Director of Public Prosecutions v Leaman

[2019] VCC 687

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 18-01753

COMMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

GREGORY LEAMAN

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 April 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Leaman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 687

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:             Sentence – Pleas of guilty – Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception – Limited but relevant criminal record concerning same type of offending – Repeated and deliberative conduct - Delay – Lack of co-operation with authorities contributory factor to delay – Voluntary involvement with charitable organisations – Health issues and carer’s role factors in sentencing

Legislation Cited:     Commonwealth Criminal Code

Sentence:Convicted and sentenced to aggregate term of 3 years’ imprisonment to be released after serving 9 months’ imprisonment upon giving security by recognisance in the sum of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for 3 years – Ancillary order Reparation Order for $73, 728.35 – s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 declaration

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms E. Dane	Commonwealth DPP
For the Accused	Mr M. Habib	James Dowsley & Associates

HER HONOUR:

1Gregory Porter Leaman, you have pleaded guilty to four charges of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.  The maximum penalty for this offence is ten years' imprisonment.

2I was told that you had been in receipt of social security benefits since 2000.  Over various periods between 10 October 2008 and 19 May 2016, while you were in receipt of Newstart Allowance you failed to comply with the obligation to correctly declare your income from employment to Centrelink, being part of the Department of Human Services.  Consequently, you received payments of Newstart Allowance to which you were not entitled, or only partially entitled; unlawfully obtaining a total of $73,728.35 from the Commonwealth.

3I was told that between 10 October 2008 and 6 February 2009 you were overpaid $5027.21, which forms the basis for Charge 1.  I was told that between 27 April 2010 and 13 October 2010 you received an overpayment of $1,375.24.  Further, between 19 April 2011 and 13 January 2012 you received an overpayment of $4,932.91 and between 10 April 2012 and 19 May 2016 you received an overpayment of $62,352.99, which gives rise to Charge 4.

4I was told that you were first in receipt of a Newstart Allowance in 2002 and you were in receipt of a Newstart Allowance until 27 March 2009, at which time it was cancelled.  This was partially due to the fact that you were earning income from employment which exceeded your eligibility for the benefit.

5On 15 February 2010 you made another claim for a Newstart Allowance, which was granted.  As a condition of your Newstart Allowance at all times you are required to report your income to Centrelink on a fortnightly basis.  You did this by either attending a Centrelink customer service centre or via the internet, or via the interactive voice recognition service or via the telephone.

6During the period of your offending you were employed by 10 different employers.  The periods during which you were employed and received income from these were set out at paragraph 15 of the prosecution opening and I incorporate these details into my sentencing reasons, but will not repeat them.

7However, some of these periods of employment involved working on a casual basis, whilst other periods of employment involved you working on a full time basis.  Throughout the offending period you reported your income on 151 occasions, which meant on 151 different fortnights.  You correctly declared that you were in receipt of nil income on three occasions, but falsely declared a lower income than you were in fact receiving on 42 occasions, and falsely declared that you were in receipt of nil income on 106 occasions, when you were in fact working and earning income.

8I was told that you did not declare any income from your employment at three different organisations or companies, despite earning $31,882.54 from one, $12,729.28 from another and $18,167.23 from a third.

9Overall, during the period of offending, you earned $205,753, which was an average of $1,362.60 per fortnight.  During this same period you declared income of $7,767, an average of $51.44 per fortnight.  As a result of your false declarations you obtained 73,728.35 in Newstart Allowance payments to which you were not entitled.

10I was told that your offending was initially detected because of data checks with the Australian Taxation Office in 2014.  You were directed to contact Centrelink to discuss the discrepancies that had been found.  However, you failed to respond and on 26 March 2014 your Newstart Allowance payments were suspended.  On that day you contacted Centrelink via telephone and discussed the reasons for the suspension.  Newstart Allowance payments were restored pending further information being gathered from employers to allow completion of the review.

11Centrelink wrote to employers, which they detected, asking to provide information about your employment status and income.  The two employers who had been detected through the tax office responded with relevant information.  You were contacted by Centrelink advising of administrative debts that have been raised on 22 and 23 June 2015, but the matter was not immediately referred for investigation.

12On 29 June 2015 you contacted Centrelink and asked for your payments to be cancelled, advising that you are about to start full time work and that your employer required confirmation that you were no longer in receipt of social security benefits.

