Director of Public Prosecutions v Milenkovic-Mann, Mikael and Jankovski, Vasko
[2013] VCC 459
•19 April 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-12-00116
CR-12-00117
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MIKAEL MILENKOVIC-MANN (also known as MICHAEL MANN) |
| and |
| VASKO JANKOVSKI |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE HOWARD | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF TRIAL HEARING: | 4, 5, 6 and 7 February 2013 | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 1 March 2013 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 19 April 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Milenkovic-Mann, Mikael & Jankovski, Vasko | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VCC 459 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - pleas of guilty to one charge of armed robbery – four victims held at gunpoint by a masked intruder at a travel agency – $250,000 worth of mixed foreign currency and travellers cheques stolen – travellers cheques cashed interstate and overseas – offending in 2003, cold case reignited in 2008 – middle-aged offenders, each with serious criminal history – totality – TES 6 years’ imprisonment with minimum of 4 years for Mann and 5 years’ imprisonment with minimum of 3 years for Jankovski.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr M Rochford SC with Ms S Flynn (trial and plea) Ms J Croxford (sentence) | Solicitors for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused/Offender Milenkovic-Mann | Mr P Kilduff | Patrick Dwyer |
| For the Accused/Offender Jankovski | Mr J Toal (trial and plea) Mr M Brugman (sentence) | M Brugman |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Mikael Milenkovic-Mann (you prefer to be called Michael Mann) and Vasko Jankovski, you have each pleaded guilty to armed robbery. The maximum penalty is twenty-five years’ imprisonment. My task is to sentence you on behalf of the community.
Circumstances of offending
2 The full circumstances of your offending are set out in a lengthy agreed Summary of Prosecution Opening which was read out at your plea hearing. A brief overview will suffice for present purposes.
3 On 25 February 2003, you robbed a travel agency in the busy Burke Road, Camberwell shopping strip. You stole $250,000 worth of mixed foreign currency and travellers cheques from an AMEX sub-branch in the agency.
4 At this time, you were middle-aged career criminals. Each of you was on parole from prison. Yours was a well-planned, sophisticated and cunning enterprise. You each conducted reconnaissance of the premises. Indeed, three days before the offence, you, Mr Mann, boldly made a deposit into an AMEX account you had at the agency using your licence for identification purposes. This enabled you to get a good look at the interior of the premises.
5 On the morning of the offence, before the agency was opened, one of you gained inside access through a roof and manhole cover. The other waited nearby to assist the getaway. As each of the four female staff arrived for work, they were confronted by a masked, gloved offender who pointed at them a silver handgun with an attached black silencer. Each was told to co-operate and be smart, words to the effect “we’re going to be sensible … we can do this the smart way or the stupid way …” One was grabbed by the shoulder. As it was established that each staff member was unconnected with the AMEX sub-branch, she was made to wait in a toilet. The offender was repeatedly reporting back on a mobile phone to the other offender outside. When the AMEX staff member arrived she was forced to turn off the alarm and open the safe, from which the property was stolen. She was then bundled into the toilet with the others and they were told not come out for some time. The offender was there for about an hour; he acted with cool determination and was last seen running to a car park located at the rear of the agency.
6 At this time, you were of similar age, height, build and hair colouring. The prosecution is unable to say which of you went inside the agency. At the plea hearing you both denied being that person, thereby implicating the other. This was laughable, one of you was lying, but I cannot say which one it was.
7 You, Mr Mann, took significant steps to cash the travellers cheques. Following the robbery, you tried to cash some cheques in Perth on 31 March 2003 and then in Vienna, Austria, in early June 2003. Hire car, phone and air line records linked you to this activity. You succeeded on one occasion in Austria, but twice you fled exchanges in Perth and Vienna when the teller was consulting a list of stolen cheques and you got cold feet. Unfortunately for you, in Vienna you were identified on CCTV and left behind a false Australian passport which you had presented as identification. It was in the name of Lewis Kon Canestra but with your details and photo. This passport and the name Canestra were later linked to you.
