Director of Public Prosecutions v Haddara

[2015] VCC 1485

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 15-00266

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

FADI HADDARA

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 September 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Haddara
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VCC 1485

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr D. Porceddu	OPP
For the Offender	Mr P. Dunn QC Ms H. Tittensor	Pica Criminal Lawyers

Pages 1 - 18

 

 

1HER HONOUR:  Fadi Haddara, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in methylamphetamine; four of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm; one uplifted summary charge of possession of a GPS scanner; and four of drive whilst authorisation suspended.

2The charges are the result of an operation code named Skyborne, launched by the Santiago Task Force into the trafficking of methylamphetamine and firearms by what was described in the prosecution summary as “an organised crime syndicate operating in the western suburbs of Melbourne”.  It is the prosecution case that you were the head of the syndicate and you used associates, underlings and intermediaries to conduct your illegal activities.

3The investigation involved surveillance by means including cameras, listening devices and telephone intercepts and the use of covert operatives between September 2012 and March 2014.  Between May 2013 and March 2014, in 39 separate transactions, covert operatives paid $155,000 for just under 400 grams of methylamphetamine, two handguns and one sawn‑off rifle.

4The charge of trafficking to which you have pleaded guilty covers the period from 21 June 2013 until your arrest on 18 March 2014.  The evidence gathered by the telephone intercepts, the listening devices, optical surveillance devices and the dealings with undercover operatives reveals you communicating with a number of your co‑accused from 21 June 2013 until the police raid which resulted in your arrest on 18 March 2014.

5Whilst by your plea you admit you were involved in a continuing trade and business in transmission of drugs from your suppliers to other suppliers and end users, Mr Dunn on your behalf, somewhat unenthusiastically, in my view, submitted that the evidence did not support a finding of involvement in a continuing trade and business of transmission of drugs until sometime in August 2013.  In support of that he tendered a schedule, analysing the individual dealings captured by the telephone intercepts or other surveillance and set out in the prosecution opening in para.16 to 23, covering that period from 21 June to 9 August.

6The intercepted exchanges over that period reveal exchanges with a number of your co‑accused in what the prosecution alleges was code, employed in an attempt to disguise the true nature of your transactions.  There is, in my view, little difference in those exchanges and the exchanges captured and summarised in the prosecution summary for the period from 9 August until the date of arrest.  There is little benefit in subjecting individual exchanges to minute scrutiny without reference to the context in which they occurred or the nature of the relationship between you and the co‑accused as revealed by the intercepted material as a whole.

7The schedule tendered by Mr Dunn also took issue with the inferences drawn by the prosecution in five other sets of dealings with co‑accused during the period from 9 August until your arrest.  Again, minute decontextualised scrutiny is of little assistance.  Viewed as a whole, the inferences as to your involvement contended for from those captured exchanges satisfies me that they are all to be seen in the context of a continuing, commercial, trafficking operation conducted by you over the period framed by the indictment and summarised in the prosecution summary.

8For sentencing purposes, then, I am satisfied that you were involved in an ongoing business of trafficking in methylamphetamine over the nine month period particularised in charge 1 on the indictment.  I am satisfied the prosecution correctly described you as the head of the syndicate, responsible for the sale and distribution of methylamphetamine supplied to you by your co‑accused Dung Pham.

9As is common in such cases, the exact amounts and the level of the purity of the drugs sold cannot be quantified.  Of all the captured discussions about supply and payment relied on in your case, only four over a period of two weeks in January 2014 resulted in completed sales to an undercover operative, which yielded drugs which could then be tested and analysed.  Analysis of the drugs supplied to the undercover showed a total of 76.6 grams; in individual quantities between 7 and 28 grams, and with a purity ranging between 70 and 90 percent.  A further offer to supply 56 grams during that same two week period did not come to fruition. 

10It is difficult to extrapolate from that over the whole period of nine months as to the quantity of drugs sold or the purity and I cannot make any findings, positive or adverse, about the quantity or purity.

