Director of Public Prosecutions v Krekos
[2023] VCC 2389
•18 December 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-00749
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| KONSTANTINOS KREKOS |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 13 December 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 December 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Krekos | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 2389 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - sentence
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – persistent contravention of family violence order – two charges of theft – aggravated burglary – attempted robbery – offending against former intimate partner – serious example of family violence – specific and general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment relevant sentencing considerations
Legislation Cited: Family Violence Protection Act 2008; Crimes Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:Worboyes v. The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Biba v. The Queen [2022] VSCA 168; Whiteford v. The Queen [2016] VSCA 26; DPP v. Andrew Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; Darren Ray Newton v. The Queen [2021] VSCA 207; Wendy Hill v. The Queen [2020] VSCA 220; DPP v. Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 91 ALJR 1063; Postiglione v. The Queen (1997) 145 ALR 408
Sentence: Total effective sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and nine months fixed
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms M. Zammit (plea and sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria |
| For the Accused | Mr P.F. Bloemen (plea) | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Konstantinos Krekos, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:
(a) Persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order contrary to s125A of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, the maximum penalty for which is five years’ imprisonment;
(b) Two charges of theft contrary to s74(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years’ imprisonment;
(c) Aggravated burglary contrary to s77 of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty for which is 25 years’ imprisonment; and
(d) Attempted robbery contrary to s75 and s321M of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2The victim of your offending is your former intimate partner, with whom you had been in a relationship for two years. At the time of this offending, the victim was 22 years old and lived alone in Port Melbourne.
3You were born in February 1976 and were 46 years old at this time. You lived with your father, grandmother and your children in Williamstown, although you often stayed at a factory in Spotswood that is owned by a friend of yours, and where you worked at the time.
Circumstances of offending
4The circumstances of your offending are detailed in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 19 October 2023, which is the agreed basis upon which you are to be sentenced.
5On 20 September 2022, the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court made an interim family violence intervention order for the protection of the victim. You were named as the respondent to that order, the conditions of which had been explained to you by the presiding Magistrate that day.
6Amongst other things, the interim family violence order included conditions prohibiting you from contacting the victim by any means, from attending at her home and from committing any acts of family violence against her.
7After this order was made, the victim had told you many times that you were not permitted to attend her home. However, you did so on three separate occasions on 5 January 2023 and again on 12 January 2023, in breach of the order made for the victim’s protection.
8I turn to your offending on 5 January 2023.
9Beginning at 5 pm that day, you began calling and texting the victim demanding that she return to her house. The abusive messages sent by you included demanding that the victim return by 6 pm stating, “Don’t think I’m joking I’ve had enough of your shit dumb slut”; “U got 15 min”; “Answer now or don’t cry about your shut getting fuckedup”; “5 mins”; and “Time’s up putrid dog”. These messages to the victim form part of Charge 1 – persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order.
10At the time you were sending these messages, you had gone to the victim’s home. She was not at home at that time. You forced entry via the side entry door, damaging it in the process. This door had previously been reinforced by the victim. When the victim did not return to the house in response to your messages, you stole some of her clothing and accessories, including a black Gucci T-shirt, a bra, a North Face jumper and Nike shorts. This conduct gives rise to Charge 2 – theft and forms part of Charge 1 – persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order.
11The victim was in fear of returning to her home, so she asked a friend of hers, Philip Handsley, if she could go to his address instead. The victim and Mr Handsley eventually returned to her Port Melbourne address at around midnight.
12When she entered the house, the victim observed a smashed wine bottle on the floor in the loungeroom and her purses sprawled over her bedroom. She also noticed that various items of her clothing were missing.
13At 12.30 am, Mr Handsley began sending you messages asking that you return these items. You responded saying that you would meet him at the Shell petrol station in Spotswood in 15 minutes.
14When Mr Handsley arrived at the Shell petrol station 15 minutes later, you were not there. Rather, in that time you had gone to the victim’s home, but she refused to speak to you or let you in.[1]
[1]This is an uncharged act.
15The victim called Mr Handsley and told him you were at the property, and he returned to the victim’s house. By this time you had left.
16Then, shortly after 1 am you sent Mr Handsley a further text message, stating he should let the victim know that you would “be over soon”, and warning him that it was “best you don’t get involved”. You then made a series of calls to the victim.[2]
[2]This is an uncharged act.
17The second incident occurred at approximately 2 am. At this time, the victim was upstairs with Mr Handsley, setting up CCTV cameras. Mr Handsley heard your motorbike arrive at the house, and then both of them heard banging noises coming from downstairs.
