Director of Public Prosecutions v Maudsley (a pseudonym)
[2019] VCC 1824
•8 November 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-19-00249
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ZAC MAUDSLEY (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11-16 September 2019 (trial), 8 November 2019 (plea) | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 November 2019 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Maudsley (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1824 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords: Sentence – sexual penetration of a child under 16 – indecent act with a child under 16 – conviction after trial of four charges – guilty plea to one charge of indecent act – denial of intentional nature of indecent act despite guilty plea – avuncular relationship – abuse of position of trust – brazen offending – guarded prospects for rehabilitation – imprisonment only appropriate sentencing disposition – principles in DPP v Dalgliesh applicable to sexual offences committed on children by relatives other than direct linear relatives – serious sexual offender – Sex Offender Registration Act – no s 6AAA sentencing discount for guilty plea
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr A. Albert | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr S. Anger | James Dowsley & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1 Zac Maudsley,[1] on 19 September 2019 you were convicted by a jury of one charge of indecent act with a child under 16 and three charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16, with the additional finding that the child involved was under the age of 12 at the time. All charges of which you were found guilty involved your niece, Eliza Costa.[2] The same jury found you not guilty of one charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 in respect of her younger sister, your other niece, Sarah Costa.[3]
[1]A pseudonym.
[2]A pseudonym.
[3]A pseudonym.
2 At the commencement of your trial, you pleaded guilty in the presence of the jury to a further charge of indecent act with a child under 16. That charge, too, was in respect of the older child, Eliza.
3 Although admitting that you had, on the occasion particularised in Charge 5, the charge to which you pleaded guilty, committed an indecent act by sexually touching Eliza, you denied any other sexual misconduct with her and her sister Sarah. The central issue in the trial was therefore the credibility of Eliza and Sarah. By its verdicts, the jury rejected your denial of the four charges concerning Eliza. That is, the jury accepted Eliza as a witness of truth whose evidence was of such quality as to satisfy it of your guilt in respect of those charges or, put another way, it was not left with a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness and reliability of Eliza notwithstanding your denials on oath.
4 Eliza is the older daughter of your only sibling, your sister Veronica Costa.[4] Eliza was aged between three and a half and six at the time of the offending, that is, between January 2013 and September 2015.
[4]A pseudonym.
5 In September 2015, on the way home from their first and, as it turned out, only sleepover with their maternal grandparents, with whom you lived, Eliza and Sarah disclosed to their mother that you had sexually touched them. She immediately confronted you and you denied any wrongdoing. Following discussions involving you, your parents and the parents of the children, their parents decided not to make a complaint to the police.
6 Almost two years later, you made an admission to your then partner of inappropriately touching Eliza. That led to a report to the police and, in August 2017, police conducted VARE’s with both children, that is a video and audio recorded statement. You were interviewed by police in September of that year, but not charged until nearly 12 months later in August 2018. Following a contested committal, at which Eliza’s mother, your sister, Veronica, was cross-examined, you were committed to this court for trial on 7 February 2019.
7 Your trial was held in September 2019, that is, four years after the initial disclosures by Eliza and two years after she had made her initial VARE and you were interviewed.
8 In the days before she was due to be cross examined at the start of your trial, Eliza was shown her VARE. After watching it, she disclosed a further act of sexual penetration, which ultimately became Charge 3 on the indictment, a charge of which the jury found you guilty. As a result, a second VARE was conducted and that further charge, Charge 3, was laid.
9 I am now going to deal with the circumstances of the offending.
10 Charge 1 is a charge of indecent act with a child under 16. It concerns an incident at Eliza’s family home between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2015. Eliza was being babysat by your aunt. Your aunt's teenage son, Angus Rooke,[5] was also present. You arrived at the house unexpected and uninvited. Whilst alone with Eliza, you sat her down on the couch, exposed your erect penis and touched it against Eliza’s vagina on the outside of her clothing. Eliza described your actions as trying to get your penis into her vagina. You stopped when you heard Angus approaching the room.
[5]A pseudonym.
