Director of Public Prosecutions v Jago

[2013] VCC 1937

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

AT LATROBE VALLEY

CRIMINAL DIVISION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

DANNY JAGO

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMALLWOOD
WHERE HELD:	Latrobe Valley
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 November 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Jago
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VCC 1937

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

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

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms J. Taylor
For the Accused	Mr A. Sharpley

HIS HONOUR:

1        Danny Jago, you have pleaded guilty to one count of recklessly causing serious injury and one count of criminal damage.  Those crimes carry maximum penalties of 15 years and 10 years respectively.  You are 28 years of age.  You pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity.  You have ultimately expressed appropriate remorse and indeed, when spoken to by police, made full and frank admissions.  You told police your reason for committing this extremely violent assault and I will be dealing with that again shortly.

2        You must also of course get the utilitarian benefit of that plea of guilty in furthering the interests of justice and saving your victim from having to give evidence in a trial which I am sure would have been a very traumatic experience for him indeed.  You do have a prior history.  Of real significance is that, other than a matter a couple of years ago of assault police which was accompanied by a drunk and disorderly, you have no other prior convictions for violence that I can ascertain.  When you were in your late teens, you underwent a Youth Justice Centre order of some nine or so months' duration.  With your background, it is remarkable that you have had such little offending since.

3 Firstly, pursuant to s.464Z of the Crimes Act, I make an order that you provide a saliva sample for DNA purposes.  That order is made and handed down.  That order having been made, I must advise you that should you refuse to provide a saliva sample – there are no needles involved – police may use reasonable force to take it from you.

4        There are three accused in this matter.  There is yourself, one Christopher Myatt and one David Goodall.  The victim is a Mr Alan Willis.  At the time of the offending, Mr Willis and Myatt were living together in Avondale Road, Morwell.  It was a house for short term crisis accommodation.  On the evening of 2 March 2013, all three of you were drinking at the address in Elgin Street.  I will be dealing with Mr Myatt at a later time so I will not go into the details about him, other than that he had previously been arrested by police and seemed at that stage to have a fairly significant psychiatric disorder.

5        

During the course of that evening, Myatt told you and Goodall that he was residing with Mr Willis, who he believed was a woman beater and rapist.  The three of you then formulated a plan to attend at his address and to confront

Mr Willis about the accusations.  There was a determination obviously to assault him.

6        

At approximately 9.15 pm, the three of you attended at his address.  He was in the bathroom having just taken a shower.  The three of you burst into the bathroom.  He was kicked in the chest causing him to slip over into the bath and strike his head on the side of the bath.  Each of you punched and elbowed him while he was in the bath to his head and his body.  I should interpolate at this stage that this is an agreed factual situation in regard to

Mr Myatt as well.

7        He was then dragged from the bath into his bedroom by you and Goodall.  You continued to assault him.  At some stage his TV was smashed.  He was then dragged into the lounge room by you and Myatt where you continued to repeatedly kick and punch him all over his body.  A short time later he managed to run from the house out into the road.  You and Myatt followed him, kicked his feet out from under him.  You then continued punching and kicking him while he lay on the ground.  He was dragged along the road in nothing more than a towel and boxer shorts.

8        As a result of this he suffered serious injuries.  On the report that was provided for police, he was in pain, he suffered bilateral black eyes, he was tender over the mid line cervical and thoracolumbar spine, he had bruises on his right shoulder and his left thigh.  He had multiple abrasions and superficial laceration on his left shin, but most significantly with the CT scan of his face.  He had multiple facial fractures, bilateral zygomatic arches, left orbital floor blowout, right orbital floor, right zygoma, right maxilla and maxillary sinus, nasal bone and pterygoid plates bilaterally.  What that means, Mr Jago, is that he was given one hell of a hiding and most of it was centred on his face.  They are serious injuries indeed and cannot be regarded as anything else.

9        I have read the victim impact statement that Mr Willis has made and there are obviously matters in it which I will not be taking into account and by agreement there is no need for me to go into that exercise in public.  What that victim impact statement does describe vividly is the terror that man felt being attacked by three people for reasons unknown to him and not even being given the opportunity of explaining himself.  In any event I obviously take that victim impact statement into account.

