Director of Public Prosecutions v Gudge

[2020] VCC 955

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-20-00140

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ASHLEY GUDGE

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE GWYNN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 & 24 June 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 June 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Gudge
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 955

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  Criminal law
Catchwords:                 Recklessly cause serious injury
Legislation Cited:        Sentencing Act 1991;

Cases Cited:Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119; Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97; DPP v Smith [2019] VSCA 266; Ashdown v The Queen [2011] VSCA 408, DPP v Gilmour [2019] VSCA 766, Pato v The Queen [2011] VSCA 223; DPP v Gray [2016] VCC 910; Trowsdalev The Queen [2011] VSCA 81

Sentence:2 years and 10 months imprisonment; non-parole period of 18 months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms D. Caruso	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Offender	Mr C. Terry	Tyler Tipping & Woods

HIS HONOUR: 

1Ashley Gudge, you have pleaded guilty on indictment to a single charge of recklessly causing serious injury to Jackie Fleming[1] on the 14th day of April 2019.  In sentencing you for this crime, I must have regard to the maximum penalty.  The maximum penalty for recklessly causing serious injury is 15 years imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness with which Parliament regards this offence.

[1] A pseudonym

2The circumstances of your offending were set out in a document entitled “Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea”, dated 18 May 2020.  Apart from one issue, this is an agreed document, confirming your acceptance of all the elements of the offence and the factual basis on which I am to sentence.

3In short compass, you had been in an “on-again off-again” relationship with Jackie Fleming since 2014.  In early 2019, you recommenced the relationship and were residing in Maryborough.  When evicted from your Maryborough address, a friend invited you to stay at her residence in Carisbrook.  On
13 April 2019, you and Ms Fleming borrowed a horse float to move your belongings from Maryborough to Carisbrook.  You stayed up late moving and unpacking.

4On the afternoon of 14 April 2019, Ms Fleming woke and realised you had both slept late and not returned the horse float.  She tried to wake you and an argument commenced.  Neighbours close by could hear that arguing.  At around 4.30 pm, your friend John O'Keeffe arrived and knocked on the door.

5Just after the knock on the door, you became enraged and flew at Ms Fleming, grabbing her by the neck and squeezing tightly whilst screaming “Get the fuck out and don't fucking come back, you fucking mongrel”.  As you were doing this, you tried to shove Ms Fleming towards the front door.  This pressure forced her to her hands and knees and onto a mattress.  You were screaming “Get the fuck out”, to which the victim responded with words like “I've got nowhere to go”.  Witnesses heard her say “Why are you doing this to me?” and “Leave me alone, get off me”.  Both of you were heard to use the words “fucking dog”.

6John O'Keeffe urged you to calm down, however you remained enraged and walked back towards a coffee table.  Ms Fleming was still on her knees on the floor at this time.  You were about three metres from her when you were heard to say “Fucking dog”.  You picked up a porcelain mug from the coffee table, turned and in one motion, threw the mug with such force that it shattered on impact.  That impact was to the left-hand side of Ms Fleming's face.

7Ms Fleming felt immediate pain, blinded in both eyes and to have lost her hearing.  She stood up, tripped and stumbled outside, at which time she regained sight in her right eye.  She began screaming for help and blood was trickling from her face.  You remained inside the unit and did not go to Ms Fleming's aid.

8The factual issue in dispute relates to witness, Francis Davies, being on the phone to 000 and hearing laughing coming from inside the unit.  As Mr O'Keeffe fitted the description of the person rendering assistance to Ms Fleming, the prosecution assert that it was you laughing.  They submit that this is to be used to assess your level of remorse as should your failure to render assistance.

9Your laughing at Ms Fleming’s injury would be an aggravating feature and I would need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it had occurred and in the way as suggested by the prosecution.

10Mr Davies is the only available evidence on this point.  His evidence from his statement dated 10 July 2019, some 3 months later, is as follows: 

“I think she was living with a girl named Andy.  I had never had a conversation with Jackie but we would say hello in passing. 

