Director of Public Prosecutions v Kassab

[2017] VCC 591

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-16-01109

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MOHAMMED KASSAB

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE STUART
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 May 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Kassab
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VCC 591

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

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

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M. Jassar
For the Accused	Mr C. Dane

Pages 1 - 20

 

 

HIS HONOUR: 

1Mohammed Kassab, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivating a narcotic plant, cannabis L.  That offence carries with it a maximum penalty of either 15 years' imprisonment or one year imprisonment, depending on whether I am satisfied by the defence on the balance of probabilities that that offence was not committed for any purpose related to trafficking in the plant.  In addition, you have pleaded guilty to a summary charge of dealing in property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, which carries with it a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. 

2The circumstances surrounding our offending are set out in the prosecution opening, Exhibit 1 on the plea.

3At the time of the offending you were 26 years of age and resided at 50 Centreway, Glenroy, your mother resides at 2 Fidge Court in Jacana.

4The Santiago Taskforce had an interest in a property situated at 2 Lithgow Street in Beveridge.  This was a property in a rural area with a driveway of some 60 to 70 metres in length.  Footage from a camera installed near Lithgow Street shows you present at that property on 26 May 2015 and also shows you at the property at various times in the days following until 29 May 2015. 

5At approximately 11.30 am on Saturday 30 May, police members went to the Lithgow Street, Beveridge address pursuant to a search warrant taken out under the provisions of the Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act.  During the course of the search of that property, three grow rooms were located inside the premises and an additional four rooms were set up with no plans present.  The following items were seized:  81 cannabis plants weighing
26.1 kg and cannabis leaf weighing 115.4 g. 

6Further searches and enquiries were made in relation to the address and, as a result, forensic results were obtained which indicated that a cigarette butt had on it DNA which made it 1800 times more likely that you were a contributor than another person, and a raspberry bottle found near the front door which had DNA which had a one hundred billion times more likely result that you were a contributor to that DNA than another.  In addition, on a hydro bulb found in the premises, the left little finger of your fingerprint was found as well as, on the top of a lightshade, a left thumbprint. 

7As a result of the search, employees from AGL Electricity Pty Ltd attended at the premises and identified that the premises had been installed with a bypass electrical system used for the cultivation of these plants.  It is unknown who installed the bypass.  The premises were leased to a person known as Kalid Musafa, who is most likely a fictional person.  There is no evidence of any relationship between yourself and Mr Musafa, if he exists.

8In paragraph 9, the paragraph reads:

"The interest of the accused in the cultivation is unknown.  His part of the cultivation is unknown, and the prosecution has relied upon his attendance at the premises on various days and the presence of DNA on items within the house."

9I shall return to this issue in due course. 

10In furtherance of this investigation, additional search warrants were executed at 50 Centreway in Glenroy and 2 Fidge Court in Jacana, being the addresses I have referred to earlier.

11At the family home of the Kassab family in Glenroy, you were present when police entered the property.  Police discovered in the garage a large quantity of tools and power tools that were branded Total Tools.  Enquiries established that the tools located had been stolen between 27 July and 16 September 2015 from the Total Tools warehouse in Port Melbourne.  The value of these stolen tools was $1596 as discovered at that address.

12Shortly after the execution of that search warrant you were conveyed to your home address, or your usual home address at Jacana.  You unlocked the front gate and the front door of the premises allowing police investigators access.  Again police discovered a large quantity of tools and power tools that were branded Total Tools.  These again had been stolen in between the two dates before mentioned.  The total value of these tools was $44,630.

13These matters of the stolen tools found at those two premises are the subject of the summary offence, Charge 10, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. 

14This relates to the unlicensed driving, summary Charge 13, as I have said.  As to the second summary offence, Charge 13, driving a motor vehicle on a highway without holding a licence or permit to do so, was established from CCTV footage covering the outside of the premises at Jacana.  This identifies footage of you at the address on a regular basis during the time.  On one such occasion, 14 September 2015, you were seen riding a yellow-coloured motor bike to the front gate of your residence, without registration, where a young child, your son, sits on the front of the motor bike.  You were then observed to ride into Fidge Court and out of sight with the young child still on the front of the motor bike.  Approximately 13 minutes later you were observed to return on the motor bike, with the young child, into the residential address, entering through the front gate. 

15Insofar as the tools were concerned, there were telephone intercepts which notably did not include any reference to the drug house, as it was called during submissions. 

