Director of Public Prosecutions v Gillespie (a pseudonym)
[2021] VCC 1294
•8 September 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CAMERON GILLESPIE (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE CARMODY |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 & 3 September 2021 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 September 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Gillespie (a pseudonym) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1294 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords: Sexual penetration of a child under 16 years – persistent contravene family violence order – youthful offender – standard sentencing provisions
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 2009; s145, Sentencing Act 1991; s5A, s5B, s11
Cases Cited: R v Brown [2018] VSC 742, Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169, R v Wyley [2009] VSCA 17, Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372, R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 4 years and 5 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms K. Farrell | The Office of Direction of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr I. Polak | Michael J. Gleeson & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1On 1 September 2021 at the County Court of Victoria sitting at Melbourne, you pleaded guilty to the following charges on Indictment No.L12116474.1. A further plea was also heard on 3 September 2021.
Charge 1, sexual penetration of a child under 16 years. This is an offence of tongue in the vagina of your victim. This has a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.
Charge 2, is sexual penetration of a child under 16 years. On this occasion, it was penetration by way of fingering and tongue in the vagina of your victim. This is a rolled up charge. This has a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.
Charge 3, penetration of a child under 16 years, which was both the tongue and penis in the vagina of your victim. Again, this is a rolled up charge. This has a maximum of 15 years' imprisonment.
Charge 4, is a persistent contravention of a family violence order between
27 August 2020 and 2 September 2020. This charge has a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.Charge 5, is a persistent contravention of a family violence order between 20 September and 29 September 2020. This charge has a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
2You consented to related summary charges being heard at this plea hearing. Pursuant to s145 of the Criminal Procedure Act, you pleaded guilty to the following related summary charges:
Summary Charge 11, commit an indictable offence whilst on bail. This charge has a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment;
Summary Charge 12, contravening a condition of bail. This charge has a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment; and
Summary Charge 14, contravening a family violence order. This charge has a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.
3This is your first time before the courts. As at this date, on my calculations, you have spent 267 days of pre-sentence detention, not counting today.
Circumstances of your offending
4At the time of the offending, you were 24 years of age. Your victim, who I will refer to as MS, in this sentence, was 14 years old. MS was living in a residential care facility and visited her mother on a fortnightly basis. MS had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, depression and anxiety, oppositional defiance disorder, with suicidal ideation and emotional dysregulation.
5In July 2020, the two of you met on an adult dating application known as Badoo. Your communications were conducted by text message, Skype, and Snapchat platforms. Prior to any physical meeting, MS told you that she was a 14-years-old and was in Year 9. In that same communication, you asked MS, 'Is it easy to get away for a fuck cuddle much?' MS's reply to you was, 'I told you I don't want to fuck'.
6During the period of the offending, you sent MS many sexualised messages via text message, Skype, and Snapchat, specifically referring to sexual acts you wished to conduct with MS and arranging to meet her to enable those acts to occur and sending MS photographs of your penis.
7A folder containing approximately 200 pages of screenshots of your electronic communications to MS was Exhibit “C” on this plea hearing. I will not descend to the detail of those communications, save and accept to say that they were persistent and salacious in nature.
Charge 1, sexual penetration of a child under 16 years
8On the first occasion where MS met you, you picked her up in your car from her residential care address in Kealba. You then drove to your residence at St Albans. You and MS watched cartoons together and you smoked cannabis, with MS smoking some cannabis approximately an hour later.
9MS was watching cartoons. You began pulling her pants down. You then performed oral sex on MS. You put your mouth on her vagina and licked and sucked her clitoris. This went on for approximately an hour, after which you then continued to watch cartoons together, hugged, and went to sleep. After a few hours, you took MS back to her residential care address.
Charge 2, sexual penetration of a child under 16 years (rolled up charge)
10On a subsequent occasion, MS was again picked up by you and the two of you went back to your residence, watched cartoons and smoked cannabis. On this occasion, you began touching MS and taking her clothes off. You inserted your finger into MS's vagina before again performing oral sex on her, as you had on the last occasion.
11On this occasion it did not last long. MS pushed your head away, telling you to stop. You did stop. And you and MS resumed watching the cartoons and smoking cannabis. MS stayed overnight at your place, which was a bungalow, and you took her home the following day.
