Director of Public Prosecutions v Kopala

[2014] VCC 1360

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 12-01650

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

SIMON KOPALA

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 August 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Kopala
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VCC 1360

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

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

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms B. Bleazby	Office Of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms S. Keogh-Barnes	Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR: 

1Simon Kopala, on 13 August 2014 a jury found you guilty of seven charges of an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16, one charge of incest and one charge of common assault.  The victim in each of your crimes was KA.  She was during your sexual abuse of her between the ages of 12 up to just 14 years old.  She was the daughter of your then de facto partner KW.

2You met KW on an Internet website in late 2008.  Your friendship progressed and in 2009 you moved into her house.  You had come to learn that she had a young daughter.  At this time it seems your small computer business was failing.  You then dedicated a great deal of your time to looking after KW who had problems with her mental health.  Over time you became a controlling influence over KW and her daughter KA.

3KA had a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome, as that condition was then known.  Just what level and the kind of difficulties this condition caused KA was not made fully clear in the trial and effectively remained in dispute.  She was, it seems, reluctant to have water on her face or use liquid soap.  Her hygiene was not always up to expectations.  However, it is plain from the content of her evidence and her demeanour over the extensive cross-examination that she was very capable with her verbal skills and comprehension.

4She, like many young students, struggled in the transition from primary school to secondary school.  However, by Year 8, she had settled and gained some friends, travelled by public transport and coped with most subjects she did, though some with modified programs.  She was particularly skilled and advanced in artistic subjects.  Against all this, you formed the view or at least expressed the view that KA had significant developmental problems.  You sought out an array of doctors, psychologists and specialists to treat her.  You controlled her regular attendance and sat in for many, if not all, appointments.  You obsessed about her schooling urging, against all the evidence, that she needed a learning aide. While much of this is revealing of your own psychological problems, it also gives an insight into your desire to control much of KA’s life. 

5However, much more important was the evidence and the jury verdicts that exposed that what was in truth at the heart of your involvement with KA was your perverse sexual interest in her as a young female child around the age of 12 and 13 years.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on all the evidence that you had a sexual interest in KA and I am of the view that the jury likewise came to this conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.  What I will now turn to is the crimes you committed in pursuit of your sexual interest.

6Charge 1 was the first instance of you licking KA's vagina.  She was 12 when this occurred.  KA’s evidence was that this depraved conduct happened a number of times after the first time, although she said that this conduct did not, to use her word, "freak her out" as much as other things that you did.  On any objective view, it is a grave example of the offence of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16.  It reveals your ingrained sexual perversity.

7Charge 5 involved you having KA masturbate you to ejaculation.  You then had her taste or lick your semen that had gone onto her hand.  This was Charge 6.  This conduct only needs to be stated for its gravity to be exposed.  There were other instances where you had KA masturbate you.

8These three crimes that I have outlined thus far were instances of your sexual abuse that you had denied committing.  The other acts, which I will turn to shortly, you admitted, but you endeavoured to provide what you considered was justification, claiming your sexual interference with her was to educate her to masturbate.

9It seems to me the fact that you committed the criminal acts that you denied reveals that all your crimes were in truth motivated by your sexual depravity and were in no way genuinely done or believed by you to be done as part of the so-called education of KA.  Those three acts that I have thus far spoken of could not be anything other than crimes and not surprisingly your approach was to deny that you did them. 

10It does however remain odd and anomalous that you frankly admitted to performing other acts, including those that were the basis for the other charges on the indictment.  These were touching KA on her vaginal area, Charge 4, in circumstances where her mother, KW, saw what you were doing and was taken aback. 

11Also you had KA masturbate herself on your request as you watched on an occasion that she nearly reached an orgasm.  This was Charge 8.  Also on two occasions you shaved KA's pubic hair as she lay on the bed, her genitalia exposed to you.  Finally in respect of the sexual abuse, you penetrated her vagina with your finger in what you maintain was teaching her to masturbate.  This was Charge 3, incest.

12You also admitted to the crime of common assault on KA when you became frustrated that she was making you late for an appointment so you grabbed her around the neck with both hands, lifting her off the ground and against the wall of the bathroom.

