Director of Public Prosecutions v Garside and Thorp
[2012] VCC 969
•13 July 2012
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT GEELONG
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-11-00633
CR-12-00186
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MITCHELL GARSIDE |
| and |
| KAYD THORP |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN | |
WHERE HELD: | Geelong | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 12 July 2012 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 13 July 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Garside and Thorp | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2012] VCC 969 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
SUBJECT – CRIMINAL LAW
CATCHWORDS – Sentence
LEGISLATION CITED – Sentencing Act 1991, s.5
CASES CITED – R v Taudevin and Postiglione,R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88
JUDGMENT –
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr R. Hammill | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Garside | Mr D. Wraith | Vines Lawyers |
| For the Accused Thorp | Mr W. Toohey | Galbally & O’Bryan |
HER HONOUR:
1 Mitchell Garside and Kayd Thorp, you have both pleaded guilty to one charge of recklessly causing serious injury to Clinton Bassett on Indictment C1108048.1. The maximum penalty applicable to this offence is 15 years' imprisonment. You pleaded guilty to this charge during your trial. I note that both of you had, prior to your trial commencing made offers to the prosecution to plead guilty to this same offence, and such was not accepted, thus requiring the matter to proceed to trial.
2 You have also each pleaded guilty to a charge of perjury on Indictment C1108048.2. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment. You both entered your pleas of guilty to that offence prior to your trial commencing.
3 During your trial the prosecutor, Mr Hammill, consented pursuant to s.207 Criminal Procedure Act 2009, to an application by Mr Toohey, on behalf of Kayd Thorp, and also Mr Wraith, on behalf of Mitchell Garside, for a sentence indication, ie whether or not an immediate term of imprisonment would likely be imposed for this offending, should pleas of guilty be entered by both of you to the charge of recklessly causing serious injury.
4 There is no need for me to further detail the circumstances leading up to your change of plea during the trial. Ultimately, Senior Counsel at the Office of Public Prosecutions following discussions with the prosecutor and the informant, determined that a plea of guilty to recklessly causing serious injury would clear the trial indictment.
5 I turn to a summary of your offending as outlined by the prosecution at your plea hearing (Exhibit A).
6 Clinton Bassett and his partner, Janet Impey, became friends with you, Kayd Thorp, and your partner, Kristy Quinlivin, through the Point Lonsdale Primary School where both your children attended. The evidence before me during your trial was that you were initially friendly towards each other, however over time and owing to the conflict between your children in the school yard you openly became hostile with each other. I accept that the attendance by Mr Bassett at your home at approximately 4.00 pm on 3 February 2010 occurred in circumstances totally unsolicited/uninvited by you, Mr Thorp, and for that matter, you also, Mr Garside. There was extensive evidence in the trial in relation to Mr Bassett’s demeanour when he attended at 17 Ann Street. Also, a description of the events that occurred in the shed or garage whereby Mr Bassett was struck by you, Mr Thorp.
7 The charge of recklessly causing serious injury to which you have now pleaded guilty occurred following Mr Bassett being dragged from the garage by you, Mr Thorp, into a backyard/courtyard at 17 Ann Street.
8 I turn to prosecution opening, paragraph 17 and following. In the backyard area you, Mr Thorp, gave a softball bat to you, Mr Garside, and told Mr Garside to “not let Mr Bassett up.” You, Mr Thorp, left the yard to check on the welfare of Ms Quinlivin. You, Mr Garside, struck Mr Bassett with the softball bat a number of times to his body as he tried to get up off the ground. This assault caused serious injury to Mr Bassett, to which you have both pleaded guilty.
9 The prosecution case is that you, Mr Thorp, aided and abetted Mr Garside in this assault in the backyard by your words and conduct in giving Mr Garside the softball (also called baseball) bat. The prosecution position is that at that stage, Mr Bassett was in no way a threat to you, Mr Garside, or to anyone else and that the assault by Mr Garside on Mr Bassett was excessive and not in lawful self-defence at that stage. As a result of the assault in the backyard, Mr Bassett suffered a combination of injuries constituted by a broken left eleventh posterior rib and serious tramline bruising, together with pain/shock.