12On 11 August 2020, MS visited her mother. During the visit, she told her mother that you had performed oral sex on her on two occasions and described you as being forceful and rough. MS asked her mother to take her to the police station, as she wanted you to stop contacting her.
13On 13 August 2020, you attended at MS's mother's address while MS was there and asked to see MS. MS's mother refused and called the police. The police attended at the address and a family violence safety notice was issued. Later that same day, you sent a message to MS's mother on Facebook Messenger, professing your love for MS, whilst submitting the inappropriate age difference between yourself and MS, and that you would leave MS alone.
14On 15 and 16 August 2020, you wrote further messages to MS's mother on Facebook, saying you loved MS and that you could help MS with her difficulties. You also used Instagram to convey similar messages. You were blocked on both of those platforms by MS's mother. You then contacted MS's mother's partner with the same sentiments expressed as those that I have just referred to.
15Ultimately, on 17 August 2020, a family violence intervention order was issued at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court. That order was served on you the following day, and that order prohibited you from contacting MS or being within 200 metres of her.
Charge 3, this is sexual penetration of a child under 16 years (rolled up charge)
16On 27 August, you again picked MS up and brought her back to your premises. You watched cartoons and smoked cigarettes and MS played solitaire. You removed MS's pants and underwear and performed oral sex on her in the manner that you had done so on previous occasions.
17You then laid on your back and lifted MS on top of you. MS tried to get off, but you held her legs and arms, pulling her neck down towards you so that she would kiss you. You then held your penis with your hand and inserted it into MS's vagina. MS tried to get off you and you allowed her to do so. And then you got on top of MS. MS got up, dressed herself and left your residence. MS then called one of her support workers and requested a taxi. She was picked up at a train station and taken back to her residential accommodation.
Charge 4, this is persistent contravention of an interim intervention order
18Your conduct for the offending in Charge 3, contravened the interim intervention order which had been made on 18 August 2020. Over the following days from 27 August 2020, you continued to contravene the interim intervention order by communicating with MS as follows:
(a) On 28 August 2020 you sent her seven text messages;
(b) On 29 August 2020, you sent her six text messages and one voicemail message;
(c) On 30 August 2020, you sent her seven text messages and two voicemail messages and;
(d) On 2 September 2020, you sent her 14 text messages.
19After that, you were arrested for the first time on 4 September 2020 at your home address. The police reviewed your mobile phone and identified three images relating to MS. Those images were on 31 July 2020, an image of a whiteboard in your bungalow with the following handwritten message on it, 'Step 1, don't touch/rape MS. 'Step 2, remove the "don't" from step 1'.
20The second image was on 6 August 2020, an image of the same whiteboard with the following handwritten message, 'Don't rape or kiss MS'. On
8 August 2020, an image of a handwritten note on paper, 'MS, I will fuck the shit out of you', and then 'proceed to do so'.21You were transported to the police station for interview, and you exercised your right to make a 'no comment' record of interview. On
5 September 2020, you were bailed by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court to appear on 4 December 2020. Your bail conditions included that you were not to contact any prosecution witnesses and not to use or access any social media accounts.Charge 5, this is a charge of persistent contravention of an interim intervention order and related summary charges.
22Between 20 September 2020 and 29 September 2020, you contravened the interim intervention order by sending the following email from a Gmail address which you had created to MS's school email account. There were six separate communications from you to MS in that time.
23On 6 October 2020, MS reported the contact to police and made a statement. She did not respond to any of your emails. You were on bail at that time you were committing that offence and that is Summary Charge 11.
24Between 4 November 2020 and 7 November 2020, you then sent eight emails to MS's school email address account, using the same email of [email protected]. You also sent a photograph of MS when she was a child, which you had removed from MS's mother's Facebook account.
25On 13 November 2020, you contacted MS's mother by Facebook (Summary Charge 14). These communications were all in contravention of your bail conditions, as both MS and MS's mother were witnesses for the prosecution (Summary Charge 12).
26On 18 December 2020, you were again arrested and taken to the police station. Your electronic devices were seized by police. Again, you exercised your right to make a 'no comment' record of interview. You have been in custody since that arrest. As I say, my calculation is 267 days of pre-sentence detention is applicable to this sentencing process.
