Director of Public Prosecutions v Matthews
[2022] VCC 1588
•26 September 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT GEELONG
criminal DIVISION
CR-22-01124
Indictment No. N10503115
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BRADLEY MATTHEWS |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 September 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 September 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Matthews | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1588 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Armed robbery, reckless exposure of emergency worker to risk, conduct endangering serious injury. Summary matters: drive whilst disqualified, carry controlled weapon, resist police, commit indictable offence on bail. 35 years of age as at sentence, long criminal history - Early plea - Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 – Remorse - Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 - COVID-19.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms S. Thomas | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr D. McGlone | Valos Black & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Bradley Matthews, you pleaded guilty earlier today to charges of armed robbery, reckless exposure of an emergency worker to risk and conduct endangering serious injury. In addition, you have pleaded guilty to some summary matters, being drive whilst disqualified, carriage of a controlled weapon, resist police and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.
2 You are now 35 years of age and you have quite a lengthy criminal history.
3 The summary of prosecution opening correctly sets out the maximum penalties. I do not intend to repeat them.
Facts
4 The prosecutor Ms Thomas opened the case to me this morning in accordance with that summary which was dated 30 August 2022 and which was marked as Exhibit A on the plea.
5 Your counsel Mr McGlone told me that it was an agreed summary. In those circumstances, I see no need to set out the full sentencing facts in these, my reasons. That agreed document sets out the facts and I will sentence pursuant to it.
6 Very briefly then, on the morning of 11 March of this year you and a female
co-accused named Holly Kruger turned up unannounced at a house at Spruhan Lane in Norlane. Nicholas O'Brien was working on a car in the garage at that premises. That was a BMW sedan owned by Tyson Simpson who lived at those premises and who actually was inside the house at the time. You walked down the drive, produced a machete and demanded that O'Brien give you money. He did, being $700 from his wallet. You then started swinging the machete insisting he had more. You then demanded the keys to the car and that he open the garage door. You told your offsider the female Ms Kruger to 'call the boys' and she then made a phone call and told someone on the other end to 'tell them to wake up'. You and the co-accused then left in that stolen car but not before telling Mr O'Brien not to go to the police. In fact, he went inside and told Mr Simpson that they had to leave the premises as they were not safe there. The police were notified later that day. I should say that Mr O'Brien knew Holly Kruger but not you.
7 You were then seen driving that car in the early hours of the next morning at around 2.15 am. The summary describes how you were followed by the police and then pursued by the police. You drove in a manner to endanger Sergeant Groves who was out on the road putting down some 'stop sticks' (this is the subject of the reckless exposure of an emergency worker to risk). You drove over the kerb and a pursuit then followed. The police pursuit reached speeds of around 150 kilometres per hour in 80 kilometre per hour zones. Stop sticks were successfully engaged but you kept driving even with punctured tyres and smoke and sparks coming from the undercarriage of the vehicle. You then stopped and ran from the car. You then resisted the police, who came to arrest you. The car by that stage had caught fire and was all but destroyed. The machete was recovered hence the summary weapons offence that I am dealing with.
8 You were arrested and made a predominantly no comment interview as was your right. You were on bail at the time and you were also disqualified from driving from August of the year before. That was a Court ordered disqualification.
9 You have been in custody since your arrest. The agreed summary sets out some of the chronology of the matter before the Court. The co-accused has a contested committal in November.
10 So much then for my brief summary of the offending, that is all it is. I will sentence pursuant to the more detailed agreed statement which was marked as Exhibit A on the plea. In addition, there are some photographs in the depositional material depicting amongst other things the car.
Impact
11 There is an impact statement from Mr Simpson, the owner of that car. It was read aloud by the prosecutor this morning. Your crime has had a large impact on him as is plain from that document. He was getting his life in order. He had a new residence, he had a job and a car which he had had in his name only for something like 24 hours. He was 'ready to go' and then of course your crime supervened and a lot changed in his life.
12 No doubt there was also some impact felt by the direct victim of the armed robbery and for that matter of course, the victim, the subject of the reckless exposure charge. As to the armed robbery, it was obviously a frightening event. That victim has chosen not to make a victim impact statement and the same is to be said for Sergeant Groves, he has not made an impact statement either. So I am, in either case, not able to find any long-term impact arising from the crimes in their case.
