your behalf. He had prepared a brief written outline of submissions which was marked as Exhibit 1. It was a realistic and sensibly pitched plea. There is no harm in that.
He informed me of your personal and family background. Also of your work history. He made submissions as to your reasons for committing these offences. He relied upon a written reference from Ric Sorrentino.
Mr Nikakis raised a number of matters in mitigation.
They were:
· Your early guilty plea;
· The presence of some remorse;
· Your good prospects of rehabilitation;
· A slightly increased custodial burden arising from the COVID-19 Virus and the current response to the virus by the prison authorities.
The commercial cultivation offence is what is referred to in the Sentencing Act1991 as a ‘Category 2 offence’ and your counsel was not suggesting that there was any basis to avoid prison or to be in a position to consider a combination-type disposition here. That concession was undoubtedly correct and so I will say nothing more about the exceptions to the operation of s.5(2H), as they have no application to my task. Mr Nikakis was conceding the inevitability of a term of imprisonment and one requiring the fixing of a non-parole period.
So, I must send you to prison, there is no doubt about that. It is conceded. The question is for how long?
Prosecution
The Prosecutor Mr Davison had little need to make any lengthy oral sentencing submissions this afternoon. There were some written submissions dated 6 May which had been filed and marked as part of Exhibit A. Those submissions were generally uncontroversial. They focussed on the matters of seriousness in this case. You were after all the Principal here. The prosecutor took me to a case of Brown [2020] VSCA as having at least some comparable features.
The Director of Public Prosecutions was calling for an immediate term of imprisonment and with a non-parole period but of course, Mr Nikakis was conceding the inevitability of such an outcome.
Background
I will turn really only briefly to your background and that is because I have no reason to doubt what I have been told about your family background. I see no need to restate it all in these my reasons.
You were born on 30 July of 1973. You are now 47 years old. You are a single man with no dependents. You were brought up in New South Wales, but moved with your family to Tasmania when you were 14. You have a younger sister. You were educated to the end of Year 10 in Tasmania and took up and ultimately completed a carpentry apprenticeship in 1992. From that point (in 1992), you worked for several builders as a subcontractor until you moved with your family up to Queensland in 1996. Again, I see no need to set out your full employment history. It has obviously been a strong employment record. There is an impressive reference from Mr Sorrentino which I take into account in your favour. He had employed you, including in the period of time when you chose to cultivate cannabis, and he was shocked by this poor choice that you made. It is plain from his reference that you are an excellent and skilful worker. He says your conduct was very much out of character. Your father is still alive and lives up in Queensland. So does your sister.
You have a criminal history of no great relevance to my task. Whilst it is true that there are some matters of relevance in that you have in the past obviously used and even grown cannabis, the criminal record is an old one from very much a different age, with the notable absence of any serious sentencing outcomes. The most serious was a community based order being probation imposed for obtaining benefits and also at one point, a suspended sentence imposed for theft. As I said in the course of discussion with the parties, the criminal history impedes your counsel from saying that you have never been to court but that is about as far as it goes in my view. That criminal history does not inform my task at all other than to show that in the past you have actually never committed very serious criminal offences.
Guilty plea
I will turn now to the handful of matters raised on your behalf, the first of those being your guilty plea. You have pleaded guilty at the earliest stage. So you have taken this early responsibility for these crimes. Witnesses have been spared the experience of coming to court either in the Magistrates’ Court for a committal hearing or up in this court for trial. If follows then that the community has been saved the time, cost and the effort associated with any contested hearing. You have in these ways then facilitated the course of justice. Your guilty plea also took place in the setting of the interrupted operations of the court brought about by the COVID-19 virus. Any trial would have been significantly delayed. I take all these matters into account in mitigation in the ways urged upon me by your counsel. I take into account also the fact that you attended in person upon the police station voluntarily for interview and co-operated and made full admissions. You told them what you had been doing and for how long. So that level of co-operation also has to be rewarded.
Remorse
Your counsel argues that there is at least some remorse here. Impliedly, he is relying upon the fact of the early guilty plea and also the out of character nature of this serious offending.
A guilty plea is often enough indicative of some remorse. That is not always the position. Involving as it did cultivation in a property where you were living, the case against you, of course, was an overwhelming one. That in no way impacts upon the weight that I have given to your guilty plea. That weight is totally unaffected by the strength or otherwise of the case or whether I find that there is remorse present or not. It is just that the strength of the case may have an impact on the inferences available to be drawn from the fact of a guilty plea.
However, ultimately I am prepared to find the presence of some actual remorse in this case. So, I take that into account in your favour as well.