18You entered the property via the side entry door which you had damaged earlier. You had no permission to enter the house, and did so intending to assault the victim. This conduct gives rise to Charge 3 – aggravated burglary and also forms part of Charge 1 – persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order.
19Approximately 20 to 30 seconds later, the victim saw you running upstairs holding a sledgehammer in both hands, having armed yourself once inside the property.
20The victim recognised the sledgehammer as one that belonged to her, and which she had last seen in her laundry a few days earlier. Holding the sledgehammer, you chased the victim through her bedroom, onto her balcony. You dropped the sledgehammer on the balcony. You then continued to chase the victim into the spare room and back down the stairs. In fear of you, the victim ran out of her front door. As she approached the gate, you grabbed her, scratching her shoulder in the process. You then demanded money from the victim before punching her twice to the face. This conduct is the subject of Charge 4 – attempted robbery and also forms part of Charge 1 – persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order.
21Mr Handsley also ran from the house and turned to see the victim on the ground, lying on her back. At this time, you were kneeling over her with your knee on her chest.[3] You then left the property on your motorbike.
[3]This is an uncharged act.
22At 2.44 am, the victim rang 000 requesting police attend at her address. She told the operator that you had broken into her house, that you were carrying a sledgehammer and had punched her in the face. She also told the operator you had stolen various belongings of hers.
23The third incident occurred approximately 30 minutes later, when you reattended the victim’s house. On this occasion, you entered through her unlocked front door.
24The victim was standing on the stairs. You began to demand money from her, stating “gimme the money you fucking cunt”. Feeling threatened, particularly in the context of what had just occurred some 30 minutes earlier, the victim gave you $200 in cash. This conduct is the subject of Charge 5 - theft ,and also forms part of Charge 1 – persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order.
25
You then left the victim’s address on your motorbike, before the police arrived at
3 am.
26When police arrived, they located the sledgehammer against a wall on the balcony, and a mobile phone in the courtyard. When the victim then called your number, this phone rang.
27On 12 January 2023, you were arrested by police at the victim’s address where you were found hiding under her bed. Your presence at the victim’s house on that date also forms part of Charge 1 – persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order.
28On 12 January 2023, investigators executed a search warrant at a factory in Spotswood, where you worked and stayed from time to time. At that address, the police located the victim’s purse and the stolen items of clothing.
29When you were interviewed by police on 12 January 2023, you denied attending the victim’s address on 5 January 2023 or causing damage to her side door. To the contrary, you told police you were at a friend’s place, being the factory in Spotswood, saying you “kicked back” there, having arrived at 6 pm before they closed the gate for the night.
30
CCTV footage subsequently obtained from outside the Spotswood factory depicts your movements on the night, including arriving at the factory at 1.13 am on your motorbike before leaving at 2.20 am. You are seen to return to the factory at
3.54 am and leave again at 5.58 am.
Procedural history
31I now turn to the procedural history of this matter.
32Following a contested committal hearing in the Magistrates’ Court on 11 May 2023, the matter was listed before me for case conference on 18 September 2023. The matter resolved to a guilty plea to the charges for which you are to be sentenced on 3 October 2023.
33You have been remanded in custody since your arrest on 12 January 2023.
Gravity of offending
34There can be no doubt this was serious offending. The gravity of the offence of aggravated burglary is reflected in the maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment fixed by Parliament. Moreover, the fact your offending against the victim occurred in persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order elevates the seriousness of your offending.
35The most egregious aspect of your offending is your conduct in returning to the house at 2 am to gain entry with the intention of assaulting the victim, knowing she was present in the house. The victim was entitled to be safe in her home, but she was not.
36
The context in which the aggravated burglary was committed is also relevant. You committed this offence after having sent the victim abusive and threatening text messages, and having earlier forced entry into the house via the reinforced side entry door, before stealing some of the victim’s clothing. You had also returned to the victim’s address after this, having taken the opportunity to do so when you had told Mr Handsley you would meet him at the petrol station and he had left the house to do so. The fact that the aggravated burglary occurred at 2 am after you had repeatedly attended at the victim’s home, and despite knowing that
Mr Handsley was present, serves to aggravate the offending.
37Although it forms no part of the aggravated burglary, your conduct inside the house must have been equally terrifying for the victim and is demonstrative of your intention at the point of entry. Having armed yourself with a sledgehammer soon after entering, you then chased the victim through her bedroom and out onto a balcony whilst wielding the sledgehammer. This is a serious example of family violence. Fortunately, you left the sledgehammer behind at that point. However, you continued to chase the victim outside, where you caught up to her, demanding money before punching her twice in the face.
