Director of Public Prosecutions v Georgiou

[2023] VCC 2222

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

CR-23-00120

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

NICHOLAS GEORGIOU

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE SYME
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 November 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 November 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Georgiou
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 2222

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW    

Catchwords:              Attempt to traffic in a drug of dependence (commercial quantity) – Use false document - Commit indictable offence whilst on bail – Familial support and possible prospects of rehabilitation – Appreciable totality considerations.

Sentence:                  Eight years and seven months' imprisonment. 5 year non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr G. Buchhorn	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Hallowes SC	Tony Hargreaves & Partners Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1Mr Nicholas Georgiou, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of attempting to traffic a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, one count of using a false document, and one count of commit indictable offence whilst on bail.

2The maximum penalty for attempting to traffic in a drug of dependence of not less than a commercial quantity is 25 years' imprisonment.

3The maximum penalty for using a false document is 10 years' imprisonment and the maximum penalty for committing an indictable offence whilst on bail is three months' imprisonment or 30 penalty units.

4Commercial quantity trafficking is a ‘category 2 offence’ and, accordingly, s 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) presumptively applies. It is not suggested that any exceptions apply in your case.

5You will be sentenced as a serious drug offender on Charge 2, and this will be noted on the court records. As such, the court must regard protection of the community as the principal sentencing purpose. Section 6E of the same Act requires that the sentences be served cumulatively unless the court otherwise orders. However, other sentencing considerations still apply and any sentence longer than one appropriate to the gravity of the offending is a rare consideration.

Prior criminal history

6You admit a significant prior criminal history, consisting largely of drug related offending in general terms. You had not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment until May of this year when this court sentenced you to five years and three months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months on charges of attempted home invasion, prohibited person use firearm, reckless conduct endangering life and possessing a drug of dependence. That offending occurred in the context of your significant intoxication. No explanation was given for the choice of victim in that case.

Facts

7The facts relevant to the current offences are as set out in the prosecution opening and are not in dispute.

ABF interception of five consignments containing 1-4 Butanediol described as ‘Silicone Oil’

8Between 14 July 2021 and 19 August 2021, the Australian Border Force (ABF) stopped five consignments at the Cargo Examination Facility in Sydney, New South Wales.

9Each consignment was bound for a Victorian address and each case was declared to contain ‘Silicone Oil’.

10ABF officers analysed each of the five consignments and identified that they, in fact, contained 1,4-Butanediol. The combined amount of 1,4-Butanediol in these consignments was, in total, 500 litres.

11Each consignment contained 100 litres of 1,4-Butanediol in four 25 litre containers. The consignee was a fictitious person who resided at an undeliverable address. Such addresses were nevertheless in close proximity to your own address.

12Investigation into other contact details for the consignments eventually led to the identification of you as the user of a contact telephone number which, in turn, was linked to an address in Yarraville, a Centrelink account belonging to you, and bank accounts used by you. The address noted was in close proximity to an address noted on bail conditions that had previously been entered into by you.

13After significant further investigation, a search warrant was executed at a property in Leveson Street, North Melbourne. Two residents were arrested. Further investigation of property found on those two people linked you and that address. The prosecution opening concludes that you were, at some stage, residing at that address.  

14Substances and cash were found in possession of those two people. Further review of communications between those residents uncovered significant covert communication between them and another person, which police suspected was you. While this information is included in the prosecution opening; and was part of the overall eventually quite complicated investigation, the prosecution concede that its relevance is by way of context.

15Ultimately, you accept that you were involved in the trafficking or attempted trafficking of the substance consigned as referred to above.

16There is no information to show that you actually collected or delivered such consignments. The charge is one of attempt. However, by your plea, you accept that all steps were taken to achieve that result. That is, those steps necessary to successfully collect and traffic the commercial quantity of that substance.

Using a false document to the detriment of Brady Hotel

17On 27 May 2022, police investigators received information that you had recently been staying at the Brady Hotel on Little Latrobe Street, Melbourne, under the name ‘James Doman’.

18You failed to check out on time. Staff and later, police, located items linking you to the apartment, a quantity of illicit substances, and related paraphernalia. You admit the items were related to your stay in that apartment and that you used a false document to rent it. 

Arrest and interview

19On 23 June 2022, you were arrested on unrelated matters. You were interviewed by police in relation to the above five consignments. At that time, you made no admissions.