13On 13 July 2015 you contacted Centrelink asking to be placed again on Newstart Allowance payments and that request was granted on 21 July 2015.  I was told the payments were backdated, so there was one fortnight where you received no Newstart Allowance payment.  I was told that from April 2015 to May 2016 you had continued to work, not declaring your income on each occasion, save for the period previously referred to where you asked for the payments to stop.

14The matter was ultimately referred for investigation in January 2016 and a formal investigation commenced on 22 March of that year.  The investigation revealed the extent of your offending, involving eight further employers,  so, a total of ten and a far longer period of failure to correctly declare income than was initially apparent through the Australia Taxation Office data match on
4 March 2014.

15You were invited to take part in a record of interview, but did not respond to that request.  A request which was sent by letter in September 2016.  That is your right and I have made no adverse finding against you in that regard.

16Mr Leaman, your offending is serious and it calls for a sentence which is of a severity that is appropriate in all the circumstances.  You behaved in a most deliberative fashion on a repeated basis during a period of, or over a period of - or less than eight years, but nearly eight years, in order to take taxpayers money.  Money which you knew very well you were not entitled to.

17This was not a situation where you embarked on offending conduct and then buried your head in the sand.  You had to report any income from employment on a fortnightly basis.  On my reckoning you made false declarations in relation to income you were receiving on 148 occasions.

18Moreover, on 23 September 2013, you were charged with offences of the same nature in relation to false declarations of income, which you had committed between 23 February 2006 and 16 November 2006, as well as 3 April 2007 and 16 November 2007.  The amount which you had obtained in relation to that offending was $17,570.85.

19On 9 April 2014 you were sentenced in the Magistrates' Court in relation to these matters and received the benefit of a non-conviction recognisance release order in the amount of $1,000 and you undertook to be of good behaviour for two years.  Breathtakingly, on the very same day you declared nil income, notwithstanding that you were in receipt of wages $1,329.94 for the relevant fortnight.  You continued to make false declarations after this time, during the period that the recognisance release order was operating, with the last occasion of offending occurring on 19 May 2016.

20You were also before the Werribee Magistrates' Court on 12 November 2014 in respect of one charge each of obtain property by deception and obtaining a financial advantage by deception, as well as a charge of failing to answer bail.  Without conviction you were fined an aggregate of $750.  The circumstances of this offending could not be ascertained.  When I asked your counsel, Mr Habib, he said he did not have any instructions about this and the Crown was unable to enlighten me either.  However, these are also matters of dishonesty, for which you were dealt with while you continued to commit the frauds, which give rise to Charge 4.

21The prosecution set out in a chronology the various steps that were taken by the prosecution or by you once you were charged on 9 March 2017.  I understand that there had been difficulty with serving you with the charges at your home or work address, which you had previously provided to Centrelink, and this culminated in a warrant being executed on 25 August 2017.  You were then bailed on your own undertaking to appear at Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 20 December 2017 for a filing hearing.  You failed to appear on that day and a Bench warrant was issued.

22The warrant was executed on 5 March 2018 and you were again bailed on your own undertaking to appear on 6 June 2018 for a filing hearing.  On 6 June 2018 the matter was set down for a committal mention on 29 August 2018.  On
29 August 2018 the matter resolved by way of straight hand-up brief and you entered pleas of guilty in relation to all charges.

23On 19 September 2018 you were charged with breaching the good behaviour undertaking, which attached to your sentence in 2014 and to which I have previously referred.  I was told you failed to attend the first return date for that proceeding and a warrant was issued.

24On 16 November 2018 your plea hearing in relation to the matter before me was adjourned on application of your representatives in order for them to obtain documentation concerning your partner's medical condition and have you attend a psychological appointment with Ms Carla Lechner.  I was told that you were unable to attend the appointment due to work commitments and that another appointment could not be arranged before the plea hearing date before me on 9 April this year.

25Concerningly, you and your partner did not get around to signing any medical authorities until a week before the original plea hearing before me in April, but these matters have now been attended to in the intervening period.

