Director of Public Prosecutions v Hamling-Lawler
[2020] VCC 1238
•14 August 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR-19-01361
Indictment No. J13208922
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BEN HAMLING-LAWLER |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 12 August 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 August 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Hamling-Lawler |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 1238 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Attempted armed robbery x 2; on same day 10 minutes apart. In each case approach made to victim on the street. Knife. 30 years old as at sentence. Criminal history with a number of breaches. Prior appearance for robbery and aggravated burglary; Committal conducted with each victim called. Early plea once committed to this Court.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms A Dickens | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For Accused | Ms S Joosten | VLA |
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTING SERVICE
217850
HIS HONOUR:
1Ben Hamling-Lawler, you pleaded guilty on Wednesday of this week to two charges of attempted armed robbery. Each charge is punishable by a 20 year maximum prison term.
2You are 30 years of age, born on 5 June 1990, and you have admitted a lengthy enough criminal history which your counsel concedes is of some relevance to my task.
3The matter was opened to me on Wednesday by Ms Dickens, who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. She opened in accordance with a written opening dated 28 February 2020.
4Your counsel Ms Joosten informed the court that this was an agreed opening. That agreed summary was marked as exhibit A and because of that, I see no need to set out the full factual basis of sentencing in these, my reasons. I will not stray beyond those agreed facts.
5Very briefly stated, you approached two totally innocent members of the public on the evening of Saturday 30 June 2018. The offences were only ten or so minutes apart and they took place on the streets of Werribee. The first victim, Bradley Bates had gone to collect some Vietnamese food and was waiting to be collected near the supermarket when he was accosted by you. After a brief exchange, you asked him for his money and produced a knife to re-enforce that demand. That victim was, up until the production of the knife, not taking a backward step. But you were clearly the person instigating contact. You were the person demanding his money. You produced the knife in that setting. The knife convinced him to keep his distance. Sensibly so. He reported the matter to the police.
6Within minutes, you then turned your attention to a woman. Ms Alicia De-La Pena was that woman and she was walking along the street to a restaurant with her fiancé. From front on, you approached her, said something and then punched her on the left shoulder, yelling out a demand for her bag. You half pulled out the knife. She backed away from you, her fiancé challenged you and you ran off with the fiancé in pursuit. You got away.
7There was a remarkably accurate facial composite image generated by
Mr Bates. You were identified from that image as someone who regularly begged in the vicinity of these offences. A Protective Securities Officer also identified you from that image. Your first victim Mr Bates identified you from a photo folder. The second victim returned to this shopping centre in November and saw you begging there. She rang police. The police attended, but you left as they were speaking to her. In fact, some photographs had been taken of you.8Later enquires disclosed that you had been admitted to hospital for mental health reasons and you were arrested on the day of your release and taken into custody where you have remained since, with all but three months referrable to these matters.
9You made a no comment interview. A committal was conducted and your two victims and the informant were cross examined. You pleaded not guilty and came up to this court for trial. You were committed on 9 July 2019, with a trial listing in late August 2020. The matter resolved on 8 October 2019 and was listed for a plea in late March of this year. That plea date was adjourned, as your legal team were wanting an expert report.
10So much then for my summary of the summary. I will sentence in accordance with the full agreed factual statement.
Impact
11There are no victim impact statements. However, it is obvious that this was a frightening enough event for the female victim. She says as much. She will not forget your conduct in a hurry. Your male victim was not bowing to your conduct at all, but sensibly withdrew once the knife was presented. Each were just going about their lawful business when they had the misfortune to come across you doing precisely the opposite.
12I take into account the impact of your crimes.
In Mitigation
13Your counsel, Ms Joosten, had prepared some detailed written submissions on the plea. They were dated 4 August 2020 and were marked as Exhibit 1 and I will not go chapter and verse through that outline in my reasons. I do of course, take into account everything she raised on your behalf.
14She had very little detail as to your background, as you were not prepared to disclose that detail to her, or to the two experts who had prepared reports. She tendered three reports, two from a psychiatrist Dr Zimmerman and one from a neuropsychologist Mr Jackson. She made submissions as to the objective seriousness of your crimes, as well as your prospects of rehabilitation. Also the fact that you had been in custody continuously since your arrest with that one intervening sentence. She relied on the principle of totality in this setting.