Basis of prosecution case

20Charges 1 and 2, which I have alluded to above, are rolled-up charges. The prosecution allege, and you accept, by your plea, that your involvement is as alleged.

21In relation to Charge 1, on or about 14 July 2021, you attempted to traffic in no less than a commercial quantity of 1,4-Butanediol which amounted to around 300 litres across three consignments.

22In doing so, you knew that each consignment contained not less than a commercial quantity for 1,4-Butanediol — namely, at least 2 litres per consignment (that is, at least 6 litres in total).  It is noted that there were 100 litres per consignment.

23In relation to Charge 2, the prosecution allege and you accept that that, on or about 18 July 2021, you attempted to traffic in no less than a commercial quantity of 1,4‑Butanediol, which amounted to 200 litres across two consignments. In doing so, you knew that each consignment contained not less than a commercial quantity for 1,4-Butanediol — namely, at least 2 litres per consignments (that is, at least 4 litres altogether).

24In relation to Charge 3, the prosecution allege, and you accept, that in using your false proof of age card, you used that false document to secure a room at Brady Hotel; the hotel relied on this document as being legitimate; and, by staying past your check-out time, you caused the hotel a detriment.

25Whilst the total amount of 1,4-Butanediol seized by Australian Border Force, namely 500 kilograms, exceeds the ‘large commercial quantity’ threshold of 1,4‑Butanediol under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, it was conceded by the prosecution that it could not establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that you turned your mind to the fact that each of the consignments exceeded the ‘commercial quantity’ threshold of 2 kilograms.

Pre-sentence detention declaration

26It now seems agreed that there is no pre-sentence detention.

Objective gravity of offending

27I am told that you became involved in the present offending due to drug addiction and that this addiction has been ongoing for many years. I accept this in general terms.

28You report that you were engaged to be the contact point for each of the consignments and your job was to ensure that they were successfully received by those who arranged the shipments.

29The prosecution submit that the entire enterprise involved significant planning. This is undeniable. The quantities which, in truth, involved many times the large commercial quantity for that substance, suggest that those involved in the importation and arrangement for distribution were a very well organised criminal organisation.

30The inclusion of false information on the consignments such as false names, false addresses and a misleading telephone number speaks of significant and sophisticated planning. The prosecution submit that the estimated potential profit for the entire operation was over $750,000.  The combination of the quantity, potential profit and sophisticated planning suggest a highly organised criminal activity, combining importation and distribution.

31However, your involvement, as far as is alleged by the prosecution in accepting your plea, is that you were tasked with the duty of collecting the deliveries from a point and distributing those deliveries to another point.  No doubt you had an expectation of being rewarded for that involvement.

32You report, and it is accepted, that you were unaware of the number and size of the consignments that were to be delivered, although you knew that they would exceed the commercial quantity applicable. This is consistent with the prosecution case.

33Therefore, while it may be of some significance that the actual quantities involved were certainly very large; in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence and your own involvement in it, there must be some evidence from which the court can infer that you were aware, even in general terms, of the multiples over the commercial quantity in each delivery.  The court must not speculate.

34Therefore in assessing objective seriousness, the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of those matters which form a circumstance of aggravation. There is insufficient evidence to connect you with the actual quantity involved, even though there is probably a suspicion that you must have had some understanding of the large amounts.  Without that finding that you knew of the very large quantities, there cannot be an aggravating circumstance relating to that issue, and your role in the offence. 

35While I accept that there was significant police investigation by Victoria Police to trace you as a connection after the importation was discovered, the access and investigation of call charge records for the number included on the consignment note was, in reality, not all that complicated.  The obvious result is that you were arrested for this offending, rather than those who were the instigators and primary offenders. It is not possible to conclude on the evidence available that you were the person involved in the planning of the distribution or the trafficking operation yourself, and you must be sentenced on that basis.

36Your involvement was, I am told, and accept, driven by a substantial debt owed for the supply of drugs to you in the past. Your vulnerability as an addict was an ongoing incentive to maintain a relationship with these suppliers who, in effect, preyed on your vulnerability to keep you assisting in the business. This is not an unusual set of circumstances for a person in your then position.

37For your role in the offending, you notionally received an amount with which you could clear accumulated debts and fund ongoing addiction. There is no evidence that you were organised enough, due to your own substance abuse, to maintain a lifestyle that accumulated great wealth from your activities.

38The circuitous connection of your contact details on the consignments may be consistent with you being significantly involved in the planning, personally. However, it is also consistent with the involvement of others wishing to remain distant from the drugs themselves, and allowing you to be the contact person, who would with not really too much effort of investigation was able to be connected with the deliveries.