38As stated, all of the offending at the victim’s house on 5 January 2023, into the early hours of 6 January 2023, occurred despite the protection the victim was entitled to by reason of the family violence intervention order. But neither that court order nor the presence of Mr Handsley, deterred you from entering the victim’s house intending to assault her, or once inside, from arming yourself and chasing her with a sledgehammer.
39Mr Bloeman, who appeared on your behalf, provided some context to your offending. On the night of the offending you were angry and upset, believing that you had a right to items you had given the victim during your relationship. You also thought the victim was going to purchase drugs, and had argued with her about this earlier that day. You report that you were also drug affected at the time. While these matters provide some explanation for your offending, they do not justify or excuse your conduct. In his submissions, Mr Bloeman states that, since being remanded, you have come to recognise there was no justification for your offending.
40Although no victim impact statement was provided by the victim, in her statement to police she describes the impact of your offending as at March 2023, stating that she no longer feels safe in her home, and considers that she has no choice but to leave that house. This had been her family home. She told police your offending on the night had left her feeling paranoid, constantly on edge and that she suffers from flashbacks and nightmares arising from her ordeal. Mr Krekos, your offending was undoubtedly terrifying for the victim, and has left her feeling unsafe.
41As the Courts have repeatedly emphasised, offending against former intimate partners, motivated by a sense of grievance or in anger, is to be denounced in the strongest terms.
42That said, I accept that the offences were committed over the course of ten hours committed from one day into the next. There is considerable overlap between the offending constituting the various offences with which you are charged and the acts giving rise to the offence of persistent contravention of the intervention order. Moreover, you are not be to be doubly punished for the offence of aggravated burglary, which was complete upon entry, and the offending which occurred inside the premises.
Personal circumstances
43I now turn to discuss your personal circumstances.
44You are now 47 years old.
45You were raised by your mother and father in Williamstown, together with your siblings, an older brother and sister. Your father worked on the wharfs until his retirement. Your mother passed away in 2019. You enjoyed a supportive upbringing, living within a close-knit family unit.
46You completed your secondary school education to Year 11, then began a two‑year apprenticeship as a panel beater. From this time, you have worked consistently throughout your adult life. You worked as a delivery driver for Mega Auto Parts for a period of seven years, before working as a wrecker for five years. Through a friend, you secured employment undertaking caretaking/property maintenance at the factory in Spotswood, which you have engaged in, off and on, for the past 10 years.
47The problems in your life stem from a long-term addiction to drugs. You began using methamphetamine in 2012, and have had an addiction to this and other drugs since this time, although your drug abuse has not been so significant as to interfere with your employment history. Your long-standing abuse of drugs is, however, reflected in your lengthy prior criminal history.
48You have had two significant relationships in your life, both marred by drug abuse. Prior to your two-year relationship with the victim, your longest relationship was with the mother of your three children, who you first met just after high school. That relationship lasted 16 years, before you finally separated in 2016.
49It was in the context of the deterioration in that relationship that you were convicted in January 2008 with three counts of breaching an intervention order, four counts of recklessly causing injury, intentionally damaging property in addition to possessing amphetamine. You were sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment, partially suspended, for this offending. Then, in December 2008 you were convicted of four counts of breaching an intervention order, intentionally causing injury, two counts of unlawful assault and assault by kicking. You were sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended on appeal, for that further offending.
50In December 2014, you were sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment, for family violence related offending that included two charges of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, intentionally causing injury, two charges of unlawful assault, making a threat to kill, in addition to weapons and other drug offences.
51In June 2017, you were convicted and fined $400 for contravening a family violence intervention order, and in October 2017, you were convicted and fined $2000 for persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order.
52The instances of family violence offending for which you were sentenced between 2008 and 2017 all related to offending against your former partner, in contravention of family violence intervention orders.
53In 2016, by order of the Children’s Court, your father was made the permanent carer of your three children[4]; two sons, now aged 21 and 19, and a daughter aged 16. The children continued to reside with your father in the family home in Williamstown, where you also lived from time to time. They have limited contact with their mother.
[4]Evidence given by George Krekos at the plea hearing on 13 December 2023.
54You have also been sentenced for other offences of violence and dishonesty, including burglary, theft, affray, assault with an instrument, which were committed in the context of your ongoing drug abuse between 2018 and 2022. In February 2022, you were sentenced, on appeal, to nine months’ imprisonment for breaching the community correction order imposed for a range of dishonesty offences, including burglary and theft. Indeed, you have contravened each of the five community based dispositions imposed over the years to assist in your rehabilitation.
