Director of Public Prosecutions v Freeman (Ruling)
[2021] VCC 1049
•14 July 2021 (ex tempore)
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT SHEPPARTON CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| GENERAL LIST |
Case No. CR-20-00586
Indictment No. K10178488
IN THE MATTER of an Application under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic)
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | |
| v | |
| RODNEY DAVID FREEMAN | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE MORRISH | |
WHERE HELD: | Shepparton | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 July 2021 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 14 July 2021 (ex tempore) | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Freeman (Ruling) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1049 | |
RULING
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: One charge of arson – mental impairment – s21(4) Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 – trial by judge alone – direct a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958, s197(1), s197(6); Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic), s20, s21(4)
Ruling: Defence of mental impairment established. Accused not guilty of the crime of arson as contained in the indictment because of mental impairment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr M Wilson | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr Z Menon | Victoria Legal Aid |
HER HONOUR:
1The accused, Rodney David Freeman, is before me today, having been arraigned on Indictment No. K10178488 on a charge of arson. The Director of Public Prosecutions charged that the accused, Rodney David Freeman, at Numurkah in Victoria on 4 July 2018, intentionally and without lawful excuse destroyed by fire a shed and the contents of the said shed described in Schedule A attached to the Indictment, that property belonging to Russell Blake.
2The charge is brought as a charge of arson contrary to s197(1) and s197(6) of the Crimes Act 1958.
3When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment. This matter was listed before me under s21(4) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic), which provides:
“If a person is charged with an indictable offence and, before the empanelment of a jury, the prosecution and the defence agree that the proposed evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment, the trial judge may hear the evidence and—
(a) if the trial judge is satisfied that the evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment, may direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded; or
(b) if the trial judge is not so satisfied, must direct that the person be tried by a jury.”
4On the material that was filed with the Court, there was an earlier suggestion whether or not the accused was even fit to stand trial and as a preliminary question, I have satisfied myself that no current issue arises in relation to the accused’s fitness to stand trial, the Court having read the various reports, but, in particular, Exhibit A, a report of Dr de Alwis, psychiatrist, dated 6 July 2021 and all of the updating material, and is satisfied that no question as to current fitness to stand trial is raised.
5The parties confirmed individually that they did not see any issue as to fitness to stand trial and under my own obligation, I am also now satisfied that no such issue is raised on the extensive material before me. As a result, the matter then proceeded.
6The learned Prosecutor, Mr Wilson, made a comprehensive opening, identifying all of the evidence both as to the commission of the physical acts constituting the offence of arson, as well as all of the psychiatric material upon which both parties rely.
7The Prosecution Summary of Opening was tendered as Exhibit B, and rather than go through all of that evidence again, annexed to these ex tempore reasons is Exhibit B, standing as Attachment A, namely the Prosecution Summary of Opening.
8Mr Menon, who appeared on behalf of the accused, accepted that all of the material set out in the Prosecution Opening, Exhibit B, was accurate and there is no challenge to any part of that evidence.
9Mr Wilson spent some time reading through the entire document and as he read through that document, tendered all of the primary documents to which he referred in the written opening, namely: Exhibit C, the report of Dr Fiona Best, forensic psychiatrist, dated 14 November 2019; Exhibit D, the report of Dr Rose Clarkson, consultant psychiatrist, dated 9 March 2021, and Exhibit E, the second report of Dr Fiona Best dated 26 April 2021. Of course, I have referred to the updated report prepared by Dr de Alwis dated 6 July 2021, tendered as Exhibit A. In addition, Mr Wilson tendered the depositions, which contain the primary statements of complaint, as well as the record of interview referred to in the Prosecution Opening.
10The question that the Court has to determine arises under s20 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act, which I shall now refer to simply as “the Act”). Section 20 provides the defence of mental impairment, and states:
“(1) The defence of mental impairment is established for a person charged with an offence if, at the time of engaging in conduct constituting the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that—
(a) he or she did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b) he or she did not know that the conduct was wrong (that is, he or she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong).”
