Director of Public Prosecutions v Manikas

[2015] VCC 1630

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 13-02116

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ARISTOTELLIS MANIKAS

---

JUDGE:	JUDGE COHEN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15-17 September 2015, 21-22 September 2015, 24-25 September 2015 (trial) 6 November 2015 (for plea), 11 November 2015 (for further plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 November 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Manikas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VCC 1630

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  Sentencing; Recklessly Causing Serious Injury

Catchwords:  Jury verdict; qualified remorse; self-focussed regret; aged 52 with no criminal history; prior good character; single punch causing skull fracture; spontaneous act from anger and frustration; low risk of re-offending

Legislation Cited:     Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA

Cases Cited:R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo [2007] VSCA 102Boulton v The Queen; Clements v The Queen; Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342

Sentence:CCO with conviction of 18 months duration, 200 hours unpaid community work; assessment and treatment for mental health issues.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr D. Hannan	OPP
For the Accused	Mr A. Dickenson	Starnet Legal

HER HONOUR: 

1Aristotellis "Terry" Manikas, you have been found guilty by a jury of recklessly causing serious injury to Peter Guthrie. 

2The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years' imprisonment.  You will not be receiving a sentence anywhere near that severe, but that maximum is relevant as an indication by parliament on behalf of the community of the relative seriousness with which offences of this nature are to be regarded.

3This offence occurred on 9 November 2012.  The factual background and circumstances were explored at length during the trial, and I shall only repeat enough detail here to reflect the overall circumstances.

4

In essence, during 2012, you had been conducting the renovation of your mother's house in Clifton Hill, and in July had retained Mr Peter Guthrie to do the plastering work.  The cost and estimate of time for this work had been extended more than once, causing you considerable frustration.  On

9 November 2012, Mr Guthrie was to attend to complete the plastering work, including rectifying what you told him was an uneven area on one wall. You were not present when he arrived that day, and he started working on an area he believed was what you wanted fixed. 

5When you returned to the premises, you found he had cut a hole in an area different from what you had intended he fix, and your frustration was vented with angry words, and exchange of insults occurred between the two of you. He took offence at what you were saying, and said that he would leave altogether, as he felt that he did not need to be treated this way.  You thought this was a tactic to get you to pay him more, which made you angrier.  The altercation became loud and angry enough to prompt Mr Romas, who was working outside, to enter the house and step between the two of you to keep you separated and urge you to walk away.

6Mr Guthrie collected his tools and ladder from the kitchen area, and took them out to his vehicle in the street.  He re-entered the house with further antagonistic comments, and there was then an altercation in the hallway outside what was to be the second bedroom.  Mr Guthrie kicked at a ladder in the doorway, causing it to fall, and you believed that was deliberate and had caused damage to freshly completed work on the wall or doorway. 

7You followed him into that room, where he had gone to collect further tools, which were on a sheet of cardboard on the floor. The two of you faced off with some more tense comments.  Mr Guthrie then bent down to pick up the rest of his tools.  From the jury's verdict, it follows that the jurors rejected your version of Mr Guthrie taking a swing at you as he was rising from that position.  He said that with tools in buckets in each hand, he turned to his left and started to walk around you, when he felt impact to the right side of his head.

8You concede that you punched him with your right fist, although you described a glancing blow to the chin or mouth area.  In light of the way the prosecution case was put, the jury must have been satisfied that it was a direct blow from your fist to the side of Mr Guthrie's skull which caused the depressed comminuted facture which he suffered in this incident.

9Following the blow to his skull, Mr Guthrie fell against the wall about two metres away, with his left arm and side against the wall, and as he sank or slumped down the wall, he felt his left arm burning.  He claims to have felt paralysed, but was able to put his arms in front of him to break the fall, and he ended up on his knees and hands.  He could not immediately speak, and felt shortness of breath, but was assisted by Mr Romas who had come into the room after the incident. He was helped to sit propped up against the wall with his back to the wall, given water, although it is unclear who brought him that, and then assisted to stand up and to walk into the kitchen, where he lay on a bench.