11The evidence from the telephone intercepts show that you were very careful about telephone conversations, insisting on the use of code and berating associates or terminating conversations if you thought the content too clearly revealed the conversations concerned your trafficking operations.  Although telephone intercepts on some of your phones were in place from July 2013, it was not until January 2014 that listening devices and optical surveillance devices were installed at your business premises.  From that time on, the quality of captured evidence improved markedly and shows your active and repeated persistent involvement in the purchase, sale and distribution of methylamphetamine.  You received customers and suppliers in your office, produced ice from a safe or other storage spaces, weighed out quantities of ice for customers, used some yourself and supplied it to associates to use, dealt with requests for supply, and received, counted and took possession of significant quantities of cash.  On one occasion you were seen assaulting a man, and taking money from him, all the while berating him for selling drugs to someone without your permission.

12The evidence amply justifies the description of your role as the head of the syndicate, using various people in various roles to assist you in your activities.

13The four firearms charges are also serious.  Charges 2 and 3 concern your taking possession of two firearms from Fadi Afram in your office on 22 January.  You are seen to smoke methylamphetamine with Afram after taking possession of the guns.  The firearms were not found on the premises or in your possession on the day of arrest.  I was told in the course of the plea your instructions were you retained possession of those firearms for a short period before returning them or passing them on to someone else.  There is no evidence to prove or disprove that bar table assertion.

14Charge 4 concerns your being seen in possession of another firearm on 5 February.  The surveillance devices record you handling the gun and firing it, apparently accidentally.  There were two men with you and in range when the gun went off and the camera records them ducking for cover.  That firearm was found well concealed in a car at your factory on the day of your arrest.  When examined, it was seen to be a fully operative handgun, a Beretta.  The car, a black Mercedes, although registered in your brother Nazim's name, was under your effective possession and control.  The car was the subject of an application for forfeiture by the Crown.  After the plea hearing but before sentence, your brother Nazim claimed a propriety interest in the car and, separately represented, opposed the forfeiture application.  The claim was abandoned before the conclusion of the hearing but after the vendor and your brother, Nazim, had given evidence that you were present with your brother when it was inspected and handed over in exchange for a cash payment of $50,000.  The claim for propriety interest by your brother, Nazim, was abandoned and you too have abandoned any resistance to the forfeiture application.

15I propose to make the forfeiture order.  I am satisfied that the car was tainted property, that it was used, detected by the surveillance to be used on one occasion when you collected drugs from your co‑accused supplier and that it was indeed the car in which the firearm was so well concealed on the day of the arrest and execution of the warrant.  I am satisfied the car was in your possession and control and that it is tainted property within the meaning of the Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic). I am satisfied that it was used in connection with charge 1, the trafficking charge, and charge 4 as a place of concealment of that Beretta.

16As discussed this morning with Ms Tittensor, I am satisfied that the car was one which you had effective use, possession and control of and that there will be hardship to you by reason of forfeiture of that car.  You will have lost the use of that car.  As discussed, the evidence does not leave me in a position where I can make a finding as to whether you were the purchaser and paid the money for the car or whether your brother was the purchaser and paid the money for the car.  Whether you personally have lost money he expended or your brother has lost money you expended and you therefore feel an obligation to him to make good that loss, I am not able to determine.  But I am satisfied that there is some hardship by reason of loss of the use of the car.  I am equally satisfied that it is tainted property and it is appropriate to make the order for its forfeiture.

17The final firearms charge, charge 5, involves the sale of a firearm to an undercover operative.  Although the firearm was represented to be a Ruger .22 calibre shotgun, once sold to and paid for by the undercover operative, it was examined.  On examination it was found to be an air pistol.  He clearly did not get what he had bargained for.

18On the day of your arrest, firearm cleaning equipment was also found on premises occupied and controlled by you.  All of this shows that you, a prohibited person, were possessing, using and trading firearms over the period covered by charges 2, 3, 4 and 5.

19When you were arrested on 18 March search warrants were executed at various places connected with you.  The search warrants led to the discovery and seizure of a GPS jammer.  You have pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited device in relation to that jammer.

20Finally, as further evidence of, what was during this period, a total disregard for living within the law, surveillance device evidence also revealed you driving on the same stretch of road, Ronald Avenue, Altona North, in the black Mercedes the subject of the forfeiture order, on four separate occasions during a one month period when your licence had been suspended.

