Director of Public Prosecutions v Karahan

[2019] VCC 594

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 18-02103

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

OMER KARAHAN

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE McINERNEY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 March 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Karahan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 594

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords:	Plea of guilty – negligently causing serious injury – motor car – young offender
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act1991; Crimes Act 1958; Criminal Procedure Act 2009
Cases Cited:	Papachristodoulou v The Queen [2017] VSCA 284; Harrison v The Queen (2015) 49 VR 619; DPP v Tokava [2006] VSCA 156; R v Haydn Merrett & Ors [2007] VSCA 1; R v Tsiamas & Kastanis (unreported, VSCA, No.25/26 of 1997, 21 May 1997); R v Bainbridge, Cullen and Ludwicki (1993) 74 A Crim R 265; R vBrock Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Hall v The Queen [2010] VSCA 349
Sentence:	Convicted and sentenced to detention in a Youth Justice Centre for a period of 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms S. Coombes	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Fitzgerald	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR: 

1Mr Karahan was born on 22 November 1998.  He is aged 20, he turns 21 this year; he is deemed under the Sentencing Act a young offender.  On the day of the commission of this crime he was 19.

2On 8 March a plea was conducted in regard to the one charge in Indictment No.J11641212. On that day, as they do today, Ms Coombes appeared on behalf of the Director and Mr Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of Mr Karahan. The charge is a breach of s.24 of the Crimes Act, one of negligently cause serious injury.  This occurred on 21 June 2018.  The victim was Mr Stephen Molino, who was then aged 54.  I will come to the specifics in due course.

3However, due to your negligence, Mr Karahan, Mr Molino was thrown from the industrial mower he was operating in Austrak Drive, Somerton, contacting the mower, most unfortunately for him, during that trajectory, and ended up some 27 metres from the point of impact.  As a result Mr Molino was most seriously injured. The prosecution opening, Exhibit A, was accepted by Mr Fitzgerald as the facts upon which I am to sentence you.

4Mr Molino was conveyed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital.  He arrived there at 9.30 am and was placed on life support, in intensive care.  The statement of Dr Banting warrants reading, it details the injuries and is dated 12 December 2018.  Under the heading 'Physical examination' on p.2 it says:

'On arrival the patient was intubated and ventilated so only a limited physical examination was able to be performed.  His observations, that is blood pressure and heart rate, indicated the patient was in a state of significant physiological shock.  At the time it was noted he had a large degloving injury to his left flank, back and some grazes to his abdomen'. 

5In this regard, Exhibit C were the photographs tendered and I must say it is rare that I have seen such a dramatic photo, detailing Mr Molino's injuries at Photograph No.133.

6The doctor continued as follows:

'The following investigations were performed:  diagnostic laparotomy.  Due to the unstable nature of the patient on arrival, he was taken to operating theatre prior to any CT imaging in an attempt to correct to some degree the shock state of the patient.  He had a CT scan of his brain, his cervical spine, his chest, his abdomen and pelvis.  The following diagnoses were made:  bilateral subdural haematomas, bilateral pneumatoses, left rib fractures, left diaphragm injury, splenic rupture, renal haematoma, lumbar spine fractures with associated dural tear allowing open communication between the spinal cord and the wounds, sacral fractures, right iliac fracture, large degloving wound of the left flank, coagulopathy secondary to hypovolemic shock, [what that basically means is a loss of blood and the impact of such blood flow on the coagulation operation of the body] a wound infection and also a CSF leak [which is a cerebrospinal fluid leak from the brain]'. 

7By way of treatment Mr Molino was intubated and ventilated, he had three laparotomies.  They was a need for wash-outs of the abdomen, assessments of the abdomen and further wash-outs, removal of blood, removal of the spleen, ultimately a further diagnostic procedure requiring repair of the diaphragm and its closure.  Mr Molino needed cardiovascular support including blood transfusions, I will detail those numbers when I talk about Mr Molino's comments.  He needed decompression of the spine, a lumbar spine debridement and effusion. 

8In all he had seven plastic operations to clean, debride and eventually graft the left flank wound.  He required reopening of the lumbar wound with debridement and repair and also repair of the leak from the brain.  The term 'serious injury' as set out in the indictment, seems somewhat of an understatement.