10

You told police that you had brought him water.  All other evidence suggests that you stayed clear of him, and were ruminating that he was pretending to be hurt.  He vomited and was sleepy.  Mr Romas called his employer,

Mr Andrew Crosato, who was working nearby and attended within five minutes.  Mr Romas and Mr Crosato both thought that Mr Guthrie did not look right, so Mr Romas drove Mr Guthrie to the Austin Hospital.  With hindsight, it seems that was a very timely decision.

11Whilst being medically assessed in the emergency department, Mr Guthrie suffered seizures and lost consciousness, and was taken for a scan which revealed a depressed comminuted fracture of his skull.  Urgent surgery was performed that day, involving relieving bleeding on the brain, removal of pieces of bone, and insertion of an artificial plate in place of the fractured area of the skull.

12Police had been called to the hospital.  They contacted you for access to the house where this incident occurred, and you cooperated and met them there.  You were arrested that night and taken to a police station, where you were interviewed.

13During the trial I saw and read your recorded interview with police.  I take into account that it occurred in the very early hours of the morning after this incident, and I accept that you were not only tired, but quite shaken by the turn of events, in that you had not been in trouble with the law previously and found yourself in the early hours of the morning questioned about an incident which you found hard to believe had caused such a serious injury to Mr Guthrie.  At that stage, his condition after surgery was not yet known.

14During the interview, you admitted parts of what had occurred and gave a version of events.  However, some of the key parts of that version, the jury must have rejected. Mr Guthrie made a remarkably good physical recovery from his injury, and only four days later insisted on being discharged from hospital.  He made a detailed statement to police that or the next day.

15The jury's verdict means that, while not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to cause Mr Guthrie a serious injury, the jury was satisfied that you were aware that punching him in that manner was likely to cause serious injury at the time you delivered the punch.  The jury must have rejected that you acted in self-defence.  It follows that the jury also rejected your version to police that the only contact your punch made with Mr Guthrie was a slight glance to his chin or mouth area.

16The injury caused to Mr Guthrie was clearly a serious injury, and that was appropriately conceded on your behalf, although you disputed that you caused it. 

17I have read and heard part of his victim impact statement, and also one from his mother.  While both go into some detail about their feelings, which are understandable and include those feelings attributable to the delays of the court system and trial process, I have taken most account of the consequences of the injury itself.

18I accept that Mr Guthrie suffered very considerable physical, emotional, and financial consequences from this injury.  The fact that he insisted on being discharged from hospital four days later does not reflect that the physical consequences were not serious, nor that they were only short term.  The scar and distortion of his face and head after he woke up from the surgery, as shown in photographs, were clearly very confronting to him and to his mother, and I infer that he must still have a considerable scar. The nature of the head injury led to him being monitored for a protracted period for seizures, and doctors would not clear him to drive for many, many months.  He was unfit to return to work for more than a year, and even now is restricted from the full range of duties in which he used to be able to engage.  He required medication for the seizures which had unpleasant side-effects, and apparently led to the need for further ameliorative medication.

19The financial consequences of being unable to work for an extended period are obvious, although I make no specific findings as to their amount.  I accept that his need for financial assistance and, indirectly, housing, put financial and personal strain on him, his mother, and his sister. 

20He says that at times he cannot find the words he wants.  He and his mother describe there having a big change in his personality. Although there is no medical or expert analysis of this, I accept in general terms that he is less outgoing and carefree in his general approach to people and life, and less inclined to mix amongst people because of embarrassment about residual signs that he feels are obvious of his injury.  I am satisfied that there have been considerable emotional consequences for him, including adjusting to how close he came to severe long-term physical impairment, if not death.