10       A short time after police arrived and Myatt was arrested and made full admissions to all of this.  He outlined his reason for assaulting Mr Willis and said that he had an intense hatred of rapists as his sister had been victim to an unrelated sexual assault.  How much of any of that is true I have got absolutely no idea and unfortunately, Mr Jago, neither did you.  You told police that you were just against being abusive towards women and obviously sexually touching and stuff, it just irritates you.  You did however make full admissions to the conduct that you had engaged in.

11       Obviously it is very serious offending.  It calls for the application in the normal course of events of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, punishment and bearing in mind the nature of the attack and how it occurred, there has to be in this situation an element of public protection.  The normal course of events after an assault like this would be a significant active gaol term.  The Crown here gave a very range of two to three on top, one to 18 months on the bottom.

12       What was put on your behalf by your counsel was not so much to argue with that range but to say that an active custodial sentence in this situation was not the only sentencing option but that a community corrections order could be made.  I have had you assessed for such an order and you have been found to be acceptable.

13       The first matter that I want to deal with is the fact that you came to Koori Court.  I personally found, and I have no doubt that you did, as did the elders as they have expressed to me yesterday, it to be an extremely gruelling process.  I thought that the way you conducted yourself, the respect that you showed not only to the elders but to Madam Prosecutor and all others at the table was highly commendable.  I think you made a genuine and concerted effort to own up to what you had done and to accept responsibility for the consequences to this, on the face of it, innocent victim.

14       You listened, I accept, to the advice and the stories of the elders and I think that there is a real chance that you took a step forward yesterday in terms of your own personal rehabilitation.  Your remorse and shame for what you have done was evident.  During the course of that conversation, it became clear to me by listening to your brother and listening to your mother, that you have very good family support.  There are a number of people here to support you which in Koori Court does not necessarily happen.  All those matters augur very much in your favour in terms of potential rehabilitation.  Your mother and your brother spoke.

15       When it was put to you by Madam Prosecutor the consequences to the victim, you faced that and took responsibility for it.  It is, I think, one of the most powerful aspects of Koori Court that that position of the victim is put so directly to an accused person and you had enough courage to take it and respond appropriately.  You indicated during the course of the conversation that you felt that the reason you did this was out of at various times you said revenge and a chance to effectively pay out on somebody like that and you have acknowledged that that is what you did and that that is what cannot ever happen again.  You acknowledged ultimately, certainly in terms of talking to Uncle Bill, that you understand that you have got to do something about that.  You clearly have difficulties when you have drunk alcohol to excess but as I pointed out to you, and as I think you accept, it is not just a matter of not drinking.  You have got to do something about the underlying difficulties that you face.

16       You spoke to a psychiatrist, Mr Carroll, and I will be taking his report into account.  It is abundantly clear that you suffered a very abusive childhood, that you witnessed and suffered physical assault on a regular basis.  I say from the outset that insofar as your moral culpability for this offending is concerned, that the decision in the High Court of Bugmey is very much on point.  It is all very easy to say that people should turn their lives round or do all sorts of things but when one so young has had such a deprived and violent background, it does reduce, I think, the moral culpability.

17       Insofar as Verdins is concerned, you have been assessed as having a post traumatic disorder.  That is a much more difficult proposition.  On the one hand it reduces moral culpability in terms of your predisposition towards offending in this way.  On the other hand, when one looks at it logically, it calls for the application of general deterrence so that people who have similar views as such people are deterred.  I do not know quite what the answer to all that is.

18       In the end I think that Verdins applies within a very limited way.  I agree with the prosecution submission that it is not your classic Verdins situation in the same way as say Muldrock or something like that.  But allowing for the fact that you have a distorted view or had a distorted view of the world because of your upbringing and because of that disorder, I do make some allowance for moral culpability.  I think insofar as specific deterrents are concerned, your personal situation is one where that is not required.  Insofar as community protection is concerned, I think that that is going to be best achieved by you taking on counselling and endeavouring to deal with the problems that have been with you since you were obviously a very young boy.

19       

A significant amount of material was provided on your behalf, and I have taken those references into account.  There is one from Community Health

Mr Mowbray, there is one from Mr Hiropoulos.  Importantly there is a reference and a certificate from SEADS to say that within a two or three weeks that this offending occurred you did a seven day detoxification.  That is clearly early action on your part in terms of realising the significance and gravity of what you have done and undertaking steps to remedy that situation.