55As stated you had been in a relationship with the victim for two years, prior to this event. You had been living between your father’s home and the victim’s address. The intervention order was sought by police following an incident where you damaged her television. Both of you were using drugs at that time and continued to associate despite the intervention order. Of concern, you were convicted and fined for three charges of contravening the intervention order made for the protection of the victim on 17 December 2022, just over two weeks prior to this offending.
Matters in mitigation
56On your behalf, Mr Bloeman emphasised a number of matters that operate in mitigation of your sentence.
57First and foremost, you entered a guilty plea to these charges. Your plea facilitates the course of justice and signifies your acceptance of responsibility for your offending. There is utility in your plea in that it saves the court and the community the time and resources associated with a trial. Of significance, it saves the victim from the ordeal of giving evidence at a trial. I note however, that it was not an early guilty plea, and followed a contested committal at which the victim did give evidence.
58In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the criminal justice system was significantly affected, with jury trials unable to proceed or delayed, and with committal hearings in the Magistrates’ Court also severely impacted, adding to further delays. In the case of Worboyes[5], the Court of Appeal determined that a plea of guilty should be given additional weight while the criminal justice system was experiencing pandemic-related delays, because a plea carried a greater utilitarian benefit than at other times.[6]
[5]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169,
[6]Worboyes, [35]-[39]
59At your plea hearing, your counsel argued that your plea attracts a Worboyes' sentencing discount. The prosecution submits that given that the COVID-related delays to the justice system had largely abated by the time you entered your plea, only minimal, if any, additional sentencing discount should be given.
60In the case of Biba[7], the Court of Appeal recently held that, for consistency, Worboyes' discounts, even if modest, must continue to be given in all courts for so long as any of them are experiencing pandemic-related delays.[8]
[7]Biba v The Queen [2022] VSCA 168
[8]Biba, [26].
61In assessing whether a Worboyes' discount should be applied, and if so, the extent of any discount, it is necessary to consider the degree of the pandemic-related delay at the time the plea was entered. In this case, a plea offer was made on your behalf (that was accepted by the prosecution) on 20 September 2023. The County Court cleared its COVID-19 related delays on 9 October 2023[9]. The Supreme Court has also cleared its backlog.[10] The Magistrates’ Court continues to experience some ongoing COVID-19 delays at this time. Accordingly, you are entitled to a modest or slight Worboyes' discount additional to that which otherwise attaches to your plea.
[9]Chief Judge Peter Kidd, Statement: Update on pending criminal trials, County Court of Victoria dated 9 October 2023
[10]DPP v Sari [2023] VSCA 523, [51] per Hollingworth J
62I have also had regard to the reference material filed on your behalf.[11] Your father, and your sister both reflect upon your positive personal attributes, when you are not affected by drugs. To them, you are a kind, loving and supportive person. In separate references, your two sons also say that you have been a loving and supportive father to them, whilst acknowledging your struggles with drug abuse over the years. The reference material speaks of your willingness to help with the care of your elderly grandmother, who also lives in the family home in Williamstown.
[11]Exhibit 1 – letters provided by Nikolas Krekos dated 10/12/2023; Vasilia Kriaris dated 9/12/2023; Alexander Krekos dated 11/12/2023; George Krekos dated 11/12/2023
63Your sister says she has never seen you behave aggressively, or act in such a way as to intimidate anyone. She says that any such behaviour would be ‘very unusual’ for you. While I accept that this may be an accurate reflection of her interactions with you over the years, her assessment is clearly at odds with your prior criminal history. I accept that in your interactions with your direct family, at home, away and from other influences, you are a caring father, son and grandson.
64In his reference, your father acknowledges that when you are drug affected, your temper can, “be erratic and at times, uncontrollable”. He reflects upon poor decisions you have made in your life, including associating with negative peers. However, having visited you consistently over the past year in custody, your father assesses that you are now in a position to make positive changes in your life. He states that this period has given you the opportunity to reflect and remain abstinent from substances for a lengthy period.
65Your father gave evidence at your plea hearing, in which he reiterated much of what he said in his written reference. What is clear is that you have the ongoing love and support of your father, who now sees some reason for optimism for your future, provided you are able to remain abstinent from methylamphetamine. He says he will support you in any way he can to achieve this.
66No psychological or other material was provided on your plea. There is no basis for me to conclude that you have any underlying mental health condition that enlivens any Verdins'[12] considerations or otherwise reduces your moral culpability for this offending.
[12]R v. Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269
67At present, having regard to your prior criminal history, I can only assess your rehabilitation prospects in a guarded way. Certainly, past periods of imprisonment have not deterred you from violent, methamphetamine-fuelled offending or from breaching intervention orders aimed at preventing acts of family violence.