15In mitigation, she relied upon:
·Your guilty plea;
·The presence of some remorse;
·Your increased burden owing to the prison response to COVID-19;
·She also relied upon the 5th limb of Verdins[1];
[1] [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269; 169 A Crim R 581
16She conceded the inevitability of a prison term and one of a dimension requiring the fixing of a non-parole period. She conceded the need for some cumulation, but addressed me as to the tight timeframe here and again, raised issues of totality.
Prosecution
17Given the sensible plea conducted by your counsel, the prosecutor had no need to make any detailed oral sentencing submissions. She had prepared some uncontroversial written submissions. There was very little in dispute here. Your own counsel had conceded that there was only one option open to the court being a prison term, some cumulation and a non-parole period. The prosecution took issue with your counsel’s treatment of the contact with
Mr Bates as being ‘an argument’, but your own counsel was not suggesting that Mr Bates was the instigator. Plainly he was not. The prosecution submitted that the carriage and production of the knife presented risks of escalation.Background
18I turn then briefly to your background and it can only be very brief as you, for whatever reason, will not give instructions to your counsel, or to the experts, as to much of your background. So we can only cobble together a few details from the bits and pieces that you are prepared to disclose or from collateral materials which are available. I know you are 30 years old born on 5 June 1990. You were born in Melbourne and raised in the western suburbs and have no contact with your family. You have said you were an only child. I know nothing of the family dynamics. You completed Year 10. You have no children and have said that you have never been in a relationship. I know little else about you. Nothing about employment history, though I know you have been on the disability pension for some years and that you have had some serious mental health concerns. It would seem that you were diagnosed not that long ago with schizophrenia. You were on a compulsory treatment order in 2018 and were an inpatient in 2018. You lived in a boarding house. Accommodation has been patchy with boarding houses and periods of homelessness and begging. Collateral records obtained, disclose that you were treated by Werribee Mercy Mental Health Service for substance abuse disorder and schizophrenia with a number of admissions both before and after this offending. You have the support of a friend who you will not further identify, but no structure or supports in the community that I am aware of.
19You have a number of drug prior convictions, but seemingly deny to the experts the fact of drug use.
20As to that criminal history, I see no point in setting it all out in my reasons. It is lengthy enough and discloses a number of appearances from 2012 onwards for drugs, weapons, dishonesty, threat, assault and violence matters. There is an aggravated burglary and robbery tucked in amongst those appearances. You have received some short gaol sentences and have breached a number of community corrections orders or suspended sentences. Your counsel has not been provided with any details of that past offending. It may very well be you have no memory of some of your past offending, as I note from the expert reports that there are some issues in that regard. I made it plain in the course of the plea, that you do not fall to be sentenced a second time for any of that past offending. You received and served sentences. None of that past conduct aggravates these offences. That history is relevant though to the assessments I must make as to your rehabilitative prospects, your risk of reoffence, and the extent of the need to deter you and to protect the community from you.
21You have been in custody now for over 600 days. Not all of that time is to be declared, as you received a three month sentence in September of last year for offending which post-dated the offences I am dealing with, but this total period is relevant to my task. I take it into account in the way contemplated by your counsel in paragraph 23 of her written outline. Those subsequent offences occurred in December 2018. One involved the attempted taking of a phone from someone at a train station. Plainly, you were not in optimum health at that point, as you were an inpatient not long after for mental health issues.
22You were in fact arrested upon your discharge from that facility on 11 December 2018. You have been in custody since.
23It is by far the longest time that you have ever spent in a prison and the last five months have been pretty tough going, owing to the global pandemic and the impact upon prison life. You have a job at least, so are perhaps not as affected as some others. I will discuss the impact upon you of the COVID-19 virus in a bit more detail later in these reasons.
Guilty Plea
24I turn then to the various other matters raised in mitigation on the plea. The first of those is your guilty plea. You have pleaded guilty. It was not at the earliest stage. It was your right to run a committal hearing. You ran a committal and the two victims were cross examined. So too the informant. You were committed to this court in July 2019 and pleaded not guilty. Through your counsel, you told this court at the initial directions hearing that you were disputing identity. The matter settled in October of last year. So it is not the latest of pleas. In fact, it is still early enough, but plainly, many are far earlier and many do not involve cross examination of witnesses. You have still facilitated the course of justice. You have taken early enough responsibility for your crimes.