11Subsection (2) provides:
“If the defence of mental impairment is established, the person must be found not guilty because of mental impairment.”
12The parties agree that ss(1)(a) does not apply but both parties rely on ss(1)(b) of the Act, namely, asserting that the evidence establishes that the accused did not know that the conduct was wrong; that is, he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.
13Having read through the evidence and been taken to the relevant passages highlighted in the Summary of Prosecution Opening, I agree with both counsel. The defence of mental impairment is established on the medical evidence before the Court, in particular, the most recent report of Dr Best, Exhibit E, paragraph 5, page 9, makes it clear that the accused did not know that the conduct was wrong, in that he was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.
14I do not see it necessary to reread the relevant passages of the exhibits that say that this is so. Counsel agree that it is so. There is no contest in that evidence.15I am therefore satisfied that the defence of mental impairment is established and I find Mr Freeman not guilty of the crime of arson as contained in the Indictment because of mental impairment.
IN THE MATTER OF Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
-v-
RODNEY DAVID FREEMAN
SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION OPENING
| Date of document: | 29 August 2020 |
| Filed and served on behalf of: | Director of Public Prosecutions |
| Prepared by: ABBEY HOGAN 565 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 | Deborah Mandie Solicitor’s code: 7539 Telephone: (03) 9603 7666 Direct: 9603 7813 File No: 1901298 |
Introduction
1. This matter concerns offending alleged to have occurred in Numurkah, Victoria on 4 July 2018, involving the intentional lighting of a fire by Rodney David FREEMAN (the accused) in the shed at a neighbouring property, causing extensive damage to the structure and its contents.
2. At the time of the offending, the accused was aged 41 years old (DOB 29 September 1976) and resided at 3 Harbison Avenue, Numurkah (3 Harbison Ave).
3. The alleged offence occurred at a neighbouring property, at 2 Thornton Street, Numurkah (2 Thornton St), which was to the rear of 1 Harbison Avenue, next door to the accused’s residence.
1
4. The accused is charged with one charge of Arson (contrary to ss.197(1) and (6) of the
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)), on Indictment No K10178488 (the indictment).
5. The owner of the shed (and its contents) and resident at the neighbouring property at 2 Thornton street was Russell Norman BLAKE (the victim). He is a retired gentleman and father to another resident at this address, his son Peter Duncan BLAKE. The victim was not at the property at the time of the offence. His son Peter BLAKE was in the house sleeping.
6. The property damage (to the shed and its contents1) caused by the fire comes to a total of $172,595.94.
The offending
7. On 4 July 2018, at 11.30 am, the victim Russel BLAKE left his home at 2 Thornton Street to walk his dog. His son had finished night shift at the cheese factory where he worked and was asleep in the house at this address.2
8. Around midday, police received reports of a male seen out the front of 3 Harbison Avenue, setting fire to his lawn mower. Numurkah police members, Senior Constable CONNOR and DUGGAN attended at this address, along with CFA personnel also from Numurkah.
9. Upon their arrival, the lawn-mower was in driveway at 3 Harbison Avenue, with paint on the fence, and on the lawn-mower. It appeared to police that the mower had been set on fire with paint and some type of fabric which lay on the grass and on the mower. The lawn-mower fire had already been extinguished by the CFA.3
10. Police then entered the premises at 3 Harbison Avenue and called out for the occupant, who they had received information was Rodney FREEMAN, the accused.4
1 See Schedule A to the indictment – ‘List of Shed Contents Destroyed by Fire’
2 Russell BLAKE, depositions 15; Peter BLAKE, depositions 11
3 SC CONNOR, depositions 35
4 SC CONNOR, depositions 35
2
11. Upon entering 3 Harbison Avenue, Senior Constable CONNOR observed a smashed television set and other electrical devices that had been damaged throughout the house. Police were unable to locate the accused at this stage.