11
Each of Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 occurred at your parent’s home (which, as I have already noted, was also your home), between those dates of
1 January 2013 and 30 September 2015 and when Eliza and her siblings had been brought to visit their grandmother and grandfather.
12 Charge 2 is a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16. It took place when Eliza was in your bedroom. You sat her on a pillow on your bed and removed her pants and underwear. You then applied some cream to your penis before penetrating her vagina. Eliza described herself as ‘shocked’ by what was happening to her.
13 Charge 3 is also a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16. This occurred in the garage. Eliza and her siblings were riding bikes around the area of the garage. You called Eliza over and went into the garage with her while the others continued to ride their bikes outside. You lifted Eliza onto the bonnet of the car, pulled down your pants and hers and penetrated her vagina with your penis. In her VARE, Eliza said, ‘I told him not to but he kept going and I told him again’.
14 When the other children came near on their bikes, you stopped, pulled her pants up and acted as if you had been playing. She described that act of penetration as ‘really painful'.
15 Charge 4, the third charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16, occurred in the upstairs bathroom of your home. Eliza was lying on the floor in the bathroom playing games on your iPad. She said she felt something enter her vagina and she looked up and saw you on top of her.
16 She said that you spread her legs, took off your pants and put cream on your penis, which was erect, and you then penetrated her vagina. At some point, you stopped to put more cream on and penetrated her again. In her VARE, Eliza said, ‘I didn’t tell him to stop because I was thinking he was gonna start keeping doing it harder’. She said she tried to make you stop by moving around.
17 You stopped, not because of anything Eliza did, but because your father called from downstairs, asking where you were. You called out that you were in the bathroom, then you washed your hands and combed your hair before leaving. Eliza eventually followed you downstairs. Her siblings and your parents were all downstairs at the time.
18 Charge 5 is a charge of indecent act with a child under 16 and it is the charge to which you pleaded guilty when arraigned in the presence of the jury. You admit touching Eliza on the vagina when you were upstairs with her.
19 Eliza’s account of that is that you picked her up and sat her on your lap whilst you were on the telephone, speaking to your then girlfriend or partner, Jane Sturt.[6] You gave the phone to Eliza to speak to her and whilst Eliza was on the phone to Jane, you put your hand down her pants, under her underwear, and rubbed and squeezed her vagina. In cross-examination, Eliza maintained that you did touch and squeeze her on the vagina and that it was under her clothes.
[6]A pseudonym.
20 It was after Eliza was cross-examined at the special hearing and maintained her account that you entered your guilty plea to this charge.
21 I was told before arraignment in the presence of the jury panel that, although you intended to plead guilty to Charge 5, the charge of indecent act, you contested Eliza's account and maintained that, although there was touching on that occasion, it was over her clothing.
22 You have given a number of different accounts of this incident.
23 I referred earlier to the admission that you made to your former partner, Jane, which led to the report to the police. On 5 August 2017, just days after the initial admission to your partner, police recorded a telephone call between you and her. In it, you said that you touched Eliza’s vagina over her pants. You said that it had occurred on the occasion when you were talking to your partner on the phone when she was away interstate, the same occasion described by Eliza, and that you had handed the phone to Eliza to speak to her. Again, that is consistent with Eliza's account, you said that it occurred during a game where you were sliding Eliza down your leg.
24 When interviewed by the police shortly after that, in September 2017, you volunteered that you had played the sliding down the leg game with Eliza and her siblings on the upstairs sofa, but you denied touching, or your hand going anywhere her vagina.
25 In October of 2018, you gave another account of this to a child welfare worker from the Department of Health and Human Services who was assessing whether, as a result of the allegations made by your nieces, you posed a risk to your own daughter who was then aged three. In that interview with a DHHS worker, you again referred to playing the sliding down the leg game. You said, on that occasion, as you had to the police, that it was with Eliza and her siblings and that you had sat each of them in turn on your leg and slid them down your leg onto the floor. However, consistently with what you had said to your partner over a year earlier, but by contrast to what you had said to the police, you admitted to the DHHS worker that you had touched Eliza on the vagina. Again, you maintained to her that it was a touching over the clothing. You said that you were playing the sliding game, that you went into 'day dream mode' and touched her.