16On 17 July, as an example, there was a telephone conversation between yourself and an unknown male where you asked, "Do you need any tools?  I've got some.  I got one for myself and my brothers and that last time, you know the socket set and all that shit."  The unknown male asked what brand these tools are, and you replied, "They're Total Tools, I think.  They are good, bro, and I got one for myself.  I got a 375 piece, bro.  They look exactly the same as Sydchrome.  It's a bigger trolley and like it's a bigger unit and more tools, I think like 700 bucks.  They are brand new, not second-hand.  Come to my house tomorrow and have a look at it.  They're brand new in the box."  You later on go on to say, "There's a few here."  I retract that. 

17There is then some conversation about compressors, generators and gurneys, and you say, "There are a few here, like if you you're interested in anything", and then you say, "I got one the other day.  I put it in the garage at home and like got everything, yeah, you like chuck all the other tools out and they're fuckin' cheap, brand new in the box, bro."  

18A further conversation the following day, on 18 July 2015, you spoke to a
Mr Elhouili, saying, "I just rang you.  Do you need any tools or anything?  We know you, so you need tools at the shop?"  He, Mr Elhouili, asked about the price of the tools and you respond, "There's this one, it's probably 400 piece with the trolley and everything, 800 bucks this is, this is a big one, though.  This one is probably worth maybe 2800, nearly three grand for this one."  You were then asked what the brand was and replied, "Total tools."  When asked if that was a good brand, you responded, "They look like Sydchrome ones, man.  They are good, they are good trolleys.  It's all brand new in a box." 

19The value of the tools that you had, therefore, was a considerable one, as revealed in the prosecution opening.

20Turning to the issue of the maximum penalty on the indictable Charge 1, it has been submitted by Mr Dane that because of the inability of the prosecution to identify your involvement at any level and, in particular, what was quoted by me at paragraph 9, then the appropriate sentence is one years' imprisonment.  It is contended that the defence have proven on the balance of probabilities that the offence of cultivation was not related to any trafficking in that plant, or those plants.  It is really a submission of the absence of any evidence that suggests otherwise.  However, you had attended at this premises at various times between 26 May and 29 May 2015.  In addition, items identifying you as having entered the premises were found, being the cigarette butt, the raspberry bottle and the fingerprints on the hydro bulb and the lightshade.  

21There was one purpose, and one purpose alone, for the use of those premises at the time, namely the cultivation of a large quantity of cannabis plants.  That you would go there for some other unidentified purpose is, in my view, speculation of the highest order. 

22Whilst it is true that the prosecution do not contend that your involvement was in the cultivation in a commercial quantity, as it had in the past, the abandonment of that accusation does not translate into any proof that your involvement in the cultivation, which is established by your plea of guilty to that charge, was unrelated to trafficking in that plant.  You had some role, it simply cannot be said what role you had.  Your attendance at that premises was related to the cultivation.  The cultivation was of a significant quantity of cannabis, with 81 cannabis plants discovered growing in the hydroponic set-up, which is typical of such arrangements found in drug cultivation houses.

23The onus is upon you to establish on the balance of probabilities that your cultivation was not related to any trafficking in any of the plants there found or the cannabis leaf.  I am not satisfied in those circumstances that you have discharged that onus.  Indeed, I am satisfied that the reverse is the case, though I do not need to go any further for the purpose of my sentencing.  It is sufficient to re-state that it is plain from paragraph 9 that the prosecution cannot identify your interest in the cultivation nor your part in it, though, by your plea of guilty, you acknowledge a criminal liability for that cultivation.  In those circumstances, the maximum penalty then is 15 years, pursuant to s.72B(b) of the Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1981.

24It was conceded, and correctly conceded by Mr Jassar, that nevertheless your role in this cultivation was at the lower end, and I act upon that basis for it is consistent with all the evidence and the concessions made by the Crown in paragraph 9 of the prosecution opening.

25You have two prior appearances, both before the County Court, one on
7 November 2013 on a charge of false imprisonment, for which you were sentenced by His Honour Judge Allen to a community corrections order for three years with conditions that you perform 250 hours of unpaid community service work over the period of that three years, and a second matter that came before the County Court on 30 May 2014, where, having been found guilty of perjury by a jury, you were sentenced by His Honour Judge Howard to a sentence of six months' imprisonment. 