9Tendered as Exhibit B was the victim impact statement of Mr Molino.  Well, it really was not his victim impact statement, but it was his original statement.  It tells a little more of what he describes on p.3 of his “near-death experience.”  He recalls being wheeled down the hallway on a trolley and asking those assisting him to give him something to finish him off, such was his pain.  As he said,

'I was in extreme pain.  I had a near-death experience, but I thought to myself that it wasn't time yet and then I was back.  I had a lot of surgery in hospital.  I don't remember much of it in those first few weeks. They put 34 units of blood into me before they worked out where I kept bleeding and also took out my spleen. The first thing I really recall was about three weeks or so after the collision, waking up in the hospital bed.  Susan was there and the doctors continually told me I was a miracle man'.

10Mr Molino had an unsuccessful rehabilitation at Epworth.  He had a bursting of fluid through his back and had to go back to hospital, and then further rehabilitation.  When finally rehabilitated and returned to home, he talks about the impacts upon him.  This is at the bottom of p.4:

'It's still early, but I won't ever work again.  I walk with the aid of a crutch and my back and internal injuries are too severe to really do much.  I need more surgeries.  [As we know, he is currently in hospital with a hip problem.]  I can't do much of what I used to do.  I have to rely on my daughters and their boyfriends to help out a lot.  They've been through a lot too'. 

11In Court was read out Exhibit D, the statement by his partner, Ms Anderson.  That provides independent analysis of what happened to Mr Molino in hospital.  I note on p.1 the comment that, when Ms Anderson got to ICU,

'[Mr Molino's] head was huge.  His torso was probably five times the size of what he normally is.  He took up the whole bed and his head was so swollen I could barely recognise him'. 

12Albeit the statement was not enumerated, on p.2 she says after about two hours of being with him, he started to rhythmically breathe with her.  As she said, 'The ICU was the place for me'.  It seems clear that Mr Molino was very lucky to have the attention not only of the medical staff, but of Ms Anderson.  She said,

'It was so hard to find a non-grazed or non-injured part of his body where I could even touch him.  Stephen improved and ended up in a better state than they expected, about six or seven days they took him off life support to see how he went.  [He then had contact with his family.]  He had infections.  He had 23 days without using his bowels and was so much pain.  He had golden staph and a fungal infection.  Eventually he was sent to rehab [and I have already spoken about that].  He finally went home in October, some four months after this accident, and continues to deal with the problems'.

13As stated on the fourth page of her statement,

'He can't work anymore, he can't stand and urinate, he can't fix the horse paddock fences, he can't squeeze his children.  He can't chainsaw or dig or clean a gutter or jump in the car.  He's on 45 pills a day every day and the list of side effects is endless'.

14She talks of the impact upon herself, and her family.  Significantly, however, Mr Karahan, at the end of this, as you may recall, she pronounced in Turkish the phrase that she forgives you.  I understand that was conveyed on behalf of Mr Molino, a somewhat remarkable statement in all the circumstances.

15In addition there was a further victim impact statement of Mr Molino's daughter, which was Exhibit F.  I will not go through the details, but the impact on the family has been dramatic, not only on the daughters but their partners.  As she concludes, 'Our lives will never be the same'.

16I have no updated medical information apart from that, and I sentence on the basis that the circumstances and effects of your negligent driving and its impact upon Mr Molino, are, as detailed to me, permanent.  There was no dispute from your counsel about this factor.

17A number of points I want to make about this: the first is to remark on what a wonderful job the medical practitioners did. This case involved extensive treatments and procedures.  It involved Mr Molino suffering numerous infections.  It involved him in being on life support for six to seven days, wherein which he underwent multiple operations, and over the next four months involved him in intensive rehabilitation.

18Albeit broken, Mr Molino is still with us, although not personally here; he is in hospital.  And if I can use his phrase, as he said, he determined it was not his time.  It seems that not only did the doctors do a wonderful job but his grit and determination came to bear in his being with us. 