8 Between August 2003 and October 2004, the bulk of the travellers cheques, worth almost $183,700, was cashed in no less than ten countries throughout Europe. But I do not conclude that you, Mr Mann, were responsible for all this activity as you returned to Australia in late June 2003. Inferentially, you provided some of the cheques to others so they could be cashed.
9 You, Mr Jankovski, went to Perth with Mann a week after his first attempt to cash the cheques. You then visited him in Sydney, where he lived, a few days before his departure to Europe in early June. Phone and air line records linked you to this activity which may have related to Mann’s cashing attempts, but I cannot reach that conclusion against you beyond reasonable doubt.
10 Both of you profited from your criminality. Between August and September 2003, at a time when you each had no visible means of support other than social security payments, you, Mr Mann, or your connections, received a total of $106,600 and you, Mr Jankovski, or your connections, received a total of $15,000. Neither of you took the opportunity of giving evidence on the plea to explain innocent receipt of these funds, and, in all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt they resulted from the cashing of the cheques overseas.
11 In March 2004, you were both under police surveillance when you committed another armed robbery of a female at a house in Elwood (the Elwood matter). Police arrested you, Mr Mann, at your premises where you were in possession of a silver Beretta .22 model 74 pistol with a black silencer, which fitted the description of the weapon given by the victims of the armed robbery at the travel agency. The weapon was stolen and loaded.
12 Police efforts in 2003 and 2004 did not identify you as the offenders in this matter. No doubt you thought you had got away with this daring crime. It was not until 2008 that the cold case was reignited and further inquiries, particularly concerning the Canestra passport, the CCTV footage from Vienna and incriminating telephone and banking records, enabled police to identify each of you as the offenders. This was pain-staking and persistent work of the highest standard for which the police are to be commended.
13 You were interviewed by police in October 2008 and each declined to answer questions. Due to lengthy overseas investigations you were not charged until May 2011. You conducted contested committals in February 2012 and your trial commenced on 4 February last. Following the delivery of adverse pre-trial rulings, you entered pleas of guilty on 7 February. There is 56 days pre-sentence detention for you, Mr Jankovski, up to, but not including, today. There is no PSD issue for you Mr Mann.
Victim impact
14 I have received Victim Impact Statements made by three of the four staff members who were held up. The fourth is now living overseas, although she noted in her police statement how scared she was. The victims speak of the truly terrifying experience they underwent being confronted by a masked intruder with a frightening weapon. They feared for their lives and felt helpless. Each has described, in graphic and compelling terms, the terrible emotional and psychological impact which your offending has had on them over the past ten years. They have required ongoing counselling and speak of how memories of their trauma were painfully revived from time to time during different stages of the investigation. One of them resorted to carrying a knife with her when she was home alone, of installing a security alarm and changing her telephone number to an unlisted one, and to associated disturbing levels of anxiety. Sadly she states “I feel small, alone and angry that this still affects me after all these years and years of personal development.”
15 These statements are a reminder of the human impact of your crime. The recognition by the Court of the terms of such statements is, I consider, an important part of the necessary social rehabilitation of the victims. It is clear that each has suffered profound and enduring victim impact for which you should feel a great deal of shame and disgrace.
Michael Mann – background and personal circumstances
16 Next, I will turn to your respective backgrounds and personal circumstances. First, to you, Mr Mann. You are now fifty one and were forty one at the time of offending. You were born in Serbia. Regrettably, your parents separated when you were four. You remained with your father who remarried and brought you to Australia in 1968 when you were seven. You had no further contact with your mother until 1995 when you returned to Serbia, but there was little contact thereafter and she died in 2007.
17 In Australia your father and stepmother worked long and hard in factory work, seven days per week. From the age of about ten, you were often left alone and occasionally subjected to physical and emotional abuse. You were an only child. You completed Year 11 at a technical college, then left school and home. You had early work as a salesman, a builder’s labourer and a painter, but trouble with the law prevented you from engaging in steady, productive work.