26Your counsel submitted that there had been delay in this matter, which has caused you a degree of stress and anxiety with the matters hanging over your head.  I give some weight to this delay in this regard, but also factor in that you have contributed to it by the nature of your offending, which necessitated a good deal of investigation, and by your lack of cooperation in respect of having the matters dealt with in a more timely fashion.  I factored in your contribution to the delay as you were in a position to decrease your anxiety of matters hanging over your head by being available for service of documents and presenting yourself at court when required to do so.

27Nevertheless, I make some allowance for delay because of the matters hanging over your head from the time that you were interviewed by police.  I do not allow for any delay from the time that you became aware that there were discrepancies which had been picked up by the Australian Taxation Office as you continued to offend after this time and the matter was not referred to police till some time later.  In the circumstances, I will allow for the delay from the time you were invited to take part in an interview in late September 2016 until today.  Although, as I have said, I give some weight to this delay, not as much as I would otherwise give in circumstances where you have contributed to it.

28In view of the various periods of offending alleged, for which I now sentence you, I accept that the criminal history is only referrable to Charge 4 and that when you committed Charges 1 through to 3, you did not have a criminal history.  That is a matter that counts in your favour.  However, in view of the fact that you started committing frauds in 2006, I agree with Ms Dane that the offending before me could not be said to be out of character or aberrational.

29At the original plea hearing before me it was submitted that your partner, who has a number of medical conditions and some serious care needs, would suffer exceptional hardship if you were to be incarcerated as you are, effectively, her fulltime carer.

30Your partner, Ms Heinrich, gave evidence at the plea hearing in April saying that she had been in a relationship with you for about 11 years and that she had three adult children from her previous relationship.  Her children are all adults, with her eldest daughter living in Sydney and her youngest child living with her ex-husband, with whom she did not get along.  She said that the house where she resided was rented by her 25 year old son and that she paid him board.  She had been at the house for about two and a half years, but said that her son planned on moving to Thailand at the end of the year, or early next year, to live there permanently.

31She said that the rest of her family lived in New South Wales and that moving to New South Wales was not an option for her as she wore a colostomy bag and that the humidity in New South Wales would not be conducive to comfortable living in those circumstances.  Ms Heinrich said that she suffered from arthritis in both knees, as well as her ankle and hip.  She said she was diagnosed with diverticulitis when she was 32 years old and had lengthy and numerous hospital visits since the diagnosis.  She said that she had suffered two bowel perforations and a complete obstruction of her bowel, which led to a procedure where most of her colon had been removed and she needed to then use a colostomy bag.

32She said that the first perforation occurred in September 2017 and the second occurred about November 2017. These perforations were caused by the disease itself as it causes inflammation and then abscess formation in the bowel which gets progressively worse overtime causing the bowel to perforate.  Subsequently, she suffered a blockage of the sigmoid colon, which led to emergency treatment in hospital in about May 2018.  She said that she still had an open wound as a result of the surgery, as the surgical staples had not held together and that the wound then became infected and she had to be operated on again in September 2018.

33She said she was left with an open wound of twenty-one and a half centimetres by nine and a half centimetres and six centimetres deep.  She said that she needed daily wound dressing changes, which she had to do herself.  She said she had spent from May until Christmas day in hospital.  Although, part of the hospitalisation was in her home with nurses coming every day.  She said that from Christmas day onward she had been doing her own dressing changes, but that she needed help from you with this.

34Ms Heinrich said that she had outpatients appointments with her surgeons and weekly doctor visits, and also had treatment from a dietician and physiotherapist.  She said she needed a walking frame nowadays as during the operation she had sustained nerve damage, so she had no feeling in her right leg from just below her right knee to her hip.  She said she had practically no abdominal wall left, so she struggled to walk as well as to stand and sit.

35She said at present she had a staph infection inside the wound and that in another ten weeks she would have to have the wound swabbed on a weekly basis.  She said that she may need to have skin grafts because of the extensive tissue scaring, which kept breaking apart, but this could not be done until the infection had cleared.

36She saw the dietician and physiotherapist on a monthly basis and she would also attend outpatient programs depending on blood test results and swab results.  She had just seen her surgeon and was to see him or her again in about six weeks' time.

37She said that you take her to all of her appointments, that she was unable to take public transport as she could not walk to the bus stop.  So it was either transport by Uber, or similar, or by you.  She said that you also helped her with wound dressing changes, with showering and that you cooked her evening meal and did housework for her, including the laundry.