13 I take into account the impact of your crimes as I am required to.
In mitigation
14 Your counsel Mr McGlone relied upon a written plea outline of submissions dated 23 September of this year.
15 There was a good deal of information provided to me as to your family and personal background including your educational, your relationship and also employment history. Your counsel made some submissions about the gravity of the matters I am dealing with. He made some submissions as to your prospects of rehabilitation. He placed before me a report from a psychologist Ms Cokorilo and he made some submissions as to as the relevant sentencing purposes in play in this case.
16 Mr McGlone conducted a thorough plea on your behalf. Frankly, there were not many matters in mitigation in this case. He relied principally upon the following matters in mitigation:
· Your early guilty plea in the midst of the global pandemic;
· Your disadvantaged background (Bugmy[1]/Marrah[2]); and
· The impacts of COVID-19 upon your custodial experience to date and into the future.
[1]Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 (“Bugmy”)
[2]Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119
17 He conceded that you had a relevant criminal history and that you only had guarded prospects of rehabilitation. He conceded that a significant term of imprisonment was inevitable here and one of a dimension plainly requiring the fixing of a non-parole period.
Prosecution
18 The prosecutor Ms Thomas had little need to make any detailed submissions on sentence owing to the realistic plea that had been conducted on your behalf. She made some brief sentencing submissions as to the gravity of the offending. The Director of Public Prosecutions was unsurprisingly calling for a head sentence and a non-parole period but so much had been readily conceded by your own counsel in his plea.
19 I will discuss these various submissions shortly.
Background
20 I will turn firstly though to your background and I am going to do that quite briefly as there is ample material before me as to your background, including in the report of Ms Cokorilo, as well as in the written outline prepared by your counsel. In addition, of course, we have met before in that I sentenced you back in 2013 and I detailed your background then in my reasons which I in fact have gone on to mark as Exhibit C on this plea. I see no point in just repeating all of this material which I do accept. So I will not descend to further discuss the report of Ms Cokorilo, for instance. I do take it into account. I note that it is not relied upon to in any way enliven any of the principles from the well-known case of Verdins.[3]
[3]R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269; 169 A Crim R 581 ('Verdins')
21 Very briefly then, as to your background. You were born in April 1987 so you are now 35 year of age. You are obviously born in Australia. You are of indigenous background. The report of Ms Cokorilo sets out that chaotic dysfunctional background. It was a background of significant disadvantage, that much is very clear. I said that in my reasons back in 2013. A homeless and alcoholic father who was rarely present, family violence and abandonment and instability at virtually every step for you and for your many siblings. Fragmented schooling and very early use of alcohol and drugs. Well, you did not choose any of this. It was just thrust upon you and explains a fair bit as to the faltering trajectory of your life over the years.
22 Drugs have been a major problem for very many years. Homelessness has also featured. You did have a long-term stable relationship for some14 years with Ella and you have two children from that relationship, but that has now ended and I am told that you are not seeing the children.
23 You formed a new relationship a few years back.
24 You have a lengthy and relevant criminal history, you know that. You have breached a number of Court orders over the years and you have been sent to prison on a number of occasions. You just keep offending.
25 Now you do not fall to be sentenced a second time for any of that past conduct. Nor does any of that aggravate the offending that I am dealing with. What I must do is pass only proportionate sentences for the crimes that I am dealing with. However, I do have to make judgments as to the weight to be given to specific deterrence and community protection. I have to assess your prospects of rehabilitation and that past history is obviously relevant to these various considerations. I am not going to waste your time or mine conducting a detailed audit of that criminal history. There is just no need to do that. You have been dealt with many times in the past by Courts for a variety of offences of varying levels of seriousness. Some of them have been serious indeed. You have received head sentences and non-parole periods. Indeed, when I dealt with you for a serious aggravated burglary in 2013, that offence had been committed whilst you were on parole. I sent you to prison for a number of years and I was told this morning by your counsel that you were not successful in getting parole and served that entire sentence. Most recently you received a 12-month sentence in August of last year 2021 with 225 days of pre-sentence detention declared. You were released at some point likely late that year and here you were again committing serious offences earlier this year. By that point you were on bail for two sets of offences. I note that the more serious set of charges were all ultimately withdrawn. A burglary and drug offence are listed for mention in October at the Geelong Magistrates Court. So the chronology is all a bit depressing.
