Director of Public Prosecutions v Keeshan
[2022] VCC 829
•26 May 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-19-00542
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CURTLIE KEESHAN |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE SYME | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 9 March 2022, 24 May 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 May 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Keeshan | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 829 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Fraud – car sales venture.
Catchwords: Obtaining financial advantage by deception – use false document - Asperger’s Syndrome – plea of guilty - strong Crown case – appropriate remorse - thorough and well-reasoned neuropsychological report.
Legislation cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
Cases cited:
Sentence: Community Corrections Order of 2 years duration.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms. D. Guesdon | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr. A. Patton | Doogue + George Criminal Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Background
1 Mr Keeshan, I note that you have pled guilty to three counts on an indictment, and you pled guilty on 9 March this year. Charge 1 occurred in Research in Victoria between 1 November 2016 and 3 February 2017. You obtained for yourself a financial advantage, namely, the evasion of a debt owed to Robert Rancie in the sum of $100,000.00, by deception. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.
2
Secondly, at Lower Plenty in Victoria between 1 November 2016 and
17 March 2017, you dishonestly obtained for yourself a financial advantage, namely the evasion of a debt owed to Janelle McClean in the in sum of $50,000.00 by deception. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.
3
And finally, charge 3, at Greensborough in Victoria on 9 June 2017, you used a false document which was, and which you knew to be, false, namely, a
Bank of Melbourne deposit receipt with the intention of inducing Robert Rancie to accept it as genuine, and by reason of accepting it, would or would not do something to his prejudice. Again, the maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.
4 In September 2021, you offered a plea which was put in similar terms to the plea which you offered on 9 March 2022. The prosecution accepted this plea in March, this year, when the trial was due to commence. You are entitled to a discount, taking into account your earlier September plea offer.
5 It is observed that it was a strong Crown case, so the reflection of remorse in the plea is not necessarily available. This is a matter that will be considered in discussion of your cognitive or mental health conditions later on.
Circumstances of offending
6 It is noted that charge 1 was put on the basis that you obtained a financial advantage by deception, namely the evasion of a debt owed to Mr Rancie in the sum mentioned. The particulars of the deception are as follows.
7 One, you indicated that you had a business of buying and selling cars, which was operating successfully. Two, that loan funds were being expended in the furtherance of that business. Three, that you were able to repay the loan funds and share the profits upon demand, and four, that you were experiencing difficulties in accessing funds to make repayment.
8
Charge 2 is put on the basis that you obtained a financial advantage by deception, that is, the evasion of the debt owed to Ms McClean in the sum of
$50,000.00 as I said above. The particulars of the deception are similar to the particulars that I have read out in charge 1.
9 Charge 3 is put on the basis that your conduct was part of a continuing course of action to convince Mr Rancie that you were able to repay the money that you had been given.
10 You have no prior criminal convictions. It is submitted that this is of lesser benefit to you as many white-collar criminals have no prior convictions. However, in the circumstances, it will allow you some leniency, again, because of the circumstances of the offending. There is no evidence that when you first made the proposals to each of your victims, you had any intention to defraud them of the money that you requested.
11 The facts relevant to the offences, as set out in the prosecution opening, are not in dispute. I will therefore summarise them fairly briefly.
12 You were born in June 1993 and were aged 23 at the time of the offending. You were unemployed. You lived in Greensborough with your mother. You and the victims, Robert and Raelene Rancie and Janelle and Richard McClean, have known each other for more than 10 years through your church and through your family. In November 2016, the Rancie's moved back to Melbourne, after being away overseas for a period of six years. On their return, you visited them regularly.
13 In relation to charge 1, it is noted that during one of these visits, you stated to the Rancie's that you had sold intellectual property to Volkswagen and had been paid $3 or $4 million for it. However, you said the money was in trust and you could not access it. This was a lie. You had no connection with Volkswagen.
14 You falsely told Mr Rancie that you had a business idea where you would go to Perth and buy cars at auction there because the market was depressed due to the end of the mining boom. You further told him that you would then transport the cars to Melbourne where you would sell them for a profit. You spoke about how much money you could make. You asked the Rancie's to invest money into this venture.
15 You further falsely represented that you could not access your own money because it was in trust, and that this was why you needed an investor. You told him you would split the money from the business equally with him. Mr Rancie agreed for his own reasons.