12. Upon exiting the property, police observed smoke coming from an incinerator at the immediately neighbouring property, 1 Harbison Avenue, Numurkah. Police gained access to that property via a gap in the fence between 2 and 3 Harbison Avenue, where a panel of the fence appeared to have been knocked down and was lying on the ground.5 However, police determined that the incinerator fire was of no concern.
13. Police then observed thick black smoke coming from a property at the rear 1 Harbison Avenue, close to where the incinerator was and determined it was coming from a shed or garage at the rear neighbouring property at 2 Thornton Street.6
14. The CFA were then directed to this fire that was fully engulfing the shed at 2 Thornton Street and a short time later they were attempting to extinguish the flames.
15. The police knocked at the door of 2 Thornton Street and no-one answered. Eventually Peter BLAKE heard someone calling and came to the door in a towel, stating that he had just been in the shower having woken from sleeping after nightshift. Peter had been sleeping in the room closest to the burning garage. Peter got dressed and left the house and his father Russell BLAKE returned to the property with his dog.7
16. Various fire units attended and continued to attempt to extinguish the fire.
17. Senior Constable CONNOR visited surrounding properties but obtained no new information.
5 SC CONNOR, depositions 36; D/Sgt BOYD, depositions 52
6 SC CONNOR, depositions 36;
7 SC CONNOR, depositions 36; Peter BLAKE, depositions 11-12
3
18. After 1.28 pm, the informant Detective Sergeant BOYD attended the scene, calling an ‘arson chemist’ to attend the scene. The Detective continued to attempt to locate the accused at 3 Harbison Avenue and tasked other police members to assist.8
19. At about 2.45 pm, Senior Constable CONNOR, who was conducting a crime scene guard outside 3 Harbison Avenue, was approached by the accused who up until this stage had been hiding within the house and came walking down the driveway from the rear of the property. He was unkempt and crying and clearly stated his name to be Rodney David FREEMAN. Senior Constable CONNOR communicated with the accused until other detectives from Cobram CIU attended including the informant, Detective Sergeant BOYD.9
20. At 2.55 pm DS BOYD returned to 3 Harbison Avenue and the accused was arrested and taken into custody.
21. The accused recognised and spoke to the informant, Detective Sergeant BOYD. In the course of a discussion about the various fires, the accused handed this blue lighter and another orange lighter to Detective Sergeant BOYD.10
22. Due to the accused’s condition at the time, a decision was made to have him transported to the Goulburn Valley Hospital, Shepparton under the provisions of Section 351of the Mental Health Act. The accused was admitted to the Psychiatric wing of this facility where he remained as an involuntary patient up until the 22nd October, 2018 when he was discharged back into the community.
23. CFA personnel eventually gained control of and were able to extinguish the fire at 2 Thornton Street. However, by this time a substantial amount of damage and destruction was caused to the shed and some 150 items11 that were stored within the structure.
8 D/Sgt BOYD, depositions 52
9 SC CONNOR, depositions 37; Record of Interview with Rodney FREEMAN, Q&A 39 and 61-63
10 D/Sgt BOYD, depositions 53; See exhibits 1 to 4 – Orange and Blue lighters seized and photographs
11 See Schedule A to the indictment
4
Further Police Investigation
24. At around 3.10 pm on 4 July 2018, Senior Constable Beryl BLAKEY of Wodonga Crime Scene Services at Wangaratta attended and walked through the crime scenes at both 3 Harbison Avenue, 1 Harbison Avenue and 2 Thornton Street. SC BLAKEY was tasked to photograph the addresses.
25. As SC BLAKEY states and the photographs show, that 1 Harbison Avenue is directly next door (North) to the accused’s property at 3 Harbison avenue and 1 Harbison Avenue shares a rear fence with 2 Thornton Street (to the East).12
26. Relevantly, the photographs taken by BLAKEY show the following13:
27. Photographs of 3 Harbison Avenue:
a. A lawnmower with cream coloured paint splashed on it (004 & 006);
b. Views of the combined dining/kitchen/lounge/television room – showing smashed television (025-031);
c. Display cabinet with door partially off hinge on the wall of the combined dining/kitchen/lounge/television room – (033);
d. View of yellow lidded green wheelie bin under carport in rear yard with open and partially empty tin of cream coloured paint (046-047);
e. View of green colourbond fence between residence 3 Harbison Ave and neighbouring residence to north, 1 Harbison Ave. A fence panel is laying on the ground inside the back yard of 1 Harbison Ave (048-050).