Victim impact statement
27In this case, a victim impact statement was filed and prepared and signed by MS, with the assistance, as I understood it, of a social worker. MS set out how her trust in people has been adversely affected by your offending. She is on edge all the time. She attends a psychologist and has medication for her depression and anxiety. She has nightmares and flashbacks, and states she hates her body. She said that she has trouble managing her work and feels unsafe all the time.
28Clearly, your offending has had a significant adverse impact on the well-being of a young girl who was vulnerable prior to your offending.
Your personal circumstances
29You are now 25 years old. This is your first time in custody after you were remanded for this offending, on 18 December 2020. You grew up in a normal supportive family. You have three brothers. Your parents separated when you were in Year 12. Your mother works as a nurse, your father was a maintenance engineer and died two years ago, aged 70. Your mother has been hospitalised for manic episodes when you were young.
30When your parents separated, you moved out with your mother, together with your brothers. Your eldest brother has a doctorate in material science and works for the CSIRO. Your younger brother has graduated as a mechanical engineer. Your youngest brother is still in secondary school.
31You report to Jeffrey Cummins, a forensic psychologist, who examined you for the purposes of this plea, that you massively underperformed in Year 12. You expected an ATAR score in the 80s or 90s, but in fact attained a 73.4 ATAR score. You were depressed about that result.
32You earned a place to an engineering degree at RMIT with that Year 12 result. You attempted first year of that course on three occasions. You stated your studies were affected by the family break up and a suicide of a friend of yours who was in Year 12. After RMIT, you did a three month Certificate II in electrotechnology studies at the ETU in North Melbourne, that is Electrical Trades Union in North Melbourne. You started an apprenticeship, but you were laid off by your employer. You then worked as an electrical trades assistant for approximately six weeks, but you could not continue your work due to the longstanding finger injury that you have.
33You then went onto Jobsearch allowance for two and a half years. In March or April 2020, you commenced a computer programming course at Charles Sturt University. You withdrew from that course in July/August 2020. It was in this period that you had met MS through the platform, Badoo.
34You reported to Jeffrey Cummins that you had been referred to Dr Tipirneni, a psychiatrist, for anxiety, anger, and mood fluctuations when you were about 18 years of age. You had been prescribed dexamphetamine, 5 milligrams, six tablets per day. Unfortunately , there was no report from you psychiatrist,
Dr Tipirneni, to set out the treatment and diagnosis of what conditions you actually suffer.35You had engaged in self-harm to the nail bit of your index finger on your left hand since you were about 18 years of age. You take pain relief medication and anti-inflammatory information to deal with the pain in your left finger.
36You told Jeffery Cummins that you maintain an ongoing sexual relationship with MS. You stated that you were aware of her age at the time of that sexual relationship. You told Mr Cummins that you thought you had a special relationship with MS because you thought you had a common background and mental health issues.
37Mr Cummins describes your offending behaviour as situationally motivated and opportunistic. In his opinion, you have a psychopathic personality disorder.
Mr Cummins diagnosed you as suffering from a Major Depressive Disorder of moderate severity. You have a job as a billet in the prison, and your prison report is a positive one, that was Exhibit 4 on the plea.
Sentencing considerations
38The basic purpose for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence, both specific and general, rehabilitation, and denunciation of your actions and the protection of the community. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors, such as the seriousness of your offending, your culpability for it, and your personal circumstances.
39I am also required to balance the interest of the community in denouncing your criminal conduct, with the interest of the community in seeking to ensure, as far as possible that you, as an offender, are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. I am also required to take into account current sentencing practices in fixing your sentence. That enquiry is directed particularly, but not exhaustively, to the kinds of sentence imposed in comparable cases and the statistics of those sentences at the time.
40I have considered the statistics and the current sentencing practices. I am mindful that each case must be considered in the light of its own particular circumstances, and many of the cases would be distinguishable from your case, as indeed they are from one another. The current sentencing practices are but one of the factors that I have to take into account in fixing your sentence.