21You have an extensive criminal history, although none for offences as serious as the drug trafficking and possession of firearms charges.  In 2007 you received a substantial fine for possession of cannabis.  That is your only drug conviction.  In 2000 you were first dealt with for an offence of violence and you were without conviction fined for a charge of intentionally cause injury.  You failed to pay the fine imposed, failed to perform the unpaid community work imposed in default of the payment of the fine and ultimately served a ten day period of imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

22You have been convicted and sentenced on four separate occasions between 2011 and 2012 for charges including damaging property, recklessly cause injury, affray and harassing a witness.  And you received either fines or suspended sentences for those charges.

23This bald recitation of charges and penalties does not, however, tell the full story.  The intentionally cause injury charge in 2000 arose out of your involvement as a bouncer.  The property damage charge was the result of a retaliatory attack on the home of the Chaouk family who you believed were responsible for the killing of your brother in a drive‑by shooting.  The affray charge arose out of what was described by the sentencing judge as “a serious gun battle” between two feuding gangs at a home in Coolaroo in which a number of people received serious gunshot wounds.  The recklessly cause injury charge resulted in an assault on a woman with whom you had been in a relationship.

24The sentences for the matters dealt with in 2011 and 2012 took into account substantial periods of pre‑sentence detention which you had served and even more substantial periods of time that you had spent on remand for other charges of which you were ultimately acquitted.  The harass witness charge was the end result of a threat to a police officer involved in one of the sets of charges brought against you and following a failed bail application.

25Your driving record is appalling.  You have been convicted on seven occasions for driving whilst disqualified or suspended or unlicensed.  You have twice breached suspended sentences imposed for driving whilst disqualified.  You have multiple convictions for exceeding the speed limit and other traffic and regulatory breaches.

26There are other offences also of which you have been convicted between 2000 and 2012 which simply provide more proof, if it be needed, of a lawless existence.  Some, I was told, relate to what was described by your counsel as an ongoing dispute with the Chaouk family.

27You come before the court as a 37 year old man who has failed to take advantage of the many opportunities in life that you have been offered.  You arrived in Australia from war‑torn Lebanon at the age of six.  Your school history here was, as I understand it, uneventful and unremarkable and you left school after Year 11 to commence an apprenticeship.  You left that after a short time to pursue an interest in kick boxing.  You were a professional kick boxer and worked in nightclub security for some years.  You married and had three children.  Eventually you opened a kick boxing gym.  Then six years ago your brother was killed in the drive‑by shooting to which I have already referred.  You arrived at the scene of the shooting within a very short time and witnessed your brother's death.  And as I have noted, you believed that he had been killed by a member of the Chaouk family.  It would appear that from that time on your life began to unravel. 

28Your drug use, which it appears from the materials before me had begun in your late teens, escalated.  You lost interest in work, and the gym business ceased operating.  As the recitation of the criminal history since 2009 reveals, your brother's violent death, far from deterring you from engaging in gun related or violent or criminal activity has seen you convicted of involvement in serious criminal activity on a number of occasions and over that considerable period of time since 2009.  You were charged with serious offences on a number of occasions. 

29From 2009 until recently you alternated between periods of imprisonment on remand, release on bail and further remand for further charges and further release on bail.  You faced trial for some serious gang related charges and were acquitted.  You are entitled to the full benefit of those acquittals and nothing I say should be interpreted as treating you as if you are guilty of any of the offences of which you were ultimately acquitted.

30I am told that you spent a period of 12 months on remand in respect of charges for which you were acquitted.

31Ultimately, the other charges were dealt with after protracted court proceedings and as I have noted, were dealt with in ways which did take into account the time spent on remand for those and the other charges.

32Throughout the period from your brother's death until your arrest on these drug, traffic and firearms charges, your drug use continued, both whilst you were in custody and on your release.  At various times over the six year period following your brother's death, whether for the purpose of bail applications or sentencing hearings, you were assessed by psychologists and diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms attributable to the circumstances of your brother's death.  Treatment was recommended but you did not engage in treatment save for the taking of prescribed antidepressants from time to time when on remand.  From time to time, you engaged in drug and alcohol counselling and there were periods over this time when testing demonstrated that you were drug free. 

33It is clear from the surveillance of your factory between January and March 2014 that you were using ice heavily over that period.