COVID-19
I turn to the aspect of COVID-19. It was not a big matter in the course of the plea. You will recall that I discussed that issue with Mr Nikakis. He does not place any significant weight on COVID-19 and that is owing to the improvements which have been experienced in recent times by prisoners. The COVID-19 virus and the response to it by those running the prisons has undoubtably increased the burden of imprisonment in the past. You have not been in prison and that is just as well as it was especially burdensome over the last year and a bit. Prison has been a more stressful environment. Social distancing has not been easy there. No doubt there has been a worry about catching the virus in such a setting where there really is no level of autonomy. There have been many unpleasant aspects including the 14-day quarantine periods and isolation, the lack of any in-person visits and the absence of the full range of courses. That has been in the past though.
As to what lies ahead, it is very hard for me to know. That uncertainty is probably not that easy for a prisoner and I take that into account. The fact is though, that the impacts of the virus upon the prisoners has been lessening, with visits resumed earlier this year and courses getting back underway. It is obvious we are experiencing ups and downs in this country. The events of the last few months in this State with the circuit-breaker lockdown and the temporary suspension of visits to prisoners shows that whilst we have been travelling very well in the community, it is not that difficult to see how restrictions may yet start up again. There will be some ongoing anxiety amongst prisoners as to how they will fare in the future, I do not doubt that. You are now a prisoner and you will be subject to a 14-day quarantine period which is not an easy start. I take these matters into account, but I cannot know if limitations will start up again and I must not speculate. I do though take into account in the ways contemplated by your counsel, the impact of the virus.
Rehabilitation
I turn now then to your prospects of rehabilitation and I can state my conclusions quite briefly.
Mr Nikakis argues you have good prospects of rehabilitation and he cites the absence of any serious criminal history and the material touching upon your hardworking nature. You have a very good work history and as I have said, it is an excellent reference from Mr Sorrentino.
As against that, I have the nature of this offending. This was serious criminal conduct. It was committed by a mature adult, not by some silly teenager. It involved significant planning and effort. You have made a terrible decision but that is what it was. It was a choice that you made.
You have been arrested, charged and then brought before the courts. You have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and as I have said already, there is some remorse present here. You were very co-operative with the police.
You will have to serve the sentence which I will shortly pronounce and it is your first taste of prison. It will not be easy. Unlike some prisoners, you will not be blessed with family visits and that is because your sister and father are resident up in Queensland. You do at least have some friends who can visit you in custody.
I would be surprised if this whole sorry chapter of your life, that is being charged, then exposed to the criminal justice system and now, to prison for the first time, did not deter you from offending in the future. Of course you need to desist using cannabis.
I actually view your prospects favourably. I believe those prospects are at least good and rising to very good if you can desist from cannabis use in the future.
General remarks
This was serious offending. Mr Nikakis has told you that. The cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis is the most serious of the offences by far. It is punishable by a 25 year maximum term of imprisonment and I must pay regard to the maximum penalty.
It is conceded that you were not a crop sitter or some minor player with little stake in the success of this venture. We as judges see enough of those players. In fact, that sort of offender makes up a large enough proportion of the people brought before this court on indictment for this charge.
Well, this was your venture. You were the Principal, or as Mr Nikakis describes, you were the owner. Given the nature of this set up and all that I see in the photographs and the summary including of course, some of the invoices, you must have had the expectation of making a significant enough amount of money out of this venture. I am satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt.
I am prepared to find that you would have used some of the cannabis yourself but the cultivation that you engaged in is just not consistent with setting out to support your own drug habit. Your use of cannabis is not of any significant mitigation here. It is really only part of the context and it cannot explain your decision to cultivate at this level.
This is a between dates cultivation.
You had many opportunities then to pause for thought and to consider the seriousness of your acts. It was an unmistakably sophisticated set-up with the usual large array of equipment and the obvious, and in this case, documented expenses incurred. You are not able to point to some minimal or fleeting connection to the crop or to being some poorly paid underling taking all the risks and for little reward, as so often is the case in this area. This was your crop and the profit was obviously a sizeable enough part of your motivation.
You were taking a calculated risk and you must have weighed up the pros and the cons and considered those risks. No doubt, you hoped you would not be caught, but you must have known it was a serious crime to do what you did. I am satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt.
Monetary reward of some description is at the heart of virtually every cultivation, even those by lowly crop sitters, which you most certainly were not. Though it is impossible for me to quantify what you hoped to achieve financially, you were in this for sizeable enough monetary reward. There is just no other explanation for this style of offending given the nature of the set-up and the obvious costs in setting up this style of cultivation.
As I have said, there is no suggestion placed before me of any real financial need here. You had a trade. You were working at the time.