26That perjury related to you giving false evidence before the Chief Judge, His Honour Judge Rozenes, on 27 August 2012, where you gave sworn evidence that you had booked surgery for the next day to correct a hernia in your left groin.  Thus, it was not in the end, until 7 November 2013, that Judge Allen sentenced you on that charge of false imprisonment.

27The perjury charge was heard before His Honour Judge Howard, as I have mentioned, on trial, with a sentence being imposed, as I have indicated, of six months' imprisonment.  That perjury charge breached the community corrections order that His Honour Judge Allen had previously imposed and, in addition, on 22 November 2015 you were arraigned before His Honour Judge Maidment and pleaded to seven charges committed between
30 November 2013 and 5 December 2013.  Ultimately you were further dealt with by His Honour Judge Allen on 1 July in relation to the breach of the community corrections order and the seven charges.

28The offending for which I must sentence you occurred in late May 2015 in relation to the charge on indictment and 16 September 2015 in relation to the summary charge of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime.  Thus, at the time of sentence by His Honour Judge Allen you could not be sentenced for this offending, and it is necessary for me, in order to arrive at a sentence which I consider in total to be appropriate, to adjust downwards the sentence that I would otherwise impose in order to achieve what I consider to be in total an appropriate sentence, consistent with the principles articulated in Renzella v R.

29You are 28 years of age.  You were born in Carlton.  You are the father of two children.

30You were a keen football player and had aspirations to play at the AFL level.  However, as a result of a stabbing when you were 14, in 2004, you received life-threatening injuries and a permanent injury to the heart.  This resulted in you not being able to play football at the level you previously had and, as the written submissions point out, your AFL dream died.

31Following this, in 2009 your father was diagnosed with bowel cancer and passed away that year, one of your brothers, Ali, was arrested in relation to a double homicide in 2011 which achieved a high level of publicity, and in 2011/12 your marriage with Mona breaks down. 

32Your prior criminal history is relevant but speaks to different types of offending from that which I must deal with. 

33The pleas of guilty are, in the circumstances, whilst not at an early point of time, at a relatively early point of time given the complexities of this case.

34I have already made one ruling in relation to ordering the production of the affidavit in support of the search warrant for 30 May 2015 and, for reasons that I do not need to go into any more detail, had that affidavit been made available to the parties, and I include the prosecution, at an earlier point in time, I have no doubt that this matter would have resolved earlier.

35It is with the prospect of considerable litigation to follow that these pleas must be viewed.  It was plain that whichever way I ruled on an application to exclude the evidence of the search of the 29th and the search with search warrant on 30 May, the other dissatisfied party would seek to appeal by way of an interlocutory proceeding.  That would have further delayed the matter and added considerable cost to the litigation and expense to the State and all parties, with the prospect then of two trials. 

36All in all, the utility of the pleas of guilty, albeit it late, is considerable and I have, therefore, taken those matters into account in reducing the sentence that I would otherwise impose, not in any way by a two-step process, but as part of the instinctive synthesis.

37Deterring others is an important sentencing consideration in this matter, indeed the primary sentencing consideration.  Deterring you from further offending is also a matter of importance having regard, in part, to your prior criminal history. 

38There is a need for just punishment as well as denunciation.  It is important to note that drug houses such as this are being commonly found by the authorities.  Dealing in proceeds of crime is endemic and here, the amounts or the values of the items were considerable.

39As I have indicated during the course of the plea, I intend to reduce the sentence on Charge 1 by an amount that I consider would be appropriate to reduce it in order to achieve in total a sentence of which I consider to be appropriate.  Without that reduction, the sentence on Charge 1 would have been 15 months.  I have reduced that sentence by nine months to six months.

40Stand please, Mr Mohammed.

41On Charge 1 on indictment, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of six months.  That is the base sentence.

42On summary Charge 10, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of six months.  I direct that two months of that sentence of six months be served cumulatively on the base sentence of six months on Charge 1, producing a total effective sentence of eight months.

43On summary Charge 13, I sentence you to be fined $600.

44I declare that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of 21 months - that excludes the period that I have reduced by nine months - and I would have set a minimum non-parole period of 15 months. 

45I declare that pre-sentence detention is 20 days.

46Thank you, Mr Mohammed Kassab.  Please take a seat.

47MR JASSAR:  Your Honour, there are ancillary orders.

48HIS HONOUR:  That is right.