16 In February 2017, he came to a verbal agreement with you to provide $100,000.00 to you, and a further agreement that you and he would split the profits equally, after costs were deducted. On 3 February that year, he transferred $100,000.00 into a Bank of Melbourne account in your name.
17 On your own account, you bought and sold a couple of vehicles with the money but then spent the money including the proceeds of the sale of cars, on living expenses.
18 For a period after you had received the money, you made various representations as to how the business was going including the details of the cars that you were buying in Perth and transporting back to Melbourne to sell. In fact, you never bought or sold any of the vehicles for profit in the relevant time period and the details you were talking about were made up.
19
In relation to charge 2, it is noted that in late 2016, you attended at the
McClean's residence and asked if you could store motor vehicles there. They agreed. Subsequently, you began attending their residence. During these visits, similarly to what you told Mr Rancie and his wife, you said that you had a business where you were buying and selling cars and that you had made money for others who had invested in this business. This was not true. In fact, you only ever stored one car at the McClean's residence.
20 You told her you were helping Robert Rancie and making him some money with your business idea of buying and selling cars. You also stated that you had sold intellectual property to Volkswagen for a huge amount of money and that you had investors from around the world to the value of $6 million. You again stated these funds were tied up in the business and held in trust. You told her that she would receive a return of 20 per cent on her $50,000.00 investment.
21 On 15 March 2017, Janelle and Richard McClean signed a document which stated, and I quote, 'We Richard and Janelle McClean are investing $100,000.00 with Curtlie Keeshan, through the Keeshan Family Trust with intention to buy and sell cars and make a profit. A minimum of four months notice needs to be given so that the money can be returned.' This was signed at your request. You subsequently told her that you had purchased two cars. I note that in the facts there is no evidence that a family trust of any sort existed at all.
22 On 17 March 2017, Janelle McClean deposited the sum of $50,000.00 into a bank account operated by you. No money has ever been repaid, although on many occasions, you promised to do so.
23
In relation to charge 3, by
April 2017, due to a lack of reporting, the Rancie's were becoming concerned about the progress of their investment and Mr Rancie advised you that they would need to withdraw their money. You assured him you would have the money returned by May 22, 2017. This did not occur and you made several excuses.
24 Ultimately, on 9 June 2017, Mr Rancie received a copy of a bank payment slip from you by email, purportedly from a trust account showing that you had tried to transfer the sum of $100,000.00 but had entered the number wrongly. This document indicated a total account balance of over $6 million. This document was a false document. It had been made by you using Photoshop. All the details were false. You intended that Robert Rancie would accept it as genuine and act to his prejudice by allowing you more time to repay the money.
25 Ultimately, Mr and Mrs Rancie received no payment of any money back from you. Likewise, Janelle and Richard McClean had difficulty and have not received any explanation or repayment.
26
In relation to the police investigation, police obtained copies of your bank statements which show the $100,000.00 from Mr Rancie was deposited in your account on 3 February 2017 and the funds were withdrawn between
6 February and 15 March 2017 via 12 transfers to another of your accounts, each with a reference suggesting a vehicle related transaction. The funds were dissipated.
27
Some of the withdrawals contained references suggesting vehicle related transactions, while others were clearly for living expenses. Statements from your accounts show that after Janelle McClean's $50,000.00 was deposited on
17 March 2017, the entire amount was withdrawn via eight internet withdrawals between 22 March 2017 and 5 April 2017, with some references relating to
two vehicle transactions.
Record of interview
28 On 28 August 2018, police executed a search of your mother's address. You were arrested and several items were seized. You took part in a recorded record of interview with police in which you gave an account, initially denying the original idea that the business was yours alone. You said that you probably bought one or two cars with the money and because you did not know what to do, you felt like you were being pushed into something.
29 You said you did not make any profit and you said that after buying a couple of cars, you spent the money on living expenses. It is noted that when you sold the car, the money went back into your account and was, as stated in your interview, used for living expenses.
30
You agreed in your conversation with police that you falsely created documents to assist in delaying confrontation with Mr Rancie about repaying the money. You gave a similar account in relation to your dealings with Janelle and
Richard McClean. With Janelle McClean's money, you thought you bought one car, and then it was put into another car, and ultimately the proceeds were used for living expenses.
31 You admitted to police that you told Janelle McClean that you had sold an idea to Volkswagen for a good sum and admitted showing her a spreadsheet showing a projected return of 20 per cent. You admitted that this was made up.