39The offending is, of course, serious, as evidenced by the potential maximum penalties. Your involvement was not, I find, as a principal offender, but still, an important player in the process. It is true that without your anticipated involvement, the trafficking could not ever eventuate.  

40This is not a mitigating consideration when assessing objective seriousness, but I observe that you were ‘one of the cogs’ in the enterprise. As such, you were expendable.

41In relation to Charge 3, I am told the use of the false document to secure short term accommodation is not directly related to the drug offending. There is no information to suggest otherwise. I accept that an official document was falsified.

Personal circumstances and background

42Your personal circumstances have not altered since I sentenced you in May this year.  Other than that you have spent more time in custody and are, perhaps, in a better position to map your future.

43In the present proceedings, I am pleased to be in receipt of further evidence that you continue to access available in-custody programmes (positive lifestyle programmes) and you continue to return negative drug screens.  I rely on the observations made in previous sentence proceedings and will only summarise them here in order to avoid repetition.

44Mr Georgiou, you are now 36 years of age. You were 33 to 34 when you committed these charged offences. Through your counsel, you do not seek to blame any other person nor circumstance for the predicament you have placed yourself in.

45Information presented on your behalf includes three reports prepared by psychologist, Patrick Newton, for various court proceedings between September 2021 and May 2023, together with a significant number of family and personal references which outline further personal information I can take into account. You did not give evidence in these proceedings, but I have reread and reviewed the information given in the last proceeding, and there is nothing further that I wish to add from my previous observations. 

Prior criminal history

46Through your counsel, you admit a significant and relevant prior criminal history, which commenced when you were aged 28. This was, I accept, associated with your then significant use of illicit substances. Much of your offending has been related, in one way or another, to illicit drug use.

47For various reasons, as referred to in the psychological reports, you have had difficulty in maintaining sobriety and good mental health.

48Your criminal record is not an aggravating circumstance of this offending and will not result in a more significant sentence. It must, however, deprive you of leniency.

49For reasons previously set out, the court has concern about your prospects of rehabilitation. As previously noted, the three reports by Mr Newton give a helpful perspective as to your presentation over those years.

50A number of attainment certificates setting out your activities while in custody and a number of urinalysis results give further information about your presentation in custody. It is reported that you continue to maintain your work and interests in horticulture while in custody. This is a first step, but certainly a very positive one.

51The content of your self-report to Mr Newton as summarised by him in the three psychological reports is indeed uncontroversial. The details provided by you to him are consistent with the details provided by your close family members in their letters of reference to the court.

52The details of your background are again as summarised in my decision on
29 May 2023 and have not altered. It is largely a positive background, marred by significant substance abuse over many years.

53Mr Newton said you reported use of an array of substances, long term. Unsurprisingly, he concluded that your long-term addiction to methamphetamine, GHB, Xanax and Heroin was consistent with what he observed to be a substance use disorder of significant seriousness. His observation, based on your self-report and supported by urine screens, is that this disorder is in remission. 

54As I observed previously, remission so far has only been possible when you are in a controlled environment. On many occasions in the past, rehabilitation is frequently a 2-steps-forward-one-step-back process, and this appears to have been true in your case. Your sobriety while in custody for a now lengthy period shows some strength of character and a willingness to accept that changes are required. That is your family’s hope. You described to Mr Newton that your response to rehabilitation in the past had been “haphazard”. This is, at least in my view, an insightful observation.

55I have further information provided by your mother on the last occasion which, while remaining supportive, appears clear-eyed as to your prospects of maintaining your progress and is diligent again in pursuing appropriate support for you now, and in the future. I perceive and I hope that being given a potential end date to your incarceration today will give that planning some more solid context.

Mental health

56In all three reports, Mr Newton observes a connection between your mental ill-health and your substance abuse. He observes that your presentation and self-report are consistent with a long-standing persistent depressive disorder, perhaps dating back to your early 20s. Your mother’s observations support this information.

57Mr Newton observed some improvement in your presentation in his report dated September 2022 as a result of, he opined, medical attention and counselling you were receiving while abstinent from substances in custody.  

58I previously noted that Mr Newton assessed your insight into the connection between your mental health, substance abuse and subsequent offending has improved.  I guess it had a long way to improve from.  Your mother’s observations also support this finding.