13In relation to the sexual acts that you committed, you told police, and in essence, the jury in your evidence, that your conduct was legitimate and justified as proper parenting of a child with Asperger's syndrome.  You contended that she need to be taught not to be sensitive or shy about touching her vagina.  She needed to masturbate, so you said to her, and to the police, so that she would not be ostracised from her peers.

14These and your other variants of these general excuses or justifications were simply a ruse and in my view seen to be so by the jury. You adapted your general justifications to fit the defences that were put forward in the trial. For example, in respect of the charge of incest, you put forward that your penetration was not a sexual penetration but done in the course of a procedure in good faith for medical purposes and thus not unlawful by reason of the definition of sexual penetration in s.35 of the Crimes Act.  Such a contention was nonsense and your true purpose was your sexual gratification.

15You had in the past, as the jury heard, expressed views that the laws restricting sexual access to children under 16 were wrong and should be relaxed.  You expressed to the police in this case that the laws prohibiting your conduct were wrong and inappropriate for the circumstances as you saw them with KA and what you considered were her developmental problems.  These matters give rise to real concerns as to your insight, capacity to reform and the need to give weight to the protection of young females from you into the future.  I will return to this when dealing with the submissions relating to your own autism spectrum disorder and when I deal also with the serious offender provisions of the Sentencing Act.

16As is clear enough, you sexually abused KA in a variety of perverse ways and on occasions other than the charges acts.  I need to make it clear that you are to be punished only for the crimes for which you are charged and the jury found you guilty.  No more and no less.  But other instances of your sexual conduct other than those charged and other disturbing behaviour cannot be ignored.  They establish that your acts were not one off misguided incidents that were never repeated.

17As required by the Sentencing Act, I must assess the gravity of your offending and the degree of your moral culpability.  The offences I have just outlined are depraved and serious examples of serious crimes.  I have taken into account the young age of KA at the time of these offences and her particular vulnerability, especially given that her mother was not able to assist her in any real sense.  I also take into account the length of time of your offending, the different forms of your offending and of course the profound breach of trust.  KW was often bedridden and you with control over and access to KA; what you did was comprehensively abuse the significant amount of trust that was placed in you.

18Your conduct caused KA great confusion, as she was in her early teenage years.  Your deliberate endeavour to convince her that your sexual abuse was legitimate, normal behaviour is a particularly concerning aspect of what you did.  Given the heightened desire of teenagers to fit in and appear to be like everyone else, your suggestion that she would be ostracised by her peers and socially disadvantaged if she did not engage in your so-called education of her towards masturbation Is another serious aspect of your offending.  I will return to the impact on her of your crimes in due course.

19There are other features of your conduct that have to be mentioned.  You deliberately purchased and used adult sex toys on a 12 or 13-year-old child.  You penetrated her with these implements and used a vibrator on her.  You kept them at the ready by her bed.  Again this is serious perverse behaviour but not an offences for which you fall to be punished. 

20Further, you wrote a list of chores for KA.  These first outlined the usual domestic chores that she may have been expected to do to earn pocket money and to contribute to the household.  Much more disturbingly was that you then wrote a list of sexual chores that you said in your record of interview were your fantasies, but then you added "we hadn't got that far".

21I have no doubt at all that you wrote the note for and about KA and showed it to her because in general terms you wished things to go further with KA.  I do not speculate on where that would have led; however, the evidence was that you put condoms in her room and she said that you had told her that you were planning on penetration, which I take to be penile penetration of her vagina.  Your explanation of having condoms in her room was nonsense.

22Again I restate that you cannot be punished for the things you never did, but again all the evidence reveals the extent of your depravity, your lack of any insight and ultimately the level of risk that you present.  That said, I have taken a balanced approach to assessing the gravity of what you did.  Matters such as the list of chores has not overwhelmed my assessment and I consider what I said in another case that was referred to on this plea is apt in this case as well.  I said then and repeat here that while it could not be said your behaviour was at the extreme or in the worse category, it still remains as a serious example of these grave crimes.

23I am also required by the Sentencing Act to assess your moral culpability.  There can be little doubt that your offences display a very high degree of moral culpability.  Your counsel argued that, because of what is said to be your own autism spectrum disorder, I should moderate the full impact of moral culpability.  I will address this when examining your personal circumstances and your own psychological make-up.