10 You, Mr Thorp, were interviewed at the Geelong Police Station on 3 February 2010 in relation to the assault on Mr Bassett. During that interview you made false admissions to the police stating you had simply punched Mr Bassett once to his head with a fist in the garage and a second punch to his head as he fell. You admitted dragging Mr Bassett by the ankles out of the garage away from your motor vehicle into the rear yard. You falsely denied that you or Mr Garside used a baseball bat or any other implement to strike Mr Bassett.
11 You, Mr Thorp, made a further written statement to the police on 3 February 2010 at which time you maintained those false admissions, thus resulting in the charge of perjury before me, to which you have pleaded guilty.
12 On 23 August 2010, you were re-interviewed. You admitted you had deliberately provided false information to police in your initial statement and initial record of interview. In that interview of 23 August you admitted to grabbing the softball bat from inside the premises when you first saw Mr Bassett at your home, seeing he was armed with a wooden club. You stated you used this baseball/softball bat in self-defence of yourself and others. I stress that it was accepted by the prosecution in this trial that the injuries inflicted upon Mr Bassett by you in the garage constituted lawful self-defence.
13 Further, in the record of interview of 23 August, you said Mr Bassett had attempted to get to his knees in the garage. That you told him to stay on the ground, striking him again to the head and when he fell to the ground and you admitted dragging him outside.
14 You, Mitchell Garside, on 3 February 2010, provided a written statement to police detailing what occurred at the address at 17 Ann Street, and falsely asserted there was no use by anyone of a softball bat. You signed that false statement and this constitutes the charge of perjury.
15 You were subsequently interviewed by police on 9 February 2010 at which time you falsely detailed Mr Thorp’s actions by stating Mr Thorp punched Mr Bassett with a clenched fist, causing him to fall to the ground. During that interview, you falsely stated your involvement of putting your foot on Mr Bassett’s left hip area to hold him down, as you believed he was still a threat.
16 On 23 August 2010, you, Mr Garside, were re-interviewed by police and then admitted that you deliberately provided false information to police during your initial statement and first record of interview.
17 On 23 August 2010 you stated Mr Bassett followed you into the garage from inside the property at 17 Ann Street and was holding a wooden club. You stated Mr Bassett attempted to strike Mr Thorp with the wooden club in the garage and that Mr Thorp in self-defence struck Mr Bassett with the softball bat. You, Mr Garside, stated you saw Mr Thorp strike Mr Bassett to the left temple with the bat just once, which resulted in Mr Bassett falling to the ground. You stated that Mr Thorp then dragged Mr Bassett out into the backyard area. You admitted at that time you assaulted Mr Bassett with the baseball/softball bat in the backyard, striking him twice to the body.
18 Kayd Thorp, you have admitted a prior criminal record with offences being dealt with from 12 November 2004, with the most recent prior court appearance on 17 June 2009. The offences involved driving offences and some, by comparison to the offences before me, minor assault matters. For the purpose of the charges before me, you do not come to the court without prior matters, although I note not of the same level of criminality as the current offending.
19 You have a number of subsequent court appearances to which I shall later refer relevant to your rehabilitation prospects.
20 Turning firstly to you, Mitchell Garside. I was told something of your background and history. You were 18 years of age at the time of this offending and are 21 years of age at sentence. You are sentenced as a youthful offender.
21 Turning to the perjury charge, Mr Wraith conceded that offending was serious and involved you minimising your conduct on 3 February. You did, however, on 23 August furnish the material containing your admissions.
22 You do not have any prior court appearances and nor is there anything subsequent alleged against you.
23 Since this offending, you had moved to Bendigo and had been there for approximately twelve months. You continued your apprenticeship as a carpet layer.
24 I accept you offered to plead guilty to the charges of recklessly causing serious injury and perjury at an early stage. From the committal mention you indicated your intention to plead guilty and had maintained that position. I accept therefore your offer to plead guilty to these charges was made at an early stage and albeit a trial commenced, the prosecution now accepted your plea of guilty to the same charge (recklessly causing serious injury) offered by you at the time of the committal mention. You are entitled to have the fact that you have indicated your intention to plead guilty taken into account in your favour, and the stage at which it was indicated, and I do so. I also take into account in your favour you intimated your intention to plead guilty to this charge as early as the committal mention. You have also pleaded guilty, as I have said prior to trial, to perjury and such is also relevant in mitigation of sentence. I accept that your pleas of guilty to both charges indicates remorse for your actions.