21Your counsel pointed to there not being evidence of long-term physical impairment such as paralysis or impairment of sight or other senses, which would have been an aggravating factor.  I agree that there is no such evidence.  However, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that not all physical consequences have fully resolved, and that the emotional and financial consequences are still considerable. It is to be hoped, given the remarkably good physical recovery that Mr Guthrie displayed when giving his evidence, and that with this trial behind him, he may be able to put his memories of those events if not fully behind him, at least into context and to concentrate on rebuilding his life. Despite the disappointments he expresses in his victim impact statement, it is nevertheless open to him at his age, and given the extent of recovery he has achieved, that his future can be positive and fulfilling for him.

22

The fact that he could walk into the courtroom as he did at the trial, almost three years later, and speak with the extent of memory he disclosed, reflects very favourably indeed, in my view, on the medical treatment he received and, as it happened, the timeliness of that.  That should be a great relief to you,

Mr Manikas.

23You pleaded not guilty to this charge, as was your right.  You do not receive a more severe sentence for doing that.  I take into account that the jury convicted you of this charge which was an alternative charge to the even more serious charge of intentionally causing serious injury, on which the jury found you not guilty.

24

However, by not pleading guilty even to this charge, you do not receive the leniency to which you would have been entitled, had you accepted responsibility for this offence and not only saved the community the time and cost of the trial, but also the need for witnesses, including in particular

Mr Guthrie, to come to court to relive the events, and indeed for him to be accused of lying about what occurred. You did admit that the injury Mr Guthrie suffered constituted a serious injury, but otherwise disputed how the events occurred, including that you had hit him on the head, and that that had caused the fracture to his skull.

25As I say, that was your right, but that together with the evidence of your reaction afterwards and explanation to police that you thought he could have been faking an injury in the period he was still at your house after it occurred, does not reflect any immediate or fulsome remorse on your part.  A plea of guilty, in contrast, could be taken to have confirmed at least some remorse.

26In assessing your moral culpability for this offence, I find that it was a blow struck in anger and frustration.  I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he had said some very offensive things to you about your ethnic background, and also words which you have described as a “death threat”, although I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you did not regard them as a serious threat at the time, and were not frightened of him at the time.

27I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you said insulting things to him, including to the effect that he was weak, and that was why he was leaving.  I find that you saw the situation as one of this younger man about to walk out on what was to have been the day he finished the already long delayed plastering work, and that you regarded that delay as his fault.  I accept that your anger also flowed from offensive insults to you that I have just mentioned, and then the kicking over of the ladder.

28I take into account that you struck a single blow; that there was no weapon or dangerous object involved; no inflaming of the situation due to alcohol or drugs or any other such substance. 

29By implication, you did strike a very forceful punch. The jury did not find that you intended to cause serious injury, but you were reckless as to that probability.  You were physically bigger and stronger than him, and as a previous security guard, you would have had training and have known the risk of such a blow. 

30In all of these circumstances, I regard this instance as at the low, but by no means lowest, end of the scale of seriousness for possible instances of recklessly causing serious injury.

31The issue of remorse is, in my view, of some importance in this case.  Your counsel relies on several parts of your record of interview where you say you are sorry, or you wish that you could take it all back, as evidence that you were showing remorse and empathy. I accept that you did not intend to cause serious injury, and would not wish such an injury as Mr Guthrie suffered on anyone.  Nevertheless, most of your references to being sorry about what happened to Mr Guthrie in your record of interview were qualified.  For example, in answer to Question 292 you said, "I'm genuinely sorry for Pete being hurt, but I don't think he help himself." You seem to have continued to tell people, including psychologists, and one even quite recently, that you were provoked, and also that you do not believe that you did cause the injury, or still suspect that you did not.

32I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you have shown much genuine empathy for Mr Guthrie in his injury or its consequences to him, especially when contrasted with your concentration and self-absorption with your own difficulties and the stressors on your own psychological wellbeing. I regard your expressions of being sorry as not without meaning, and not without some regret for what occurred to Mr Guthrie, but being of much more regret for the consequences of this incident to you personally, and to your family.

33I turn now to your personal circumstances. 