24It must be said that you cannot and will not be punished for running a trial.  What can be said is that the usual very significant mitigation that flows to those who plead guilty, accept responsibility, express remorse and show insight, which are the necessary bases for rehabilitation to be a genuinely optimistic prospect, all this is not here in your case and therefore not in your favour. 

25You are now 34 years old.  You were an only child raised in a strict household.  Your parents migrated to Australia from Poland when you were young.  You were educated up to tertiary level, though you did not complete your degree in electrical engineering.  Your time at school was not easy and you struggled socially.  You and your parents fell out and you were evicted from the family home in your 20s.  It seems you are now estranged from your parents.  Mr Lavery, your counsel, advised that you have not had any visitors while imprisoned thus far and in all likelihood that will be the case for your entire sentence.  You are alone.  Your work history involves six years or so of installing security systems.  You then opened a computer business, which seemed to involve repairs and retail.  This was from 2007, until the business failed in 2009 or 2010. 

26You have no prior convictions and this is an important matter in mitigation.  You have been in custody for what I believe is 618 days.  I will be advised precisely as to the figure in due course, but the point is that your time in prison has not always gone well.  You have ongoing problems with your back.  Also as a consequence of your personality, you have difficulties dealing with people and understanding the subtle nuances that are important in prison life.  You make many demands and believe they are met with unsympathetic responses from the prison authorities.  You have been and will be a protection prisoner and I have taken the fact that life for protection prisoners is harder into account in fixing your penalty.

27You have been assessed by psychologists and psychiatrists prior to your offending being discovered and a number of times since by forensic psychiatrists and forensic psychologists.  Indeed you were assessed by a forensic psychiatrist arranged by both the prosecution and your own lawyers and forensic psychiatrists were called by either side in the trial.  The preponderance of expert opinion is that you have a mild autism spectrum disorder that manifests itself in rigid thinking, lack of empathy, lack of the capacity to engage in genuine two-way dialogue, obsessiveness and an inherent stubbornness or incapacity to reconsider your beliefs once you have fixed on them, even in the face of powerful evidence to the contrary or if your beliefs are contrary to well understood social standards or conventions.

28As was made clear by the expert evidence, your autism spectrum disorder is an inherent and enduring condition.  As was said by Prof Doherty, who was called in the trial by your lawyers, these personality or psychological traits are a consequence of your “hard wiring.”  Mr Lavery argued that your autism spectrum disorder  amounted to an impaired mental functioning, which was relevant to a number of sentencing considerations.  He argued that because of your autism spectrum disorder , you were less well equipped to deal with sexual temptations, thus it should be held that your moral culpability was less and, as a consequence, the full weight of denunciation should not be visited upon you.

29Mr Lavery conceded that in all the circumstances the weight of denunciation in this case was considerable, but he argued that the moderation of it by reason of your impaired mental functioning should itself be considerable.  Mr Bessel, the trial prosecutor, argued that there was no realistic causal connection between any impaired mental functioning and your offending; rather, he argued the causal connections were with your sexual interest in young females and that your autism spectrum disorder rather came into play as part of your post facto justification for what you were doing or had done.

30It seems to me it is difficult to unscramble all aspects of your psychology or your thinking process.  As I have said, I have no doubt that you had a sexual interest in KA and you exploited all the circumstances to gratify that, resulting in dreadful sexual abuse of her.  However, I consider you do to a degree lack some capacity or, to use Mr Lavery's words, you are less well equipped to avoid inappropriate behaviours. 

31As I said during the plea, the sentencing task is to consider what you did and why.  The answer to why someone does something wrong is often connected to the other key question of who the person is, their psychological make-up.  You did what you did because you chose to enter the dark realm of sexual abuse, but you were less able to see it for what it was, which in your case was taking advantage of KA's vulnerability for your sexual gratification.  Accordingly I will to a slight degree moderate the weight to be afforded denunciation.