So, no evidence of any dire financial situation that might in some way lessen your culpability and explain in some way your decision. Mr Nikakis pointed to the motivation being a mixed one: namely to provide for you own drug use as well as to profit from the exercise. As I have said, your use of drugs is not greatly mitigatory. There is no real reduction in your culpability in this case. In fact, your culpability is actually high given that you and you alone are responsible for all that we see in the photographs.
As I have said in countless other cases over the years, I say now in yours; this crop and its ultimate success has been interrupted by the execution of the warrant by the police on this day in question. This was obviously an elaborate, planned and organised criminal activity. There is nothing spontaneous in your major crime, being the commercial quantity cultivation.
Sentencing always involves the balancing of a number of purposes or principles. One of the purposes relates to your rehabilitation. I cannot ignore that. I view those prospects favourably. As I have said, your crime is deeply out of character.
I must denounce your criminal conduct and I do.
I am required also to punish you justly and proportionately. Punishment is an important purpose in this sort of case.
I must seek to deter you, as well as others, from committing this sort of offence.
As I announced earlier, I believe you have good if not very good prospects of rehabilitation. It follows that in my assessment, you have a relatively low risk of re-offending in this way again. I would be surprised if you did so. For these reasons, I believe it is open to reduce the weight to be given to specific deterrence which is the need to deter you as well as to the need for community protection in this case. If you had a relevant criminal history and had not been deterred by past court orders or if you had less favourable prospects of rehabilitation and a higher risk of re-offending, well of course it would be a very different proposition indeed. In such a setting, more weight would be given to these purposes, but that is not the position here. So, whilst undoubtedly still relevant to my task, I believe that there can be some moderation of the weight to be given to community protection and to specific deterrence in this case. To do otherwise would be to ignore my own conclusions as to your future prospects.
There is however a strong need to give weight to the principle of general deterrence. General deterrence relates to the need to deter other offenders. It is a significant purpose of sentencing in this sort of case. It looms large.
Those who choose to engage in this activity at whatever level are almost always taking a calculated risk, as you were. It is almost always taken on because of the hope of financial gain. Well, people must understand that this is a serious crime and that though there is the potential for financial reward, and maybe it looks like easy money, it really is not. It comes with a real risk. It may not be as easy as it looks. The risk is of detection, prosecution and then the likelihood of the imposition of a significant term of imprisonment.
This court must send that message loud and clear to others in the community who might be minded to commit this sort of serious and prevalent offence. There are plainly enough of those people out there, as is demonstrated by the sheer weight of numbers of people brought before this court for commercial quantity cultivations.
Current sentencing practice
I must and I do take into account current sentencing practices. It is not a single, controlling factor but is one of the matters a court must have regard to. I have looked at the Sentencing Snapshot No. 247 of 2020. The statistics disclose that in the period covered by the data, that is from 2014-15 to 2018-19, where prison was selected, sentences ranged from a period of a little over a month to six and a half years, with the most common sentence falling in the band of two to less than three years.
I have also looked at the material held at the Judicial College of Victoria new sentencing manual which includes an overview of commercial cultivation sentences dealt with in the Court of Appeal (see 7.6.1). Also some recent Court of Appeal cases at 7.6.3. I put aside any of those cases that are dealing with a large commercial quantity as there is a higher maximum penalty in play for that offence. I have looked at the case of Brown [2020] VSCA 60 to which reference was made by the prosecutor. It is not a case on all fours. There is nothing in that case, or any other, dictating a particular outcome in your case.
There have been a large number of cases over the years querying the adequacy of sentencing practices for this crime. The case of Nguyen[1] sets out a number of those cases at paragraphs [139] - [142]. That case spoke of the inadequacy of sentencing practices for this crime when committed at certain levels. The Court of Appeal was critical of the fact that the current sentencing practice had seemingly remained the same, notwithstanding the many occasions that it had actually been questioned in the Court of Appeal. Not just the same but also very narrow with an obvious merging of more serious cases into the lowest band. There is much by way of statement of principle within that case relevant to my task. That case contains statements as to the seriousness of the crime of commercial quantity cultivation of cannabis and the weight to be given to punishment and general deterrence.
[1]Nguyen v The Queen [2016] VSCA 198
Now, that case (Nguyen[2]) was not focussing on low-level players and was more directed at what are described as medium-level cultivators. The Court of Appeal spoke of the compression of sentences that seems to have taken place over the years. That is in fact very much on display in that sentencing snapshot that I have just referred to where a crime punishable by a 25 year maximum period had only two offenders sentenced to greater than six years over the period covered by the statistics. The court spoke of the need for an increase in sentences at least in relation to mid-level players so that the range of sentences are uplifted and substantially expanded. There must then be some caution exhibited when looking at sentences that predate that decision or for that matter, statistical material based on those earlier sentences.