34Following your arrest you were remanded in custody.  Three months later you were bailed to the Raymond Hayder Clinic.  You returned to custody after ten days as you found the program, particularly the requirement to engage in group therapy, too arduous.  You spent a further nine months in custody before being re‑bailed in April of 2015 and you remained on bail until the first day of your plea hearing, 20 July this year. 

35During that time, between April and July you attended the Raymond Hayder Clinic as an out‑patient and began regular counselling with the psychologist, Mr Jeffrey Cummins.  Mr Cummins reported that on your own report and as was confirmed by the regular drug screens supervised by him, you remained drug free for that three month period and demonstrated a continued commitment over that period to engage in one‑on‑one counselling to address your drug use and your response to the death of your brother.  That included engaging in therapy to help you deal with the post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms that you have continued to experience. 

36It is clear from Mr Cummins' report that you minimised the extent of your drug trafficking and your consultations with him.  At para.32 of his report he reports you as saying,

"At interview he has acknowledged he was purchasing more drugs than he needed for his own use and thereby acknowledged he was intermittently making some money out of trafficking drugs.  At interview he did emphasize, however, because he was so dependent on methamphetamine and to a lesser extent on GHB, he was motivated to traffic drugs to ensure he had access to drugs for his own use and that he remained in contact with people who could regularly supply him drugs for his own use".

37Given the circumstances of offending and your history as I have recited it, the plea submissions directed to imposing a combination of a term of imprisonment followed by a community correction order were, to me, initially somewhat surprising.  This is yet another case where following the delivery of the guideline judgment in Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342, pleas have been made on behalf of people with a significant criminal history and for offences which would in the past have likely attracted a head sentence of greater than two years imprisonment, and even at times a non‑parole period greater than two years for a sentence of imprisonment followed by a community corrections order. Whether these submissions, in your case or more generally, are motivated by a fear a person with a significant criminal history will not be released on parole or by a genuine desire to ensure post‑release support by way of court mandated conditions directed to encouraging rehabilitation, is hard to say. But your motivation is not for me to speculate about. Boulton makes it clear a Community Correction Order has a punitive as well as a rehabilitative component and it is the combined length of the term of imprisonment and the community correction order as well as the conditions of a community correction order which must be considered when considering how properly to reflect the needs of denunciation, just punishment, general and specific deterrence and protection of the community as well as encouraging an offender’s rehabilitation.

38So cases which in the past would by reason of the circumstances of the offences and the offender have required the fixing of a head sentence of more than two years in order to give proper weight to punishment, deterrence and denunciation, can now be dealt with by the imposition of a combination sentence, that is if a combination of a term of imprisonment of two years or less and a community correction order with individually tailored conditions in addition to the core conditions can properly reflect the weight to be given to just punishment, denunciation and general and specific deterrence.

39In this case, despite some misgivings and my initial surprise, having regard to the seriousness of the offending, your criminal history and personal circumstances, I have decided it is open to me to impose a combination term of imprisonment and a community correction order.  I want to make it clear I do not consider this to be an easy or a light option.  In some ways, it is more onerous than serving a term of imprisonment with the prospects of release on parole.  The most obvious manifestation of that, that is that it can be more onerous than a head sentence, with a non‑parole period, is that it is the court which imposes the conditions of the CCO.

40There's a further aspect also that is worth pointing out.  Whilst the fixing of a non‑parole period by a sentencing judge does no more than fix the earliest time at which the Parole Board can consider your release, whether you will be released, the conditions of your release, and decisions as to whether to revoke parole if released, are all a matter for the Parole Board.  It is the Parole Board which must consider your circumstances at the time of eligibility for release and after release.  But a head sentence, with a non‑parole period expires at the end of the head sentence and even if a prisoner is not released on parole or parole is later revoked, they will serve no more time than that fixed by the outer limit of the head sentence.  By contrast, a combination sentence, whilst providing certainty as to the date of release, requires the fixing of conditions now without knowledge of any change in your circumstances by the time of release.  Breach of a community correction order can lead to resentencing for the original offences as well as exposure to further penalty for the breach itself.  So whilst a release date from the custodial component of the sentence is certain, the end date can be extended and may result in the imposition of a further term of imprisonment or extension of the term of the CCO if it is breached.  It means the reach of the court beyond the date of passing sentence is much more significant.