19Mr Karahan, the important point about all that is how lucky you are.  The professionalism of the medical doctors, and the guts of your victim, were such that they saved you from being before this Court on more serious charge. That is culpable driving causing death.  But the circumstances are such that you have been very close to facing that very, very serious charge. 

20It is of course important, despite the humane concern that I have tried to express for the horrific injuries that Mr Molino has suffered, to not of course allow those matters to overwhelm this Court.  Under the relevant sentencing provisions, this is only one of the factors I have to take into account in regard to your sentence, that is the impact on Mr Molino, upon his life and the injuries he suffered. 

21I have unfortunately had to preside over cases where even more serious injuries have been effected.  You would wonder how, but persons as a result of negligent driving have been left with no intellectual ability or very depleted intellectual ability.  As I say, despite being a broken man, Mr Molino is still with us, and has plenty of pluck.

22Coming then to the crime itself, as I said, this crime is seen as very serious by the community, by Parliament and indeed by these Courts.  That is the reason why the maximum sentence prescribed for a person who pleads guilty to such an offence, or is found guilty of such an offence, is 10 years' imprisonment.  It is necessary for me to assess the culpability of this crime committed by you.  It seems to me the following factors stand out.

23Firstly, that you were driving a high-powered car illegally.  That is you were a probationary driver who, pursuant to the law, was forbidden to drive such a car.  You have relevant priors.  The first of those is a conviction in June 17 for careless driving.  That driving took place on 20 December 2016.  I should say that I think it is appropriate for those particulars you gave me last time, Madam Prosecutor, be tendered, they will be Exhibit I.

24That conviction was approximately a year before this crime involving Mr Molino.  Again the facts involved you turning round an intersection too fast and losing control of your car.  In that instance you in fact failed to stop after the collision.  Fortunately at least you were taught one lesson:  you did stop and assist in this case.  Subsequently, you were further brought before a Court on 21 June 2017, again where you were driving a car too fast and lost control.  This offending took place on 23 March 2017.  I point out that you were not convicted of either crime; however, there were findings of guilty.

25You then subsequent to the accident, that is in November 2018, were placed on an undertaking in regard to further breaches of the law which occurred three months before this accident, on 12 March 2018, when you drove your car while disqualified.  I want to stress to you that you do not come before this Court, albeit the findings of guilty, to be sentenced again in regard to those breaches.  They have been dealt with. 

26However, what is concerning is that, despite you being given a chance on two occasions of having no conviction imposed, and again the adjourned undertakings happened subsequently, but the driving did not.  Despite given those two opportunities, you did not appear to have learnt and indeed involved yourself subsequently in this most serious offence. 

27The third factor insofar is that there was simply no excuse for this crime.  You yourself were grossly late for work, over an hour, and decided to drive in this most negligent manner. To drive into a roundabout on the wrong side of the road, to then make a right-hand turn from the intersection, again onto the wrong side of the road to which you turned, which in the circumstances placed you in a situation where you were facing a rising sun which meant that you had restricted vision, and no doubt at speed, although one cannot be sure of that, were in totality examples of high negligence.  I have looked at an animation, Exhibit H, and it shows clearly each of those factors. 

28Your counsel makes the point in submissions that, unlike many like cases, there was no alcohol involved.  There is no proof of excessive speed, although clearly the circumstances and the manner in which Mr Molino was propelled show considerable speed; however, the relationship between a car and an unprotected man, who is on a tractor means that this Court is unable to make a conclusion about speed, beyond reasonable doubt.

29Also there does not appear to be any suggestion that any mechanical factor was involved in the accident, it is purely your negligence in making the turn this way, albeit that you were illegally driving such a modified car. 

30Taking all those factors into account and encapsulating them all as part of the negligence to which you pleaded, I find the assessment of your heinousness, or culpability, should be at the higher end of the mid-range.  In that regard I assess your culpability as higher than was put to me by the learned prosecutor, who put the culpability at mid-range. 

31Given such assessment, even at the lower range put by the prosecution, and the consequences, there cannot be any other outcome but a period of incarceration for you.  Such was conceded by your counsel, Mr Fitzgerald.