[2] Ibid
On no view of this case could you be described as a low level player. You are not. It is your crop. You set it up.
The Court of Appeal though has spoken often enough as to the danger of applying adjectives or labels to describe a person's role. Those sorts of things can actually obscure a person's conduct. Focussing on the actions and conduct is what is important, not the label that might be applied. As the Court of Appeal said recently in a different case of Nguyen, a decision from 2019:
'A sentencing judge is required to sentence an offender … by reference to all of the facts of the case (including all of those able to be gleaned about the offender's role and involvement) and not by reference to whether the offender can be given some particular appellation'.[3]
[3]Nguyen v The Queen [2019] VSCA 134 at paragraph [59]
This is not one of those cases where there is any need to speculate about what you were doing or to try to draw inferences as to your role or your place within a broader hierarchy. What was it that you were doing in this cultivation? The answer is: Everything. It was your enterprise. That much is conceded. It might even be a misnomer or not in any way useful to then describe you as a ‘Principal’ as that word might be better used to describe the most important person in an organisational structure. Well, I am not dealing with a hierarchy here. There is none that I am aware of. It is you. You were doing what you were doing in the expectation of a sizeable enough financial gain and this was all yours. It was your crop.
Your culpability therefore was high. It can be contrasted with low-level players, even those low-level crop-sitters that I have spoken of, who may be connected up with a much larger criminal hierarchy. People such as that, they take no key decisions. They have no financial stake. They do what they do, often enough for a very small payment and they take on all the risk. That is not what you were doing.
This was your venture. You comfortably fall above the low level players so often brought before this court. I am sure that is so but equally plainly, when I look at the actual crop that I am dealing with, your case is not anywhere near the worst or very worst category.
I have mentioned the sentencing statistics and also some other cases which I have looked at. Statistics have inherent limitations. They will never tell me much of the real story. They are just numbers. When a sentence is imposed, a court is required to take into account a whole range of matters, both of aggravation and mitigation. The sorts of things that I have been going through in these sentencing remarks. Those sorts of things are never disclosed in the bare numbers and the statistics. I am not going to sentence you according to what has been the most common previous sentencing outcome as disclosed in the statistics. I am not going to sentence you based on the median or the average sentence for that matter. They are just statistical terms. Every crime is different and so too is every offender. Nor is the sentence arrived at dependent upon whether a person is badged up as a crop sitter or an owner, or a principal. I have to sentence you for your crime.
I have looked at another case of Nguyen from [2017] VSCA 100.
Other cases, even though they disclose the sentences imposed upon other offenders, they are not precedents for me to follow.
There is no such thing as one correct sentence.
I note in yet another decision of Nguyen[4], from 2019, that sentences of three years and eight months were confirmed in the Court of Appeal in that decision. I note also the statements of that Bench of the Court of Appeal (JJA Priest and Beach) that sentences in that region are entirely unexceptional, even for crop sitters. See paragraph [65]. Well, of course, you were no crop sitter.
[4]Nguyen v The Queen [2019] VSCA 134
It is clear from the many cases in this area that cultivation in a commercial quantity of this drug is a serious and prevalent crime where a term of imprisonment is almost always unavoidable.
As I say, statements of principle are of far greater value than past individual sentencing outcomes.
It is equally clear from the many decisions that general deterrence must be at the forefront of any sentence imposed by the court. It does, in fact, loom large in this, my sentencing exercise.
I have said already, yours was not some low-level venture. You were not some low-level or bit or minor player here. Nor though is it anywhere near the worst category of offending. You are a touch above the commercial quantity by weight.
I am not allowed to make judgments as to the relative harmfulness of the given drug. That is not my role. This is a quantitative based regime. Commercial quantity for cannabis is 25 kilograms or above, or 100 plants. As I have said, you had just over 26 kilograms but made up of over 150 plants of a number of sizes. By plant number you did not just scrape in over the commercial quantity threshold.
The plant number comfortably enough exceeds commercial quantity. Then there is the whole nature of this set-up. As I say, it is a sophisticated and obviously professional arrangement. It must have taken you much time and effort and expense to set it up and you were the person who did that.
You were the person who installed the electrical bypass.
This was serious criminal offending. It was your venture.
I have mentioned the theft of the electricity. It is obviously far less serious. It has a lower maximum term. It is still a sizeable enough and calculated theft. The case law in this area demonstrates that ordinarily there will be some cumulation warranted in relation to the sentences imposed on the theft charge. The other two charges are far less serious and I do not treat the OC spray, the prohibited weapon, as having any sinister connotations or being linked to the cultivation in some sinister way. You just happened to have it.