26 I took into account your background on that last occasion when I sentenced you and of course I will do so again. An offender's circumstances and their experience during their own childhood and their formative years, must be considered in the sentencing process, not just out of some historical curiosity, but because the effects of social disadvantage simply do not diminish with time. They are likely to have profound and lasting consequences, and in some cases, they can actually explain, but not excuse, the offending.
27 Taking lifelong damage that is the result of childhood exposure to violence or sexual or physical abuse or neglect into account when sentencing is just the mark of a humane society, and it is no answer to say that those events occurred all those years ago when you were just a child. The effects of these things do not just diminish with the passage of time here. They do actually leave their mark. You had a most unenviable early life, there is just no question about that. You had no useful role models. You were really in no way prepared for adulthood in the way that we would hope a child would be so prepared by his or her parents.
28 It will always be a matter of what weight to attribute to evidence of a significantly disadvantaged background. Disadvantage will not attract the same weight in every case or in the same way. Sometimes it might lead to a substantial reduction in moral culpability and also a sizeable reduction in the weight to be given to general and specific deterrence. Sometimes it might be enough to take it into account in a general way without any of those sizeable reductions.
29 The proper approach will always be determined by the nature of the evidence. It will depend on the nature and the extent of the disadvantage, the nexus if any, with the offending, (though none is required) and also the nature of the crimes and the relative importance in a particular case of sentencing considerations including deterrence, community protection and rehabilitation. See the case of Terrick.[4] It does not all flow in one direction either by the way. It can even lead in some cases to a finding of there being a greater need for community protection.
[4]DPP v Terrick [2009] VSCA 220
30 I will give full weight to your background. It seemed to me on the last occasion, and it still seems to be the position, that you really have had very few chances in life as an indigenous person growing up in a setting of significant disadvantage from childhood onwards. In fact, no doubt it was intergenerational in its nature. There can be some reduction in your culpability and of the weight given to the punitive aspects of sentencing including deterrence.
31 So I do take into account your background in a mitigatory fashion pursuant to those decisions of Bugmy and Marrah in the manner contemplated by your counsel.
Guilty Plea
32 I turn then to consider the other matters raised on your behalf on the plea. The first of those is your guilty plea. It was a plea at what I will treat as the earliest opportunity. So you, unlike many, have actually taken this early responsibility for your crimes.
33 As a result, the time, the cost and the effort of a committal in the lower court or a trial up in this Court has all been avoided. Witnesses have not been required to give evidence. Giving evidence can be a stressful experience for witnesses and these witnesses have been entirely spared that experience.
34 You have facilitated the course of justice in these various ways and you must be rewarded for that. Your guilty plea is worthy also of extra weight for the many reasons set out in the decision of Worboyes.[5] In the course of the global pandemic you may or may not be aware, a very large backlog of cases has arisen. Your case was never part of that backlog. So I take these various matters into account in mitigation.
Remorse
[5]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
35 Though there was no direct submission made on the topic of remorse, you did plead guilty and did that at the earliest stage and a guilty plea is often indicative of some level of remorse. I am prepared to find that there is some remorse in this case implied by your plea and I take that into account.
Rehabilitation
36 I turn then to your prospects of rehabilitation.
37 You know you were no silly teenager committing his first offence. Back in March of this year you were a mature man when you offended. You have a lengthy criminal record and you have not taken many of the chances offered to you by the Courts over the years.
38 You have long term drug issues and all the issues arising from that disadvantaged background that I have spoken of and which, I have taken into account in your favour.
39 This was serious offending committed by you. Yet again. The chronology in your criminal history is disturbing. You seemingly will not or cannot be deterred. You keep offending and not at a low level. There is little by way of support for you in the community, which again is a bit disturbing.