32The submission put to this Court by Mr Fitzgerald was that the incarceration should be served in a youth training centre.  To that effect I called for a report under s.32. I want to thank Mr Riordon, who was indeed in the Court when the plea was heard, and subsequently provided a report which became Exhibit G, dated 26/04 of this year.  I want to refer to that report.

33Mr Riordon noted that while you were on bail you were required to obey all lawful directions of the Youth Justice central courts unit.  As a result you had attended 19 sessions with him and a number of similar sessions with Ms Ahern, of the Youth Support and Advocacy Service to address your substance issues.  Indeed there was a bail progress report, which was tendered and I will refer to in due course.

34Mr Riordan noted that hold down a full-time job.  He took the view because of the manner in which you went about attending to your bail requirements, that you present as a very good prognosis in regard to overall rehabilitation.  He considered you had expressed appropriate remorse and generally felt empathy for your victim and his family.  He thought insofar as the considerations that this Court must make, that you were a vulnerable young person who would be subject to a very real risk of contamination in a prison context.

35It is necessary for me to go the authorities.  I want to firstly refer to the case, handed to me by the learned prosecutor, Papachristodoulou v The Queen [2017] VSCA 284. At [28] the court stated that current sentencing practice -

'failed to reflect the objective seriousness of cases of negligently causing serious injury [in particular those that fell in the upper bracket of such offences, and stated], that ordinarily sentences of six years to seven years, for such offending, would have been "well within range"'. 

36This was a reference to a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Harrison. 

37This court in Papachristodoulou referred to a quotation from Harrison where the Court of Appeal said this:

'Sentencing courts should no longer consider themselves constrained by existing sentencing practice [I make the point this is prior to Dalgliesh] for offences of [this type] by driving which fall within the upper range of seriousness'.

38They went on to talk about the weight to be given to a youth, at [37]. The court said:

'The weight to be given to the youth of an offender, as a mitigating circumstance, generally is reduced where the offence committed by the offender is serious, and particularly where the offence is of a kind commonly committed by offenders who are young and immature.  In such cases, it is recognised that the youth of the offender, while still relevant as a mitigating circumstance, must to a material degree give way to the requirements of general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation'.

39Further at [45] the court said this:

'The authorities make plain the principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation are of substantial weight in the sentencing process in cases such as this'.

40The principle of rehabilitation is obviously very important in your case.  Those principles are not in issue.  The current President of the Court of Appeal in DPP v Tokava [2006] VSCA 156 said:

'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 interest will be best served by that course'. 

41Recognising, however, that there are occasions when there is no alternative, as in this case, for a period of incarceration it is noted at his comment at [24] that:

'It would be unreal and artificial for sentencing courts to ignore the evidence about the antisocial effects of time spent in gaol'.

42He further made comments of a similar nature in R v Haydn Merrett & Ors [2007] VSCA 1.

43The particular issue, insofar as you are concerned, came before the Court of Appeal on 21 May 1997 in an unreported judgment of R v Fotios Tsiamas and Kastanis Tsiamas.  This concerned an orgy of destruction of premises where some $75,000 worth of damage was committed by three underage persons. There was an appeal on the basis that they were given a sentence in youth training.  The President, who was in minority, Phillips CJ as he then was, said:

'The scale, persistence and ferocity of your behaviour put yourselves beyond the pale, in my judgment.  The only appropriate sentence was actual imprisonment, not a youth sentence'.

44Phillips CJ quoted the Queensland Court of Appeal in R v Bainbridge, Cullen and Ludwicki, (1993) 74 A Crim R 265, which said:

'There are, of course, some cases which are so serious that notwithstanding youth and the absence of relevant previous convictions, the offender must go to gaol'.

45This is of course very much the consideration here given the seriousness of your crime, and the terrible injuries caused to Mr Molino, whether it is appropriate for you to be given a youth sentence order, or that you should be sent to gaol.

46Further considerations of these factors came about in Brock Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, comprised of Phillips CJ, Charles and Batt JJA. It concerned a very severe glassing case. At Batt JA's determination at paragraph 9 he said:

'The youth of an offender, particularly a first offender, should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court where that matter properly arises.  In the case of a youthful offender rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence.