28. Photographs of 1 Harbison Avenue:
a. Views of the garage in the back yard of 2 Thornton Street and the adjoining back fence, taken from inside back yard of 1 Harbison Ave looking east into the back yard of 2 Thornton Street (058-059;
b. Photo of the ‘fireplace’ and back yard at 1 Harbison Avenue and green colour bond fence of 3 Harbison Ave (060-061).
12 Note that the BLAKEY photographs have not been included in the depositions and are to be provided (Photographs 001-088)
13 SC BLAKEY, depositions 39-41
5
29. Photographs of 2 Thornton Street:
a. Views of the driveway and double garage in the back yard and the adjoining property of 1 Harbison Avenue to the West (069 – 079);
b. Views of the inside of a double garage with extensive property burnt and charred (080-088).
Forensic Investigation
30. On 5 July 2018, the day following the incident, George XYDIAS, a Scientist with Victoria Police Forensic Services (VPFSC) and Forensic Officer with the Fire and Explosion Unit (FEU), examined 2 and 3 Harbison Ave. Specifically, XYDIAS examined fire damage to a lawn mower at No 3 and a fire in small incinerator at No 2. Further photographs were taken.14
31. At No 3, XYDIAS observed minor singeing and heat effects in the middle of the opening to the driveway, several fragments of heavily charred cloth near the centre of the driveway and additional staining of the driveway and garden strip with ‘olive-
yellow’ oil-based paint over an area of 2.5 metres. XYDIAS states that this area of the driveway appeared to be the fire’s point of origin.
32. Remnants of heavily charred green clothing (a windcheater or similar) were covering the top of the lawnmower. XYDIAS states that “the pattern and extent of burning to the top portion of the lawnmower, were indicative of the presence of flammable liquid.”
33. XYDIAS also analysed samples from the soil in the driveway at the opint (sic) of origin and the green cloth material from the mower and found various flammable/combustible liquids – likely mineral turpentine (likely a solvent in the point) and petrol (which may have been from the lawnmower reservoir).
14 Note that the XYDIAS photographs (taken by Forensic Officer Matthew Bacon) are not included in the depositions and are to be provided (49 photographs)
6
XYDIAS concludes that he believes the cause of the lawnmower fire at No 3 was due to:15
The ignition of the article of clothing and/or combustible materials on the lawn mower, assisted by the presence of a mixture of a small amount of petrol (either poured over or in the mower reservoir/fuel system) and mineral turpentine (or similar solvent) from the oil based paint.
XYDIAS also observed at, No 3:
a. Signs of other smaller fires in the rear yard, though probably from a previous occasion;
b. An uncapped paint tin of ‘olive-yellow’ coloured oil-based paint in a wheelie bin;
c. Sheet of metal detached from the fence between the properties;
d. A thick steel mesh propped up against the rear fence of property No 2 near the small incinerator and he states: “This may have provided access to the adjoining rear yard of 2 Thornton Street”.
At No 2, XYDIAS examined the small incinerator and concluded that he believed the cause of the fire was the ignition of the various dry foliage and wood inside the incinerator.
With regard both the mower and incinerator fires, XYDIAS concludes16:
The source of ignition in each case was not identified. However there was no suggestion that either fire was accidental in nature. In the circumstances, and in the absence of any other apparent accidental source of ignition at either locations, the fires were probably ignited directly by a match or cigarette lighter.
15 George XYDIAS (No 1), depositions 43 to 45
16 George XYDIAS (No 1), depositions 45-46
7
38. Also on 5 July 2018, George XYDIAS conducted a forensic examination of the garage in the rear yard at 2 Thornton Street and again the premises was photographed.17
39. As to the fire damage to the garage, XYDIAS states that it was localised to the garage interior with extensive and quite severe burning and associated heat effect to the structural frame and most of the combustible fittings and contents throughout, with most pronounced burning toward the front corner. There was also severe structural damage to that corner.