34You are now aged 52.  You grew up in Melbourne, your parents having come from Greece, and both having worked to raise you and your brother in a stable and happy environment.  None of your family has been in any trouble with the law, and until this incident, neither had you.

35You acknowledge that you had what you called a "great upbringing".  I am told that you did reasonably well at school, but left halfway through year twelve, wanting to start earning money, and apparently to pursue an interest in cars.  You had been working with an uncle in a coffee lounge on weekends, and then from age 17, you worked full time, the first fulltime job being in a leather goods warehouse, where you stayed some years.

36This was the start of a history which initially included sustained periods of employment, including three years with V/Line, and then truck driving as a subcontractor.  You had a period of health problems when you could not work, but then obtained a security license and were able to work in that field, mainly in guardhouse conditions which did not put too much physical strain on you outside your physical capabilities.  I am told that you eventually built your own security business, which at its peak employed about 50 security guards and more general employees, and you had a contract with City Link.

37However, in 1999, you suffered significant injuries in a motorcycle crash.  You suffered multiple fractures, and were treated in the spinal unit of the Austin Hospital for ten days, following which there was ongoing treatment, including pain management.  You also suffered psychological consequences, and describe yourself as having “a mental breakdown” the following year.  You undertook psychiatric treatment, and it seems that that continued until the mid-1990s at least.

38You had married Ivana, whom you met while employed at V/Line, but about three years after your motorcycle accident, your marriage ended.  That added to your depression at the time, although I am told that over time you and she have got back onto good terms.  Your daughter, at that stage was in her early teens, at first lived with her mother, but came to live with you a year or so later.  Your mother had had a stroke in 2000, and also suffered from diabetes and, as the years went on, other ailments.  From about 2004, you were taking care of both your daughter and your mother.  You became your mother's carer, and received the carer benefit for that.

39Your daughter, who is now adult and about to have her first child - your first grandchild - was in court throughout your trial to support you, and again during the plea hearing, and her mother also attended the plea hearing.  Your own mother, whose carer you had remained, passed away unfortunately just prior to the trial.

40I am told that during 2013 and 2014, you finished a building and construction diploma, which you had started but not finished in 2007.  You have now apparently obtained an HIA Certificate III in Building and Construction, and I am told that you are hoping to start working again once this trial is over, as your role as your mother's carer has now ceased.  You hope to find work in the building and construction field that suits your physical limitations.

41You come before this court with no prior criminal record, and there is nothing further pending.  At your age, you are entitled to considerable credit for this.  There was also considerable evidence led during the plea hearing of your good character.  I heard evidence from five men, who each speak of that.

42Mr John di Cecco, a minister of religion, said he met you about 25 years ago, when he was pastor at the Inner Life Church where you were involved. He describes you as, "holistically a good bloke", liking sports and cars and men's activities, and being generous and giving in your time, and open in hospitality.  He described you as active in a men's group called Joshua's Group, which raised funds for overseas mission work in Vanuatu.  He said he has never seen you as violent or having a short temper.

43Mr Robert Hermez, also a minister of religion, has known you 30 years through your church, but also your families have socialised, and you and he share musical interests.  He describes you as a leader, and having in the earlier years worked with helping younger people, teaching them good values.  He speaks of you having a reputation as generous, and not as angry or losing your temper.  He describes you as very devoted to your mother.  He said that you are obviously very sorry about hurting Mr Guthrie, that you were shocked at Mr Guthrie's injuries, but did not believe you had caused them.

44His brother has also known you 25 years, met and became friends with you at church, and confirmed that you have a good reputation in the church community.  He also had worked for you in your security business, confirming that you were managing director with 30 to 40 employees and friendly with people but still the boss.  He said you did not have a reputation for violence in the context of your work either.  He was taken aback at the offence that brings you here, and knows that you wish the incident had never happened.