25 In court to support you throughout your trial were your parents and a number of relatives.
26 You were born in Mordialloc and at the age of 4 moved to Loch Sport attending Loch Sport Primary School and then Sale College to Year 9.
27 Your parents then moved to South Australia where they managed a caravan park for approximately two and a half years before moving to Queenscliff, there also managing a caravan park.
28 You started your apprenticeship as a carpet layer and were working in that job at the time of the offending before me on 3 February 2010.
29 A number of references were before me (see Exhibit G1).
30 One from Anthony and Kerrie Gane of Ganes Flooring, undated. They confirmed you had been employed as an apprentice carpet layer since September 2011 and were now in your third year. You had displayed an excellent work ethic. You are mature and have a positive attitude to your employment. They regarded you as a valuable part of their team.
31 A reference from Genevieve Morris, undated, your aunt. She described your keen interest in cricket and that you were committed to your apprenticeship.
32 From Eric Kelly, dated 16 June 2012, your uncle. He described you as having a strong sense of family. You were committed to your apprenticeship and wanted to achieve in that occupation. You had the ongoing support and encouragement of your family.
33 I was told by Mr Wraith you had interests outside work including cricket, which you had apparently played from about the age of 4, however you were yet to become involved in such at Bendigo.
34 I am of the opinion that your rehabilitation prospects are good.
35 Mr Wraith submitted when sentencing you, I should take into account that you had secure employment, were a person who did not have any prior convictions or anything subsequent. That from the time of this offending on 3 February 2010, the delay in this matter being dealt with was through no fault of yours, and in that time you had not re-offended. He urged that a suspended term of imprisonment was appropriate in the all the circumstances.
36 I turn to your personal circumstances, Mr Thorp. You first offered to plead guilty to the charge of recklessly causing serious injury on 14 June 2012. You pleaded guilty to the charge of perjury prior to the trial at around that same time. Your intention to plead guilty to recklessly causing serious injury was not indicated at the same early stage as that of Mr Garside and such is a distinguishing feature between you. You have, however, of course pleaded guilty to recklessly causing serious injury and of course, as I have stated in relation to Mr Garside, the fact that you have pleaded guilty is a matter I take into account in your favour. Despite indicating your intention to plead guilty at a relatively late stage just prior to the trial commencing, you are still entitled to a sentencing discount by reason of the fact you have so pleaded and the stage at which you indicated that intention prior to trial.
37 I accept in your case, your pleas of guilty to both offences before me indicates remorse for your actions.
38 You were born in 1986 at Burnie in Tasmania. At the time of this offending, you were 23 years of age. Your mother was in court to support you during the course of your trial. Your parents separated when you were approximately 13 years of age.
39 You have a sister, Holly, who is 29 and a brother, Tyler, who is 27 years of age. Both are in employment. Another brother died at a very young age from cancer.
40 Over the years you have lived a transient lifestyle in nearly all, if not all, states of Australia. You lived in Bendigo, Cairns, Mackay and Brisbane before you were the age of 5 and then in Darwin until 2001, where you attended primary schools through Year 2 to Year 7.
41 In 2002, you lived in a town just out of Darwin and were educated to Year 9 at Taminin High School.
42 Following the separation of your parents, you went with your mother to Perth. You subsequently returned to Victoria then again back to Perth when you were 16.
43 In Perth you met Kristie Quinlivan and when she was sixteen and a half years of age she became pregnant to you. You were 17 years of age at the time your son, Billy, was born.
44 You then moved to Tasmania and obtained work as a rock clearer. Whilst there in 2004 your next son, William, was born.
45 In 2005, you moved to Geelong, in 2006 you moved to Adelaide, then to Queensland in 2007, at which time your daughter, Olivia was born. In late 2007 you moved to Tasmania, and after a number of other moves you ended up in 2009 at Point Lonsdale where the offending to which you have pleaded guilty occurred. Whilst at Point Lonsdale, you had occasional employment on a fishing boat.
46 Your relationship with Ms Quinlivin is now over and she is in a new relationship, living in Western Australia.
47 Your three children do not reside with her, but rather, are under the control of the Department of Human Services equivalent in Queensland. You hope in the future you will be able to have further contact and possibly custody of your three children.