26
You gave a different account when you gave evidence at trial. Evidence of this charge, although the subject of a guilty plea, had been admitted by consent in the trial. It was part of the evidence relied on as evidence of your having a sexual interest in Eliza and a preparedness to act upon it. It was closely linked with the other charges because it was the precipitating event for the first disclosures that were made. And, significantly, the evidence in respect to this charge was also relied on to support your case that Eliza was an unreliable witness and that her evidence was or could have been contaminated by reason of the passage of time between her first disclosure, the making of her VARE and her giving evidence. In your evidence at trial and in
evidence-in-chief, your response to questions from your own counsel, when taken to this charge of indecent act to which you had pleaded guilty, you said that you had 'unintentionally' touched Eliza on the vagina on the outside of her pants. You were cross-examined about that. You agreed that you knew that intentional touching was an element of the offence of indecent act, that you had pleaded guilty knowing that, acknowledged that you knew that accidental touching did not amount to an offence of indecent act and yet maintained your assertion that the touching was accidental.
27 I am satisfied that your guilty plea to the charge of indecent act was an informed one. I am satisfied you were aware, at the time you entered it, that intentional touching was an element of the offence. And I am satisfied that your plea of guilty is an admission of intentional touching.
28 The question of whether the touching was over or under Eliza's pants, that is, whether it was skin-on-skin contact or not is a question of fact to be resolved against the admitted acknowledgement of all elements. Whether the touching was over or under the clothing is not an element of the offence but rather a fact going to an assessment of the surrounding circumstances and which may bear on an assessment of the seriousness of the offending.
29 So that is what I mean when I say that, whether the touching occurred over or under the clothing, is a sentencing fact not an element of the offence.
30 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the touching was under Eliza's clothing and involved skin-on-skin contact. I have seen and heard Eliza’s evidence and I have had the opportunity to assess her credibility and reliability. She consistently maintained that the touching was under her clothing.
31 You, by contrast, gave varying and contradictory accounts, denying any touching at all to the police, whilst admitting touching to your partner and the DHHS worker in a conversation immediately before your denials to the police during the interview and shortly after being charged. Your plea of guilty was squarely put on your behalf as being, on your instructions, based on touching over the clothing. The changes in your version undermine your credibility on this issue and your credibility was further undermined, in my view, by your insistence, in evidence, that the touching was not deliberate.
32 Your varying accounts do not, in my view, undermine Eliza’s credibility on this issue. I am not left with a reasonable doubt about her truthfulness and reliability, generally, or by reason of your denials of touching under the clothing or your varying accounts of what you say happened.
33 In coming to this view, I am also mindful of the fact that I should pay due deference to the jury’s findings in respect of Eliza’s credibility in respect to the other charges. My acceptance of her evidence on this matter is, in my view, consistent with the jury’s assessment of her as a truthful and reliable witness.
34 Turning then to the impact of this offending on the children and their family.
35 Veronica Costa, their mother, gave a most moving, thoughtful and insightful victim impact statement. She rightly described her children as brave and courageous in standing before the court and telling their story. She also rightly said that no child should ever have to go through what they did. She spoke of the happy and full family life you and she had had as children in a house full of life and love, with hardworking parents looking after you and giving you encouragement to grow and develop.
36 She spoke of how the whole family’s lives have been changed, the destruction of her relationship with her parents because they, with a terrible conflict, have decided to support you and that has meant a complete rift with Veronica and her family.
37 She speaks of the sadness of losing, or the capacity to still enjoy, those memories of her childhood and family life because of fear of flashbacks to the discovery of your offending against the children. She spoke of the difficulties that causes in the respect to the protection of the children's right to keep this as their story and not tell other people. She spoke of Eliza's anxiety around other male family members and of her ongoing issues in relation to self-confidence, making friends and sleeping and her ongoing need for counselling to support her.