20       There is also a report that I have read from Blue Line, a Mr Jason Baird, which describes that you are a very good worker and he is willing to have you back.  I am told from the Bar table, and have no reason to doubt that, despite your background from the age of 14 you worked and you have always worked.  You have a very good work record and that is highly commendable and in this jurisdiction it is not something that we see all that often.  I think you will understand what I am saying when I say that.

21       The report from Mr Carroll as I have indicated goes through your background to a certain extent and refers to the violence that you sustained.  He takes the view that you remain a significant risk of re-offending as do Corrections.  He pointed out that because of the way in which you were treated as a child that you still suffer intrusive memories of abuse on several occasions per week.  You told him that is why you like to keep busy.  You also told him that you feel angry at times when cues in the environment trigger memories of your own abuse.  You told him that you occasionally wake up in a cold sweat from bad dreams about families and fighting.  You admitted to some level of hyper vigilance and chronic irritability.

22       You told him that when you get on a train alone you sit in the same spot with your back to the wall.  You have anxiety in crowds occasionally leading to panic attacks.  You told him that you recall witnessing severe acts of violence involving your mother and subsequent partners.  On one occasion you reported your mother being doused in petrol although you yourself did not witness that directly.

23       You reported that you had been repeatedly beaten for no clear reason by uncles when you were young.  You told the elders yesterday the difficulty that you had with that, that they were belting you and you still had to respect them.  It seemed to be a very confusing matter for you.  You have had intermittent excessive alcohol use from about the age of 13.  You have over the years, not surprisingly, used drugs of various descriptions.  As I understand it – and there seems to be no suggestion to the contrary – your drug use is not current.  You have never used opiates and it is now some time since you have used amphetamine.

24       It is of significance that your criminal history during that ten year period where those drugs had been used is, in one way of describing. it a light one.  Before this occurred, you had been on a bender for a couple of days.  That is no excuse for it and indeed debatable to what extent it caused this.  Very significantly you expressed to Mr Carroll a significant level of concern about your own capacity for violence and were open talking to him for further pharmacological and psychological help.  You again indicated that yesterday to the elders that understanding that you have to do that and it is coming home very much to you.  He said that you had in essence a chronic post traumatic stress disorder, chronic in nature and moderate in severity.

25       The next matter that needs to be dealt with is the circumstances surrounding your family.  To this point in the sentencing process you are a person who has not offended significantly for now nearly a decade.  You have a good work record.  You have a stable relationship.  You  have very good family support from both sides, not only from yours but from your partner.  There is no current drug use and you have stable accommodation.  You have shown a preparedness to deal with alcohol and a preparedness to deal with your underlying psychological circumstances.  All those matters go very much towards your ultimate rehabilitation.

26       The situation is that your partner – and I heard from her on oath and was indeed impressed by her – has very serious health problems.  In 2010 she was diagnosed with breast cancer.  Treatment took place.  It included a lumpectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy.  She said that she was extremely ill with the chemotherapy and you were working full time and took days off to care for her.

27       By January 2011 she had fortunately finished her treatments and the long term care plan was to see an oncologist every three months with an ultrasound to be done on each breast every six months.  In August of 2013, after this offending took place – and I think that is a very important factor – a routine ultrasound showed an abnormal mass in her right breast.  She was sent for a mammogram and biopsy which showed the mass to be cancerous.  On 27 September 2013, she underwent a bilateral mastectomy.  She spent five days in hospital for pain management.  She is sensitive to opiate based drugs so could not be discharged with the usual medication.  She said on oath before me that she continues to suffer pain and since her most recent surgery she has had two seizures which the doctors seem to think may be epilepsy.

28       She is seeing a neurologist in December to discuss that matter further.  She is on Tamoxifen and Zoladex, both drugs which are known to me.  The results of those are hot flushes, nausea, headaches, constipation, leg cramps and tiredness and joint tiredness.  Because of the pain and because of those side effects of those medications which will be ongoing and continuing obviously for a very extended period of time, she is unable to lift the children and there are three of them, unable to bathe them, push a shopping trolley or a stroller, lift a full washing basket or any tasks that involve heavy lifting.  It is hoped that that will improve over the next few months but she relies heavily on you to do those things, along with the general upkeep of the house.  She went through, in a reference that was tendered on her behalf and also in evidence, all the actions that you have taken since she was diagnosed.  She said effectively that you were her rock and confirmed that you had undergone the detox.