41In coming to the conclusion that I can and should impose a combination sentence, I have taken into account the psychiatric and the psychological reports that were provided to me and which set out the history, the family history and the history of the onset of the post-traumatic stress disorder following the death of your brother in 2009.  I have taken into account the evidence of your engagement with the Raymond Hayder Clinic and Mr Cummins since your release on bail in April of this year which demonstrates you have been taking significant steps to address your substance abuse and the psychological history that have been identified.

42I do not consider that the post-traumatic stress disorder and depression should be taken into account in reducing your moral culpability for the offences of trafficking or possession of the firearms, nor, for that matter, do I consider they have great significance for the summary offences.  I do not consider the post‑traumatic stress disorder symptoms and the depression operate to reduce the weight to be given to general deterrence.  I do not consider your drug use mitigates the gravity of the offending or for the weight to be given to general deterrence in a sentence.

43Whilst the evidence suggests that your drug use increased following the death of your brother, it is not a mitigating factor for these charges.  It is no justification or excuse for the wholesale trafficking and other offending to which you have pleaded guilty.  There is no doubt you knew exactly what you were doing and that you knew it was wrong.  The surveillance evidence reveals the extent to which you tried to conceal the true nature of your activities and the control that you exercised over those who were engaged in your activities on your behalf.

44You had been advised on many occasions since 2009 to seek help for your substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and depression and you chose not to or to disengage after relatively short periods of time.  However, I do accept that the post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and depression may make imprisonment more onerous for you and I take that into account in fixing both the type of sentence and its duration, that is in coming to the conclusion that a combination sentence rather than a head sentence with a non‑parole period is appropriate in the circumstances.

45In coming to this conclusion I also take into account in your favour the family responsibilities you have to your wife and the four children you have with her and to your new partner and the one child that she has and the second child soon to be born that you have with her.  Although I note that these family responsibilities have not stopped you offending in the past.

46It is to be hoped that these responsibilities will provide you with a greater incentive than they have to date not to reoffend, and to engage in the rehabilitative opportunities available to you.

47Your pleas of guilty to these charges, although late, entitle you to a reduction in the sentence otherwise appropriate.  They have the utilitarian benefit of avoiding the time and cost of what would have been a trial or trials of some length.

48In coming to the view that a combination sentence is appropriate, I have also considered the manner in which I should treat the time spent in pre‑sentence detention in relation to these charges and the time spent in custody in respect of charges in respect of which you were acquitted and which has not been taken into account in the sentences imposed on you for the other offences for which you have been dealt with before this plea hearing.  And I have considered whether the community correction order component of the combination sentence I am to impose should contain components which are predominantly punitive, such as unpaid community work or be limited to conditions which although having a punitive element, are primarily designed to encourage your rehabilitation.  By that I mean conditions such as supervision and psychological and drug and alcohol treatment.

49I was troubled by whether the two year outer limit for the custodial component of a combination sentence, even when coupled with a community correction order which is unlimited in terms of the time to which it can extend, in real terms unlimited, was sufficient to mark the gravity of the offending and the need in your circumstances to mark denunciation and general and specific deterrence.  I came to the view ultimately that the community correction order components should be used primarily to encourage rehabilitation and I have decided not to impose unpaid community work or any other conditions with a primarily punitive element.  So on your release from custody you can be encouraged to concentrate on rehabilitation and returning to meaningful and lawful work.

50The nature and gravity of the offending, in my view, is such that even with a substantial rehabilitatively-focused community correction order, a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment was insufficient.  So I have decided to make the custodial component of the sentence commence today and not to make any declaration in respect of pre‑sentence detention time or Renzella[1] time.  That means I am taking into account in determining the sentence that you have already spent 119 days in custody in respect of these charges and served another 78 days of Renzella detention which have not counted towards any other sentences.  But I am not reducing the sentence of just under two years I am going to impose today by reason of those Renzella days or make a pre‑sentence declaration in respect of those days attributable to those offences.

[1]R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88

51By not reducing the sentence to be imposed today by pre‑sentence detention and the Renzella time, but taking into account that you have already spent that time in custody, I consider the term of imprisonment I intend to impose before release on a community correction order to be sufficient to mark, in combination with the community correction order, the overall seriousness of the offending.