49MR JASSAR:  Forfeiture orders.  They are not ready yet.  We are still in negotiations as to what is to be taken out and what is to ‑ ‑ ‑

50HIS HONOUR:  All right, that is fine, because that would delay me signing the orders for an interminable period of time.  So I will sign the orders now.

51MR JASSAR:  Yes, sir.

52HIS HONOUR:  You can either make contact with my usual associate,
Mr Brown ‑ ‑ ‑

53MR JASSAR:  Yes, yes.

54HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ on Monday and then I will re-sign orders.  Now are there any other orders that need to be signed?

55MR JASSAR:  Disposal and forfeiture orders.  Those are the only orders, sir.

56HIS HONOUR:  All right.

57MR JASSAR:  We are close to agreeing, sir, yes.

58HIS HONOUR:  Unless needs be, I will simply deal with those orders in chambers.  Nothing to say?  Well, I assume there is nothing to say, but we will see how we go, Mr Dane, with your negotiations.

59MR DANE:  Yes, Your Honour.  The matter will linger before Your Honour with his brother.

60HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  I should add that that eight month period is to be served cumulatively upon the sentences he is presently undergoing. 

61MR DANE:  Cumulatively.  So when he completes ‑ ‑ ‑

62HIS HONOUR:  He gets another eight months.

63MR DANE:  After that?

64HIS HONOUR:  He does.  I do not know which order he does it in.  He does the two years, then he has got eight months.

65MR DANE:  When you say "two years", Your Honour, he currently is due to begin a CCO on - we understand it is 6 November of this year, Your Honour says that that will not occur and that he will - at the conclusion of the sentence that he is currently undergoing that he will then begin this.

66HIS HONOUR:  That is correct, an additional eight months.

67MR DANE: Right. Is that the operation of 16 of the - Section 16(1): "Subject to (1A), every term of imprisonment imposed on a person by a court must, unless otherwise directed by the court, be served concurrently with any uncompleted sentence or sentence of imprisonment or detention in a youth justice centre or youth residential centre imposed on that person, whether before or at the same time as that term."

68Now, Your Honour, do we take it that Your Honour is actually going with "otherwise directed by the court"?

69HIS HONOUR:  My aim, Mr Dane, was to add - it would have been 17 months, I reduced it by nine months to get to ‑ ‑ ‑

70MR DANE: I understand the arithmetic, with respect, Your Honour, but actually as to whether or not it is - Your Honour has imposed a sentence not dissimilar to the way in which a Commonwealth charge - or sentence operates. They stack one upon another. We say that s.16 of the Sentencing Act would indicate that the way in which it is to operate is that it begins from today and that he is serving two sentences at once, concurrently, and that that operates subject to a direction.

71HIS HONOUR:  Yes, well, I am giving that direction.

72MR DANE:  Your Honour would, with the greatest of respect, need a foundation for departing from the clear intention of the Act.

73HIS HONOUR:  But, Mr Dane, I am sentencing your client to what I consider to be an appropriate total sentence, which involves an additional eight months, than I otherwise would have done but for the fact that there has been a loss of opportunity to have concurrency.  Now had Judge Allen been dealing with these matters, he would have ordered some cumulation no doubt, and the cumulation I consider to be appropriate is eight months.

74MR DANE:  Your Honour, when Your Honour was postulating yourself being seated in Judge Allen's position ‑ ‑ ‑

75HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

76MR DANE:  ‑ ‑ ‑ we understood that the sentences would all start on the day on which the sentence that Judge Allen imposed would start them.

77HIS HONOUR:  Well, I never said that.  I never even contemplated that. 

78MR DANE:  Well, Your Honour, Your Honour has in effect piggybacked a sentence on top of ‑ ‑ ‑

79HIS HONOUR:  Correct, by eight months.  It would have been - I would have piggybacked, to use your word, a period of 17 months, but I have reduced that by nine months because that is the only way - well, that is a way of achieving what I consider in total to be an appropriate sentence, and that involved - true it is I could have ordered that this sentence commence - these sentences to commence today ‑ ‑ ‑

80MR DANE:  Yes,  Your Honour.

81HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ but that would then mean that the period of additional sentence would be reduced by May, June, July, August, September, October ‑ ‑ ‑

82MR DANE:  January, Your Honour.

83HIS HONOUR:  No, today.  If I order the sentence commence today, then ‑ ‑ ‑

84MR DANE:  That would take us to January, Your Honour.

85HIS HONOUR:  No.  Well, you say your client is due for release on?