32This is not the only areas of mitigation relied on by Mr Lavery as arising from your impaired mental functioning.  However, I think it is the appropriate place to consider the weight to be given to the protection of the community by reason of your impaired mental functioning, it being enduring, and because its manifestation has led and may in the future lead to you to a firm but wrong view that sexual abuse of a child can be justified.  Although not one of the enumerated points in the well know case of Verdins, it has long been the law that an impaired mental functioning may operate so that in a particular case greater weight must be given to the protection of the community.  This is one of those cases, a matter not disputed by Mr Lavery. 

33Accordingly it seems to me that your impaired mental functioning and how it manifests itself means that more weight must be given to the protection of the community.  I will return to this important area of the sentencing process when dealing with the serious offender provisions of the Sentencing Act.

34Mr Lavery argued further that the important weighty matter of general deterrence ought be moderated in your case as a consequence of your impaired mental functioning.  Plainly it does not automatically follow that any impaired mental functioning will operate to ameliorate the weight to be given to general deterrence.  It depends on the nature and degree of the impaired mental functioning and the circumstances of the case.  Your impaired mental functioning, being autism spectrum disorder , is mild and means that you at times are a difficult, rigid, obsessive person.  You have many other capacities, as the evidence in this trial and the expert report revealed. 

35It seems to me that amelioration of general deterrence arises because the community would be uncomfortable that a particular accused with an impaired mental functioning is used as an example to deter others who may be contemplating like offences, the reasoning being that the particular accused is so different from the others that any message of deterrence would become distorted and perhaps cruel to the impaired person.  Here, in addition to the extensive expert opinion about what in the end I take to be a mild autism spectrum disorder , I have had the very considerable advantage of watching you throughout a long trial and, more importantly, watching and hearing you give evidence and deal with cross-examination. 

36Taking into account all these matters and taking a proper commonsense approach to this issue of general deterrence and your impaired mental functioning, I am of the view that there ought not and there will not be any amelioration of the weight to be accorded to general deterrence.  The unambiguous message that can and must be sent via this sentence is that if you are contemplating sexually abusing children, then stern punishment awaits.

37Finally, in my view there is sufficient in the materials to allow for some amelioration of your penalty because your particular impaired mental functioning will make custody hard.  This is in addition to the matters already raised about protection and your physical discomfort.

38In accordance with the statutory mandate, I have had regard to current sentencing practice.  In this regard the prosecution pointed to one Court of Appeal case of DM v The Queen.  This was a plea of guilty to incest and indecent act where the father offended against his 14-year-old daughter under the guise of educating her about sex.  Though it was not apparent during the plea from the copy of the case provided to me, I was in fact the sentencing judge in DM.  Analysis of the Court of Appeal decision in DM would properly lead to the view that all the circumstances of your offending make it more grave than in DM, though one single case-to-case comparison is not of much value.  It should be noted, of course, that DM pleaded guilty.

39His sentence for incest by digital penetration was five years.  His total sentence of six years and nine months with a minimum of four years and four months was held to be within range and not manifestly excessive.  Although there was nothing said about the 6AAA declaration, and of course those declarations do not fix any range for any other case where an accused pleads not guilty, it was in that case nine years and eight months with six years and eight months as the minimum term.

40I have also had the benefit of the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Blair - a pseudonym - v The Queen, in which reference was made to a survey of a significant number of cases of incest.  Many but not all of those cases involve pleas of guilty.  It is difficult to compare cases, given the unique features of each, but I have had the significant advantage of the succinct guidance provided by the Court of Appeal as to the problems and advantages of statistics and comparative cases set in paragraphs 109 to 111 of the judgment of Whelan J in Blair v The Queen, in which Weinberg and Beach JJ agree. 

41In the result in Blair, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentences for two counts of incest arising from the one incident of penile penetration followed by rubbing or digital penetration of a 15-year-old stepchild who said she had engaged in a sexual relationship with her stepfather.  The new sentences fixed were six years for penile penetration and four years for the digital penetration, of which one year was cumulative, giving a total sentence of seven years and a minimum term of five was fixed.  As I have endeavoured to say, the sentences in other cases are a general yardstick and I have endeavoured to ensure that my sentence promotes rather than detracts from consistency in sentencing in this state.