48 Your plans upon release from custody were to go to Bendigo to live with your mother. You also intend to obtain a heavy vehicle licence which you hope will enable you to obtain employment in the mining sector.
49 I discussed with Mr Toohey your prior criminal history which involved a number of driving offences and, of concern, offences of violence in 2009 involving assault and criminal damage. I note those prior matters were principally dealt with by way of monetary penalty and on occasions dealt with in the Children’s Court. You do have a number of subsequent Court appearances and some of those matters are concerning as they relate to violence.
50 You appeared at Warwick Magistrates’ Court on 10 August 2010 on a number of offences which included wilful damage, discharge a weapon in a public place and dangerous conduct with a weapon. On those charges, plus others, you were placed on probation for a period of 18 months and a monetary penalty imposed. You were subsequently dealt with on 10 December 2010 for breach of the probation order and sentenced to a period of six months' imprisonment. On 25 August 2010 at Brisbane Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment on a charge of escape.
51 It does appear, as I discussed with your counsel and the prosecutor, that your criminal record relating to your subsequent offending is incomplete or not entirely accurate. However, what does concern me is your appearance at Geelong Magistrates’ Court on 23 March 2012 for offending which occurred just two weeks after the offence to which you have pleaded guilty before me. That hearing in March involved a charge of unlawful assault and making threats to kill for which you received a total effective sentence of four months' imprisonment.
52 Whilst you have spent 264 - it could now be 265, I would like counsel just to keep an eye on this PSD - in custody by way of pre-sentence detention for the offences that are before me, you have spent in total 385 days plus approximately a further ten months in custody undergoing various sentences. As such, the principles in R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88 apply and I have taken that into account when determining the appropriate sentence.
53 I discussed with Mr Toohey my concerns regarding your rehabilitation prospects, particularly given the most recent violent offending dealt with in March 2012. Only time will tell whether or not you avoid violent offending in the future.
54 Turning to your rehabilitation prospects, Mr Toohey submitted you had undertaken a number of courses in custody. An education course for approximately six months in a Queensland prison. A Certificate 1 in Carpentry, you had obtained. Also in Queensland you completed a first aid course. At the Melbourne Remand Centre you had completed a barista course. You are currently working in a prison canteen from 8.30 am until 4.30 pm. You had not caused any trouble at Melbourne Remand Centre and in addition, urine screen results had been clean, and you were therefore no longer subject to that testing.
55 Mr Toohey submitted that as a result of the courses undertaken by you and your lack of offending whilst in custody, you had some prospects of rehabilitation.
56 Whilst you have used your time in custody productively, I have however some guarded optimism regarding your rehabilitation prospects though as I have said, only time will tell.
57 Mr Toohey submitted that the appropriate disposition would be to impose a straight sentence reflecting the pre-sentence detention you have served for the offences before me, ie a total of 265 days, relying also on the principles in Renzella and matters personal to you. I discussed with Mr Toohey my concern about the appropriateness of such a sentence. Having given Mr Toohey’s submission consideration overnight, I do not consider such to be an appropriate sentence as such, in my opinion, would not reflect all sentencing considerations, including the circumstances of the offending in the backyard and all matters personal to you.
58 I turn to the principles of parity stated in R v Taudevin [1996] 2 VR 402 and Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295. As there are two co-offenders being dealt with for the same offending, such principles are relevant when sentencing you.
59 There are number of distinguishing features between you including differences in your ages at the time of commission of the offences, you Mr Garside at 18 a ‘young offender’. Mr Thorp whilst you can be described as a ‘youthful offender’ you do however have a prior criminal and subsequent criminal history, the latter of course only being relevant to rehabilitation prospects. I am aware Mr Garside is the one who wielded the softball bat, or baseball bat in the backyard. Whilst you Mr Thorp did not wield it, your culpability lay in aiding and abetting Mr Garside when he assaulted Mr Bassett in the courtyard/backyard of 17 Ann Street.
60 I have also in determining the appropriate sentence, as I said, taken into account consistent with the principles in Renzella, and that you, Mr Thorp, have been in custody most recently serving either sentences or on remand for these offences.