32 When you received the moneys from both couples, you stated that the original idea was that you were going to do the cars for them. However, it is clear that you did not have sufficient knowledge to be able to run the business. You were unemployed, you did not know how to deal with returning their money, and you did not know how to operate a business generally. You stated that over the previous two years, you had bought and sold between 15 and 20 cars and made a profit on none of them.
33
You deprived Robert Rancie, Janelle McClean and
Richard McClean of the money you obtained and treated the money you obtained as your own, regardless of their respective rights.
Gravity of offending
34 After your arrest you were charged but have spent no time in custody. When assessing the objective gravity of the offending, I take into account the matters that make the offending more serious objectively, and this includes the breach of trust between you and those who trusted you as a family friend and church member.
35 I take into account the significant quantum of money involved in the entirety of the offending, a total of $150,000.00, of which you were the beneficiary. I take into account that no restitution has been made, and in the circumstances, is unlikely to be made, at least, for a significant period of time.
36 Whilst I note the submissions in relation to the amount of money involved and I accept that the amount of money removed are significant sums for each of the victims, in terms of the charged offences, the amounts are objectively modest.
37 In considering the matters that make the offending less serious, I will examine the issue of planning below. It is not submitted that this offending was objectively sophisticated. I have read and heard the victim impact statements of each of the Rancie's and the McClean's. Those statements describe the anguish of learning that they were, from their point of view, deceived by you. From their point of view, the breach of trust was exacerbated by the friendship they believe you shared with them. Each has suffered, to a significant degree, both financially and emotionally, as a result of your offending.
38 The victim impact statements remind the court of the usual consequences of offending of this nature, and the consequences are familiar and frequent consequences for this type of offending.
39 This type of offending frequently not only produces a great financial loss but also an associated emotional loss. No doubt, the victim's embarrassment is heightened by this, as they see it as a gross breach of trust. Again, these are the usual consequences of offending such as this and do not form separate aggravating circumstances but will of course be taken into account in assessing the appropriate penalty.
40 Taking all of those matters into account objectively and considering the lack of sophistication and lack of any real planning, these are offences at the lower end of the scale of objective seriousness.
Personal circumstances and moral culpability
41 Your personal circumstances and background must be taken into account in assessing your moral culpability for the offending and this is separate from assessing the objective seriousness of the offending, as a whole.
42 The prosecution's submissions concede that, to some extent, the Verdins principles apply. However, they submit that you were nevertheless able to function at a high enough level to convince both the Rancie's and the McClean's to enter into an agreement with you; that despite your Asperger’s Syndrome and associated lack of functional capacity, your business would be viable and that they should invest in it.
43 The prosecution further submitted that you were engaged in acts of some planning and sophistication in creating a fraudulent spreadsheet to entice McClean into investing and to delay having to repay the now spent funds, by creating the falsified bank account documents.
44 The prosecution submit that you were the instigator and the sole protagonist of the offending. As I understand, by your plea, you accept that you were the instigator of the offending to the extent that you did not return the money as you promised to do, and that you used the money for your own purposes.
45 It is noted however, that there is no evidence that you planned to defraud the victims at the commencement of this, what I will call, ‘business proposition’.
46 A reading of the tendered neuropsychological report underlines the circumstances that you were in at the time, and a reading of the report supports a finding that at the time of initially talking to each of the victims, you did not have an intention to never repay them the money.
47 The report also supports the conclusion that you had an intent, unrealistic as it was in the circumstances, to engage in a profitable car purchasing venture even though the prospect of that event succeeding was objectively negligible. As I have said, you had never engaged in a profitable car business before. Nor do have the business skills to do so.
48 On your behalf, it was submitted that your background diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome and current related psychological presentation enlivens some considerations which may reduce your moral culpability and/or are relevant to other sentencing considerations.
49 In summary, I find that your mental health, cognitive and family community dynamics are relevant to an assessment of your moral culpability and the potential impact an imprisonment sentence on you is also highly relevant to any process that might be recommended for your rehabilitation.
50 I have also read and noted the contents of the character references, which attest to your pleasant and helpful disposition to those who know you well. Your mother's reference is supportive. It is noted that you are in receipt of Centrelink benefits and have only been in paid employment intermittently throughout your adult life. Your complex cognitive limitations do not make usual employment easy for you.
51 The report of Neurotech authored by Professor Brewer has been tendered by consent. He was not required for cross-examination. His qualifications and experience set out in the accompanying curriculum vitae establish that he is well qualified to give the opinion he does. His qualifications as a neuropsychologist are noted. He has significant experience in his field of expertise.