45Mr Thomas Katahiotis has known you 48 years since his grandmother started minding you at his place, and growing up with you through school and playing soccer.  He had never seen you violent, and believed that you have an ethos of helping people, as you had for his family when his father had been ill.  You had told him also that you regretted the incident that brings you here.

46Finally, Mr John Papuano, who has known you 40 years as you grew up in the same area, and your parents were friends, regards you as a fantastic friend. He says he has never seen you violent or with short temper, and was stunned about the charge, thinking it totally out of character for you.

47I accept from all of this evidence that you do not have a reputation for violence or shortness of temper, and that you have considerable history of being generous with your time in helping other people, particularly through groups or activities of which you have been part and your long involvement in your church.  I am satisfied that you have been a person of good character, and that this incident should be seen as an isolated lapse, albeit with very serious consequences.  Your background also supports that your prospects of rehabilitation are very good.

48I accept that this incident itself, as well as the legal process culminating in the trial will have been very confronting for you, and also salutary, and I find that you are at low risk of reoffending.  It follows that the sentencing factor of specific deterrence does not, in my view, play any significant role in the sentence I am to impose.

49There has been put before me material to show that you have quite a history of mental health problems, and it is submitted that these call for mitigation in your sentence, pursuant to some of the principles known to lawyers as those in Verdin's case.

50As I have already outlined, you were apparently under treatment from a psychiatrist, Dr Holwill, in the years after your motorcycle accident, taking into account your ongoing pain and perception of it, and the impacts that the injuries and their consequences had had to your life. Records and reports from that time, as recounted in a report I have read from Ms Fiona Batchelor, reflect that you were suffering significant depression, and were also diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the motorcycle accident.

51Ms Fiona Batchelor, a psychologist whose report was tendered, but who had actually examined you late last year, had examined medical material from your previous treatment periods, and also examined you, and gave her opinion of your psychological condition in early December 2014. She took into account that superimposed on the background circumstances that had led to previous treatment for depression, and what she considered was post-traumatic stress disorder from the motorcycle accident, there were further stressors on you of the burden of caring for your mother, whose various medical problems and physical frailties were being borne by you as her carer, together with the stress of what were then the pending charges in relation to the injuring of Mr Guthrie.  She believed you were suffering from both anxiety and heightened depression.

52The report was commissioned after you had presented yourself in company with your daughter to the emergency care centre of St Vincent's Hospital late last year, reporting increased thoughts on suicidal themes, and that was said to be in the context of longstanding depressive and post-traumatic stress disorder presentation, and with the more recent situational stress source of facing trial.

53I was also provided with a report from psychologist Mr Edwin Kleynhans who assessed you recently.  He described you as presenting in a very chaotic and stressed state because of the jury verdict in your case.  Even at that stage you told Mr Kleynhans that you suspected that Mr Guthrie must have fallen over or hit his head on an object, but I have already mentioned this aspect of your lack of acknowledgement, or fulsome acknowledgement, of your fault in causing this injury.

54Mr Kleynhans in his report outlines in some detail that I will not repeat, aspects of what you self-reported through acknowledged assessment tools for assessing psychological conditions based on self-report.  I have already mentioned some of these and will not repeat them. His assessment of you was that you presented with a somewhat lowered self-esteem and feelings of helplessness because of the assault charges.  You presented with some self-confidence issues in facing the current legal challenges.  In terms of insight, he thought you were aware of the problem in relation to the assault charge, but believed that you were provoked by
Mr Guthrie.

55He felt you were vulnerable to stress, and that you react with anxiety, frustration, and depressed mood.  He felt approval is very important to you, and in particular you want your daughter's approval, especially at this time when she is about to give birth to your first grandchild.  You are concerned the impact that your incarceration might have at such a time. He did not find that you presented with suicidal ideas.  He did, however, consider that if you were sent to prison, you could attempt to harm yourself.  You showed some slight problems with concentration of your attention span while you completed the tests, which problems he believed related to anxiety, although he did not diagnose the anxiety disorder that I note was diagnosed in a contemporaneous report from Dr Stephen Chau.