'A youthful offender is not to be sent to an adult prison if such a disposition can be avoided, especially if he is beginning to appreciate the effect of his criminality.  The benchmark for what is serious as justifying adult imprisonment may be quite high in the [circumstances]'.

47The reason I did not sentence you last week, after I had Mr Riordon's report, is because I wanted to give close consideration to those authorities in light of the facts of this case, in particular in light of the gross and serious injuries you caused to Mr Molino. 

48Mr Karahan, you are now 20 years of age.  You are fortunate that I am even able to consider this submission, because had you turned 21 there would have been no option for you but for a period of imprisonment.  That is you are a deemed young offender. 

49I suspect from your actions, that you are a man who has had too much control at home, especially given that your father left the home when you were 18.  Unfortunately you have not, from that time, had a strong male head to control you.  I suspect that you have been particularly spoilt and self-willed and are somewhat narcissistic in nature.  The result is this tragedy to Mr Molino, and his family.

50I want to make it clear I cast no blame on your mother.  I was impressed by her statement in your support.  I note in particular the difficulties in her life, being a single mother with five children.  You were the eldest son and took over the male role.  That came about because your father left the home, but I have no doubt that at such young age you were a very, very spoilt young man.

51Despite my suspicions about you, I am of course required to analyse the facts before me according to law. As the Court of Appeal said in Hall v The Queen [2010] VSCA 349 the sentencing task involves a twofold requirement: firstly, the assessment of culpability, which I have done; but, secondly, the need for this Court to look at your personal circumstances and the factors which may be favourable to you, which may go to mitigate the penalty that is to be imposed on you.

52Mr Fitzgerald stressed the following in particular, as detailed in his written submissions, Exhibit 1.  First, is that this offending occurred when you were aged 19, you have had no conviction, either before or since this event, despite the guilty findings that have been made and the circumstances of those matters that I have detailed.  He relies strongly upon the steps that you have taken in regard to your self-realisation, and submits to me that, and I hope this is correct, you have finally woken up.

53Mr Fitzgerald relies in particular, and this Court takes particular note, of the experience of Mr Riordon, who has strongly supported you, brought about I might say, from your own actions as detailed by me, in reading his report.  In addition his bail progress, Exhibit 3, and the further report, that was tendered pursuant to s.32, at the last hearing.  In addition is your own letter of apology dated 6 March 2019.  That letter acknowledges specifically your understanding of the impact of the injuries you have wrought upon Mr Molino and his family.  It notes in particular your understanding and the fact that you had read the victim impact statement of Ms Anderson. 

54Is Mr Love in court?

55MR FITZGERALD:  No, Your Honour.

56HIS HONOUR:  The next factor relied upon by your counsel was that you are a valued employee.  You are in the third year of your diesel mechanic apprenticeship.  Exhibit 7 was a letter in support for you from your employer Mr Love.  I commend him for such letter.  We need more such employers, who are prepared to assist persons in their rehabilitation.  I was particularly impressed by his letter.  I was also impressed by your fellow employee's letter, Mr Tiley, and, as I have said, by your mother's letter, all of which were part of the references, Exhibit 2.

57I also note the five positive urines, Exhibit 5 and the progress report of the P.A.R.T.Y. program, which in fact means Prevent Alcohol and Risk-Related Trauma.  By coincidence that program was conducted at the same hospital that treated Mr Molino.  I have read your response set out in writing in regard to the debrief following that program, and the comments made are obviously positive.

58The next matter relied upon by your counsel was the psychologist's report, Exhibit 2.  Mr Candlish, your counsel, tendered to the Court on your behalf, a lengthy and detailed report.  At [102] it noted your prior history of risk-taking and impulsivity.  Those matters are clearly detailed from the prior offences which have been tendered in this matter. 

59At paragraph 110 under the 'Opinion' Mr Simon Candlish said this:

'Mr Karahan appears to have a sound intellectual capacity and does not reveal a history of engagement in chronic antisocial acts, with the exception of his pattern of offending involving reckless driving'.