52 He sets out that you, aged 23 years at the time of the offending, had a background of some difficulty as a child. Some of those difficulties had been identified as ADHD and Asperger's Syndrome. There were other difficulties which led to you being prescribed low does of the antipsychotic medication, Risperidone, over the years.
53 The neuropsychologist administered appropriate tests and explained findings as to how those tests and further investigations, including your mother's reports, supported the conclusion in his later report. It is, I respectfully observe, a thorough and well-reasoned report.
54
In summary, Professor Brewer reported that while your overall current intelligence quotient is estimated to fall within the average range, it is in your case not a valid indicator due to significant discrepancies between key index scores. He notes significant sub-test scatter across performances. For example, a capacity to formulate abstract verbal concepts sat at the
16th percentile rank and was a significant weakness. However, your ability to detect visual details within a complex environment was a significant strength at the 95th percentile rank.
55
Professor Brewer reported specific clinical items of note, including ongoing nightmares and persistent unpleasant thoughts around your identity and sexual identity. He reported
three suicide attempts in the past. The first when you were only
14 years of age.
56 There were observations of some personal and family dynamics within your community and family setting that made some past occurrences and events loom for you with a special, confusing and confronting significance. Some of these issues are private and personal and do not have a significant impact on your moral culpability. They do, however, increase your anxiety.
57 It is not necessary, and I do not propose to detail those issues here, but I perceive that the Corrective Services report has identified those issues in your personal life, which are of major concern and affect your mental health presentation, in a significant way.
58 Your mother, and apparently some other members of your church, are aware of those issues. However, their response has not necessarily been supportive, and their response may have resulted in an increase in your distress.
59 In addition, as a result of your Asperger's difficulties, you have significant social anxiety, which it appears, is not well understood by your community, including your church community.
60 There is an uncorroborated suggestion that your family background includes a family history of learning difficulties, possibly a family background of spectrum disorders and depression. It is trite to observe that a family history of such issues may well have resulted in your own disabilities not being appropriately noticed or treated in the past.
61 In summary now. You are a 28-year-old single man, and you live at home with your mother. You have a current diagnosis of Asperger's disorder and have been diagnosed and treated in the past with ADHD and have been treated since childhood for that disability.
62 You have been treated with antipsychotic medication for the past 15 years, and I see no ready explanation for that in the report that I have read. I observe, however, that the timing of that first medication seems to have corresponded with your first suicide attempt. But this drug is an antipsychotic, and I perceive no diagnosis relevant to it. I note in recent times you have engaged briefly with some supportive therapy, but there is no information as to the purpose, nor the results of that therapy.
63 It was observed by Professor Brewer that the emotional impact of being somewhat socially compromised as a child in your peer relationships, and of experience, indications of a language disorder, led to a consideration that perhaps you suffered from a pervasive developmental disorder. You were also exposed, in the family home, to domestic violence, and you report other distressing personal occurrences in your teenage years.
64 It seems that the victims, to a greater or lesser extent, were aware of your background difficulties, to some extent.
65 A feature of your Asperger's presentation is that, as time progresses, sufferers become more adept at hiding their symptoms of social awkwardness in order to try and fit in. Perhaps you did too.
66 One of your crystalising Asperger syndrome features included your interest in motor vehicles, which I understand has been ongoing. I understand that you also worked briefly in a car sales yard.
67 A further difficulty compounding your anxiety, is the impact of your self identity, including your sexual identity, which you understand is treated as an illness by your church and its members. Your own emotional immaturity combined with a lack of support and understanding, made it impossible for a man of your limited social skills, to navigate. In those circumstances it seems that you believed you could ingratiate yourself with the victims to perform a business miracle for them.
68 In summary, Professor Brewer opined that you currently meet the criteria for this diagnosis as Asperger's disorder, which was diagnosed by your long-term paediatrician during childhood. It is therefore not a new diagnosis.
69
Further, I note you have received a long-term medication for anxiety and ADHD. In addition, you meet the criteria for functional impairment in your capacity to engage independently in key activities of daily living. This impairment attests to the functional impact of your psychological conditions and neuropsychological conditions, including your
Asperger’s disorder.
70 This comprehensive assessment undertaken by Professor Brewer concludes that, as a result, you display cognitive vulnerabilities including the fields of verbal learning, attention, abstract verbal reasoning, verbal fluency, and efficiency in mental shifting.