18 You married in 1996 and from that relationship there is a daughter now aged sixteen who lives with her mother. You divorced in 2007 and have had no contact with your daughter since that time.
19 You have an appalling criminal history. Over twenty two years, between 1978, when you were seventeen, and 2000, when you were almost thirty nine, you have sustained no less than 366 convictions from twenty court appearances. Most of these were for offences of dishonesty including burglary, theft, forgery and uttering, for which you were sent to jail on many occasions. Particularly, I note that in this Court between 1985 and 1988, you were convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms for serious dishonesty. On the last occasion the sentence was six years’ imprisonment with a minimum of four and a half. Then, in April 2000, you were convicted again of serious dishonesty in the New South Wales District Court and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with a minimum of three years and four months. At the time of offending you were on parole for the New South Wales matter but it does not appear you have been or will be breached on that parole.
20 Following this offending, there were two further serious episodes of criminality and your significant incarceration for another armed robbery you committed in 1996. I will deal with each matter in turn. First, in April 2003, you robbed a young man at gunpoint and stole two watches worth a total of $10,500 (the Rolex matter). In setting up a meeting with the victim, you used the name Canestra and a mobile number registered to that name. You were arrested for this matter in August 2003 and bailed in December that year. You went for trial but following adverse pre-trial rulings; you pleaded guilty and were sentenced on 19 August 2004 to seven years' imprisonment with a minimum of five years. The sentencing Judge said you had carried out a carefully planned crime, conducted calmly by you over two days.
21 The second subsequent offending occurred a few months after you were released on bail on the Rolex matter. This was the Elwood matter I have already mentioned when, on 15 March 2004, in company with Jankovski, you committed an aggravated burglary and armed robbery on a woman in her home at Elwood. You knew the victim and arranged for Jankovski to accost the lady in her garage when she returned home alone at night. She was threatened with a loaded gun, taped and hooded and marched into her house. You were nearby in radio contact with Jankovski. You then came into the house and at gunpoint forced the victim to open her safe from which you stole contents as well as other items in the house worth a total of about $200,000. You were arrested a short time later and the property was recovered.
22 In July 2005, you were sentenced for the Elwood offences to a total of seven years' imprisonment, four of which were to be served cumulatively on the sentence for the Rolex matter. A new non parole period of seven years' imprisonment was fixed. The sentencing Judge said the offending was the most severe example of a home invasion having serious and long lasting victim impact. The sentence was reduced because of an undertaking you made to give evidence against your co-offender and one other. However, you reneged on this undertaking at a subsequent committal hearing. The DPP appealed and in October 2006 the Court of Appeal increased your sentence to eight years' imprisonment, of which five years was cumulative on the Rolex sentence and it fixed a new minimum of eight years' imprisonment.
23 The final matter concerned an armed robbery of the Bank of Melbourne which you committed with another offender as long ago as September 1996 (the Bank of Melbourne matter). The maximum for armed robbery at that time was 20 years’ imprisonment. It was sophisticated and well-planned criminality. You prepared rear access to the premises, entered wearing disguises and carried a small handgun with which you threatened bank staff. You stole about $137,000 made up of cash and travellers cheques. Only $45,000 worth was recovered. DNA profiles were obtained from discarded items of disguise but the police investigation stalled and it was not until 2004 that you became suspects because of DNA profiles police had then obtained. It is not clear when you were charged or why there was delay after the identification through DNA but your committal was held in May 2005 and you were convicted after trial in October 2007. Of course, by this time you were serving the sentences on the Rolex and Elwood matters.