40. A mass of melted plastic on the floor was determined to be the fire’s point of origin and located in this region was a heavily charred and melted red plastic container, probably the type commonly used to store flammable liquid. XYDIAS also states that the overall nature, pattern and extent of burning at this front corner location were suggestive of the presence of a moderate amount of flammable liquid.18
41. Samples from the red plastic container and wood and paper from the rear floor were analysed and heavily evaporated petrol were detected in both.19
42. With regard to examination of the garage fire at 2 Thornton Street, XYDIAS concludes 20:
I believe the cause of the fire was the ignition of the available combustible structural materials and other stored objects/materials, across the garage interior. The pattern and extent of burning to the various materials about the front to central region of the garage were indicative of the presence/spread of flammable liquid (petrol in this case), as confirmed by analysis of the samples.
The source of ignition was not identified. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the fire was electrical of otherwise accidental in nature. In the circumstances, and in the absence of any other apparent accidental source of ignition, the fire was probably ignited directly by a match or cigarette lighter.
17 George XYDIAS(2), depositions 47ff; photographs (taken by Mathew Bacon – 59 photographs) – to be provided
18 George XYDIAS(2), depositions 49
19 George XYDIAS(2), depositions 49
20 George XYDIAS (No 1), depositions 50
8
43. Clothing from the accused was seized by the informant on the day of the incident and samples analysed by XYDIAS. These were not obviously burnt or heat effected and no flammable liquid traces detected.
Damage
44. The total amount of damage to items inside the shed which included amongst other things, gardening tools and equipment, bicycles, furniture, building products, lawn mowers, gym equipment, motor mechanics tools and building equipment was
$112,596.00. The shed itself, had to be replaced for a total of $59,994, 94, bringing the combined total for damage and destruction caused by the fire to $172, 595.94.21
45. The victim was absent at the relevant time and did not given the accused any authority to light a fire on his property.
Charges
46. In the premises and based on full admissions made by the accused in police interview (below), it is alleged that on 4 July 2018, the accused intentionally and without lawful excuse, lit a fire that destroyed the shed and its contents on the victim, Russell BLAKE’s, property (Charge 1 – Arson).
Coincidence Evidence
47. The accused is alleged to have started a fire on his own lawnmower at his property and then in the incinerator of his immediate next door neighbour in Harbison Avenue, with a rear fence adjoining that of the victim’s address at 2 Thornton Street, at around the time or in the lead up to the offending fire.
48. The Prosecution says that the occurrence of these similar events within a short time frame on the same day and within a proximate space, makes it improbable that the
21 Russell BLAKE, depositions 19; See Schedule A to the indictment
9
events occurred coincidentally. Evidence that the accused started the other fires makes it more probable that the accused started the fire in the garage on the same day.
49. The appropriate Notice will be filed.
Incriminating Conduct
50. The Prosecution relies on evidence of the accused’s absence for several hours following ignition of the offending fire and then his emergence from the rear of his property and on express admissions made to police in recorded interview, to establish that the accused hid (in a cupboard in the house) from police and/or other persons for several hours immediately following the offending.
51. The Prosecution relies on this evidence as an implied admission to the offending and an understanding as to the wrongfulness of his conduct.
Record of Interview
52. On 16 January 2019, the accused was interviewed by the informant, Detective Sergeant Marcus BOYD at Numurkah Police Station. By this time the accused had be[e]n released from involuntary psychiatric care and attended with his mother, Mel FREEMAN, who was present throughout the interview.