29       Her father and mother are currently in Victoria, down from the north.  They cannot stay for ever and will have to go back.  You have become your partner's full time carer.  I have given this matter anxious consideration because it is a very important one.  The circumstance of not actively incarcerating is not, in this particular situation because of a lot of other factors, dependent on whether that amounts to exceptional circumstances.

30       Having read the authorities and listened to the argument of counsel put to me yesterday, I do not find that those circumstances are exceptional.  As President Winneke said that when one is committing criminal offences, one should understand that these are potential consequences.  In your particular situation it is different because the dire circumstances that now exist, bearing in mind the risk factors and all those sorts of matters, occurred after the offending had taken place but it is a rare situation where it does amount to hardship and mercy for others is applicable.  That is not to say that mercy for yourself is not.

31       In the decision of Marcovic, a number of matters were pointed out and paragraph 20 of that decision:

"The effect on the offender of hardship caused to family members by his or her imprisonment is a quite separate matter.  An offender's anguish at being unable to care for a family member can properly be taken into account as a mitigating factor.  For example if the court is satisfied that this will make the imprisonment more burdensome or that it materially affects the assessment of the need for specific deterrence or of the offender's prospects of rehabilitation.  These are conventional issues of mitigation and they are not subject to the exceptional circumstances limitation."

32       I think each of those factors applies in your situation.

33       I do not propose to go into enormous detail about why I do not regard it as exceptional.  It is likely in the eye of the beholder as I said yesterday.  But I think so far as you are concerned, the factors are these.  For you to be imprisoned for an appropriate period of time, not some artificially reduced sentence, will I think cause you great anguish, knowing the circumstances that you are in, knowing the risks that your partner is undertaking in terms of further illness and knowing the difficulties that would occur insofar as the children are concerned.

34       Having seen the family support in the end, I have no doubt that the children would not be put into care or come to harm but the effect on you I think would be dramatic and you were not aware of this situation when you offended.  I think specific deterrence for you, having listened to you closely yesterday, are met by your love for your children, to put it bluntly.  Your mother confirmed that and your partner certainly did.  If looking after them is not sufficient specific deterrence for you, I do not think anything will be.

35       What is very important in this overall instinctive synthesis is that since this offending has occurred, you have endeavoured to deal with it, you have gone through a detoxification, you have continued to work until the situation arose where your partner became very ill.  Your conduct since that, I am satisfied of this by evidence on oath – since that occurred has been exemplary.  You have looked after the children and continue to do so.  You have that family support and I think that is a very crucial part of your rehabilitation, is what is going on in your family at the moment.  That is, as I have indicated a very important matter.

36       The other references that were tendered I have obviously taken into account, that is from Latrobe Valley Health and all those other matters.  I do not need to go through those in great detail.  It then came down to whether an active custodial sentence of the order submitted by the Crown had to be imposed or whether it was open to give you a community corrections order.  Community corrections orders have now been in existence for a couple of years.  In the reading speech, it was put by the Attorney as I recall:

"The purpose of the CCO conditions is to allow a court greater flexibility to impose a less restrictive order than imprisonment where appropriate, potentially leading to a reduction in sentences of imprisonment with advantages such as the promotion of the offender's rehabilitation and the preservation of family and community ties.  This supports the broader purpose of the Sentencing Act to prevent crime and promote respect for the law by providing sentences that deter re-offending and allow the court to denounce the criminal conduct including the harm caused to the community and I interpolate the victim by the crime and to provide sentences that facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders and ensure that offenders are punished to the extent justified by the offence."

37       A community corrections order is a very significant punishment and particularly in this situation, a very significant restriction on your freedom and various other matters.  Some time ago, in response to matters raised by the Salvation Army, a spokesman for the Attorney said that:

"The government also introduced community corrections orders which kept offenders out of gaol under conditions that would help tackle underlying problems and reduce the risk of re-offending."