71 You display a concerning level of clinical distress, including, as I have noted, anxiety, underlying moderate to high levels of depressive symptoms, and obsessive behaviour. Among other observations, Professor Brewer cautioned an observation of social anxiety along with a moderate risk for experiencing attenuated psychotic symptoms.
72 It is observed that your vulnerabilities fall within the autism spectrum and are equivalent to what the average person with Asperger's would be expected to experience. These vulnerabilities involved significant compromise across the key domains of social relationships, circumscribed interests, language idiosyncrasies, and sensory and motor abnormalities.
73 With respect to the functional impact of your ADHD, your developmental history from the age of four to 16 years, reflects significant cognitive and behavioural compromise that attracted repeated monitoring, reassessment, psychological support, and ongoing medication treatment.
74 Whilst it is observed and reported that you are currently relatively stabilised on medication, it is Mr Brewer's opinion that underlying psychological conditions have a moderate impact.
75 In summary, Professor Brewer opines, and I will quote, 'The functional impact of the suite of Mr Keeshan's vulnerabilities summarised above is severe to the extent that he remains dependent upon his mother to assist him with key activities of daily living. He also remains dependent upon Centrelink, and he evidently has learned a vulnerability in relationship dynamics whereupon there is an established pattern, as evident from his detail to the police, that otherwise well intentioned, reasonable adults, see fit to support him to the extent of many thousands of dollars.' And this is a reference not to the victims of these particular offences, but to another person who has not made a complaint. This observation is not challenged.
76 Where Professor Brewer was asked if the intellectual impairment and/or psychological issues, would impinge on Mr Keeshan's ability to make reasoned and informed decisions, and whether it may have contributed to your offending, Professor Brewer responded, and again I will quote. ‘Mr Keeshan remains highly vulnerable with respect to making decisions regarding age equivalent hurdles.'
77
He continued, 'His ability to make reasoned and sound judgments is significantly compromised by virtue of his spectrum disorder, which is essentially a disorder of compromised neural cognitive activity. Functionally, Mr Keeshan's Asperger's disorder can be likened to him attempting to navigate age appropriate independence within the
socio-emotional and cognitive tools of a young adolescent.'
78 And further on, Professor Brewer said, 'Here, the typical profile includes rigid and inflexible reasoning, poor ability to formulate abstract verbal concepts, high levels of anxiety being triggered in response to change, egocentricity with reduced capacity to understand the long term impact of behaviour upon others. Impulsivity, compromised capacity to understand how others see us, or imagine correctly, their internal world.'
79 The report continues in paragraph 51, and this is Professor Brewer's opinion:
In my opinion, therefore, the evidence detailed in the body of this report on balance suggests that Mr Keeshan's neuro development disorder played a significant contribution to his offending. He is clearly emotionally immature, suggestable, and easily led with his longstanding problems of associated
self-worth. His high level of functional compromise and associated dependence is most evident and from the information available it is difficult to imagine how such a high level of trust was afforded this young man by presumably well reasoned adults who knew him and his history.
80
Further on, Professor Brewer then suggested a range of treatment options to improve Mr Keeshan's functionality. Professor Brewer also reported that you,
Mr Keeshan, are willing to commit to such programs. He observes that past therapy has been of doubtful assistance and therefore, I suggest, should be well targeted. I observe that it may be important to ensure that your family and any supportive sections of your community be given information to assist them to understand the need for these issues to be addressed for your future welfare.
Sentence considerations
81 It is also the case that duty or disabilities as described above, a term of imprisonment would way far more heavily on you, than a person without such presentation. Hence, the impact of a prison sentence is likely to exacerbate your ADHD symptoms. It is likely to exacerbate your anxiety and exacerbate those further symptoms or behaviours, including an elevation of your previously established risk of suicide.
82 In addition, I observe that due to these long-term diagnoses, you are not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence. Specific deterrence has, to some extent, be dealt with. You understand, at the level you are able to, the harm that you have caused the victims and you have expressed appropriate remorse. You feel ostracised by your long-time church community and not accepted by the church community that you now attend.
83 You have instructed your solicitors to agree to compensation orders, even if there, perhaps, may now be little prospect of the funds being available, as I understand it. This agreement to compensation orders is not necessarily a small thing. I can anticipate circumstances in which the victims may well have difficulty in recouping the whole of the money invested in civil proceedings as a result of what appears to be a lack of their own due diligence when deciding to invest in funds in a venture that appears to be, to the objective observer, a venture that contained elements of the fantastic.