53. The accused made the full admissions to lighting the fire in the shed at 2 Thornton Street as charged and stated as follows:
On 4 July 2018 he lived at 3 Harbison Avenue Numurkah (Q&A 34)
On that day he had gone into town to buy cigarettes but was told he owed the shop
$148 and was thrown out. Walking home he felt people weren’t talking to him and there were things missing from inside his house. He thought he’d mow the lawn to occupy his mind and he had problems starting it. He went inside and got hallucinations from the TV so he kicked a hole in it and ripped it apart. He then went
10
outside and “lit fire to me – to me lawn mower..” He said he doesn’t remember much about the day but after he smashed the TV up he heard a bang come from over the back fence and “something didn’t seem right and I just grabbed the fuel and tipped it on the stuff and set – lit it with the cigarette lighter.” (Q&A 38); The accused saw the bloke (the victim) take off with his dog so “I’ve just went over there and lit fire to the shed” (Q&A 70)
After the fire ignited he “went home and hid in the – in the cupboard, in the wardrobe” (Q&A 39); He states he hid in the cupboard for about an hour or so (Q&A 60-63)
He got across to other property through a hole in the fence. He kicked a hole in the fence (Q&A 40-46)
The fuel he used was in a jerry can in the shed and he used his own lighter (Q&A 49- 51)
He damaged his own lawnmower and TV (Q&A 53-55)
When asked what made him go over there, his explanation was that “I’d been experiencing demons off the TV and – and with the lawn mower that wouldn’t start and the cigarettes, that I just wanted a cigarette and they said that I owe them $148 and …they wouldn’t talk to me or – and I just wanted someone to talk to and…” (Q&A 59)
Asked if he realised setting fire to someone’s shed was a right or wrong thing the accused stated “It’s a wrong thing, yeah” (Q&A 61)
The accused admitted to telling the informant at the scene that he had jumped over the fence into the shed found petrol and splashed it around and ignited it with a blue lighter and that he then handed the informant a blue lighter (Q&A 72-74)
The accused then further explained his actions by saying he felt sad and lonely and things went missing from inside his house and turned back up or were put in the shed
11
and then stated: “I been experiencing, like, demon – demon type experiences and people don’t talk
to me and that’s why I felt so sad and …” He then went on to repeat his issues with buying
cigarettes and starting the mower and things going missing from inside his house. (Q&A 76-77)
Asked again the reason why it happened – “…I apologised for when I – that it happened and – and I don’t like to cause any pain for anyone or I don’t like to see anyone in pain. I – very- I’m compassionate, honest, kind and caring type man that …I think that why it happened was – I was just unwell and I suffer from a mental illness of schizophrenia…I just can never can feel peace in me own mind…” (Q&A 78)
NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL ADMISSIONS
The following admissions are sought from the accused:
a.Exhibits 1 to 4 – the blue ‘BIC’ lighter and the orange ‘TUTU’ lighter in photographs depicting those lighters:
i. Are cigarette lighters belonging to the accused; and
ii. Both were provided to Detective Sergeant BOYD on 4 July 2018 by the accused.
b.Photographs as follows:
i. Photographs of 1 Harbison Avenue, Numurkah produced by SC BLAKEY, taken on 4 July 2018 (to be provided);
ii. Photographs of 3 Harbison Avenue, Numurkah produced by SC BLAKEY, taken on 4 July 2018 (to be provided);
iii. Photographs of 2 Thornton Street, Numurkah produced by SC BLAKEY, taken on 4 July 2018 (to be provided);
iv. Photographs of 1 Harbison Avenue, Numurkah produced by Forensic Officer XYDIAS, taken on 5 July 2018 (to be provided);
v. Photographs of 3 Harbison Avenue, Numurkah produced by Forensic Officer XYDIAS, taken on 5 July 2018 (to be provided);
12
vi. Photographs of 2 Thornton Street, Numurkah produced by Forensic Officer XYDIAS, taken on 5 July 2018 (to be provided).
54. Russell BLAKE’s garage/shed at 2 Thornton Street, Numurkah was destroyed by fire on 4 July 2018.
55. The value of the damage to BLAKE’s shed and its contents totals $172,595.94.
56. Record of Interview conducted with the accused on 1 January 2019.
57. Continuity of all exhibits seized by Victoria Police.
13
0
0
0