38       Suspended sentences, for all intents and purposes, are either gone or on the way out.  The community corrections order is obviously not a direct replacement of that but clearly that concept of the hanging over the head still exists.  Nettle JA said not long ago in referring to suspended sentences that where the head sentence fits within the range, which at that stage was three years, all things being equal or where there is sufficient information, it would be unusual where the sentence cannot be suspended.  I think that position applies here.

39       I then go to the decision in the Court of Appeal of Tomgoenen which in fact was a glassing involving serious injury.  In that matter Neave J said and this was in regard to suspended sentences:

"The sentences imposed in the present case took account of the mitigating factors mentioned above, the respondent's limited criminal record and His Honour's favourable view of the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation.  In the circumstances of this case, His Honour was entitled to show mercy to the respondent and to take account of the fact that he was the full time carer of one of his daughters and he shared the care of his other daughter with her aunt."

40       I find that your prospects of rehabilitation, particularly after hearing from you yesterday are excellent.  Her Honour then referred to DPP v Leach:

"It is particularly important that this court should not devalue or deny the right of a sentencing judge to act mercifully in a case where it seems to the judge to be an instance where an opportunity for reformation of the offender ought be grasped.  That after all may be a decision which rebounds very much to the benefit of the community."

41       As the President of the Court of Appeal, Maxwell J, said in DPP v Tocava:

"A sentencing judge should be astute to investigate whether a non-custodial disposition is to be preferred.  Even in a case of a serious offence, if in the long term the community's interests will be best served by that course.  This course should seek to promote public understanding of the fact that apart from the interests of the individual whom it is sought to rehabilitate, an important interest in itself, there is a vital community interest in maximising the prospects of rehabilitation of an individual who has been convicted of a serious crime."

42       I think those words of the President are very pertinent to the situation that exists here.

43       Taking all those matters into account and, as is indicated, acknowledging that a community corrections order is a very significant punishment in itself, I feel that it is open to me to take what I accept is the unusual course of not imposing an active custodial sentence.  It was pointed out in Tomguenen that the Court of Appeal had on many occasions given suspended sentences and partially suspended sentences for crimes involving serious injury.  I just think that this is a situation where it is in nobody's interests for you to be actively incarcerated and in fact would be to your detriment and the detriment of the community.

44       Accordingly, on the two charges, if you agree, you are to be placed on a community corrections order.  That order will be with conviction, which is a punishment in itself.  It will be of four years duration.  It will include assessment and treatment for drugs, assessment and treatment for alcohol, mental health assessment and treatment, offending behaviour programs, and any other treatments and rehabilitation which are seen as necessary.  There will be a supervision condition and there will also be the judicial monitoring condition that I have indicated.

45       I make it clear and be well understood by Corrections of your Koori heritage and I am sure that that can be taken into account when these matters are all being dealt with, particularly, which I am seeking very much, that what happened to you in your childhood be dealt with.  Uncle Bill and Russell yesterday described their childhoods to you and quite dreadful childhoods.  They have both come through it, they are both elders, they are both highly respected people who have done well in the world, and so can you.

46       The purpose of this disposition is to give you the opportunity, despite the serious nature of the crime that you committed, to achieve the sort of things that they have achieved.  It was indicated at the outset, if you make a mess of this or if you re-offend with violence, you will be brought back for breach and you know what you are going to get.  Any other orders?

47       MS TAYLOR:  Did you mention hours?  Working hours?

48       HIS HONOUR:  Oh sorry.  300 works hours.

49       MS TAYLOR:  And you indicated that that wouldn't commence straight away?

50       HIS HONOUR:  No, I will leave that up to Corrections.  That is why I am making it four years, that it is a circumstance where what I am looking at is his present family structure will be such that he may not be able to commence for some time, that is all.  All right, yes you can just go down with him now.

51       MS SHARPLEY:  (Indistinct).

52       HIS HONOUR:  Yes, please.  Yes?  Sorry, just listen to this if you would?

53       MS GILBOY:  In terms of the - - -

54       HIS HONOUR:  Sorry, just listen to this if you would.

55       MS GILBOY:  In terms of the community work, Your Honour, if you could set a date on that as to a proposed start date.