42On another topic, which this case has in common with others, is that the depraved conduct has had a significant adverse impact on KA, the victim, and on her father and, I take it, on her broad family.  Her victim impact statement expressed in her own youthful language was compelling, as was her father's victim impact statement.  KA suffered at your hands and, if we have learnt anything in recent times from the victims of sexual abuse, it is that the psychological legacy of abuse is often long-term and often only evident in an acute form later in life, making adulthood difficult especially in forming and maintaining intimate relationships.

43It is noted that you caused KA to doubt her sexuality - that is being a female.  Her relationship with her with her mother deteriorated.  It is only hoped that KA's current firm view that you are the one who will now have to suffer the consequences remains and continues to give her a sense that justice has been done.

44I have mentioned the sentencing purpose of protection of the community. This is always an important sentencing consideration, but by reason of the provisions of the Sentencing Act it will in this case become the principal sentencing consideration in respect to the charges after the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for the first two charges. The prosecution submitted that there was no requirement to impose a disproportionate sentence in order to achieve the purpose of protection of the community and I will not impose a disproportionate sentence in this case.

45In compliance with Court of Appeal decisions, I have considered the question of your risk of re-offending in like manner in the future.  This area is fraught with imprecision and there is no expert opinion directed precisely at your risks into the future; however, taking into account all the psychological and psychiatric material that I have and taking into account the conclusions, including your inherent lack of empathy, your lack of insight into the grave nature of your offending, your sense that you are entitled to break the law for what you said was important purposes of educating KA and your ongoing incapacity or refusal to acknowledge your criminal responsibility, all this means that your risk of re-offending is at a concerning level.

46Another factor that arises because you are, from Charge 2 onwards, a serious sexual offender, is a requirement that I consider cumulation for later offences unless I otherwise order. I do not lose sight of the principles of totality and proportionality, but likewise I cannot and do not simply ignore Parliament's intent and sentence you as if the principles of totality had been unaffected by the provisions of s.6E of our Sentencing Act.  I have endeavoured to strike the right balance.

47Your rehabilitation has not been overlooked, although the prospects for your complete reform are very guarded.  You have lived many years without breaking the law and it is hoped that this is what occurs after you are released.  Mr Lavery submitted you will need help, given your isolation.  To that end I will allow for a period of potential parole, but whether you are granted parole and when is for others to decide. 

48If I have not made it clear, you cannot and will not be punished for running a trial, as I have already expressed.

49Doing the best I can in respect of each of these charges, I impose the following sentences of imprisonment.  Can you please stand, Mr Kopala.  Charge 1, an indecent act, being the licking of the vagina of KA, a child under the age of 16:  you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment. 

50Charge 2, an indecent act, being shaving the pubic hair of KA when she was a child under the age of 16:  you are sentenced to four months' imprisonment.

51Charge 3, incest by digital penetration of KA:  you are sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

52Charge 4, indecent act, being the touching of the vagina of KA, a child under the age of 16:  you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

53Charge 5, an indecent act in having KA, a child under the age of 16, masturbate you to ejaculation:  you are sentenced to one year and eight months' imprisonment. 

54Charge 6, an indecent act in that you had KA, a child under the age of 16, taste or lick your semen:  you are sentenced to one year and two months' imprisonment.

55Charge 7, an indecent act of shaving the pubic hair of KA, a child under the age of 16:  four month's imprisonment.

56Charge 8, an indecent act in the presence of KA in that you had her masturbate while you were present and viewing when she was a child under the age of 16:  you are sentenced to one year and two months' imprisonment.

57Charge 9, the common assault:  you are convicted and fined $650 with a stay of two months for payment.

58I order that eight months of Charge 1, one month of Charge 2, 12 months of Charge 4, ten months of Charge 5, five months of Charge 6 and six months of Charge 8 be cumulative upon each other and upon Charge 3.  This results in a total effective sentence of eight years and six months and I fix a non-parole period of six years and two months before you are eligible for release.  I declare that you have served - is it 618 days?

59MS BLEAZBY:  Your Honour, I have 618; that's including today, so - - -

60MS KEOGH-BARNES:  I have 618 including today, Your Honour.