40 I dealt with you when you were 26 years of age, that was back in 2013 and back then I thought your prospects were not too good. Well, those prospects have obviously not improved. Your counsel today spoke of your gloomy mindset as to your future prospects but he submitted that the Court should take a less gloomy view and should entertain that you had at least some prospects of rehabilitation. I can only be quite guarded as to your future prospects. I certainly do not conclude that there are no prospects of rehabilitation whatsoever, but I cannot rate them highly at all at this stage. They are really quite poor and there is plainly a decent risk of offending in the future. Community protection is a pretty powerful factor in this case and so too is specific deterrence. You have reached an age where your prospects of rehabilitation do look quite poor and greater focus will fall on the punitive aspects of sentencing. I told you back in 2013 that you ought not expect any leniency from the Courts should you offend in the future. Having said that though, you really must not give up on yourself. You must not, or you will have no prospects at all. What I do know is you at least try to do courses while you are in custody, so that provides at least some glimmer of hope. So I certainly will not write you off and say you have no prospects of rehabilitation. You still may be able to change your life but abstinence from drugs will be critical and it will take an enormous amount of work from you.
COVID-19
41 I turn then to the issue of COVID-19 and its impact upon you. There was really only a brief mention of this aspect on the plea and for good reason. I have no difficulty accepting that the COVID-19 virus and the response to it by those whose run the prisons has increased the burden felt by prisoners generally. You have been in custody since March of this year. No doubt there might have been some worries about catching the virus in such a setting as that. Unlike someone who is out in the community, there is no level of autonomy. No doubt you would have experienced the increased burden of some quarantines or lockdowns on occasions. I do not doubt that you would have.
42 Things opened up to a degree in about March just as you entered prison actually and visits have resumed from about that point. You do not have a large pool of people who will visit you. That is a bit disturbing. You have only one person but COVID-19 has not been a major issue in your case, at least to date.
43 What lies ahead in the future on the COVID front for prisoners is impossible for me to determine. I cannot speculate about that. Those whose job it is to run the prisons will be able to reflect on the impact of any past and ongoing limitations on a case-by-case basis. They will have the power to address any increased burden in your case by way of conferring emergency management days in relation to the sentence I am about to impose. I cannot know if that will take place or not and I make it clear that I do not proceed on the assumption that it will. To take it into account in that way would be for me to contemplate future executive action, which is prohibited to me.
44 It is my sense though that the prisons have tended to lag a bit behind the community in terms of COVID restrictions being lifted. They also tend to bring them back in more rapidly and for good reason obviously. So it is not that unreasonable to think that prisoners may yet have some issues thrown up by COVID-19 in the coming several months. There are still some lockdowns and there is the day-to-day uncertainty that they cause as to how prisoners will fare and those things will persist I think.
45 I take into account then the increased burden imposed by the response to COVID-19 in the manner that I have described. As I say, it was not a large matter on the plea.
General
46 Let me turn then to some general matters. I am required to take into account a large range of matters, including the maximum penalties and the nature and the gravity as well as the impact of any crimes committed.
47 I turn then to the seriousness of these offences.
48 This was unmistakably serious offending. You know that. Your counsel at paragraphs 13 and 14 dealt with aspects of the offence and the manner of assessing its gravity. I do not accept the submission made at paragraph 14 that this was spontaneous. It really was not. The armed robbery obviously involved some level of planning. Mr McGlone did in fact concede that fact, saying that you essentially fell into step with the offsider who, he says, recruited you. He told me that you were going there to offend but it could be contrasted, he said, with a case where there was any detailed planning and I accept that that is so.
49 You did turn up at a private house, you were armed and you were prepared to offend in company. The weapon was produced by you and the demands were then made by you. There was the escalation involving the demand for the car and then the waving of the weapon. It was serious offending on a soft target with sizeable impact upon the owner of that car. It was brief but most soft target armed robberies are brief. Then of course you then drove that vehicle. You had no business being behind the wheel of any car much less a stolen one. You had been disqualified by a Court in August 2021 and that disqualification meant nothing to you at all. Nor the endeavours that had been made to stop you by the police. You endangered a serving member who was trying to stop your crime and then you drove dangerously in such a way as to endanger others. You did all this to evade arrest. You then resisted the police who came to arrest you, once you had got out of the vehicle. You have virtually destroyed the car along the way. I am of course not dealing with you for criminal damage, but the impact of the armed robbery is large here and you were on bail at the time of all of this offending. This was serious offending. The armed robbery is the most serious of the offences. It is punishable by a 25 year maximum prison term and whilst this armed robbery falls nowhere near the top of the range of offence seriousness, it is a fair way removed from the lowest margins of offending, as seems to be conceded by your own counsel who described the objective gravity as “high” (see paragraph 14). It was serious enough offending committed by a seasoned offender.