56Mr Kleynhans' diagnosis was that you meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder as a single episode, and that you also meet the diagnostic criteria of somatic symptom disorder, predominately about pain, as an overhang from your motorcycle accident.  He noted you had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder by Ms Batchelor and Dr Rose at an earlier stage, and was of the opinion that your post-traumatic stress disorder played a role and affected your behaviour and cognitive functions on the day of the altercation with Mr Guthrie.  This latter part is not pursued by your counsel as reducing your moral culpability, given the findings that must be made by the jury through the trial.

57Mr Kleynhans thought you in need of some counselling to address your trauma issues, and understood that your family doctor had recently referred you to a psychiatrist, Dr Stephen Chau, for medication for depression.

58It was submitted on your behalf that as a result of this material, you should be found to have a major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.  Although a generalised anxiety disorder had been found by Dr Chau, it is not relied upon in this regard.  It is submitted that both general and specific deterrence should be moderated in your case to take these into account, and further that I should take into account Mr Kleynhans' opinion that if imprisoned, he is anticipating you becoming vulnerable in terms of suicidal ideas and possible self-harm.  He also thought that imprisonment would set back your plans to seek out further treatment to recover from your traumatic past.

59I accept that you have a history since the early 1990s of depressive disorder; that there have been times with symptoms of anxiety; and that you went through periods of suicidal ideas, although not recently.  You underwent psychiatric treatment over the following years.  I accept that stressors of life including your mother's ill health and the burden you had as her carer, would have impacted on your underlying conditions.

60I have little doubt that the anticipation of a trial on the charges you faced for harming Mr Guthrie caused you considerable stress.  Last year the court adjourned the trial for that reason.  I accept that since being found guilty by the jury, you have been anxious about the possible consequences to you, specifically this sentence and whether you would be imprisoned.  Those are not unusual reactions, but I take into account that in your case they are superimposed on some underlying, previous psychological disorders.

61I have allowed some moderation in your sentence, to take into account that if incarcerated, your psychological condition could worsen.  That is based on the opinion of Mr Kleynhans - specifically, that you could revert to suicidal ideation and self-harm.

62I have also allowed some moderation in the need for general deterrence.  General deterrence is to send a message to the community that offences of this nature can be expected to receive serious punishment.  In my view, there are other factors in the circumstances which of themselves moderate the need for general deterrence here, as there was no public display of violence, and no factors such as alcohol or drugs or generally dangerous behaviour inflaming the situation and calling for a warning to others not to get to the point of engaging in such potentially dangerous behaviour.

63Specific deterrence, as I have said, in my view is not of major consideration in this case, as I am satisfied that your otherwise good character and general lifestyle, and the very salutary experience you have found it to be to be charged and face trial for this offence, are such that the chances of you repeating such behaviour are low. 

64There remains in my view, however, a need for just punishment to be conveyed through the sentence, taking into account all of the considerations already discussed.

65It was submitted by your counsel that a fine without a conviction would be sufficient punishment in this case.  I am not convinced that a fine would sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the incident itself, and particularly the seriousness of the extent of the injury that was caused.

66Further, although your counsel submitted that I should not record a conviction, I am satisfied that a penalty with conviction is necessary, because of the circumstances of the offending. Not only do these include the seriousness of the injury that was caused, but you have been reluctant to accept responsibility, and your remorse towards Mr Guthrie has been qualified with much more regret for consequences to yourself, and still not acknowledging that you did cause the injury even as recently as when you saw Mr Kleynhans.

67The prosecution submits that some imprisonment is required to adequately reflect sentencing considerations.  Taking into account the circumstances that I have already outlined -  being of a man of previously good character and reputation, without a history of violence or loss of temper, delivering one spontaneous punch after some provocation, and applying the principles in Boulton's case - I have decided that a Community Corrections Order can sufficiently address all sentencing requirements, and that that is the appropriate sentence to impose.  As I have already said, I do not think something less than that, such as a fine, would adequately convey sentencing requirements.