59He also observed, and this is significant, that you manifest prominent antisocial traits which Mr Newton opines have the potential to be reversed through timely and effective intervention.  I again recommend that Corrections be given a copy of these reports, especially the April 2023 report in order to investigate what in-custody programmes might be made available to you so as to enable you to be ready for parole applications when you are eligible. Mr Newton’s recommendations for intervention in the context of ultimate community supervision are contained in paragraph 48 of his most recent report.

Cognitive presentation

60Mr Newton estimated your intelligence to be of average level but there is concern as to potential damage from substance abuse over the years. This will need to be assessed after a long period of abstinence.

Further considerations

61Again, Mr Newton observes that your suggested major depressive disorder has been a feature of your life for many years, to a greater or lesser extent. Your mental ill-health is relevant to the sentence to be imposed. I accept the observations contained in Mr Newton’s three reports. It is useful to have his longitudinal observations over time. By way of further assistance, his observations are consistent with the further information received from family members.

62It is submitted that limbs 5 & 6 of the Verdins principles are relevant. The prosecution accept this submission, in principle, correctly suggesting that the weight to be given to these considerations is a matter to be taken into account with all other sentencing considerations.

63In light of the available information, I accept that you have been suffering from a persistent depressive disorder since at least 2021. I accept that your condition deteriorated in more recent times.  

64The fifth Verdins limb requires the court to have regard to whether the existence of an impairment at the time of sentencing, or its reasonably foreseeable reoccurrence, may mean that a specific sentence may weigh more heavily on you than it would on a person in normal health. I accept that this is a relevant but still a limited consideration for you.

65Additionally, the sixth Verdins limb requires the court to consider whether imprisonment presents a serious risk of a significantly adverse impact to a person's mental health. I accept that the observation of Mr Newton in his most recent report supports such a finding. Your predicament relating to this final sentence in the matrix of charges against you may have impacted that outlook over time and I accept that.  

66These considerations will somewhat moderate the sentence to be imposed.

67Having said that, I note the interaction between your drug use and your mental ill-health and your mother’s observations is that your presentation is far more positive than when you are not so using. So while I note that custody is difficult for you, the inherent contradiction in your presentation is that when you are not abusing substances, your mental health is easier to address and manage. That is, your substance abuse is easier to control in a custodial setting, and therefore so is your mental health.

68It is clear that your offending over a period of more than eight years has, in large part, related to your use of illicit substances. I accept, to a greater or lesser extent, that your drug use is intertwined with your mental ill-health. There is no doubt that your mental ill-health is exacerbated by your drug use. The observation of the circular cause and effect is sadly not unusual.

69Any community supervision imposed on you once parole is granted must, as a pre-requisite, include significant investigation and intervention to ensure that your drug-free status is maintained on your release.

Moral culpability

70Self-induced intoxication does not reduce your moral culpability for the offending as a whole, and certainty not for this type of offending at all.  It is accepted that the incentive for your offending on this occasion was a significant drug addiction. It is also accepted that your substance abuse and mental health difficulties are related. However, there is no evidence, nor do you suggest, that as a result of either of those considerations, you did not understand that your offending was wrong and seriously so, and rightly, you do not seek to suggest that your moral culpability is reduced by either of those factors. As I observed previously, when sober, your presentation and understanding of right and wrong and a commitment to not offend further is to be commended. The maturity of your approach now, is to be similarly commended.

Prospects of rehabilitation

71As noted previously, you have significant support from your family. They have been supportive of your previous attempts to overcome that addiction and continue to hope and offer practical support for any future rehabilitation. Their continued support is a factor in your favour as it supports a positive finding of your prospects of rehabilitation.  

72You continue to undertake activities while you are in custody to prepare yourself for employment and life in general when you are released. You appear to accept that long term counselling is important.  

73As previously noted, it is sad to note that your presentation is so positive while you are in custody but not so when you are in the community. I speculate that your rehabilitation and your recovering mental health may take some time. I will again suggest to corrective services that well before any parole consideration, they access the three psychologist reports and the letters of support, especially from your mother, in order to provide a useful structure for your eventual return to the community.  Those preparations will take some time prior to you being eligible for parole, so again I recommend that to corrective services, sooner rather than later.

74I further note that Mr Newton observes, at paragraph 31 of his April 2023 report, that your insight now is robust and genuine. He suggests that your long-term prognosis, and the benefits which could flow from treatment, are positive.