38 Veronica spoke of the impact it has had on her relationship with her husband, on the physical and mental health of both of them and of the over-protectiveness that they know they are displaying in respect of their children. Despite this, she has also given a wonderful insight into the caring, loving and protective family environment that she and her husband have given and continue to give to those children. But, as she said, nobody should have to go through what they have had to endure.
39 What she says resonates with what I have seen and heard so many other times in cases like this: families are torn apart, childhood memories are destroyed, loyalties are tested and that is a burden that she bears, but that is also a burden that you should understand you are responsible for.
40 Dealing then with the characterisation of the offending and aggravating features.
41 In respect of the three charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16, the jury also found that Eliza was under the age of 12. That means, for the purposes of s 45(2)(a) of the Crimes Act, that the maximum sentence in respect of each of those charges is one of 25 years' imprisonment. The maximum sentence for the two charge of indecent act with a child under 16 is 10 years' imprisonment.
42 Features that add to the seriousness of the offending are these. So far as the penetrative offences are concerned, no condom was used and therefore Eliza was exposed to the risk of a sexually transmitted disease.
43 It was a terrible breach of trust. You were her uncle and godfather. You were welcome in their family home and they felt safe to go into your family home. You were family and treated as that.
44 It was a breach of power. The age disparity between a child so young and who had, from birth, known you as a senior, respected, loved and welcome family figure demonstrates the significant and shocking power imbalance. That was in some ways borne out by the way Eliza described, in her VARE’s and her evidence, her shock at what was happening, her feelings of powerlessness at not being able to tell you to stop.
45 The offences occurred in Eliza's home or the home that you shared with your parents, her grandparents. Both of them places where she should have been safe.
46 The offences occurred over a period of time and there are a number of separate offences. Three of them involved penetration and as to the second instance of indecent act I have found that it involved skin-on-skin touching.
47 There was a brazenness about the offending. It happened when other people were around, which again shows the power you had and knew you could exert over her.
48 It is clear therefore that, subject to considerations personal to you, denunciation, deterrence, both general and specific and just punishment loom very large in the sentencing mix.
49 Turning then to your personal circumstances, which balance against those factors.
50 You are now 31 years of age, which means you were between 24 and 27 at the time of the offending. You grew up in what has been described by you and by your sister, and what is clear from the evidence of the surrounding circumstances, a happy, intact family.
51 Although you report to Mr Cummins, who assessed you for the purposes of the plea, some bullying and some behavioural difficulties during periods at school, your schooling was unremarkable in the sense that you are clearly of average intelligence and were able to progress from year to year without difficulty. It seems that, whatever bullying and behavioural difficulties you exhibited, your ability to complete such schooling as you wanted to complete was unimpaired and you were able to undergo post-secondary vocational training and engage in meaningful employment once you left school.
52 You have been able to form relationships with age appropriate women and you have fathered two children. There is no suggestion that any of your childhood difficulties at school have had any bearing on these offences or, it would appear, on your ability to navigate all the usual milestones of adult life, post-secondary training, regular and steady employment, good relationships maintained with your parents, developing romantic relationships of your own and fathering children.
53 Although it would appear you struggled to find study and work that you enjoyed immediately after leaving school, both from what you told Mr Cummins and from what Veronica said in her victim impact statement, your sister was instrumental in assisting you to find areas of employment that you would enjoy and encouraging you to engage in post-secondary studies so as to get the qualifications to do that. Again, it is a good insight into what had been the closeness and support within the family.
54 Once you did, with your sister's assistance, engage in sports and recreation training, you have been able to engage in meaningful and consistent employment throughout most of your twenties.
55 These are positive factors that count in favour of your prospects for rehabilitation.
56 You are fortunate to have the continuing support of your parents. The letter written by your mother is moving. She does in no way condone your behaviour, but the grief of a parent torn in loyalty between a son in trouble and a daughter whose trust has been so egregiously offended against has led her to choose to provide you with support. You are fortunate that she and her husband, your father, continue to support you. I am told they have visited you in prison and intend to continue to do so and they will provide you with a home upon your release. That is a very significant factor.
57 Your intelligence, as I have noted, appears to be average. You clearly are employable and will continue to be so upon your release.