The guy kneeling beside her appeared to be in his 50s.  I do not know his name.  He was yelling to get the ambulance and the police.  I then told him I had already called the ambulance and they were on their way. 

He was holding Jackie's head still. 

I was still on the phone to 000 at this time. 

The call taker asked if the woman was conscious and I said yes because I could hear her talking to the guy holding her head.  She thought she was dying; Miranda and the guy kept reassuring her that she would be ok. 

At this time, I could hear laughing inside the unit.  Miranda told me that it was Jackie's boyfriend inside laughing.”

11Mr Davies has never been the subject of cross-examination on this point, or any other.  The extent of his evidence on laughing is outlined in his statement.  No other evidence has been called to assist the determination of this issue.

12Neither you nor Ms Fleming were known to Mr Davies, whose observations were made whilst he was on the phone in a highly stressful situation.  He took the view that the sound he heard in that moment was laughing and that it originated from inside the unit.  He was told by another witness that it was “Jackie's boyfriend inside laughing”.  You were not seen outside the unit when persons were attending to Ms Fleming. 

13Ms Fleming observed you to be leaving at the time a witness with the name Miranda Reid was on the phone to 000.  Witness Stephenson took over the 000 call from Reid and saw you leave on a motorbike.  This observation would have to allow time for you to leave the premises from a back door and then access the motorbike.  Witness Reid also observed you to leave around the time that Ms Fleming was being attended upon.

14There is therefore margin for error in Mr Davies' belief that he heard laughing from inside the unit and the conclusion that it must be you.  Even if I could be satisfied that Mr Davies heard laughing from inside the unit, and that it could be attributed to you, I could not be satisfied to the requisite standard that it related directly to the serious injury which you caused to Ms Fleming.  That injury occurred in a split second and, on her evidence, Ms Fleming left the unit immediately, where you remained before leaving on a motorbike.  I could not be satisfied that at the point in time when you were believed by Mr Davies to be laughing, you were aware of the actual harm which you had caused.  I could not be satisfied that any laughing related to that event.  I do not intend to use Mr Davies' observations in any way in sentencing you.

15Police attended in response to 000 calls and you left the scene, as I have described. 

16The Crown also says that this indicates a lack of remorse but concede that in the immediate aftermath you were unlikely to have known the extent of the injury caused to Ms Fleming.  On any view, your instincts were protective of your own needs, rather than those of Ms Fleming.

17Ms Fleming was taken to Ballarat Base Hospital before being airlifted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital.  She was found to have remnants of the ceramic cup in her left eye.  She required surgery to remove those remnants and plastic surgery for left eye globe rupture, left forehead laceration to the bone and left eyelid laceration.  I understand there was also a laceration to her shoulder.  It was thought at that time that she was unlikely to regain much vision in her left eye.  She continues to experience significant facial scarring from your assault and photographs of these were tendered.

18In her evidence at committal in January of 2020, Ms Fleming gave evidence that she had lost 30 per cent of her peripheral vision in her left eye and her long distance sight has been impacted.  An additional medical report, authored by Dr Marceglia, but dated 31 January 2020, was tendered.  It does not contain any update of the medical evidence post April of 2019.  In any event, you have left Ms Fleming with a permanent injury, at least in terms of scarring, impact on the vision in her left eye and facial numbness, increasing the gravity of your offending. 

19You returned to the scene sometime after 6 pm on the day and were arrested by police.  In a subsequent interview with them you admitted the disagreement with Ms Fleming and to throwing the cup at her, stating that you were not thinking.  It is apparent from that interview that you were both surprised and distressed at the level of injury you had actually caused.

20It is trite to say that this is a serious offence, which has occurred in a clear context of family violence.  In a decision of Wati Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119, the Court emphasised the need for general deterrence, stating that:

“The sentence must convey the unmistakable message that male partners have no right to subject their female partners to threats or violence.  The sentences must be of such an order as to strongly denounce violence within a domestic relationship.”