68However, I do not assess you to have no prospects of rehabilitation. There are a number of positive factors that tell in your favour. You have the ongoing love and support of your family, and stable accommodation upon your eventual release. You have a lengthy work history, and I anticipate you will continue to work into the future. Since being in custody, you have engaged in work in your unit and have taken the opportunity available to you to complete some programs and courses aimed at your rehabilitation. I have given some weight to your father’s assessment of your motivation to turn your life around having spent this period on remand, however much will depend upon your ability to remain abstinent from drugs on your eventual release. Only time will tell.
Other sentencing considerations
69I turn now to other sentencing considerations.
70The Courts have consistently emphasised the weight that must attach to the sentencing considerations of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment for confrontational acts of violence committed by offenders against their former intimate partners. Others must be deterred from acting in a similar way in the knowledge that if they do so, a significant period of imprisonment will follow. This is particularly the case for offending that persistently contravenes family violence orders aimed at protecting victims, given the prevalence of this form of violence in the community.
71Moreover, given your prior criminal history, the sentence I impose must also operate as a specific deterrent to you, and serve to protect the community from such offending into the future.
72I have also had regard to current sentencing practices, to the extent they can be ascertained, and to the cases to which I was referred by the prosecution and defence. In addition to the case of DPP v Meyers, where the offender was resentenced to four years imprisonment for the offence of aggravated burglary, the prosecution also referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Newton v The Queen and Hill v The Queen[13]. In those two cases, the offenders were sentenced to four years, six months imprisonment and four years’ imprisonment respectively, for the offence of aggravated burglary.
[13]DPP v. Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; Newton v. The Queen [2021] VSCA 207;
Hill v. The Queen [2020] VSCA 220
73I have had regard to these decisions in a broad sense, noting that there are aggravating features associated with these matters that are not present here. For instance, in the cases of Meyers and Hill, the offenders invaded the victim’s homes armed with weapons. In the case of Meyers, the offender forced entry carrying a double-barrelled shotgun, which he used to strike the victim to the head. In the case of Hill, the offender armed herself with a length of pipe and a knife, before forcing entry to the house. She then used the knife to stab the victim and his new partner. In my view, these are more serious examples of the offence of aggravated burglary.
74Your counsel also referred me to the case of Whiteford v The Queen[14], where the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of five years; imprisonment for offending that included aggravated burglary, theft, common assault and breaches of a family violence intervention order.
[14]Whiteford v The Queen [2016] VSCA 26
75I have had regard to the sentences to which I was referred as informing current sentencing practices, and in particular, the principles enunciated in Meyers. As always, each case falls to be determined on its own facts and circumstances. Current sentencing practices are but one factor to be considered and do not control or determine the sentence to be imposed.[15]
[15]DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 91 ALJR 1063
Cumulation and totality
76The totality principle requires me to ensure that your overall sentence is ‘a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved’ in your offending, and no more[16]. Any orders for cumulation must be moderated to the extent necessary to give effect to the principle of totality.
[16]Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 145 ALR 408
77I have been conscious of the risk of double punishment and have taken that into account in determining the amount of cumulation that must be imposed on Charge 1, given the potential overlap with the offending that constitutes Charge 3 – aggravated burglary and Charge 4 – attempted robbery. I have sought to ensure that the sentence imposed on Charge 1 reflects the separate criminality of engaging in these acts in contravention of the family violence intervention order, and the acts that separately form part of that charge, and no more.
Sentence
78Balancing the matters to which I have referred, whilst having regard to the maximum penalty for each offence, I now sentence you as follows.
79On Charge 1 – persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
80On Charge 2 – theft – you are convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.
81On Charge 3 – aggravated burglary – you are convicted and sentenced to three years, six months’ imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
82On Charge 4 – attempted robbery – you are convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
83On Charge 5 – theft – you are convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.
84I order that six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 4 be served cumulatively upon Charge 3 and upon one another. All other sentences are to be served concurrently.
85This gives a total effective sentence of four years, six months’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of two years, nine months’ imprisonment.
86Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that 340 days of pre‑sentence detention be reckoned as served under the sentence I have imposed.
87Finally, pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that the sentence I would have imposed had you not pleaded guilty is six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years, six months. Do either counsel require any clarification of the sentence I have imposed?
88MR ADAMO: No, Your Honour.
89MS ZAMMIT: No, Your Honour.
90HER HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Adamo, do you want an opportunity to speak with Mr Krekos after I adjourn?
91MR ADAMO: Yes, please, Your Honour.
92HER HONOUR: Arrangements will be made for you to have a confidential discussion with your client. Thank you, adjourn the court please.
- - -
10
1