58 You have two very young children from the two significant relationships you have formed in recent years and you express a firm desire to maintain relationships with those children on your release. You acknowledge the welfare concerns about your access to those children upon release in light of these convictions and acknowledge the reporting and other restrictions that will likely be placed on you by their mothers, DHHS or by courts and by the Sex Offender Registration Act. Those are factors that you accept are consequences of this conviction and you will have to live with.
59 In positive terms, Mr Cummins, noted there is no history of substance abuse and, leaving aside the issue as to whether there is any sexual deviance, a matter to which I will return, there is no evidence of any mental illness, a psychiatric or psychological condition or intellectual or physical disability which would hamper your prospects for rehabilitation. It should be noted too that there is nothing therefore which operates to lessen your moral culpability or otherwise serve to reduce the sentence otherwise appropriate by reason of the principles in Verdins.[7]
[7]R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269.
60 Mr Cummins assessed your risk of sexual offence recidivism. He did so using well validated and accepted tools. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the offences for which you come to be sentenced, your pleas of not guilty to the three sexual penetration charges and the one indecent act charge and your denial of direct skin-on-skin contact in respect of the indecent act charge you admitted, Mr Cummins has assessed you as being of medium to high risk of committing future like offences.
61 He says it is imperative that you be assessed for participation in a sex offender treatment program to address this risk and that you be given every opportunity in custody to participate in such a program. I endorse his recommendation with equal vigour. They are clearly significant in terms of managing your risk, protection of the community and advancing your prospects for rehabilitation.
62 Despite your not guilty pleas to four of the five charges for which you come to be sentenced, you have expressed yourself as willing to participate in any such programs as are made available to you.
63 Given your maintained denial of the charges one to four, of which the jury found you guilty, and despite the positive factors I have identified counting in your favour, including your expressed willingness to participate in a sex offender treatment program and your absence of any other convictions of any sort, nonetheless, at best it can be said, in my view, that your prospects for rehabilitation are guarded.
64
In fixing on the appropriate sentence, as discussed with counsel in the course of the plea, I consider the principles articulated by the High Court in
DPP v Dalgliesh[8]are as applicable to these charges as they are to charges of incest. These are charges of sexual offending against a very young child, over a considerable period of time. She was a family member to whom you had a very close familial connection, although, as an uncle, your relationship does not fall within the definition of incest. In Dalgliesh the High Court ruled that current sentencing practices for incest in Victoria did not reflect the objective gravity of the offending. The maximum penalty for these charges, of which the jury found you guilty, is the same as for incest. That reflects Parliament's assessment of the objective gravity of such offending. The court's reasoning in Dalgliesh is, in my view, as applicable to sexual penetration of a child under 12 by another close family member as it is to sexual offending by a direct lineal relative.
[8]Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428.
65 Each case of course must be decided on its own facts and other cases, particularly those decided before Dalgliesh, are therefore of limited value. They can do no more than provide a yardstick or some measure of how a different, but maybe in some ways similar, case was dealt with by a different court.
66 However, sentences in other cases are not a straitjacket and it is trite to say that every case must be considered on its own facts and circumstances and that no two cases are ever the same.
67 I accept that, when fixing the individual sentences and the cumulation to occur between them, ultimately I must ensure that the overall sentence, whilst reflecting the objective gravity of the offending, the individual charges and the statutory imperative to impose a sentence that properly serves the needs of just punishment, denunciation, deterrence, encouragement, rehabilitation and protection of the community, conforms with the principles of totality and parsimony.
68 I have come to the view, and it was acknowledged by your counsel in his carefully and well targeted submissions, that no sentence other than one of imprisonment is appropriate for all charges. That means that you come to be sentenced from Charge 3 as a serious sexual offender and a declaration to that effect will be made and will be on your record.
69 I do not consider, however, that that means that the sentence to be imposed upon you should be disproportionate in order to give paramountcy to protection of the community. There is sufficient scope within the sentences available to me to address the needs of protection of the community without imposing a disproportionate sentence.