21In Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97, the Court of Appeal also emphasised the importance of general deterrence in sentencing for family violence. It stated that:

“The key to protection lies in deterring the violent conduct by sending an unequivocal message to would-be perpetrators of domestic violence that if they offend, they will be sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment, so that they are no longer in a position to inflict harm.”

22The recent decision of DPP v Smith [2019] VSCA 266 reinforced Pasinis, stating:

“In 2014, this court sent out what hoped would be an unequivocal message to would be perpetrators of domestic violence.  That, if they offend, they will be sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment.”

23Summaries of your prior history of violence against Ms Fleming were provided by the prosecution and would indicate that the events of 14 April 2019 were not a one-off.  Nor was your violence against former domestic partners.  I will return to this at a later stage.

24In this particular instance, any slight you perceived was relatively minor, if in existence.  You responded with rage out of all proportion.  At the time that you threw the cup in the direction of Ms Fleming, she was kneeling on a mattress on the ground, was particularly vulnerable because of that location and was certainly no threat to you.  This incident occurred in a context of what was your shared home, an environment in which she too was entitled to feel safe.

25The learned prosecutor has referred me to decisions as follows:  Ashdown v The Queen [2011] VSCA 408, DPP v Gilmour [2019] VSCA 766, Pato v The Queen [2011] VSCA 223 and DPP v Gray [2016] VCC 910, in an effort to assist with current sentencing principles in this particular context, and I have had recourse to each of those decisions. The matter of Ashdown involved an offender holding his victim to the throat, lifting her and punching her directly to the right-hand side of her face, fracturing her jaw.  He was on a suspended sentence at the time for offences against the same victim.  Gilmour involved a stabbing of his wife during a psychiatric reaction to prescription medication.  Pato involved the victim suffering multiple facial fractures, bruising and pancreatitis after the offender stood astride her and inflicted blows to her head and to her body.  Gray involved the victim being struck to the face with a wooden fence post, with continued strikes after the initial attack, resulting in traumatic left eye globe structure.  I believe Mr Gray was subject to a community corrections order at the time.

26Your counsel referred me to a decision of Trowsdale [2011] VSCA 81, which did involve the throwing of a glass at another patron in a pub dispute, which was also of some assistance. I observed that the sentencing practices for recklessly cause serious injury have changed considerably since then. I have also been referred to the Sentence Advisory Council's “Snapshots”, which was of limited assistance, given the wide range of offending encompassed by the charge of recklessly causing serious injury.

27I do see this incident in a slightly different context to those where the perpetrator strikes a direct blow, or blows, to the face or head region of a victim, with a fist or implement which, by comparison, would have to make such an offence objectively more serious, since it heightens the probability of serious injury, as well as the degree of seriousness of the probable injury.

28Whilst I accept - and you acknowledge, through your plea - that in the spontaneous moment in which you snatched the mug and threw it from a distance of some three metres you demonstrated a conscious disregard of the risk of serious injury, yours was a single action in a split second from some distance.

29In terms of your foresight of the probability that your actions would cause a serious injury to the victim, and you proceeding regardless of that probability,
I accept that your foresight was of an extremely, if not momentary duration. 
I also accept that the actual consequences of your actions were unintended, all of which reduces the objective gravity of the offence.  I accept that this is at least at mid-level, towards lower-level, in all the circumstances, for an offence of its type.

30Ms Fleming has completed a victim impact statement and read the document to the court.  The purpose of a victim impact statement is to give those affected by your crime the opportunity to participate in the criminal justice process by informing the court about the effects of the crime upon them.  A direct result of your actions has been the physical impact, in terms of pain, and the need for hospitalisation and surgery.  In addition to that is the lasting evidence of your assault in the form of scarring to the face.  Ms Fleming read her victim impact statement to the court, so the effect of your wrongdoing upon her cannot be lost upon you.  In that document she speaks of feeling powerless and scared for her life.  In terms of the ongoing ramifications, she has been diagnosed with depression and remains concerned about going out because of her appearance.  Initially this scarring deterred Ms Fleming from seeing her own children.  She is concerned that she will lose total vision in her left eye as she gets older and has constant anxiety.  The impact of your offending upon her has been wide-reaching and profound.