86MR DANE:  We say 6 November.

87HIS HONOUR:  Yes, 6 November.

88MR DANE:  And the Crown is under the impression that it is 6 January, or 7 January, but it is not ‑ ‑ ‑

89HIS HONOUR:  All right, let us take the conservative ‑ ‑ ‑

90MR DANE:  Quite.

91HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ the sixth of November this year.  If I would order the sentences that I have just imposed, which are eight months, to be commenced today, then your client would be getting June, July, August, September, October, close on six months off, and the only additional amount would be two months on the earliest release date.

92MR DANE: That is what it says in s.16 of the Act, Your Honour.

93HIS HONOUR:  Yes, unless I otherwise order.

94MR DANE:  Unless Your Honour otherwise orders.

95HIS HONOUR:  I could not imagine that Judge Allen, had he been seized of these matters, would have only added another two months.

96MR DANE:  Well, what we ‑ ‑ ‑

97HIS HONOUR:  In any event, whether or not he would - or none.  If the January date is correct, the sentence that I imposed today would be wholly absorbed by the sentence of His Honour Judge Allen wholly.

98MR DANE:  Your Honour, what we perhaps further seek to draw Your Honour's attention to is that he is to begin, be it the January or the November, a two year community corrections order.

99HIS HONOUR:  Yes, which commences at the conclusion of any gaol term.  In this case, if my sentence is on top of Judge Allen's in the sense that his sentence continues and then mine commences upon the conclusion of his two years - or 23 month period, then at the conclusion of that further eight months he commences his two year community corrections order.

100MR DANE:  The operation of that, with respect, Your Honour, is to elongate His Honour Judge Allen's sentence by a further eight months ‑ ‑ ‑

101HIS HONOUR:  Correct.

102MR DANE:  ‑ ‑ ‑ that he never contemplated. 

103HIS HONOUR:  Who?

104MR DANE:  Judge Allen.

105HIS HONOUR:  Of course not.  He did not know about these matters, but I do, so I must sentence in a way that achieves as between the sentences imposed by Judge Allen and my sentence, a sentence which in total reflects appropriately the criminality, and that I have done.  Now it is only by the yardstick of asking rhetorically, I think, would His Honour, assuming the
6 November date as being the release date after the 23 months, then approximately six months of the eight months I have just imposed would have been absorbed by the running of the two sentences together, and if it is November, the whole - sorry, January next year, it is the whole of the eight months, there would have been no additional period of imprisonment.  Now that is why I am ordering that sentence of eight months to be served cumulatively upon the sentences that he is presently undergoing, i.e. the 23 months.  If I have got something wrong, Mr Dane, I have no hesitation in correcting it, but you need to tell me how it is that I have got this wrong.

106MR DANE:  I am merely - the objective of totality ‑ ‑ ‑

107HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

108MR DANE: The objective of s.16(1) are both directed at amelioration, and we say the appropriate amelioration is recognised that there are going to be sentences passed one upon another.

109HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

110MR DANE:  And totality, we say, ameliorates that downwards, and Your Honour has done the arithmetical calculation, and the words of and the intentions expressed in 16(1) recognises that sentences are going to be so imposed, and they are, "Every term of imprisonment imposed on a person by a court must, unless otherwise directed, be served concurrently."

111HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

112MR DANE:  That is the State of Victoria recognising that this circumstance is going to arrive.

113HIS HONOUR:  Indeed.  And there are certain charges, for example, of a sexual kind, where that concurrency presumption is reversed and I have to order the reverse.  I have to order concurrency.

114MR DANE:  Yes, that they may well be accumulated, yes.

115HIS HONOUR: Yes. But I mean they are the exception. The rule is as stated in s.16(1), I accept that.

116MR DANE:  So, with respect, Your Honour then goes "otherwise directed by the court."  In order to so direct, Your Honour will have to have reason to do that in a case of clear compromise on all parties that have endeavoured to bring this matter to a conclusion, and the net effect of Your Honour's order today ‑ ‑ ‑

117HIS HONOUR:  Adds eight months.

118MR DANE:  ‑ ‑ ‑ will have him in prison through to something like August 2018.  His Honour Judge Allen's judgment being of 1 July 2016, Your Honour is saying that there would be incarceration of a minimum of two years.