25It is a shame they were cross examined at all, but the victims in this case have at least been spared the experience of giving evidence at trial and the community has been saved the time, cost and effort associated with a contested hearing up in this court. There is a utilitarian benefit in pleading guilty and I take those various matters into account in mitigation. I do not believe the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increases the value of your plea in this case. You pleaded guilty to this matter last year, well before the pandemic hit and that can be contrasted with someone settling a case in the midst of the pandemic. Still your plea is of importance and I do not downplay that.
26It cannot, however, attract the same level of discount as is attracted by a plea at the very earliest opportunity. That sort of plea would have avoided the need for a committal.
Remorse
27As to remorse, you made a no comment interview as was your right, ran a contested committal, as was your right, and came up to this court disputing that you were the offender. It was your right to do all of these things, but none of those things is suggestive of much, if any remorse. However, you then took responsibility and pleaded guilty. A guilty plea is often indicative of at least some level of remorse, but not always so. You claim not to have any memory of the event. You have told Dr Zimmerman that you feel ‘alright about the offending’. Perhaps that is a statement arising from your blunt affect or a product of your illness in some way, so I do not hold it against you. As your counsel conceded, it is not at all easy to find much remorse on display here. All she could do is point to the fact of your guilty plea. I am prepared to find that you do have some small level of remorse for these crimes, as implied by your plea and I take that into account in mitigation.
Rehabilitation
28I turn then to your prospects of rehabilitation. Your counsel conceded that the court could only be guarded and she is right. You have a lengthy enough criminal history with a number of failures on court orders. You have long term drug issues and some sizeable mental health issues as well. The expert materials do not suggest that you are someone who is likely to make meaningful changes in your life. Mr Jackson holds some strong enough reservations. With or without treatment, he says your prospects are quite poor. Mind you, he is making judgments from a neuropsychological perspective.
29Dr Zimmerman speaks of the difficulties in engagement thrown up by poor insight, homelessness and substance misuse. Also, your serious mental illness, which poses some complex challenges. Neither say you are beyond hope and it is possible you may respond to treatment and courses.
30You have already been in custody for a sizeable period. You have at least been drug free for a long time owing to the period of your remand. Also, there is some stability in terms of your medication and your mental illness.
31You would also have been deterred to some extent by spending the time that you have already spent in prison. You will also be deterred to a degree by the sentence I will soon pronounce, which will extend that stay.
32I know nothing of your family connections. There appear to be none from all reports. You seem to be an isolated man with very little support in the community. Little if any structure awaiting you upon your ultimate release.
33You have pleaded guilty and I find that you harbour at least some remorse.
34It is hard not to be guarded here. I am prepared to find that you do have some prospects of rehabilitation in the future, but they will be conditional upon you abstaining from illegal drug use and complying with your mental health treatment regime, including compliance with medication. Stable accommodation would also be important. There are a fair few ‘ifs’ in all of that. However, I will not write you off. There is some hope for you.
Verdins
35I have not gone into much of the detail of the three expert reports. Nor do I intend to. There are some real limitations in relation to Dr Zimmerman’s’ reports written after a half hour session, where you were in no way engaged.
36Mr Jackson spent far more time with you. The three reports are not being relied upon to engage any of the limbs from the case of Verdins, other than the 5th limb. What is plain from the reports, is that you have no impulse control disorder, nor any condition which deprives you of the ability to understand the wrongfulness of your acts. You are not disinhibited by any disorder. There is no realistic connection at all between your mental illness and this offending, nor any Verdins basis to reduce the weight to be given to general and specific deterrence. Your counsel was explicit in limiting the Verdins submissions to the 5th limb.
37The reports comment on your level of functioning and the material available in relation to your past diagnoses. Also, the treatment needs and prospects of rehabilitation which I have spoken of a moment ago. That you suffer from schizophrenia seems to be entirely uncontroversial. I act on that opinion. That fact alone, does not produce some automatic mitigatory benefit. There is no suggestion that there is any reduction in your culpability here. I repeat only one of the six Verdins principles is said to be enlivened here, and in a very modest fashion indeed, being the 5th limb. The evidence is pretty slight on that score. The experts speak of some vulnerability in a custodial setting. Well you have been there over 600 days and I am not advised of any significant issues. I am prepared to find the 5th limb of Verdins to be engaged. I give it some modest weight given the view expressed by both experts, as to your ability to adapt to the structure in prison over time.