31In terms of your personal circumstances, you are now aged 34 years and were born in Ayre, Queensland.  You grew up in Townsville and over both north and west Queensland.  There are many unfortunate aspects of your background that I will refer to in limited detail that must have been with some lasting impact on you and will be taken into account by me in a general sense.

32Your parents, Lorraine and Matthew, separated when you were aged between five and six years.  You are the oldest of four boys.  Two of your younger brothers reside in the Morwell region and you maintain a good relationship with each of them.  Your mother re-partnered with a man named Andrew Haywood, who was violent and abusive towards you.  You recall instances where your face was smashed into a plate for not eating an onion and also to having your collarbone broken. 

33Your brothers suffered similar abuse.

34When aged approximately 11 years, you were brave enough to report the abuse to a teacher at your primary school and child services investigated.  You were beaten for having made this report and subsequently removed from your family and placed into state care.  When ultimately returned to the family home, your mother maintained her relationship with Mr Haywood.

35You have limited education, as you experienced both behavioural and learning issues at school.  You are functionally illiterate and have been partially deaf since birth.  When aged around 14 years, you were working away from the family home doing seasonal harvest work when your mother relocated to Melbourne with your three brothers.  You were not told and did not discover she had moved until you went to return to the family home, which was by then non-existent.

36Fortunately, you were taken on by another family, who were also working in seasonal fruit and vegetable picking.  They helped you to locate your mother in Melbourne and you eventually came to Melbourne to stay with her.  This was relatively short-lived, as you constantly became involved in arguments, which were largely focused on your continuing distress at having been abandoned by her, leaving you in Queensland.  You ultimately returned to Queensland, before again returning to Melbourne and settling in the Latrobe Valley region.

37Your use of drugs commenced when you were aged about 14 years.  In more recent times your primary drug of dependence has been methylamphetamine. 

38You have had a number of long-term relationships, including that with Ms Fleming.  You apparently have nine children aged between five to 20 years, but are presently not in contact with any of them.

39You met Ms Fleming about six years ago, commencing a relationship six months later.  You have a child, Laura[2], now aged five years.  In late 2017, you moved to Maryborough in an attempt to separate yourself from a negative peer network which you had developed in the Latrobe Valley.  You became relatively settled and were working six days a week at Maryborough Machinery.  At that time you were residing with Ms Fleming, her 12-year-old daughter and the daughter that you have together.

[2] A pseudonym

40Things started to go wrong when you lost your accommodation in Maryborough and the children were removed from your care and placed with Ms Fleming's mother in Boronia.  At this time you relapsed into methamphetamine use and were using almost daily at the time of your offending.  You now accept that your relationship with Ms Fleming was characterised by acts of violence.  You also accept that the relationship has ended, which is undoubtedly in both her and your best interests.

41Your criminal record commences in 2004.  It involves some 13 court appearances.  That history contains offences of dishonesty, driving offences, drug offences and failures to comply with court orders, which include community-based dispositions, a suspended sentence, intervention orders, orders against your licence and bail orders.

42Relevantly, you appeared at the Moe Magistrates' Court on 15 November 2005 for a charge of recklessly causing injury, at which time you were convicted and fined the amount of $600. 

43On 25 January 2007, you appeared at the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court in relation to a range of offending involving a previous intimate partner, which included breaches of intervention order, intentionally threatening serious injury and damaging property.  At that time, you were sentenced to four months imprisonment, to be served by way of intensive corrections order.  You later breached this order and it was cancelled by the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court on 9 October 2007, at which time you were required to serve the unexpired portion of that order, being some 82 days.

44On 28 March 2008, you appeared at Wonthaggi Magistrates' Court in relation to driving offences, as well as charges of recklessly cause injury, unlawful assault and two charges of breach intervention order, relating to your former step-child and your biological child.  On that occasion, you were convicted and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.