119HIS HONOUR:  There will be an additional eight months ‑ ‑ ‑

120MR DANE:  Yes, well, I understand ‑ ‑ ‑

121HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ on the 23 months that His Honour ordered, and no one, including you, Mr Dane, suggested that he would be - that the sentence that I passed should be absorbed entirely.

122MR DANE:  Not in the slightest, Your Honour.  I made a submission to Your Honour that the matter can be so that he can begin his CCO November, January, wherever it was, and that Your Honour can express the additional aspect to it by expanding the period of the CCO.

123HIS HONOUR:  I remember that submission, yes.

124MR DANE:  Yes.  So that was our submission.

125HIS HONOUR:  I declined that submission.

126MR DANE:  If Your Honour please.

127MR JASSAR:  Would Your Honour like to hear from me?

128HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I would.

129MR JASSAR:  I am not sure if my learned friend's finished.

130MR DANE:  Yes.

131MR JASSAR:  There is an exception to what my learned friend has said, and it is in sub-s.(1A) -  sub-s.16(1A) says, "sub-s.1 does not apply to a term of imprisonment imposed", and little E, "on any persons for an offence committed while on released on bail in relation to another offence."  And as I had submitted, Your Honour, that Mr Kassab had actually committed this offence whilst on bail.

132HIS HONOUR:  Well ‑ ‑ ‑

133MR JASSAR:  Another offence henceforth.

134HIS HONOUR:  Well, that was not part of my logic ‑ ‑ ‑

135MR JASSAR:  I understand.

136HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ in ordering the otherwise directed under sub-s.1.  But other than that, is there anything in error that I have done?

137MR JASSAR:  No sir, not according to myself.  Your Honour has applied Mills case, totality and taken it as what His Honour Judge Allen would have done if all these matters were before him altogether.

138HIS HONOUR:  I cannot imagine that His Honour Judge Allen would not have imposed a higher sentence, probably taken it out of the realm of a community corrections order which had then a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years and ‑ ‑ ‑

139MR DANE:  Yes, Your Honour has kicked it over the line.

140HIS HONOUR:  Yes, so that, in a sense, is fortunate, I suppose for
Mr Mohammed Kassab but that is by the by.  I did not consider a further period of CCO as appropriate in the circumstances.  I considered a further period, as it turns out, adjusted downwards by nine months to a total effective sentence of eight months cumulative upon Judge Allen's sentence.

141MR JASSAR:  As the court pleases.

142HIS HONOUR:  Otherwise - and am I right or wrong?  If I ordered - if I had not otherwise ordered, am I right, Mr Jassar, if the correct date for release is November this year, six months of that eight months would have been absorbed, and if the correct date is January, the whole of that eight months would have been absorbed.

143MR JASSAR:  That is so, sir. 

144HIS HONOUR:  Well, that is why I have ordered it in the way I have.  Yes, and pre-sentence detention, I do not know whether I had (indistinct) that, is declared at 20 days.  Yes?

145MR JASSAR:  Your Honour, there is one aspect that bothers me and is playing on my mind, is whether - is because there is a CCO attached at the end, but since the 23 months added eight months, does that disqualify him from the CCO aspect of it?

146HIS HONOUR:  No, it cannot.  It cannot because he is entitled to that period.  He has already served ‑ ‑ ‑

147MR JASSAR:  Yes, some time, yes.

148HIS HONOUR:  Some time in any event.  Even if I am wrong about that - no.  Unless there is anything else?

149MR JASSAR:  If there is an issue with that aspect of it, Your Honour, we may reconvene at ‑ ‑ ‑

150HIS HONOUR:  If there is problem with what I have done ‑ ‑ ‑ 

151MR JASSAR:  Yes.

152HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ I have, I think, 28 days to correct the problem ‑ ‑ ‑

153MR JASSAR:  Yes, that is correct.

154HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ and I will no hesitation in correcting something if I have got something wrong, if I do not achieve what I intended to achieve.

155MR JASSAR:  I understand what Your Honour wanted to achieve but I am just - about the aspect of the 24 months plus a CCO, whether that ‑ ‑ ‑ 

156HIS HONOUR:  Well, if there is a problem with that, tell me ‑ ‑ ‑

157MR JASSAR:  Yes, sir.  Will do so.

158HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ and I will revisit this as an issue and it can be re-litigated.

159MR JASSAR:  Yes, sir.  Thank you, sir. 

160HIS HONOUR:  Yes, Mr Kassab can be removed, thank you.

‑ ‑ ‑