61 In all the circumstances balancing all relevant background material, criminal history, role in the offending and respective ages of both of you, I consider ultimately it is appropriate to sentence you to the same sentence. However, there are some differences as you will hear, when I formally impose sentence.
62 A number of Victim Impact Statements have been placed before me. There is no doubt the family of Mr Bassett have suffered very considerably as a result of your offending. There is no doubt the death of Mr Bassett has adversely affected his extended family and his own children. This is a particularly distressing aspect of this case. However, I hope that the many references made by me during the trial and repeated briefly now, at least allow Mr Bassett’s family to understand you are both to be sentenced only for the offending before me, being the offending in the backyard.
63 As such, when reading the victim impact statements I must bear in mind, as I do, the very different offending in the garage and the backyard, and therefore the likely impact on the victims regarding the two different locations of the assault. It is difficult in these brief sentencing remarks to do justice to those victim impact statements but I can say I have read them and have taken their admissible contents into account pursuant to s.5, Sentencing Act (1991).
64 Firstly, I received a victim impact statement from Barbara Bassett, Mr Bassett's stepmother. Her other children had been devastated by their brother's death. That they were not able to say goodbye to him. They also had to live with the knowledge that he was hurt after the fatal blows in the garage, with the indignity of a further assault in the backyard. There had been a huge financial burden attending court appearances. In the backyard, when he was struck, she will never forget, forgive or reconcile her mind to that. Their family, she said, will never be the same.
65 There is a victim impact statement from Lynda Lakin, Mr Bassett's mother. She described returning to New Zealand with just her son's ashes. She found it difficult enjoying life. She has had counselling to support her. She has an ache in her heart for Clinton and his children. Distance between New Zealand (her home) and Victoria had further added to the distress as these proceedings continued. Mr Bassett's sons, then 4 and 6 years of age, were now without their father. She felt disappointed in the system, particularly with the school, involving Mr Bassett and Mr Thorp's children.
66 There was also a victim impact statement from Georgina Knox, a sister of Mr Bassett. She is constantly distressed as she lost her brother and friend. She cannot understand your assault on Mr Bassett after the shed/garage incident. Mr Bassett's actions on that day, she said, were only one part of the person he was. Her son no longer had Mr Basset to play games with. Mr Bassett was loved by many. Mr Bassett regularly mowed lawns for an elderly couple, helped a severely autistic child and their family. She expressed upset at his treatment by you in the backyard. Mr Bassett was a devoted father.
67 From Carollyn-Ann Bassett, a sister of Mr Bassett. She and her children missed Mr Bassett. The court experience had been a rollercoaster of emotions affecting her ability to sleep, and her health. There had been significant financial costs travelling daily to Melbourne for court, incurring loss of money from employment. She regretted she was unable to say goodbye to her brother.
68 I am, of course, conscious when sentencing that I must not allow the effects upon victims to swamp the sentencing process, being particularly aware as I am of the death of Mr Bassett, which does not form any part of your offending before me.
69 However, as well as matters personal to both of you, to which I have referred, including your respective prospects of rehabilitation, I must also take into account such matters as deterrence, especially general deterrence, which is of considerable importance in a case such as this.
70 I also consider there needs to be an element of specific deterrence when sentencing you, Mr Thorp, in light of your previous criminal history, albeit unrelated to the type of offending that is currently before me.
71 I must also consider the question of protection of members of the community from you and bear in mind the likelihood of your re-offending. That does cause me some concern, particularly in relation to you, Mr Thorp, given your subsequent court appearances for matters of violence.
72 I am called upon by the Sentencing Act to manifest the community’s denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment.
73 Turning firstly to you, Mitchell Garside.
74 On the charge of recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment.
75 On the charge of perjury, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
76 The charge of recklessly causing serious injury is the base sentence, and I direct 1 month of the perjury charge be served cumulatively upon the base sentence.
77 That results in a total effective sentence of 15 months imprisonment, and I direct that sentence be wholly suspended for a period of 2 years from today’s date.
78 That means, I am talking to you at the moment, Mr Garside, that you must not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment within that 2 year period starting today. If you do, you will be back before me and you can expect to be required to serve that 15 month sentence. Do you understand?