45On 23 August 2010, you were convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for a period of 12 months, in relation to a charge of threat to inflict serious injury relating to a former domestic partner.  This suspended sentence was subsequently breached and dealt with at the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court on 24 August 2012, when you were also sentenced for property offences and threatening serious injury, amongst others.  You were convicted and placed on a community corrections order for a period of 12 months, which included community work and treatment conditions.  This order was also subsequently breached.

46On 10 March 2017, you appeared at the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court and, amongst other offences, were sentenced for charges of contravening a family violence intervention order, recklessly cause injury, persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, unlawful assault and weapon possession, where your victim was Jackie Fleming.  On that occasion, you received a total effective sentence of one year imprisonment, with 164 days being reckoned as having already been served.  A non-parole period was fixed at six months.

47Subsequent to your assault upon Ms Fleming on 14 April 2019, you were located at her premises some seven days later hiding in a cupboard in breach of a family violence safety notice and bail order.  Ms Fleming had told police that you were not present.  Your bail was revoked as a consequence and you were subsequently convicted and fined $1,000 for offences of breach of family violence safety notice and breach of bail.

48Your history of violence in an intimate partner setting increases your moral culpability for the offence before me.  Whilst you are not to be punished for this history a second time, it does provide some guidance, as the need for specific deterrence - that is, putting you off further offending -  denunciation and the need to protect the community from you, particularly intimate partners.

49In addition, your history overall assists with the assessment that needs to be undertaken as to your prospects for rehabilitation.  On the evidence presently before me, including the psychological reports, those prospects could only be described as guarded at best.

50Turning to those reports, the psychological report authored by Mr David Ball, forensic psychologist, dated 8 March 2017, was tendered and was not the subject of challenge.  Mr Ball tested your level of intellectual functioning and was of the opinion that your full-scale IQ was 72.  In his opinion, you presented as a low-functioning man, with some impairment to your capacity to exercise good judgment and plan and execute positive and self-sustaining behaviour.  In his opinion, you tend to be impulsive, make poor decisions and frequently choose your course of action based on short-term considerations rather than on the long-term consequences.

51Given your level of intellectual functioning is unlikely to change, your reduced capacity to exercise good judgment is likely to remain, impacting on your future risk. 

52Whilst clearly prepared for an earlier court appearance, it would appear that Mr Ball's assessment provides clarity in relation to your offending of
14 April 2019, in which your actions were clearly impulsive and were without regard to the impact upon others.

53A psychological report dated 10 June 2020, authored by Dr Aaron Cunningham, psychologist, has also been tendered on your behalf and is also not the subject of challenge.  This report sets out much of your personal background.  Essentially, Dr Cunningham finds that you present with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, stemming from your childhood abuse and emotional neglect.  You are impulsive and prone to drug use to cope with stressful life events and are prone to outbursts of anger during times of stress and frustration.  This finding is also relevant to your future risk.

54Your counsel does not call into your aid the principles of R v Verdins and Ors. 

55Dr Cunningham suggests that you would benefit from engaging with the National Disability Insurance Scheme to provide support for housing and treatment, which he finds you would struggle to source independently.  He is also of the view that you would benefit from engaging with mental health intervention, maintaining stable accommodation and employment.  It would appear that these suggestions will be important to your transition back into the community and I take them and the contents of both reports into account.

56You told Dr Cunningham that your partner, referring to Ms Fleming, would run you down verbally and emotionally every day and that you were being harassed on the day of your offence.  The Crown contends this shows lack of remorse.  It probably does, but in my view, given your deficits, it demonstrates a continuing lack of insight into your family violence and what amounts to an inability to control yourself when you do become frustrated and the harm that you then cause to others.

57Your lack of insight is somewhat explained by your level of intellectual functioning and psychological condition, in terms of your swift, but ill-thought-out response to stressful situations.  In combination, each of these psychological reports goes some way to explain - not excuse - your inability to control your behaviour, such as the situation in which you found yourself on 14 April 2019.

58Accepting the contents of those reports, protection of the community must be given significant, but not disproportionate weight.  I do not see the psychological findings as reducing your moral culpability to any great degree, given your history of domestic violence offending.