38She said that her colostomy bag needed changing between twice and four times a day, which was also something you helped her with.  Ms Heinrich said that her son fed the dogs, but did nightshift in Epping and did not drive.  Therefore, he did not assist her with her personal and appointment needs.  She said that she was very dependent on you as her carer and did not think that she would be here without your support.  By this she meant emotional support as she considered you to be her rock.

39Further, she said that she was extremely dependent on you in a physical and practical sense.  She said that if you are put in custody she did not think she could attend her appointments, that for the wound dressing alone it was costing her $170 a fortnight for the material required to dress her wound.  Plus she had to pay board and she could not use public transport.  She could not afford to take taxis or Ubers all the time.

40She said she was not on a disability pension or anything and therefore not entitled to obtain benefits or to obtain things such as half-priced taxis.  She said she was not aware as to whether she could apply for half-priced taxis and the only thing she had was a disability tag for the car.

41She said she had been assessed in relation to a disability support pension before her difficulties and complications arising from her diverticulitis occurred, but she had not reapplied since then.  This was mainly because she had been in hospital a good deal of the time.  She said she had spoken to Centrelink about four weeks before she gave evidence in order to see if she was entitled to help for the wound and was told that they would organise a new assessment, but nothing had happened as yet.  She said that she just had a medical exemption, which they kept giving her.

42She said that she was not allowed to lift anything heavier than a half kettle of water and could only walk about 100 metres at best.  Nor could she do any housework and was at great risk while the wound was still open and because of a hernia that she referred to.  She said you attended her residence every day, that you cooked her dinner, did the cleaning and generally left when she was ready to go to sleep after she had taken all her medications.

43When cross-examined by Ms Dane, Ms Heinrich said that when she received an appointment for a new assessment with Centrelink she would make an application for a disability pension.  She had applied for one before many years ago so she understood the material that was required.

44She said that you worked between 2 am and 3 am till about 12 or 1 pm in the afternoon and usually got to her place at about 2 pm.  She said that you left at around 8 pm, although sometimes you would fall asleep on the couch and go to work from her place.  She said that this depended on how good a day she was having as to how long you would stay.  She said that when she was in hospital you would stay most nights then go to work from her place.  She said that you did not sleep anywhere near enough and that you were always very tired.  She said that she had never lived with you in the same residence.

45Ms Heinrich said that if you were sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment there would be no one to assist her in changing her wound dressing, no one would be able to help her with her daily tasks and that hospital in the home was no longer available to her.  She said that nursing care would only be available if she could pay for one, but she was unable to afford this.  She said that it cost about $12 per visit for a nurse to attend and she could not afford to pay this seven days a week, which is what would be required in your absence.

46Subsequently, I received documentation from Dr Stinson as well as hospital records which verified the medical problems that Ms Heinrich spoke of in her evidence.  Dr Stinson said that you are a critical support for her ongoing recovery and listed the various tasks which he understood you attended to.  He said also that he did not believe that Ms Heinrich would qualify for a disability support pension, but was unaware of an application in this regard.

47I also indicated to defence on the last occasion that if they wished to press that Ms Heinrich was not entitled to any benefits or assistance other than those she referred to in her evidence I would require further evidence in relation to this aspect.  At the further plea hearing today I was told that Ms Heinrich had explored every avenue for entitlements and had been unsuccessful, but was awaiting an appointment through Centrelink to assess her work capacity.  I accept this is what her evidence would be if she was called to give that evidence.

48Dr Stinson had also proffered the view that as I said Ms Heinrich would not be entitled to a disability support pension.  Mr Habib surmised that this was because her condition was capable of improving in time.  However, I did not receive any documentation from agencies, such as the local council or from Centrelink or from any community health organisation or hospital confirming that Ms Heinrich would not be entitled to assistance.  In a case such as this there is a need for independent and clear documentation, in my view.

49I have taken into account a letter from Ms Heinrich's son, Adrian, who said that he worked six to seven nights per week and did not drive.  He also confirmed that you tended to his mother's daily needs and said that he did not know what Ms Heinrich would do without you.  He said he planned on moving to be with his fiancée of three years and that he nearly lost his job last year after taking time off work to help look after Ms Heinrich when you were unable to.  I make the observation that Ms Heinrich's son admits a capacity to take care of his mother, albeit that it put a strain on him in the past.