56       HIS HONOUR:  Okay.

57       MS GILBOY:  It would be more beneficial for community corrections, only for the fact that we have dedicated timelines on when a particular program is due to start, in particular community work, so if he were to have that open, it would be expected that he would start straight away.

58       HIS HONOUR:  Okay, well what if I said 300 hours to be performed over that period of time and to commence six months from today's date?

59       MS GILBOY:  That's fine or, Your Honour, I guess we could look at maybe doing it so that the community work could be arranged over say one day a month initially, if that would be something that you would propose?

60       HIS HONOUR:  Well, I want you guys to work it out.  You see the problem is going to be this, that part and parcel of all this is his role at the present time.  As I understand it, he is also trying to fit in some part time work with all this, so he is - and I know there is other family involved obviously but he is primary carer and there is that scenario.  On material before me, it seems that over the next few months that situation should improve.  So after that - I do not know how to express it.  I do not want to be saying one day a month at the moment because that might not work out and I do not want matters being brought back because of that.  If it can be just six months?

61       MS GILBOY:  Yes.

62       HIS HONOUR:  Before the community hours -  whatever the expression is, "kick in", I do not know how you say it.  That would be simplest bet for me.  Now, I am having him back to see how he is going in February on a judicial monitoring.  If there was a problem at that point and I had to make a specific direction, I could do that then.

63       MS GILBOY:  Yes.

64       HIS HONOUR:  At the moment, I just want to make sure when he comes back, as to the elders, that he is complying with programs, that he is dealing with his issues, and those rehabilitative matters are in place.  Often with these orders, the work component gives a person a work ethic.  He has already got one, so the works hours are straight punishment in a sense.

65       MS GILBOY:  Yes.

66       HIS HONOUR:  Well, not "in a sense", they are.  So does that - I just do not want to put into place something that then has to be brought back before me.  So I just simply say that the work component is to commence six months from today's date.  The order is effective from today but the work component does not kick in for six months.  That just seems to me to be the simplest way of dealing with it.  Are you okay with that?

67       MS GILBOY:  Yes, I agree with that, Your Honour.

68       HIS HONOUR:  Look, if there is any problem, as I say I will be back up here in January so if there is anything that does not work out, it probably can be brought back before me and we can make any amendments that we need to.

69       MS GILBOY:  Yes, as Your Honour pleases.

70       HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Sorry, I should have asked, are you okay with that?

71       MS SHARPLEY:  Yes, Your Honour, Mr Jago indicated that he probably could manage once a month but I think that is probably appropriate.

72       HIS HONOUR:  Yes, the problem is if I start buying into how often he has got to do it - - -

73       MS SHARPLEY:  Yes.

74       HIS HONOUR:  It is easier if it is just done, in his situation, just by agreement rather than me saying once a month and then if he does not do it for a month, it is a breach, you know what I mean?  If he can do it, he can do it. 

75       MS GILBOY:  Your Honour, if there is a particular start date though, we would not actually start the commission of the order until that start date.  Which I think is beneficial with Mr Jago's situation at current

76       HIS HONOUR:  Look, that gives him three and a half years to do 300.  That is plenty.

77       MS GILBOY:  Yes, that is definitely enough time to complete these orders.

78       HIS HONOUR:  Well, I hope so.  Yes.  The computer says no.  Unbelievable, but yes, anyway.  Look, what we will do is we will leave the order as is.  The file can be noted that what I am saying is I do not expect him to commence it for six months.  All right?  That is marked on the file.  If it is brought back before me, there will be no accidents then.  Then we will just leave it as is.  Just leave it as is.

79       MS SHARPLEY:  May I approach?

80       HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  What we will do, Ms Taylor, while that is being done, with the walkabout, we will have a break.  Again I will come onto the Bench up here and we will just do the formal process first.

81       MS TAYLOR:  As it pleases Your Honour.

82       HIS HONOUR:  That, as far as you are aware, that is ready to go, is it?  We will make that - is 10.30 too soon for you?

83       MS TAYLOR:  No, Your Honour.

84       HIS HONOUR:  All right, we will make it 10.30 because we have got to get him brought over from the cells, that is all.  All right, that order is in place.  All right, thanks ladies, just adjourn and I will come back at half past.

- - -