79 PRISONER (Garside): Yes.
80 Turning to you, Mr Thorp.
81 On the charge of recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment.
82 On the charge of perjury, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
83 The charge of recklessly causing serious injury is the base sentence, and I direct 1 month of the perjury charge be served cumulatively upon the base sentence.
84 That results in a total effective sentence of 15 months imprisonment.
85 I have determined the appropriate sentence in your case is to partially suspend that sentence, which means you are to be released immediately and the balance of the 15 months suspended for 2 years.
86 I will keep going and then we will come back and make sure that we have got all the mathematics correct.
87 The prosecution made application pursuant to s.464ZF for a forensic sample. I make the orders based on the seriousness of the offending and such was consented to by Mr Wraith, on your behalf Mr Garside, and not opposed by Mr Toohey, on your behalf Mr Thorp. I make the order in the terms sought. It will be for a saliva sample based on the seriousness of your offending. And I should indicate that the authorities may use reasonable force in order to obtain those samples from you.
88 The prosecution also made an application for a forfeiture order. Both counsel on your behalf consented to the making of the order and I make the order in the terms sought.
89 For completeness, pursuant to s.6AAA Sentencing Act, had you continued with your trial and been found guilty of this offence - I am dealing with recklessly cause serious injury, not if it was intentionally - following jury verdict, I would have sentenced you, Mr Garside, to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, and in your case, Mr Thorp, 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years. The shorter non-parole period in the case of you, Mr Garside, would have been to reflect your lack of prior criminal history, your younger age and rehabilitation prospects and the 2 years I would have imposed in that situation in relation to you, Mr Thorp, to reflect the Renzella principles.
90 Mr Garside, you have not spent any days in custody by way of pre-sentence detention and therefore I do not declare any days. As I have imposed a wholly suspended term of imprisonment, this declaration is perhaps unnecessary. However, that information will be in these sentencing remarks should I need to revisit this sentence if you breach the suspended sentence, which of course I hope you do not.
91 Pursuant to s.18(4) Sentencing Act, I declare that you, Kayd Thorp, have spent 265 days up to and including yesterday, I would like this checked, by way of pre-sentence detention and I direct this be entered into the records of the court. I do not believe that there are any further orders, but the bottom line in particular in relation to Mr Thorp is that he is to be released now. And the balance - so that is 265 days - that is as of yesterday, if I made it 266, he would have to serve today. So therefore I have made it 265, i.e. yesterday, 265 comes off the 15 months. I just want to make it clear for the transcript, and whatever that difference is (i.e. 15 months less 265 days) is then suspended for 2 years. I trust that makes sense?
92 VOICE (from body of court): Yes, Your Honour.
93 HER HONOUR: Any problems with the maths? In any respect, anything else, you want repeated? Any difficulties, anything you do not understand?
94 MR HAMMILL: No, Your Honour, we checked the maths. That was - - -
95 HER HONOUR: The only thing is that if there is any change to this record, and I make this clear, I have another engagement at 2.30 away from the court. So I want this to be right before I leave the Bench, the numbers, the figures, so that there is no problem in relation in particular to Mr Thorp, before I leave. I just want to make sure it is right.
96 MR HAMMILL: Yes.
97 HER HONOUR: All right?
98 MR WRAITH: Yes, Your Honour.
99 HER HONOUR: It's an abundance of caution, Mr Toohey?
100 MR TOOHEY: I understand, Your Honour.
101 HER HONOUR: The record will reflect 265 days, which should be yesterday. Does anyone suggest that the order that I have made and the sentence I have imposed does not reflect that intention.
102 MR HAMMILL: No.
103 HER HONOUR: Because I am not going to be available. I can do no more. All right then, orders to be signed? I have not done it yet. Did you give them to me?
104 MR HAMMILL: Yes, Your Honour, they have been provided.
105 HER HONOUR: All right, just wait a moment.
106 MR HAMMILL: Yes, we've confirmed the mathematics, Your Honour. It is correct, yes.
107 HER HONOUR: Before I leave the Bench, Mr Thorp and Mr Garside. If you breach this order, you know what is going to happen, don't you?
108 PRISONERS: Yes, Your Honour.
109 HER HONOUR: Mr Garside? All right, is there anything else?
- - -
0
2
0