41The maximum sentence for the Charges 1, 2, and 3 is 15 years' imprisonment. Pursuant to s5A and 5B of the Sentencing Act, these charges are subject to the standard sentencing provisions. The standard sentence for these offences is six years' imprisonment. The standard sentence only takes account of the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offences of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years. The maximum sentence and the standard sentence are to be taken into account as legislative guideposts in the sentencing process.
42In s5B(3)(b), Parliament enacted that the standard sentencing provisions are not intended to affect the approach to sentencing known as the instinctive synthesis. Champion J in R v Brown set out that the standard sentence is not to take the predominant role in sentencing and is just one of the factors to be taken into account.
43It follows that the standard sentence does not assume a dominant role in the determination of the sentence for these charges. The standard sentence prescribed by Parliament for the offence is simply one of the relevant sentencing factors to which a court must have regard, along with the other sentencing factors identified, which are required to be taken into account in s5(2) of the Sentencing Act.
44Further, so far as consideration of current sentencing practices are concerned, s5B(2)(b) requires a court, when considering sentencing practices for a standard sentence offence, to only consider sentences previously imposed where the relevant offence was the subject of the standard sentencing scheme.
45Your counsel submitted that the appropriate sentence for your offending as a term of imprisonment in combination with a community corrections order. For the reasons I will outline, I do not accept that the combination sentence is appropriate for this offending.
46You have pleaded guilty to the charges. Your plea of guilty was indicated at an early stage. Your plea does have the utilitarian value of allowing for the orderly and effective administration of justice. There is a certainty of outcome and the resolution of the substantive issues raised by your offending. Your plea allows for the preservation of the court and police resources to deal with other matters. Your plea indicates a public confidence in the legal process set up to protect our community.
47Your plea is also a clear acknowledgement by you that you accept responsibility for your criminal behaviour on these occasions. Your plea also recognises you are willing to facilitate the course of justice in the community, and I accept that your pleas of guilty to these charges indicates and demonstrates some remorse on your part.
48By your plea of guilty, you have obviated the necessity for MS to relive and give evidence about your offending in a court of law. This is especially significant because MS is a young person who has psychological problems of her own, and was a person placed in residential care at the time of your offending against her.
49The Court of Appeal in Worboyes[1], set out a number of reasons why a plea of guilty in the times of the COVID-19 is particularly significant in the sentencing process and then said this:
'For these reasons, we consider that — all other things being equal — a plea of guilty entered during the currency of the COVID-19 pandemic is worthy of greater weight in mitigation than a similar plea entered at a time when the community and the courts are not afflicted by the pandemic's effects. A plea of guilty during the pandemic ordinarily should attract a more pronounced amelioration of sentence than at another time. Although a sentencing judge need not quantify the extent of any "discount", he or she must ensure that the plea of guilty results in a perceptible amelioration of sentence.'
[1]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
50Your counsel referred to this as the 'Worboyes discount'. I accept you have expressed remorse for your offending to Jeffrey Cummins, his report was Exhibit 2 and to your mother, who had sent in a letter to the court, which was Exhibit 3.
51You have no prior convictions. You are to be sentenced as a person of pervious good character. A young offender is defined as a person under the age of 21 years at the time of sentence in the Sentencing Act. You are not a young offender, but you are a youthful offender. At the time of offending, you were 24 years old, you are now 25.
52It is a principle of sentencing law that when a young offender or youthful offender such as yourself is to be sentenced, a sentencing disposition should be tailored, taking into account all other sentencing considerations to promote your rehabilitation. This approach serves the interest of the individual offender and the community as a whole.
53In the case of Mills[2], which there are three propositions of sentencing set out:
1)youth of an offender, particularly a first offender such as yourself should be a primary consideration of the sentencing court, where the matter properly arises;
2)in the case of a youthful offender, rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence. This is because punishment may in fact lead to further offending. Thus, for example, individualised treatment focussing on rehabilitation is to be preferred. And in short, rehabilitation benefits the community as well as the offender; and
3)a youthful offender is not to be sent to an adult prison if such a disposition can be avoided - in this case, that cannot be avoided. The benchmark of what is serious as justifying adult imprisonment may be quite high in the case of a youthful offender and where the offender has not previously been incarcerated, and a shorter period of imprisonment may be justified. The last proposition, in particular, is a general principle expressed in s5(4) of the Sentencing Act.