24 On 16 October 2007, you were sentenced to a total of seven years' imprisonment, one year of which was to be served cumulatively on the Elwood sentence and a new minimum of eight years was fixed, meaning as I understand it, that there was no net increase on your then minimum term. That minimum sentence ended on 4 February this year and your total effective sentence concludes on 18 January 2016. The Adult Parole Board indicated on 19 February last that it is awaiting assessment reports and the outcome of this matter before reconsidering your case. It is agreed I am not required to fix a new non-parole period on your current sentence.
25 Mr Mann, you have now been incarcerated continuously since your arrest on the Elwood matter in March 2004, that is a period of more than nine years. During this time you have taken significant steps towards your rehabilitation. You have had the benefit of regular visits from your father and a friend. You obtained two certificates in general construction, painting and decorating, a trade in which you wish to work upon your release, and one concerning workplace safety arrangements. In a letter you provided to the Court dated 20 February 2013, you expressed sorrow for the crimes you have committed in the past, and through your counsel, expressed sorrow for the victim impact you caused in this offending. You realistically acknowledge that while you cannot take back the past, you have been striving towards a possible realistic future, including reconnecting with your estranged daughter.
26 When your mother passed away four years ago you said that you reassessed your life and reinforced your resolve to better yourself as a person. To that end you spent twelve months training as a “prisoner listener” so as provide a basic level of counselling for fellow inmates with problems. For about fourteen months you acted as a mentor for an intellectually disabled inmate, taking care of his day to day needs with supervision from clinicians. You also participated in a “law group program” which involved you heading a panel of four inmates interacting with legal study students from both school and university. You received certificates in 2009 and 2010 indicating you were a valued panel member of this program. Finally, in 2011 you obtained a certificate having completed the “Inside Parenting” program which involved approximately 120 hours of work designed to address personal issues and make you a better parent. Following this course, you went on to fill the role of prison support worker for the parenting program for a further six months. I commend you for all of this good work.
Vasko Jankovski – background and personal circumstances
27 Next, I shall turn to your background and personal circumstances Mr Jankovski. You are forty seven and were thirty seven at the time of offending.
28 I have had the advantage of a psychological report prepared by Mr Joblin in 2006. You were born in Macedonia. Your father came to Australia in 1968 to make a better life and you and your mother and older brother came here two years later when you were 4. You were raised in Geelong and left school after completing Year 10 when you were 15. You began drinking in your mid- teens. At some stage your brother returned to Macedonia and you have had no contact with him since that time.
29 Initially you worked in the poultry industry; you travelled overseas for a year then returned to work with your father at the Ford factory in Geelong. Then followed some plastering and concreting work. But, of significance, you developed a very serious problem with amphetamines, including having psychotic episodes. This led to heroin addiction which was described by your counsel as a “raging habit”. The drug problems you had brought you into conflict with your parents and the law. Your counsel explained that the bulk of your offending has been to service your drug habit and pay off drug debts.
30 You remained living with your parents until you married in 2003 when you were thirty seven. The relationship began about ten years earlier but it was a volatile one, especially given your drug use and criminal conduct. However, you have two step-daughters and a daughter who is now aged seven.
31 Your father died of cancer in 2001. Regrettably, you were in custody at the time of his funeral and were not permitted to attend. This caused you considerable distress and anxiety. You continued to care for your mother who is now in her early seventies; she lives alone and suffers from medical issues.
32 You, too, have a serious criminal history. Over twenty years, from 1983 when you were seventeen, to early 2003, when you were thirty seven, you sustained a total of seventy six convictions from twenty nine court appearances. Leaving aside motor traffic matters, many of these were for dishonesty and many were for violence including assault and possessing prescribed weapons. Particularly, in 1992 when twenty six, you were convicted of robbery and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order, which order was breached. In 2001, when thirty five, you were convicted of intentionally causing injury in a nightclub fight for which you were sentenced in this Court to two and a half years’ imprisonment with a minimum of fifteen months. At the time of this offending you were on parole for that offence and also on a Commonwealth recognisance release order and a wholly-suspended sentence which had been imposed one month before the offence. It does not appear you have been or will be breached on that Victorian parole or for the other matters I have mentioned.