52I have also come to the view that a two part combination sentence not a three part combination sentence is appropriate in the circumstances.  That is, I intend to impose a straight sentence followed by an order for release on community correction order and not to impose a head sentence, fix a non‑parole period and then direct a community corrections order to commence at the expiration of the head sentence.  The fixing of a non‑parole period would, in my view, unnecessarily complicate matters and could lead to the very difficulties resulting from uncertainty as to release date that a combination sentence avoids.  I think it undesirable in your circumstances to put you in a position where you have the very strict custody and supervisory regime operating in prison, followed by the two different supervisory regimes in the community which would be offered by a non‑parole period followed by supervision on a community correction order.

53I have therefore decided that the appropriate total effective sentence is one of just under two years.  That means I don't have to find exceptional circumstances before deciding not to fix a non‑parole period but I have set out my reasons why for a sentence that is over 12 months but under two years, I have decided not to fix a non‑parole period.

54I propose to make all of the ancillary orders sought, I consider each of them appropriate in the circumstances.

55Could you now please stand, Mr Haddara.  On all charges to which you have pleaded guilty you are convicted. 

56On charge 1 of trafficking you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 18 months and then to be released on a community correction order for the period and on the terms I will announce shortly.

57On charge 2 of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 12 months.  I direct that three months of that be served cumulatively upon the sentence on charge 1 and again direct that you be released on a community correction order at the end of your total effective sentence on the conditions that I will shortly announce.

58On each of charges 3, 4 and 5, the other three firearm charges, you are sentenced on each of them to a period of 12 months imprisonment and again to be released to a community correction order on the conditions I will shortly announce upon your release from custody.

59On the summary offence of possession of a jammer you are fined an amount of $1,000. 

60On the four summary offences of drive whilst authorisation suspended, you are sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of two months and I direct that that be served cumulatively upon the sentence of charge 1 and the partial cumulation order on charge 2.  That makes a total effective sentence of 23 months and consistently with what I have already said, those sentences will start today.  For the reasons I have explained, I make no declaration in respect of pre‑sentence detention. 

61The community correction order which is to commence upon your release from that period of imprisonment is for a period of three years and is on these conditions. This is in respect of the one charge of traffic in methylamphetamine and the four charges of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The order will last for three years commencing upon the completion of your term of imprisonment. The mandatory terms that apply to this as to all community correction orders are these: you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time the order is in force; you must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by regulation 17 of the Sentencing Regulations 2011. That means you must not be impaired by drugs or alcohol or any illicit substances when you attend at Corrections for any appointments or to any appointments directed by them and you must submit to drug or alcohol testing if directed. You must report to and receive visits from the Secretary or delegate. You must report to the Werribee Community Correctional Services at 87 Synnot Street, Werribee within two clear working days after the commencement of the order. That means after your release from prison. You must let a community correction officer know within two clear working days if you change your address or your job. You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so from the Secretary or delegate and you must obey all lawful instructions from and directions of the Secretary or delegate.

62In addition to those core conditions, I impose the following treatment and rehabilitation conditions specifically directed to your circumstances.  You must undergo assessment and treatment including testing for drug abuse or dependency as directed by the regional manager; you must undergo assessment and treatment including testing for alcohol abuse or dependency as directed by the regional manager; you must undergo any mental health assessment and treatment that may include psychological, neuropsychological, psychiatric treatment or treatment in a hospital or residential facility as directed by the regional manager.

63So far as those three conditions are concerned, it is my anticipation consistently with the matters put to me on the plea, that if you continue your treatment with Mr Cummins and with the Raymond Hayder Clinic, that Corrections will direct you to continue the treatment with those persons and upon their reporting back to Corrections that that will be sufficient to comply with these conditions so that you will not be set under two different conflicting or competing treatment and rehabilitation regimes for drug and alcohol treatment or for the psychological treatment.

64You must participate in programs and courses that address factors relating to your offending as directed by the regional manager and that includes specifically anger management.  Again, that is based on your report to Mr Cummins and Mr Cummins' report to me.

65Do you understand the effect and the conditions of the community corrections order, Mr Haddara, and do you consent to it being made? 

66ACCUSED:  Yes, Your Honour. 

67HER HONOUR:  Thank you. 

‑ ‑ ‑