[2]R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235
54In more recent times, the Court of Appeal has made pronouncements on the considerations of youth in sentencing practices, and in the case R v Wyley[3], Maxwell P said as follows:
'Mills constantly reminds sentencing courts, and this Court on appeal, that there is great public benefit in the rehabilitation of an offender and in maximising the prospect that the offender will carry on a law-abiding life in the future. But that consideration is not unique to young offenders. Nor is there any one correct answer as to how the balance is to be struck between that consideration and others which may point towards a period, or a longer period, of imprisonment, rather than a non-custodial sentence. Thus understood, the later cases of DPP v Lawrence and R v Nguyen, are not to be viewed as "excluding the principles in Mills", but simply as instances of how those principles are to be applied.'
[3]R v Wyley [2009] VSCA 17
55As counsel properly conceded towards the end of his submissions, there is a role of general deterrence to play in relation to every class of case. In relation to certain classes of cases, however, general deterrence may have a particularly important part to play. The present case is of that kind. The violence and circumstances of this offending is so prevalent that general deterrence is seen to have particular importance. The role of general deterrence will vary with the circumstances of the case.
56In offending such as sexual offending against a 14-year-old girl calls for a measure of general deterrence. These issues were recently considered in Azzopardi v The Queen[4], where Redlich JA, as he then was, and Coghlan and Macaulay AJJA, agreed with him, says as follows:
The general propositions which flow from these authorities is that where the degree of criminality of the offences requires the sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community to become more prominent in the sentencing calculus, the weight to be attached to youth is correspondingly reduced. As the level of seriousness of the criminality increases there will be a corresponding reduction in the mitigating effects of the offender's youth. But only in the circumstances of the gravest criminal offending and where there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation may the mitigatory consideration of youth be viewed as all but extinguished.'
[4]Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372
57The offence of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years is, by definition, a serious offence. The seriousness of your offending is indicated by the following factors:
a)the age difference between you and MS was 10 years;
b)MS was only 14 years old;
c)you persistently pursued her on Snapchat and other platforms to come and meet you or go pick her up;
d)your Snapchat communications had persistent sexual connotations in them and indicated a level of planning by you;
e)you knew MS was 14 years and was a vulnerable child living in a residential care unit at the time of your offending;
f)you did not use a condom during your sexual intercourse offending with her, which was the subject of Charge 3, and after you had been subject to an order to stay away from her;
g)you persisted in your sexual contact with MS over an extended period of some two months;
h)even a after a court order was made to restrain you after Charge 1 and 2, you continued to offend in Charge 3;
i)your offending in Charges 4 and 5 on the indictment is done in the face of court orders; and
j)your offending by contacting MS continued until you were incarcerated.
58I assess your offending as less than the mid-range of seriousness for this type of offending. Your prospects of rehabilitation are fair. You have the protective factors of a supportive mother and you have no prior convictions. Mr Cummins assesses your risk of general reoffending as above average, but your risk of sexual reoffending as low to moderate. I assess that you have limited insight in the true effect of your offending on MS.
59It was submitted on your behalf that Verdins principles apply to your sentencing process. Mr Cummins proffered the opinion that your moral culpability for the offending was less because of your impaired mental functioning. I do not accept that there was any mental health condition that affected your moral culpability for this offending.
60I do, however, accept that your diagnosis of depression and anxiety, which is made by Mr Cummins, will be aggravated or your mental health will deteriorate because of your incarceration. I also accept your mental health status will make your time in custody more onerous than a prisoner of normal mental health. Your sentence will be moderated to reflect those matters.
61In respect of Charge 3, you are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender after I have imposed a sentence of terms of imprisonment for Charge 1 and 2. In sentencing you as a serious sexual offender, I am to regard the protection of the community as the principal purpose for which a sentence is to be imposed.
62In order to achieve that purpose, a court may impose a sentence longer than that which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence considered in the light of the objective circumstances. Further, a term of imprisonment for Charge 3 is to be served cumulatively on any other sentences imposed, unless the court orders otherwise. In this case, the most serious offending is Charge 3, as it involves penile/vaginal penetration and is committed after the intervention has been made between MS and you.
63The prosecution did not call for a disproportionate sentence or total cumulation of sentencing.