33 You were arrested for the Elwood matter in March 2004 and on remand until you were bailed in late 2004. Thereafter you lived with your mother, but maintained contact with your former wife. Although you avoided drugs for quite some time, you began using them again in 2006.
34 You pleaded guilty to the Elwood matter and were sentenced on 1 August 2006. The sentencing Judge accepted that you played a lesser role than your co-offender, Mann, in that he had set up the offending which you came into at a late stage. You were apparently affected by heroin at the time. You only received $500 for participating and there was some basis for you believing that the whole affair was an insurance scam involving the victim, although this was not the case. Nevertheless, the Judge said you played an essential role and saw fit to be armed with a weapon when you accosted the victim. The Judge accepted, as suggested by Mr Joblin, that you were an intelligent person who had got off drugs whilst in custody, had insight and did not present with any mental health issues. You were sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment to serve a minimum of four years. Whilst in prison you apparently completed a number of self-improvement courses, but I do not have proofs as to this.
35 You were released from prison on parole on 22 November 2009. You returned to live with and care for your mother. You started on a methadone course in mid 2011. I have no drug screens. References I have received indicate that you are a kind and good person who has helped friends on many occasions. Your former wife indicated that after your release you spent a lot of time bonding with your young daughter and developing your loving relationship with your step-daughters, who are now aged eighteen and twenty one. Each of them have provided references confirming this and noting the close relationship you have with your own daughter and the negative effect your incarceration will have, particularly upon your young daughter.
36 Your former wife also spoke of the positive change in you since your release. She said you have avoided further criminality and drugs, but your counsel frankly explained that in June last year you were convicted and fined for shop- lifting. Nevertheless, you have been family orientated, cared for your mother, and engaged in building work around the house. All the referees spoke of your regret for this offending. Your counsel said you were very sorry for the victim impact in this case. Your former wife and daughters will visit you in prison.
Mitigating circumstances
37 Next, I will turn to mitigating circumstances. In your case, Mr Mann, you were the child of a broken marriage and lost all contact with your mother at a very early age. Whilst your father and stepmother provided for you, you were subjected to an unsatisfactory home environment and became socially and emotionally isolated from your parents. You made good employment efforts on leaving school but all this was compromised by trouble with the law.
38 I accept that over the past nine years whilst in prison you have demonstrated significant rehabilitative achievements and been a model prisoner. You have expressed a genuine desire to lead a law abiding life and re-establish contact with your daughter upon your ultimate release from prison.
39 In your case, Mr Jankovski, you seem to have come from a close and loving family environment, although you lost all contact with your brother when you were only young. You left school at a very young age and developed significant problems with alcohol and drugs. Your opportunities for productive and long term employment were compromised by this. Nevertheless you maintained a close relationship with your parents and developed a significant relationship with your wife and three daughters, whom I accept you love very deeply. It would appear you are a caring person who helps others, particularly your mother after your father passed away. You seem to have maintained a positive relationship with your former wife. Upon your release from prison in late 2009, you engaged in positive work, developed family relationships and apparently avoided drugs.
40 To these individual matters, must be added the common features that you have both pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding the significant trauma likely to have been experienced by the victims had they been required to give evidence at trial. This was of significant benefit to them and is a favourable feature of your pleas. There were over 50 witnesses on the Indictment and the trial would have run for many weeks. I accept that your pleas have been of utilitarian benefit and promoted the administration of criminal justice, for which alone there should be a significant discount in penalty.
41 Of course, you conducted a contested committal and only pleaded guilty following adverse pre-trial rulings. Whilst you are not to be punished for contesting the matter, it is true that you made late pleas. I am satisfied that both of you have shown some insight into the victim impact you caused, but I am not satisfied that your pleas reflect any particular or significant remorse for your offending. At the end of the day, you both faced a very strong prosecution case and I consider your pleas are a recognition of that fact.