75I accept that you are still enrolled in a Certificate II in Horticulture and as such, have good prospects, noting that you wish to pursue a career in this field on release from custody.

76You maintain negative positive urine screen tests and there are no adverse ‘incidents’ are reported.  You are still prescribed, as I understand it,  monthly depo injections at a reducing dose of buprenorphine. I am told you continue to attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

77For reasons previously explained, your prospects of rehabilitation can be no more hopeful than ‘possible’, but your continued positive presentation shows more promise.

78Unfortunately, I am told that your access in custody to mental health treatment remains limited.  Again, I strongly suggest that such assessments be undertaken as soon as practicable, now that you have no further proceedings outstanding.

Plea

79Your plea was entered in recent times, but effective negotiations commenced after a contested committal. This must result in some benefit for you. You are entitled to a discount for that early plea and the assistance to the administration of justice generally, notwithstanding that delays previously experienced by the court are no longer significant. The avoidance of a trial and all that goes with organising the prosecution of a jury trial of some length, and the complication is of benefit to the administration of justice generally. I accept Worboyes considerations no longer apply.

Sentence considerations

80The legislative requirements are referred to already above. When considering how those legislative requirements relate to your sentence specifically, prosecution counsel submitted that the fact that you were also on bail for tracking offences (which were ultimately withdrawn) is a further aggravating consideration.

81The fact that you were on bail is an aggravating circumstance as you had undertaken to the court not to commit further offences. The type of charge (which ultimately was withdrawn) is not relevant. It does not theoretically or otherwise increase the specific deterrence consideration that you might have been on bail for a further trafficking offence.

82In your case, however, specific deterrence is already a strong sentencing consideration due to the number of times you have failed to observe undertakings given on bail and in other court orders not to commit offences.

83In relation to the summary offence, there will be a separate sentence imposed, but I will avoid double counting when considering it as an aggravating matter alongside any accumulation.

Purposes of sentencing

84The purposes of sentencing as contained in s 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) often pull in opposite directions. This is particularly so in your case. General and specific deterrence remain important considerations for matters of this nature, as does the related need to protect the community from those who would introduce illicit substances into the community.

85Your rehabilitation is important to you, but also for the welfare and ultimate protection of the community. The consequences of drug use on the entire community are significant and destructive. Many observations have been made in eloquent form, but I suspect that your own experiences and those of your fellow inmates speak more forcefully than any lecture from a judge.

86When sentencing you for this offence, a significant complicating feature is the sentence imposed by this court for unrelated offences in May this year. Those offences were committed shortly after these. This is a minor consideration given that all of your offending was driven in one way or another by your drug addiction and personality presentation referred to above.

87That being said, the case of Mills[1], which I have reference for in my decision, sets out a guide for the current approach in these circumstances.  It requires the court to consider a reasonable total sentence that would have been imposed had, effectively, this court been considering a total effective sentence for all matters. I accept the principles in Mills’ case that require the court to consider a head sentence and therefore non-parole ratio for the current matter with these matters in mind.

[1]Mill v The Queen (1988) 83 ALR 1.

88The court must therefore consider, as much as possible, the totality of all of your criminal behaviour and sentence you in a way that takes into account your current offending and the offending that has previously been sentenced.

89The court must then impose a non-parole period that reflects that notional total term. In the context of this sentence, that may result in a shorter non-parole period than might have been otherwise been appropriate.

90Included in my considerations in setting both the total term and the non-parole period is the fact that you have been in custody since about June 2022 for various reasons, including breaches of previous orders. On the previous sentence, you had the possibility of release on parole in about August 2026. The sentence imposed today will extend that period significantly.

91However, the ratio of the non-parole period to total term ratio will take into account, as much as possible, the total time you will be in custody altogether. Again, I propose to allow a generous consideration in that ratio. You are entitled to benefit for the advances you have made in custody so far and hopefully take advantage of that progress in an eventual application for parole.  You must be aware, of course, that release on parole, once you are eligible for it, is not automatic and even if you are released, you can be returned to custody if you fail to maintain any supervision conditions.

Sentencing practice

92I have been taken through a number of sentence judgments for other trafficking matters involving a commercial quantity of substances. Particularly, where the amount actually involved was significantly more than the lower limit for the offence charged.