Purposes
50 I have to consider a number of purposes of sentencing. I must pay regard to your prospects of rehabilitation. They are quite poor, as I have said.
51 I am required to punish you for your crimes. I must do that justly and proportionately. That is an important purpose.
52 I must also denounce your conduct and that is also an important purpose of sentencing.
53 I have mentioned some reduction in your culpability and the weight to be given to deterrence arising from your disadvantaged background. All of that is true.
54 I must though still pay appropriate weight to specific deterrence and by that I mean the need to deter you, or dissuade you, from offending in the future. That is still of significance here given the serious nature of the offending and your past lack of response to various Court orders. You must be deterred. I must try to deter you. General deterrence is also still an important purpose of sentencing in this case. This Court must send a message to others in the community who may consider this serious style of offending. That would include those who may seek to evade arrest by driving in such a way as to endanger others.
55 I must pay regard to community protection. That is self-evidently an important factor here.
56 I must have regard to the maximum penalties and as I have said, I must pay regard to the impact of your crimes.
57 I also must pay regard to current sentencing practices. That is not a single controlling factor. Your counsel referred me to some of the statistics. I have looked at that relevant Sentencing Advisory Council Snapshot for armed robbery, which is Snapshot No.261 of 2021. I have also looked at the online sentencing statistics for the three indictment offences which are more up to date. The statistics do disclose that the most common range of sentence where prison was selected for the crime of armed robbery fell in the range of three years to less than four years. But there were many sentences that were a good deal larger and some that were smaller, as well, of course I have looked at the overviews of cases from the Judicial College of Victoria Sentencing Manual. I have focused on those sentences which fell under five-years.
58 I am sentencing you for your crimes though and that is not some mathematical or statistical task. No amount of looking at other cases or statistics will provide any answer to my task. Other cases are not precedents and they do not and must not drive my task. Nor for that matter is there any such thing as one correct sentence.
59 Statistics in fact have inherent limitations. They omit all of the detail of the matters in aggravation and in mitigation which would actually go to explain a particular sentencing outcome. They tell me next to nothing about the offence or the offender.
60 I am not here to pass sentence based on what has been the most common sentence imposed in the past. As I have said, I am exercising a sentencing discretion in your case, taking into account the matters in aggravation and mitigation in your case.
Totality
61 I must take into account the principle of totality of sentence. I have these various offences occurring in a relatively tight timeframe. Charge 1, the armed robbery, is the most serious offence by a fair margin of course and there is some connection between that offence and the endangerment offences in that no doubt you were driving in the way you were driving to avoid apprehension. But they are separate offences occurring into the early hours of the next morning. They have different elements and no doubt, differing impacts. You were endangering others including an on-duty police member going about his job. He was recklessly exposed to a risk to his safety by the manner of your driving. You were disqualified and you were on bail.
62 There is some overlap as I say and I must have regard to the principle of totality and also take care not to doubly punish you.
63 I have engaged in a last look at the effect of the sentences to satisfy myself that the overall effect is commensurate with your overall criminality. Some cumulation of sentence is simply unavoidable here.
64 Prison is always a disposition of last resort. It was conceded that a substantial prison term was the only option here. Plainly that concession was correct. Of course, a Court is worried about the risk of institutionalisation, but you just keep offending and really you leave a Court with no option but to imprison you.