38Though not rising to the level to enliven the other limbs of that case, that is not to say that your mental health predicament is irrelevant to my task. Of course it is not. I am after all sentencing you. It is a serious mental illness which you labour under and no doubt, it does not make life easy for you. It will have had a role to play in the trajectory of your life. No doubt a role to play in homelessness, lack of employment and perhaps even illegal drug use.
39I can take it into account, in mitigation, in a general fashion and I do, but it cannot greatly affect the weight I must give to specific and general deterrence in the setting of this case. The fact is, your mental health predicament is something which actually clouds your future prospects.
COVID-19
40I accept that the COVID-19 virus and the response to it by those running the prisons will increase your prison burden. It has already since the limitations came into play in March. Prison is a more stressful place. You cannot make a decision to self-isolate. Social distancing is not easy. No doubt there is worry about catching the virus in such a setting where there is no true autonomy.
41It is impossible for me to know precisely how the virus or the response to it by those running the prisons will impact upon you in the future. There are some lockdowns, but they do not exist across all prisons, so I cannot conclude that they will necessarily apply to you in the future. Visits have already been suspended and so have some courses and programs. I cannot know how long those things will persist.
42Some cases have been discovered in prison in recent times. There has been a state of disaster declared in this State and that does not suggest to me that there will be any prospect in the short-term of the prison conditions being returned to the pre-COVID-19 setting. So prison life has been, and is tougher for you. You are fortunate to be working, but have had some experience of lockdowns, no visits from your friend who had been visiting you and less access to courses and programs. I would expect there will in the future, be less time out of cells, less access to programs and courses and no access to in person visits for quite some time. I accept then that there is an increased custodial burden in your case for these various reasons and I take this into account in your favour.
General Remarks
43I want to make some general remarks about your offending and the sentencing task I have to perform.
44I must have regard to the gravity of the offences before the court. Your counsel concedes that attempted armed robbery is a serious offence. She is right; it is. These were soft target attempted armed robberies upon people just going about their business on a Saturday night. Not at 1 am on some lonely street. This was at 6.45 pm. They were in a public place and had no reason at all to expect they would fall victim to such a crime. It was obviously a frightening event for your female victim.
45The Court of Appeal has from time to time said that it is not particularly useful searching for an adjective to describe which particular band of seriousness the conduct falls into, for instance high, mid or low-level offending. See the case of Weybury [2018] VSCA 120.
46Those terms are subjective which is why they are not of great value. They mean different things to different people. I do though have to consider the nature and the gravity of the offending. Your counsel pointed to the lack of sophistication and planning, the opportunistic nature of the offending and lack of disguise. They were brief offences and did not involve any injury. They were not committed in company.
47Soft target armed robberies or attempts are almost always relatively unsophisticated, often enough opportunistic to a degree, and generally lacking in significant planning. They are almost always brief. Many take place where there is no semblance of disguise employed. Often enough, there is no actual violence or injury and often enough, they are committed by lone offenders.
48You should not misunderstand your counsel’s submissions as implying that your offending was not serious. Ms Joosten was not saying that at all. Rather, she was speaking of the absence of features that sometimes do exist.
49The fact that they were incomplete is not of itself mitigatory. I note that there was physical contact with the female victim and she was plainly more affected by the crime than the previous victim. Your counsel concedes that is the more serious offence.
50There was obviously not much planning here. You moved from one attempt to the next, selecting victims who happened to be in your vicinity. It may well be you were affected by drugs, but that is not mitigatory.
51I accept that these were relatively low level examples of attempted armed robbery. That is to say, relatively low level examples of a serious offence because attempted armed robbery is an inherently serious offence. It was still serious offending and was obviously a frightening event for one of your victims and at least unsettling for the male victim. No-one should be confronted on the street in the way that these two victims were. This sort of offence can dangerously escalate. Thankfully these offences did not.
52The absence of aggravating features is not actually a matter in mitigation. It does not alter the actual facts that I have to sentence upon. These attempted armed robberies were still serious criminal offences.
53Often enough, there is little distinction in terms of the conduct between an attempt and a completed offence. Very often a demand is made, as it was here, but it is then complied with, without more. It is common enough for both attempts and for completed armed robbery offences for there to be no direct physical force at all. I do not and will not lose sight of the fact that here I am dealing with attempted armed robbery. There is the lesser maximum penalty at play because these were attempts. Here though, there was actual contact with the female victim, though not with the knife. Often enough, attempts can go pear shaped due to the lack of compliance with the demand that has been made.
54I take into account current sentencing practices as I am required to.