60I should make the point even though you have been involved in the offences that I have indicated, they are certainly of a much lesser degree than many of the persons of your age who come before this Court, although still concerning.  Mr Candlish further went on:

'He appears to display a good prognosis for responsiveness to treatment interventions provided they are relevant to his needs and risk.  He appears to be able to develop a realistic risk management progress.  His prognosis is based on his recognition that his offending behaviour was wrong and that it has serious consequences as well as the absence of any obvious intellectual issues. 

'Mr Karahan's emotional underdevelopment and impressionability might place him at a greater risk of developing entrenched antisocial or Nihilistic views within a prison environment'.

61That opinion mirrors the comments I earlier made from the current President.

62Mr Fitzgerald also relied upon Exhibit 4, the YSAS report from Ms Ahern.  That details the numerous steps you have taken in regard to your rehabilitation, and is a positive report on your behalf.  In summary Mr Fitzgerald stressed on your behalf the importance of rehabilitation insofar as a young person is concerned and the positive steps you have taken.  He stressed the strong evidence of remorse.  He also stressed the discount that you are entitled to as a result of your plea of guilty, its utilitarian benefit in the sense that the trauma that this family has gone through did not have to be expanded by being part of a criminal trial.

63Mr Fitzgerald also relied finally on your youth, understanding the authorities referred to where youth has a particular dimension in cases of this type. However, clearly it is still a very important factor. It was the totality of those matters that Mr Fitzgerald stressed on your behalf, and submitted that a youth justice centre order would be appropriate. 

64The prosecution in response, after the tendering of the report from Mr Riordon accepted that such a determination was within range.  As I say to you, Mr Karahan, the reason I did not sentence you last week is because I wanted to give all of those matters appropriate consideration.  It is not without some cause for concern, because this depends totally on the acceptance of the genuineness of the steps you have made. 

65But given the evidence before me, on the basis of all of such material and in particular Mr Riordon's reports, all of the evidence in this case and in particular taking account of the factors set out in s.32(2) I have determined that the factors set out in s.32(1)(a) and (b) are established.  In such circumstances the period of incarceration you serve, should be served in a youth justice centre.

66Yes, if you would stand up, please.

67You will be convicted of all offences in this matter. That is the one offence in the indictment and the four summary offences which you have asked me to take into account under s.145 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

68Insofar as the offence under the indictment, that is the breach of s.24 of the Crimes Act, and the charge of drive while suspended, being the summary charge, you will be sentenced pursuant to s.32A to an aggregate period of detention in youth training for a period of three years.  In regard to the remaining charges, which are the summary matters, drive a vehicle while prohibited as a probationary driver, you will be fined five penalty units, the relevant penalty unit at the time being $158.57; for drive a car unregistered, three penalty units, and for drive an unroadworthy car, two penalty units. 

69Mr Fitzgerald, you might talk to me about an appropriate stay, I do not know, or whether the fine will be paid by the family.  I am not sure.

70MR FITZGERALD:  If I could just ask for three months at this stage, Your Honour.

71HER HONOUR:  Very well.  I will impose a stay of three months for those fines.

72MR FITZGERALD:  If Your Honour pleases.

73HIS HONOUR:  Pursuant to s.35, Mr Karahan, the fact is that you have served by way of pre-sentence detention a period of 15 days and I make a declaration that that is deemed service of this sentence and such declaration be recorded in this court.  It is not appropriate for me to indicate to you what the minimum period is, that is done administratively.  I only set the total period and the question as to when steps are taken for your release from youth training is a matter for the authorities.

74I have signed a 464ZF certification. That requires you to undergo a forensic sample test, given the serious nature of this offence. Albeit that I hope we never see you again in a court, the seriousness of these offences are such that I determine I should sign it. I am required by s.24 of the Crimes Act to cancel all licences and disqualify you for a period of 24 months from obtaining another licence. 

75I am also required to make a deceleration under s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act so that you understand the benefit to you of pleading guilty.  Can I tell you the major benefit, and the best I can do to comply with Parliament, is that had you not pleaded guilty you would not be going to a youth training centre. I do not think there is much more I can do, in the circumstances of this case, to comply with the requirement of Parliament.

76Yes, well, Mr Karahan, good luck and I hope consistent with all the good steps you've taken, you prove my suspicions unfounded.

77OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

‑ ‑ ‑