Sentence
65 Let me now pass sentence upon you. I will have you remain seated, I think.
66 On Charge 1 which is the charge of armed robbery I convict and sentence you to 3 years and 10 months imprisonment.
67 That will be the base sentence
68 On Charge 2, recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk I convict and sentence you to 12 months imprisonment
69 On Charge 3 the conduct endangering serious injury, I convict and sentence you to 9 months imprisonment.
Summary offences
70 On the offence of drive whilst disqualified I convict and sentence you to 14 days imprisonment.
71 On the weapons offence you are convicted and sentenced to 7 days imprisonment.
72 On the resist police charge you are convicted and sentenced to 7 days imprisonment.
73 On the charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail you are convicted and sentenced also to 7 days imprisonment.
74 The base sentence is therefore the 3 years and 10 months that I have imposed on the armed robbery charge, Charge 1.
Cumulation
75 I direct that;
· 3 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 and
· 3 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3
is to be served cumulatively upon the base sentence and upon each other.
76 All the sentences imposed on the summary offences will be served concurrently upon the base sentence and each other. I am to that extent otherwise directing pursuant to s16(3C) of the Sentencing Act 1991 in relation to the offend on bail charge, and I am doing that because I have treated the fact of being on bail as a circumstance of aggravation. I do not wish to doubly punish by cumulating any portion of that sentence.
Total Effective Sentence
77 These orders for cumulation result in a total effective sentence of 52 months or 4 years and 4 months imprisonment
Non-Parole Period
78 Given the dimensions of that head sentence, I am required by law to fix a non‑parole period. Your counsel was not asking for a large gap between the head sentence and a non-parole period. He submitted that a large gap would have little worth as your prospects were not strong and parole might have limited utility. Well that may be so, but I will still arm the Adult Parole Board with at least the ability to consider your early release. It seems to me that you will need much structure and support to make a go of it in the community and surely your interests and the community's interests would be better served by a structured release rather than your springing out unsupervised at the sentence lapse date. I am though not allowed to speculate as to whether or not you will be released on parole. That matter rests entirely in the hands of the Adult Parole Board. I have no role in that decision. I must fix a non-parole period and I will make my reasons available to the Adult Parole Board.
79 I fix a period of 3 years during which you will not be eligible for release on parole.
Pre-Sentence Detention
80 You have served a total of 198 days by way of pre-sentence detention and that s18 declaration is entered into the records of the Court. That total of 198 days does not count today, the day of sentence.
License
81 On Charge 2 I confirm that that is, what is described as a serious motor vehicle offence under the s86P of the Sentencing Act 1991. There is a 24-month mandatory minimum licence order required in that instance. See s89(2)(b). On that charge, all licences to drive are cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any licence or driving in this State for a period of 24 months. That will commence from today.
82 On the charge of armed robbery, given that it involves in part a theft of a vehicle, I believe it is necessary to make an order against your licence. On that charge all licences to drive are cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any licence or driving in this State for a period of 12 months. That period will commence also from today and it will have no real impact upon you at all given the sentence I am pronouncing and of course the existing licence order which was imposed back in August 2021.
6AAA
83 I have taken into account your guilty plea. If you had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty of these offences by a jury, I would have sent you to prison for six and a half years. I would have fixed a non-parole period of 5 years in that setting and that declaration made pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act is also to be entered into the records of the Court.
84 Were there any ancillary orders?
85 MS THOMAS: No, Your Honour, because of the pending matter relating to the co-accused, there are no applications at this point.
86 HIS HONOUR: I see, very well, all right. So no other matters then from either of you?
87 MS THOMAS: No.
88 MR McGLONE: No, Your Honour.
89 HIS HONOUR: And each of you understand the nature of those orders and the cumulation? There is no issue in terms of the mathematics of it?
90 MS THOMAS: No, Your Honour.
91 HIS HONOUR: Once I have got these reasons back from the VGRS I will revise them and they can be provided to both sides, all right. You will go and see your client next door, Mr McGlone and discuss this?
92 MR McGLONE: Yes, of course I will, yes.
93 HIS HONOUR: Very well, thank you. Well that completes the matter then, Mr Matthews, so Mr McGlone will come out and have a chat to you about your rights in relation to this sentence, all right?
94 OFFENDER: Yep.
95 HIS HONOUR: Mr Matthews can be removed thank you.
96 (At this stage the offender left the Court.)
- - -
5
0