50In the end, while I accept that Ms Heinrich has some serious medical issues, which you have helped her attend to and I accept that there will be hardship visited upon her in your absence, I am afraid that I am not satisfied that there will be exceptional hardship.  The fact of the matter is that she does have other people, such as her son, and other family in New South Wales who could perform this role and I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that she would be unable to obtain supports in the community, even if these other people were not available to attend to her needs.

51I accept that because of your concerns for Ms Heinrich any period served in gaol would be more difficult for you than otherwise, because of your concern for her and her physical and emotional needs.

52I have also factored in that although your offending occurred over a period short of eight years, it did not occur continuously throughout that time but rather allowing for various gaps it amounted to about six years of offending.

53I take into account your background.  You are 46 years old and living with your mother who works in administration at a telecommunications company.  Sadly, your father passed away about 23 years ago, less than six months after his diagnosis of suffering from bowel cancer.  This had a significant impact on you as you had been very close, having both been involved in the Boy Scouts movement.  You were raised in a supporting and loving environment, with your family remaining devoted to each other until your father passed away.  You have a younger brother with whom you have regular contact.

54You completed your education up to Year 10, but left school at this stage due to being bullied significantly.  You started with the Boy Scouts in Werribee at the age of seven, as a cub, and you were promoted throughout the ranks, leaving the Scouts when you were 23 due to work commitments.

55Since you were 23 years old until 2018 you have been involved in the Good Friday Appeal, helping in the counting of donations on a voluntary basis.  You became involved in the Blue Light Disco seven years ago, assisting with a disco held at Point Cook for primary children every month.  You have also helped take underprivileged children on a weekend camp each year, where the children were taught to focus on personal development.  You have been a member of the Carlton Football Club cheer squad for 15 years.

56You have a lengthy employment history, commencing work when you were 16 at a carwash and at a takeaway food chain.  You became a warehouse worker from the age of 21, then you were promoted to warehouse supervisor.  The warehouse closed when you were 30 and you then worked intermittently through work agencies.  You currently work as a delivery driver six days a week for a seafood company.

57You have two children aged 14 and 23. You see your son on a monthly basis.  Before your current relationship you were in a relationship for eight years with the mother of your daughter, who is the 14 year old child.  Before this you were in a relationship for ten years, but separated when you were told that your then partner was pregnant to another man.  I understand that you have not seen your daughter for a number of years.  I was told that you pay child support of about $185 a week.  I have received documentation which supports this.

58I was also told by your counsel that you suffer from coeliac disease, a heart condition and that you take blood thinning medication and pain killing medication.  A list of your medications was tendered at the plea hearing attesting to this.

59I have taken into account that any sentence of immediate imprisonment for you would be more difficult because of your own ailments, because of your concern for Ms Heinrich and her ability to cope without you, both physically and emotionally and because this would be your first time in gaol.  You may well be quite isolated, as Ms Heinrich's mobility problems might well make it hard for her to visit you.  You might well be deprived of the company of your son on a monthly basis also, but this remains to be seen so I do not speculate about whether he will visit you.

60I allow for a significant discount in the sentence that you would otherwise receive because of your pleas of guilty and the stage at which these were entered, being at the committal mention stage in August 2018.  In taking this course you have saved the witnesses the time and trouble of giving evidence and you  have saved the community the time and expense of contested proceedings.

61I am unable to find that you have a good deal of remorse and in relation to you behaviour and how it impacts, save that you do feel sorry for the position you are now in and how it may impact upon you and your partner, in particular.  The fact that you continued to offend after being dealt with in the
Magistrates' Court lends weight to this view.

62Strong weight must attach to general deterrence in cases such as these in order to deter others from behaving as you have.  As the learned prosecutor said today, offending of the kind in which you engaged is to be discouraged strongly.  It is a great tax on the public purse, tax payers money, and also it makes it harder for people who are genuinely entitled to benefits to jump all the hurdles that come with making such applications, because of offending such as yours.

63In sentencing you I have factored in that your offending was of the same nature on each occasion and that there would have been scope for a single charge to be presented against you, albeit that the total sum taken by you of course would be reflected in the sentence in respect of one charge only.  However, in sentencing you I have factored in the principles of parsimony and totality in all of the circumstances of your case.