59To your credit, you have pleaded guilty to the single charge of recklessly cause serious injury to Ms Fleming.  I accept that this plea has utilitarian benefit and has saved the court the time and expense of contested proceedings.  I note
Ms Fleming was required to give evidence at committal proceedings.  I accept that the testing of her evidence at that time largely focused on the circumstances in which you threw the mug, examining your relevant intent.

60Your decision to plead guilty has taken place in circumstances where you were also facing a charge of intentionally causing serious injury and therefore does represent a plea of guilty at a relatively early stage.  Importantly, your plea has avoided the need for Ms Fleming and other witnesses to attend court and again relive the events of April of 2019.

61I accept that, in combination with your extreme distress in your record of interview with police, the disgust at yourself you expressed to Dr Cunningham at your actions, and your decision to plead guilty in circumstances where, in my view, there was a triable issue, that your plea of guilty is one demonstrating some, but not complete, remorse.

62You have been on remand for this offence since 21 April 2019, which for you represents the longest period you have spent in a custodial setting.  Hopefully, there has been a degree of both sanction and deterrence in your remand to date.

63You have tried to use your time wisely whilst in custody and completed certificates in traffic management, welding and engineering.  You have also undertaken courses in respectful relationships, parenting and coping with family stress.  Hopefully you can transition these learnings into the community upon your eventual release.  As per Dr Cunningham's report, you will most likely require significant intervention to reduce your future risk.  You hope to obtain work in traffic management in the future and will look to Geelong for a fresh start.

64In your case, your decision to plead guilty has come about during the court's emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  In those circumstances, I consider it to have substantial utilitarian value, given the present public health concerns regarding the COVID-19 virus.  This has impacted on the practical management of jury trials, which have ceased for the time being in Victoria.  No jury pool was therefore required in your case.

65More importantly, as I said, your plea has avoided the need for Ms Fleming and other witnesses to attend, which, given the cessation of trials, would have then been on an uncertain date in the future.  Your plea has given certainty to the finalisation of these proceedings.  These factors will be taken into account in your favour.

66In addition, I accept that the pandemic has altered the conditions for those on remand.  There has been a suspension of physical visits and restricted access to programs.  Whilst I do not understand that you would have otherwise had visits, you had been undertaking vocational and therapeutic courses that you are no longer able to access.  In addition, I accept that there is an understandable anxiety about the virus impacting on the prison system, even if that is yet to actually eventuate.  I take these aspects into account in a general sense.

67The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community.  In sentencing you I must have regard to a range of matters, such as the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and those of your victim.  I am also required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure, as far as possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and are reintegrated into society.

68I have taken into account the relevant sentencing guidelines referred to in s.5 of the Sentencing Act where relevant to your case.  I have taken into account current sentencing practices for the offence to which you have pleaded guilty, noting for the charge of recklessly cause serious injury those practices appear to be quite wide-ranging.

69On the single charge of recklessly causing serious injury you are convicted and sentenced to two years and 10 months imprisonment. 

70I fix a period of 18 months before you are eligible parole and reckon 434 days as having already been served.

71In my view, given the findings of the psychologists, particularly Dr Cunningham, there is merit in you having an extensive period of supervised transition in the community.  That offers the community protection in the treatment interventions that can take place and a swift response should you be non-compliant with parole.

72Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentence that I would have imposed if you had not pleaded guilty to the charge.  If not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of four years and three months, with a minimum of two years and six months before being eligible for parole.

73Thank you.  Anything arising, Mr Terry or Ms Caruso?

74MR TERRY:  Not from me, Your Honour, no.

75HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  Mr Terry, in a moment I am going to leave the Bench.  Ms Caruso will either be put in the lobby or leave the proceedings, as will all other persons other than you and your instructor.  That will give you the opportunity to speak to Mr Gudge about the sentence I have just announced.

76MR TERRY:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

77HER HONOUR:  Otherwise, I will close the court until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

‑ ‑ ‑