55I have considered the Sentencing Advisory Council online data for attempted armed robbery. I have looked at that more up to date material as the relevant Sentencing Advisory Council sentencing snapshot, No. 36, is very dated.
56The online data discloses that in the period covered by the statistics, (July 2015-June 2018), the most common sentence where imprisonment was selected for the crime of attempted armed robbery was between one and two years (31.2%), but with the next most common sentence (25.6%) falling between two and three years.
57I have also considered the Judicial College of Victoria new sentencing manual and looked at instances of sentences imposed for attempted armed robbery.
58The statistical material I have mentioned has inherent limitations. The statistics tell me nothing more about the crime, or the offender.
59Other cases also have limitations. They are not precedents. There is never one correct sentence and the outcomes are always driven by the individual features which exist both in mitigation and aggravation. Things which will be unique to that other case.
60What I have got to do is to pass an appropriate sentence in your case and the answer will never be provided by looking at statistics or other cases.
61I am not to pass a sentence because it has been the most common or average sentence employed in the past, or because another judge in another case has passed such a sentence. My obligation is to impose a sentence appropriate to the individual features of this case; Your case. Your offences. Your background. Your history before the courts. The things existing both in mitigation and aggravation which are unique to your case.
62This was serious enough offending as is conceded. Attempted armed robbery is a serious criminal offence. It is punishable by a maximum term of 20 years imprisonment. Your attempt was in each case a serious criminal act, even though falling a mile below the most serious examples of such an offence. These crimes fall at a relatively low level of objective seriousness, though by no means at the lowest level.
63There is no basis to reduce your culpability here.
64I have to pay regard to the maximum penalties here as well as to the impact of your crimes.
65Sentencing always involves the balancing of a number of sentencing purposes. It is why it is a complex task. Rehabilitation is but one of the purposes of sentencing. I can only be quite guarded as to your prospects. Those prospects still exist, but they are not strong and owing to the seriousness of the offending, rehabilitation must surrender some ground to some of the other sentencing purposes.
66I have to punish you justly and proportionately. I must also denounce your conduct.
67I must consider the need to give weight to specific and general deterrence. I will come back to general deterrence in one moment, but specific deterrence relates to the need to deter or dissuade you from committing crimes in the future. Well that is important. It must be given some tangible weight here. I must deter you from ever committing crimes such as these in the future. You have not been deterred in the past. You have committed a robbery in the past and this offending involves a nasty escalation. I must try to deter you.
68General deterrence relates to the need to deter others. It is an important sentencing purpose here and that is so despite your mental health issues which I do take into account. The courts must seek to deter other people from engaging in conduct such as yours.
69Soft target armed robberies or attempted armed robberies are quite prevalent. Your counsel conceded as much. Like-minded potential future offenders must understand that serious conduct such as yours, will be met with stern punishment. They must be dissuaded from heading down the path you took.
70I must also give weight to community protection. Again, that is of real importance here in the setting of these two offences committed upon totally innocent and unsuspecting members of the public going about their lawful business in a public place.
71Now prison is always a disposition of last resort. Your counsel is conceding the inevitability of a prison term with some cumulation, reaching a head sentence of a dimension requiring the fixing of a non-parole period. That concession does not bind me. I have to consider the matter myself, as after all, I am the person passing sentence. Having done so, it is clear to me your counsel was right to make that concession.
72Plainly, the only appropriate disposition here is a term of imprisonment. There must be some measure of cumulation here, despite the tight timeframe. Though tightly grouped, two separate offences occurred and they targeted totally different victims with separate impacts. I cannot just roll them into one sentence. That would ignore the fact of two separate offences. One of the victims in that setting would be reduced to a meaningless statistic. Well, they were not meaningless statistics. They were victims, people seriously offended against by you. I will, however, recognise the temporal link by ordering a measure of concurrency.
73I will be fixing a non-parole period. Whether or not you are released on parole is not something I can even consider. I must work on the assumption that you will serve every day of the head sentence that I will soon pronounce. It will be up to the Adult Parole Board to make decisions as to whether you can be released prior to the end of the head sentence. It has nothing at all to do with me. But, I am required to fix a non-parole period and I will provide these reasons to the Adult Parole Board. I am sure it will be as apparent to them, as it is to me, of the need for some structure to exist to maximise your prospects upon your return to the community, whenever that takes place. An unstructured release as would take place at the lapse of the head sentence, may not be in your, or the communities best interests. You need structure and support and have precious little awaiting you.