70 I also consider, having regard to the importance of the need to conform with the principles of totality and parsimony, that complete cumulation between charges where you come to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender would not be fair, just or appropriate in the circumstances.
71 So far as Charge 5 is concerned, the one to which you pleaded guilty, I have given some thought to whether I should make a declaration under s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act. Section 6AAA requires a court, if it reduces the sentence that otherwise would have been appropriate by reason of a plea of guilty, to note that on the record.
72 In this case, you entered your plea of guilty to Charge 5 after Eliza had been cross-examined at the special hearing. The court has a special procedure for the taking of evidence of a child in a sexual offence case. Their evidence is pre-recorded before the jury is empanelled. So although your plea of guilty was entered at the time of empanelment of the jury, the cross-examination of Eliza had already taken place. She therefore was not spared the ordeal of giving evidence, reliving the events or the indignity of being challenged on the truthfulness of her account in respect of that charge. Therefore, the sentencing discount that often applies or that is often given to reflect that sparing of the victim the ordeal of giving evidence and the indignity of being called or challenged on the truthfulness of what they have said does not apply here.
73 I also note that, in evidence, you disavowed any intentional touching, although acknowledging, by your guilty plea, that intentional touching was an element of the offence. In the circumstances, I have come to the view that there was no real utilitarian value from your guilty plea and no advancing of the interests of justice because, even at trial, despite your guilty plea, you were challenging an element of the offence.
74 Although my initial view was that there should be a minimal, token discount of one month off the sentence which would have otherwise been appropriate, I have come to the view this was a case where no s 6AAA discount should be applied. Therefore I have not reduced the sentence, even by that month, by reason of your guilty plea. There therefore will be no s 6AAA declaration.
75 So far as the cumulation between the sentences and the different sentencing orders I have made, I have distinguished between the sentence for Charge 1 and Charge 5, the two indecent act charges, and imposed a greater sentence on Charge 5 because it involves a more serious form of touching, that is skin-on-skin touching.
76 I have imposed the same sentence in respect of each of the sexual penetration charges, but imposed a level of cumulation in respect of them to reflect the fact that each charge was a separate incident or episode of sexual offending. I have done the same in respect to the two indecent act charges, the cumulation again reflecting that each of them was a separate act of offending. Notwithstanding that, I have tried to impose a sentence appropriate to the objective seriousness of each charge and to use the cumulation orders or the partial cumulation orders to reflect the principle of totality.
77 So that is the thinking behind the orders that I have made.
78 Could you now please stand.
79 Zac Maudsley, on the four charges of which the jury found you guilty and on the one charge to which you have pleaded guilty you are convicted.
80 On Charge 1 of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 18 months.
81 On Charge 2 of sexual penetration of a child under 16, a child who was under 12 at the time, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six years.
82 On Charge 3 of sexual penetration of a child under 16, who was under 12 at the time, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six years.
83 On Charge 4 of sexual penetration of a child under 16, who was under 12 at the time, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six years.
84 On Charge 5 of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two years.
85 I make Charge 2 the base sentence. Three months of the sentence on Charge 1, nine months of the sentence on Charge 3, nine months of the sentence on Charge 4 and six months of the sentence on Charge 5 are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence on Charge 2.
86 That makes a total effective sentence of eight years and three months and I fix a period of six years as the time that you must serve before being eligible for parole.
87 I make the declaration that you are sentenced in respect of Charges 3, 4 and 5 as a serious sexual offender and direct that be placed on your record.
88 I declare that you have spent 50 days in pre-sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served and I note that you are subject to the provisions of the Sex Offender Registration Act for life.
89 Are there any further orders that are required to be made?
90 MR ALBERT: No, your Honour.
91 HER HONOUR: Do the sentences that I have pronounced reflect what I said I intended to do?
92 MR ALBERT: I believe so, your Honour.
93 HER HONOUR: Is the arithmetic correct?
94 MR ALBERT: I'm adding it up now. Yes, your Honour.
95 MR ANGER: Yes, I believe so.
96 HER HONOUR: Thank you. Thank you, could you please remove Mr Maudsley.
- - -
0
2
0