68In particular, there will be unpaid community work imposed as a penalty, with a condition that promotes your being able to further address your longstanding mental health issues.  I am not imposing other conditions than those. 

69Would you stand up now, please, Mr Manikas.

70Aristotellis Manikas, on the charge of recklessly causing serious injury to
Mr Guthrie, you are convicted and placed on a Community Corrections Order to last for 18 months.  It will have two conditions.  The first condition is that you perform 200 hours of unpaid community work.  The second condition is that you attend for assessment and treatment and directed, but for mental health conditions.

71In addition, all usual terms of a community corrections order apply.  I am sure they have been explained to you when you were assessed, but I repeat them briefly here.  Within two clear working days of today, you are to report at the nearest Community Corrections Centre, which I believe is Collingwood, and the address will be provided to you. Throughout the currency of the Community Corrections Order, you are to notify Community Corrections officers of any change of address in where you are living or where you are working, and to do that within two clear working days of any such change.  You are to obey all lawful instructions and directions of Community Corrections officers, and submit to visits from them if they impose that.  You are not to leave the state of Victoria without prior permission of Community Corrections officers.  And most importantly, you are not to commit any other offences during the Order.

72I must inform you that if you contravene that Order by not complying with what you are required to do, or certainly if you commit any further offence, you can expect to be brought back before me for a contravention of the Order.  A contravention in itself is an offence, but depending on the circumstances of what has occurred, and on your personal circumstances at the time, the options open include for the order to be simply confirmed, but the Order may be varied, either to increase its duration or the conditions, or it may be cancelled, and you may fall to be resentenced for what the court considers appropriate on the original offence.

73Do you understand the conditions and the terms of the Order?

74OFFENDER:  Yes, I do.

75HER HONOUR:  Do you agree to comply?

76OFFENDER:  Yes, I do.

77HER HONOUR:  All right.  You can take a seat while the order is prepared.  I should also say, you have heard the conditions I have imposed.  I have made the order to last 18 months, but it is without supervision. I have taken into account that you have some physical limitations, and it might take you longer, or you might not be able to complete full days of unpaid community work and have to therefore take longer to do them.  But once that is complete, the only remaining condition is the attendance for assessment or treatment for mental health issues, and it is up to Community Corrections officers if they require ongoing attendances beyond your completion of the unpaid community work.

78I will have that draft order shown to both counsel to check.

79MR HANNAN:  That appears to be appropriate, Your Honour.

80HER HONOUR:  All right, thank you.  I will have my associate take that to
Mr Manikas.  Mr Manikas, your counsel has checked it, but I invite you to also read it through and check that you understand it.  I will sign that also, and copies will then be made so that you can have a copy to take away.  You can leave the dock now, Mr Manikas.

81MR HANNAN:  Sorry, there's the application under s.464ZF(2), Your Honour.  That is the forensic sample application.

82HER HONOUR:  Yes, I am sorry, I have forgotten to mention that.  In that it is a matter that I do find an isolated incident, and there was no doubt that it was Mr Manikas who was present and took part, I do not see anything reflected in the record of interview in which he denied involvement as such, and I am thinking, as it is still a discretion because it was not taken on the night, it would not have been a discretion if it had been taken, as I understand it.  Those are now automatically retained.  But in the circumstances, I will not be making that order.

83MR DICKENSON:  As Your Honour pleases.

84HER HONOUR:  You can leave the dock, Mr Manikas.  Wait around for a copy of this Order, and as I have said, you have got to report within - the law is two clear working days; the computer system will say that means by 4 pm this Wednesday.  I know there is scope to argue that that is not two clear working days, but the best thing is to attend and not take on the system.

85(Community-based order signed and acknowledged.)

86I have signed that order, and there should be copies then of the CCO for both sides.  I apologise again for keeping everyone waiting this afternoon.  Can we adjourn the court to tomorrow morning, please.