64In view of the repeated and deliberative nature of your offending, but also factoring in your limited criminal history, albeit relevant, as well as the matters in favour of your character, including the character references and other material; your good works for charity in particular, I rate your prospects of rehabilitation as being guardedly fairly good.  I place slightly less than moderate weight on specific deterrence.

65The matters which count in your favour are your fairly strong work history, your devotion to charitable works, and as I have said you had a fairly limited criminal history.  Although, it is relevant and of concern that you continued to offend following your court appearance in April 2014.  In referring to your criminal history I make it clear that it is only a criminal history in relation to Charge 4.

66I have considered the sentencing practice table and cases provided by the prosecution, and I have also factored in the submissions that have been made by your counsel and the prosecution in your case.  In relation to sentencing practices, of course, other sentences are but one matter or current sentencing practice is but one matter to take into account and is not a controlling factor when imposing sentence.

67Your counsel submitted that although he had been instructed to seek a sanction which did not involve immediate imprisonment he accepted that this may well be the outcome in your case, depending on my finding in relation to exceptional hardship, or that was his submission at the original plea hearing.

68He submitted that there were other sentencing options that might well be open to me, which did not involve an immediate gaol term.  Today he submitted that even if I were not to find exceptional hardship a recognisance release order which involved a period of imprisonment with a period hanging over your head was open to me.  The prosecution submitted that an immediate term of imprisonment was warranted, but that his could be accommodated within the framework and limitations of a recognisance release order.

69In my view, in all of the circumstances of your case, it is appropriate for you to serve a term of imprisonment in respect of your offending, but I will effectively suspend part of that period so that upon your release you will be mindful of the fact that if you commit further offences you run the very real risk of returning to gaol.

70Would you please stand up.

71You are convicted of each of the offences.  I make the reparation order, which is sought by the prosecution in the sum of $73,728.35.  The order is agreed to by you, albeit, I understand you have limited capacity to make any reparation.

72In relation to the four charges I intend to sentence you to an aggregate term of imprisonment of three years, which is to commence today.  I order that you be released after serving nine months' imprisonment, upon you giving security by recognisance in the sum of $5,000 to comply with the condition that you be of good behaviour for a period of three years.

73I have imposed this order because of the seriousness of the offending and the weight that I have attached to relevant sentencing principles.  While I am satisfied that a term of imprisonment is warranted I am of the view that in all the circumstances of your case it is appropriate that you serve nine months of the total effective term immediately, with the balance of two years and three months hanging over your head for the operational period of the order, that being three years.

74If you breach the recognisance release order without reasonable excuse by committing further offences within the operational period of three years then you will have to pay $5,000 and you will face the very real prospect of serving a further two years and three months' imprisonment.  This order may be varied or discharged by you or an interested party upon application to the court.

75If not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years’ imprisonment.

76Take a seat, please.

77Is there anything further that is arising?

78MS DANE:  No, Your Honour.  I note that we've provided via email a copy of the written reparation order to your associate.

79HER HONOUR:  Yes, I'll sign that document.  The recognisance release order is being printed out.

80MS DANE:  Yes.

81HER HONOUR:  And so if I could ask you, Mr Habib, to assist your client with the signing of that, please.

82MR HABIB:  As the court please.

83MS DANE:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Your Honour, I just was hoping to have a quick look before it's signed up and copied and ‑ ‑ ‑

84HER HONOUR:  All right.

85MS DANE:  ‑ ‑ ‑ sealed, if that's okay?

86HER HONOUR:  Yes.

87MS DANE:  Just to save having to come back if there are any issues.  That's fine, Your Honour.  Thank you for the opportunity.

88HER HONOUR:  Yes, is there anything further?

89MR HABIB:  No, Your Honour.

90HER HONOUR:  Custody management issues?

91MR HABIB:  Yes, Your Honour.  Mr Leaman, perhaps the best way to deal with this, Your Honour, would be to request that upon being taken into custody
Mr Leaman is assessed by a nurse in relation to his physical ailments.  He does have a copy with him of the medication he is currently prescribed in relation to his coeliac disease and his blood clotting issues.

92HER HONOUR:  Yes.

93MR HABIB:  As well as first time in custody.

94HER HONOUR:  Yes, they will be communicated.

95MR HABIB:  As the court please.

96HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  Yes, if you could remove
Mr Leaman, thank you.  Yes.

‑ ‑ ‑