64The provisions of s11 of the Sentence Act set out a standard sentencing case such as this, that the non-parole period is at least 60 per cent of the total sentence. In this case, due to the particular and unusual circumstances of the offending and matters relevant to you personally, I am going to impose a non-parole period which is slightly less than 60 per cent of the head sentence.
65I have cumulated that amount of each sentence that reflects and acknowledges the additional criminality but have moderated the cumulation to account of the principle of totality in sentencing so as not to impose a crushing sentence on you.
66The circumstances of this offending and your personal circumstances do not admit of any just sentence other than a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The sentencing principles of general and specific deterrence, just punishment, denunciation of your offending, and the protection of the community dictate that the only appropriate sentence is imprisonment. Hopefully, you will be granted parole at an early time so that the Adult Parole Board can assist you with your rehabilitation upon release.
67Cameron Gillespie, I sentence you as follows:
68Charge 1, on the indictment, sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
69Charge 2, on the indictment, sexual penetration of child under 16 years, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
70Charge 3, on the indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
71Charge 4, on the indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
72Charge 5, on the indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
73And the related summary charges, on the charge of offending whilst on bail, which is Summary Charge 11, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
74On Summary Charge 12, that is contravening the bail condition, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
75And on Summary Charge 14, it was the breach of an intervention order, you are convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
76The cumulation for your offending is as follows. Charge 3 is the base sentence, so that is three years. To that sentence and cumulating on one another, six months from the sentence in Charge 1 on the indictment, six months from the sentence in Charge 2 on the indictment, two months from the sentence in Charge 4 on the indictment, two months from the sentence in Charge 5 on the indictment, and one month from Summary Charge 14 in the summary charges.
77That is a total effective sentence of four years and five months. I fix a non-parole period of two years and six months.
78Pursuant to s6AAA, but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to six years and four months, with a four year non-parole period.
79I declare that you have served 267 days pre-sentence detention, not including this day, in respect of that sentence.
80I place you on a sex offender register for life. That follows the convictions for Charge 1, 2, and 3 on the indictment.
81Pursuant to the s6F of the Sentencing Act, you have been sentenced as a serious sexual offender, and I sign the forfeiture order which was required. Now, counsel, is there anything further I have to deal with?
82MR POLAK: Your Honour, in relation to the forfeiture order, I am ‑ ‑ ‑
83HIS HONOUR: Right, I am not signing it. All right, sorry. Yes.
84MS FARRELL: Yes, Your Honour, the order was provided to defence back around 15 August, and they indicated they consented. They advised my instructor at 10 past nine this morning that that was no longer the case, and so we haven't had much time to get further instructions from the informant.
85In terms of the order, I would seek that that simply be left in abeyance so that conversations can be had between myself and my learned friend, and then if the orders alternately consented to in one form, perhaps Your Honour could deal with that in chambers? And if it is ultimately not agreed, we will seek a mention date before Your Honour.
86HIS HONOUR: Yes, certainly.
87MS FARRELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
88HIS HONOUR: So, I will not make any forfeiture order. Can I ask counsel, did they check the cumulations? I want to make sure they are right.
89MS FARRELL: Yes, Your Honour. My maths, which I do not stand behind strongly, has it adding up correctly.
90HIS HONOUR: Mr Polak?
91MR POLAK: I would not guarantee mine either, but it does come out at that figure, Your Honour.
92HER HONOUR: All right. Do you want to speak to your client over the link?
93MR POLAK: That would be great if I could, Your Honour.
94HIS HONOUR: Mr Polak - I think we have got time, have we not? Yes, there is sufficient time. Mr Gillespie, I am just going to leave the link open so you can speak to Mr Polak directly. The learned prosecutor will leave the courtroom, as I will, but there will be one member of my staff here who operates the machinery, all right?
95OFFENDER: Thank you, Your Honour.
96HIS HONOUR: Sorry. Yes, just in relation to the Sex Offenders Register, as I said, as I announced, you are on it for life. What will happen is you will be sent documents to the prison which you will have to sign and send back.
97OFFENDER: Okay.
98HIS HONOUR: Yes. Yes, you will explain that, Mr Polak?
99MR POLAK: Yes.
100HIS HONOUR: Yes, thanks.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
5
1