84 It is acknowledged that the concept of general and specific deterrence, imposing a just punishment, acknowledging the harm done to the community and the victims, and rehabilitation, are all proper considerations for this sentencing exercise. Often, these considerations pull in opposite directions. I have explained why general deterrence is of less importance in this particular exercise.
85 There are more appropriate ways of dealing with this matter than by way of a custodial sentence. That sentence would achieve little, other than revenge on behalf of the victims and the community, and it is not an appropriate sentencing consideration.
86 An expression of the community's disapproval of behaviours such as this and the need to impose just punishment must be considered along with the need to protect the community in the future, which can occur more appropriately if you are given the assistance to address some of the many issues in your life and to better be taught to manage your own life's day to day issues. That is, of course, to accept and understand your own limitations.
87 I have now read through the sentence assessment report. That report writer has had access to the Brewer report and appears to understand the full ramifications of the presentation and your current circumstances and seems to understand the detail and the complex issues raised in that report.
88 I propose to accept the recommendations and they are that a mental health assessment and referral for assistance and therapy that will better target your issues is recommended, and it will form part of the order that I make.
89 I propose to further order community service work, and I order 150 hours of which one-third can be credited with the completion of appropriate programs.
Sentence
90
I therefore propose to sentence you to a community corrections order for a period of two years. I will order that it be supervised. I will order pursuant to
s 48C, 150 hours of unpaid community service work, as I indicated, one-third of which can be credited by undertaking programs, and further, pursuant to s 48E, a mental health treatment order as recommended by Corrective Services.
91 So, you are to report to the South Morang Justice Centre within seven days in order to have this report commenced. A copy of the CCS report will be available for you to sign today with the assistance of your counsel.
92 I should also note that had it not been for your plea of guilty, I would have still dealt with this matter by way of a community corrections order but the order would have been longer and would have required you to complete 200 hours of community work as opposed to 150 hours.
93 I have formally made the order for compensation. Is there anything else counsel?
94 MS GUESDON: No, Your Honour.
95 MR PATTON: No, Your Honour.
96 HER HONOUR: All right. I'll just wait here while that order is printed because I would like you to explain it to your client.
97 MR PATTON: Yes, Your Honour.
98 HER HONOUR: And that's better done with a piece of paper in front of you.
----
99 HER HONOUR: All right. Good, thank you. No questions, no problems, your client understands?
100 MR PATTON: No, I had pre-emptively gone through some of it with my client before court commenced, Your Honour.
101 HER HONOUR: All right. Very good, thank you very much. So, Mr Keeshan, I am going to sign this order now and I will just confirm that this order is an order for a period of two years. The conditions of the order, and the most obviously important condition, is that you must not commit any further offences while you are on this order. I am sure you understand that.
102 You must comply with all of the directions of Community Corrections officers with respect to undertaking any further assessments, undertaking any further therapy that is recommended for you, and also undertake any unpaid community service that is recommended for you.
103 It is my understanding that some of the unpaid community service work that you may undertake may be in the form of further therapy, it may not, I'm not sure, that is up to them to sort out with you, after a full assessment has been carried out. They will have available to them Mr Brewer's report, which I certainly found very helpful.
104 You must comply with all of the directions of your community corrections officer. You must report to the Community Corrections Office within two days of today, so between – the latest day Monday, I assume.
105 ASSOCIATE: Yes, the system would not let me change the date to any earlier than the 30th, being Monday next week.
106 HER HONOUR: Monday, so tomorrow or Monday at the latest. You must let the Community Corrections officer know within two days of your change of address. You must not leave the state of Victoria without their consent beforehand. You must obey all lawful directions. If you fail to comply with any of those orders or fail to comply with supervision or the community service work, or attending for assessment or therapy, then this bond may be breached, which means you might be bought back to this court, before me, for re-sentencing on your original offending.
107 With respect to the treatment and rehabilitation, as I indicated, you'll be supervised by a Corrective Services officer and they will direct you where to attend for further assessment after discussion with you. They will also direct where you are to attend for further therapy. I think that has been explained to you. That order is now signed and is for a period of two years from today.
108 MR PATTON: As Your Honour pleases.
109 HER HONOUR: Thank you, very much, we will adjourn now. Can I thank counsel for your submissions, they were very helpful, thank you.
- - -
0
0
0