61HIS HONOUR:  Declare that you have already served 618 days of the sentence that I have just imposed and I will ensure that this declaration is entered into the records of the court so that the prison authorities are left in no doubt that you have already served 618 days of the sentence that I have just imposed.  I declare that for Charges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, you are a serious sexual offender and I will ensure that this declaration is entered into the records of the court.  By operation of the Sex Offenders Registration Act, you must be placed on that register and remain on that register for life.

62The prosecution has sought a number of applications or has made a number of applications which I intend to grant.  The first of those is that you provide a forensic sample.  That is a scraping of your mouth so that sufficient is obtained for the extraction of DNA.  That will be kept on a database.  I intend to grant the application.  The reasons for doing so are the seriousness of the circumstances of your offending warrant the making of the order and the granting of the order is in the public interest.

63There is also an application for a disposal, being the range of sexual instruments and the like that you had by the bedside.  I intend to make that order and sign those shortly. 

64Mr Kopala, as I am required by the legislation - that is the Sex Offenders Registration Act and its regulations - you have to be provided with a document.  What occurs now is that I sign a document indicating that I have provided you with a document.  You then sign a document to say that you have received it.  It is the content of the document that counts, of course, and that sets out all your responsibilities and obligations once you are released to be registered and remain registered.  They are serious obligations with consequences if you do not comply.

65Your counsel will attend with your or your solicitor will attend down the back of the court to ensure that you sign that document.  In the meantime in intend to sign the other orders that I have made.  You may be seated, Mr Kopala.

66There is one final matter.  I have anxiously considered whether and if so what I should say in the Reasons for Sentence about the conduct of proceedings in this case.  In the end I have come to the view that the important sentencing process should not be or not appear to have been distracted or influenced by the way this case was run in this instance by the barrister Mr John Sutton before trial counsel Mr Lavery became involved.  I can assure you, Mr Kopala, that your sentence has not been adversely impacted by what Mr Sutton did in the early portion of your proceedings; however, there comes a time when the court must say something, notwithstanding the risk that what I say may be - and it would be - misinterpreted as causing a more stern sentence.

67The time for some old-fashioned gentlemanly restraint in not naming the barrister who caused significant delays and problems in the case and the way it proceeded; those days are over.  Our limited resources and the impact of poor advocacy on victims is such that we must make clear when we do encounter very bad cases that those involved must improve and immediately so.  What I have said thus far is not going to be a turgid recitation of all that went on and caused this trial to go so far off the rails while Mr Sutton was involved.  I could say a great deal, all of which I believe would be endorsed by the two other County Court judges who have endured Mr Sutton's misguided approach.

68This case was one that could have been completed in about two weeks.  It took many, many, many more weeks than that over four separate periods in June 2013, September 2013, January and February 2014 and finally in July‑August 2014.  What I will say must be preceded by my public acknowledgment gained from my own long experience that the role of defence counsel is not an easy job, far from it, and in this case the particular accused was a difficult client.  Rather what I want to do is to look ahead to the approaching prospect of innovative reforms whereby barristers will be required to be properly certified before being permitted to appear in Legal Aid trials in the County and Supreme Court.  This is a most welcome development for the criminal justice system.

69What is hoped that the new certificate system will ensure that what occurred in this trial over so many court days since June 2013 will never occur again.  More importantly, a child who made allegations, most of which were admitted, will not have to endure such a prolix cross-examination over four days and judges will not have to hear at length poorly considered submissions arising from a misguided view of what counsel's responsibilities are when a difficult client provides instructions about the legal process that are plainly ill informed and ill considered.  I make it plain that Mr Lavery did not conduct the cross-examination of the complainant, but rather he did all that he could to capably and professionally represent his client in difficult circumstances.

70Do the maths add up?

71MS BLEAZBY:  Yes, Your Honour.  We've checked those.

72HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  Mr Kopala can be removed.  I once again take time to thank counsel that have been involved and also the solicitors that have been involved who appear as counsel today.  The solicitor in particular of Mr Kopala was here on the last occasion when I made note of her very considerable efforts through a difficult trial to deal with a difficult client.  It is how reputations are made and it has not gone unnoticed by the court.  I will now stand down and return for the next case.

- - -