74Having said that though, the task is theirs and theirs alone to consider if you can be released on parole. They will need to make judgements as to your risk and readiness. I cannot assume you will be released on parole. As I say, I must not even consider that possibility.
Totality
75I have taken into account the principle of totality of sentence. I have looked at the sentences and the overall effect of the sentences that I am about to impose. I have regard to the tight timeframe involved in this offending. Also the time that you have spent continuously in custody, three months of which cannot be declared. I have taken a last look to ensure that the effect of the sentences I am imposing is appropriate and commensurate with the overall gravity of your crimes. Also, to guard against imposing a crushing outcome upon you.
Disposal Order
76There is a disposal order sought in this case pursuant to the provisions of the Confiscations Act. That order is not opposed and I have signed that order and will pronounce it in a very much abbreviated form. I am satisfied of the matters I am required to be satisfied of under that Act and in the circumstances, I order pursuant to the provisions of that Act the forfeiture to the State of the property referred to in the schedule, it being the knife. I direct that it be handled in the manner contemplated by the signed order.
77Yes all right, well normally I would get you to stand up, I will not of course because this sentence is proceeding by way of a Webex hearing.
Sentence
78Charge 1 is the attempted armed robbery upon Mr Bates. I judge that not to be as serious as the offence upon Ms De La Pena. That later offence was committed upon a female, there was physical contact and she was plainly more affected by the crime. The sentence imposed on Charge 2 will therefore be the base sentence.
79On Charge 1, the less serious offence upon Mr Bates, you are convicted and sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment.
80On Charge 2, the attempted armed robbery upon Ms De La Pena, you are convicted and sentenced to 32 months or two years and eight months imprisonment. That is the base sentence.
Cumulation
81I direct that nine months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 is to be served cumulatively upon the base sentence.
Total Effective Sentence
82That results in a total effective sentence of 41 months (or three years five months) imprisonment.
Non-Parole Period
83I fix a period of 27 months (or two years three months) during which you will not be eligible for release on parole.
Section 18 Pre-Sentence Detention
84You have already served 521 days of this sentence by way of pre-sentence detention and that declaration will be entered into the records of the court. I have mentioned already that I have taken into account in a broad way, and in the application of the principle of totality, the three month period the subject of the sentence imposed last year for the subsequent offences.
Section 6AAA
85I have taken into account your guilty plea. If you had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty of these offences by a jury, I would have convicted you and sent you to prison for four years 10 months. In those circumstances, I would have fixed a non-parole period of three years and eight months. That statement is to be entered into the records of the court. I will just see if there is anything else I need to deal with. Mr Joosten, Ms Healy are there any other matters that I need to attend to?
86MS JOOSTEN: No Your Honour
87MS HEALY: No, Your Honour.
88HIS HONOUR: All right, are you wanting - I mean you'll actually need to have a - presumably a video link conference or Jabber conference with your client in a slightly different setting obviously.
89MS JOOSTEN: Yes.
90HIS HONOUR: I mean anything that occurs today is occurring in the presence of my staff, but are you wanting to do what happened the other day and speak briefly to your client using the current link?
91MS JOOSTEN: Yes if I could speak to him briefly that would be helpful.
92HIS HONOUR: Your audio is not very good at all actually. Say that again?
93MS JOOSTEN: Yes if I could speak to him briefly.
94HIS HONOUR: You want to speak to him briefly? All right, well if he's hearing in the way that I'm hearing you, it might be - - -
95MS JOOSTEN: Very well, it might not work.
96HIS HONOUR: It might be problematic, but anyway I'll give you that chance, so once I've left the Bench, I'll have Ms Healy exited from the meeting and - all right, so Mr Hamling-Lawler, I have finished the sentence now. What I will do is what I did the other day, I will leave the Bench in a moment, the prosecutor will be exited from the hearing, you will then have the ability to speak briefly with your legal team. The audio is not great, we are getting noise from you and Ms Joosten's audio is not particularly great, but look she will be having a later video call to you to discuss what has occurred today, but I will give her the chance to speak to you briefly in a moment, once I have left the Bench. Do you understand?
97OFFENDER: Yes.
98HIS HONOUR: Very well great. All right, well that completes the matter then, so what I will do then is I will - I will simply leave the Bench at this stage then. Yes, thank you.
- - -
0