93My observations as to your actual knowledge above are relevant when considering the relevance of those decisions. A further complicating factor is that in some of those cases, (notably DPP v Obian [2023] VSCA 18; and DPP v Fatho [2019] VSCA 311) the young offenders, and they were very young, were found to be principal offenders. They were much younger than you, but they were principal offenders. Other sentence cases are useful, and the court always must try to maintain consistency, but ultimately, the sentence considerations which drive the current sentence are based on the principles that I have outlined at some length above.

Sentence

94I am now ready to sentence you for those individual sentences, Mr Georgiou, and I will go through each individual sentence and then tell you what the total is going to be, and then as far as I can estimate your earliest date that you will be eligible for parole.

95Mr Georgiou, on Count 1 – attempting to traffic in a drug of dependence: commercial quantity – I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of six years and six months. This is the base sentence.

96On Count 2, - attempting to traffic in a drug of dependence: commercial quantity – I sentence you to five years and six months' imprisonment. Two years of this sentence is to accumulate on the base sentence.

97On Count 3, using a false document, I sentence you to one month imprisonment which is to be wholly concurrent with the base sentence.

98For summary Charge 12, I sentence you to two months' imprisonment. One month of this term is to accumulate on the base sentence.

99The total effective term is therefore eight years and seven months' imprisonment, and I propose to set a non-parole period of five years.  For those of you doing the maths, that represents about a 66 percent on the total effective sentence that I have referred to.

100The total term will be due to expire on my calculation, but I might be corrected, on 28 June 2032.

101The estimated non-parole period will expire on 28 November 2028. 

102Pursuant to s 6AAA, had it not been for your pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a term of imprisonment of 12 years duration with a non-parole period of seven years.

103Pursuant to section 6F of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), you are sentenced as a serious drug offender on Charge 2 and this will be entered into the records of the court.

104I further make the disposal order dated 10 November 2023 concerning the Samsung mobile phone.  Do you want those numbers again, everybody, or have you got them?

105MR HALLOWES: I have them, Your Honour. I just want to check one matter if I may. I just want to clarify clearly Your Honour's imposition of the non-parole period of five years pursuant to s 14 of the Sentencing Act as I understand it is the new non-parole period that Your Honour is required to fix.  Just in terms of the head sentence though, which as I understood it, was eight years and seven months for these offences, if I can call it that, I was not sure whether Your Honour was required to indicate whether they were partially concurrent or cumulative with the sentence Your Honour imposed in May of this year.

106I am not sure if Mr Buchhorn can immediately assist.

107HER HONOUR:  The answer I think is obvious, it is partially concurrent because it starts - - -

108MR HALLOWES:  Obviously it has to be partially concurrent because it is still going, but as I understand what Your Honour says, is that as Your Honour perceives it, that if he is not granted parole in relation to either of the matters, he would remain in custody for eight years and seven months from today.

109HER HONOUR:  Yes.

110MR HALLOWES:  Which necessarily means that there is apart from the cumulation that necessarily attaches if one looks at the head sentences of Your Honour's two sentences, from the period that has elapsed up until now, there is no further cumulation of the head sentence.

111HER HONOUR:  No.  Is there a form of words I need to order?

112

MR HALLOWES:  No, there is not, I just wanted to clarify that that was

Your Honour

's intention.

113HER HONOUR:  That is certainly my intention.  Mr Georgiou has spent roughly nearly a year and a half in custody at this stage.  Today's sentence commences today and really it subsumes the previous sentence that was imposed.

114MR HALLOWES:  Indeed, and in terms of the head sentences that have been imposed, the cumulation is in essence just the time that he has been in custody up until today.

115HER HONOUR:  That is right.

116MR HALLOWES:  I just wanted to clarify that was Your Honour's intention.

117HER HONOUR:  That is my intention and, as I said, for those of you doing the maths, I calculated the non-parole period taking into account the amount of time he has been in custody for everything.

118MR HALLOWES:  Yes, and certainly the calculations, I make them to be correct, Your Honour.

119HER HONOUR:  Yes, so speaking in whole numbers if I can for the moment just to explain it, altogether Mr Georgiou will spend the best part of 10 years in custody, and he has got another five years to go from today before the non-parole period.

120MR HALLOWES:  Yes, Your Honour.

121HER HONOUR:  Complicated, is it not?  Is there anything else from anybody?

122MR BUCHHORN:  No, Your Honour.

123HER HONOUR:  Do you want some private time with your client?

124MR HALLOWES:  I do, that would assist, Your Honour.

125HER HONOUR:  It is easier to do that if you can just leave the things open and we will vacate the courtroom.  Thank you, we will adjourn now.

- - -