I have given consideration then to the overall effect of the sentences to be imposed by me. I have engaged in a last look at the overall effect of the sentences in endeavouring to avoid a sentence that might be crushing upon you and to ensure that the overall effect is consistent with your overall actual criminality. Regrettably though, your criminality was high enough in this instance. I must send you to prison, there is no debate about that. I cannot do so in combination with a community corrections order, given that this is a Category 2 offence. Nor, for that matter, would such an outcome even be open absent those provisions.
Disposal
I understand that there is only an application for the disposal order under the provisions of the Confiscations Act relating to the plants and the bypass and bits and pieces.
MR DAVISON: That is correct, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: There is no need for an order in relation to the weapon.
MR DAVISON: No, the weapon is automatic disposal, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Oh I see. There is obviously no issue about the disposal order?
MR NIKAKIS: No, Your Honour. Absolutely not.
HIS HONOUR: There is application made pursuant to the provisions of the Confiscations Act, s.78, for the forfeiture of the plants and Ziploc bags containing the cannabis, the seeds and the electrical bypass. There is no opposition taken to the making of that order. I am satisfied the criteria for the making of that order are made out before me. I have signed the order. I direct that the items referred to in the schedule be held and managed in the way contemplated by the signed order. So I have pronounced it in an abbreviated format.
MR DAVISON: As Your Honour pleases.
Sentence
HIS HONOUR: Well, that brings me then to the sentences that I am going to impose, Mr Ford, so I wonder if you would just be good enough to stand up and I will sentence now, all right?
Charge 1 is the charge of theft of the electricity. On that charge, you are convicted and sentenced to five months' imprisonment.
On Charge 2, which is the between dates charge of cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis, you are convicted and sentenced to 34 months or two years and 10 months' imprisonment. That will be the base sentence.
On Charge 3, which is the possession of cannabis, I convict and sentence you to seven days' imprisonment
On the related summary offence, this relates to the weapon, I do not believe that that charge even warrants a prison term, even though it may well be more convenient for you to receive one.
On that charge, you are convicted and fined $400.
Cumulation
The base sentence then is then the two years and 10 months, or 34 months imposed on the cultivation charge. I direct that two months of the sentence imposed on the theft charge is to be served cumulatively, or on top of, that base sentence. The sentence imposed on the possession of cannabis charge will be served concurrently as against the base and the part cumulative sentence.
Total effective sentence
What this all results in is a total effective sentence of 36 months or three years' imprisonment.
Non-parole period
Given the dimensions of that sentence, I am required as a matter of law to fix a non-parole period. I must not speculate as to whether you will be released on parole. I am prohibited from considering that matter. It has got nothing to do with me and will be entirely in the hands of the Adult Parole Board.
I fix a period of 20 months or one year and eight months, during which you will not be eligible for release on parole.
Section 18 pre-sentence detention
There is no pre-sentence detention to declare in this case.
Section 6AAA
I have taken into account your guilty plea. If you had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty of these offences by a jury, I would have in those circumstances sent you to prison for five years. I would have fixed a non-parole period in that setting of three and a half years and that is to be entered into the records of the court. So you can see there is a sizeable benefit accruing to you by virtue of your early guilty plea. Just grab a seat then for a moment. I will see if there is anything else that I need to do or anything I have omitted. Any matters I need to deal with from your perspective?
MR DAVISON: No, Your Honour, nothing from the prosecution's perspective?
MR NIKAKIS: No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Look, he's going into custody, obviously, Mr Nikakis.
MR NIKAKIS: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Any custody management matters, any sort of issues I need to know?
MR NIKAKIS: Not to my knowledge, Your Honour, no.
HIS HONOUR: All right. You'll go down and see - you'll pop down and see him downstairs, will you and - - -
MR NIKAKIS: Yes I will, yes.
HIS HONOUR: He's a stranger to prison and it's a new experience for him, so you'll walk him through the things he needs to do to try and at least have people on visitor logs and that sort of thing?
MR NIKAKIS: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. Well, look, that completes the matter. I'll sign the formal orders while I'm sitting up here on the Bench actually. I've signed that formal order then. So that completes the matter then. So Mr Ford, Mr Nikakis will come down and have a chat to you downstairs about what's taken place and your rights in relation to it, all right? So, if Mr Ford can be taken downstairs please now, thank you.
MR DAVISON: If Your Honour pleases.
HIS HONOUR: One-thirty on Monday then, thanks.
- - -
0
4
0