42 Finally there has been significant delay in the case which was not your fault. Since you were interviewed by police in October 2008, there has been delay while police continued to make extensive investigations both in Australia and overseas and then in the completion of the matter. This all took time and you were left in a state of uncertain suspense. The delay is all the more significant because there has been rehabilitation for each of you in the meantime.
43 Of course, I must also bear in mind that you are being sentenced today for an offence which was committed ten years ago and, with the exception of the shop lifting matter for you, Mr Jankovski, the last time either of you committed any offence was nine years ago, in early 2004.
44 As to your prospects of rehabilitation, in your case Mr Mann, I must remain cautious because you have been in custody for such a long time and the true test as to how you will cope in society can only be gauged upon your ultimate release from prison. Having said that, there has been a significant change in your thinking and insight whilst you have been in custody and your behaviour in prison augers well for you in the future.
45 In your case, Mr Jankovski, you have displayed some positive rehabilitative tendencies since your release in 2009. Notwithstanding the blip I mentioned, you successfully completed parole and since you have been on a methadone program you have apparently avoided contact with drugs. I consider you have reasonable to good prospects for rehabilitation.
Other sentencing considerations
46 There are, of course, other important sentencing considerations. The maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment highlights the serious offence you have committed. I have already described your offending as well-planned, sophisticated, daring and cunning. To those descriptions I would add, it was determined and extremely frightening conduct which caused profound and enduring psychological harm and distress to the victims. This is a nightmare which every employee can barely contemplate if they work in premises holding money or other valuables. Your moral culpability is high indeed.
47 You, Mr Mann, were on NSW parole at the time of offending. You, Mr Jankovski, were on Victorian parole and on a Commonwealth recognisance release order and a wholly-suspended sentence at the time of offending. These matters are aggravating features. No applications were made to me under s.16(3B) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
48 Clearly, the principles of general and specific deterrence and just punishment, along with your rehabilitation, are of significance. Each of you accepts that there must be a term of immediate imprisonment. This is hardly surprising in all the circumstances.
49 However, the prosecution agrees, and so do I, that in addition to the mitigating circumstances; the principle of totality applies favourably to each of you. In practical terms, in fixing sentence, I have to take account of what would have been the likely total effective sentence and minimum for each of you had you both been dealt with for this offence at the same time as the Elwood matter and in your case, Mr Mann, for the Rolex matter as well. The relevant period of time of offending is a little over 12 months, from February 2003 for this offence to March 2004 for the Elwood matter. I consider the Bank of Melbourne offending in 1996 is too remote to be considered for totality purposes. That matter stands as prior offending (with a subsequent conviction) to be weighed up in the balance.
50 The prosecution submitted that the appropriate range of sentence for each of you was a head sentence of 5 to 6 years’ imprisonment with a minimum of 3 to 4 years. Neither of you submitted that this was in any way an inappropriate range. This was not surprising as, in all the circumstances; I consider the range very merciful. However, it is to be recalled that the prosecution speaks on behalf of the community in making such a submission and, somewhat reluctantly, I am prepared to abide by it. It was urged by defence counsel that I avoid a crushing sentence, one which provides light at the end of the tunnel. I agree this is an appropriate approach.
51 I consider the issue of parity arises. Initially, no submissions were made as to this, but today I have received submissions as to this issue. Your counsel, Mr Mann, submitted there was no reason to distinguish the role of offending between you but conceded there was a basis to distinguish your backgrounds and general circumstances. It is correctly agreed that you are to be treated as equal offenders. But you, Mr Mann, took significant steps to cash the stolen cheques in Australia and overseas, a finding I do not make against you, Mr Jankovski. While you both received money from the proceeds, you, Mr Mann, clearly received a lot more than your co-offender and you were instrumental in the distribution of these monies. This conduct is relevant to the commission of the offence but you are not to be sentenced for it. You both have serious criminal histories, but yours is worse, Mr Mann, indeed, among other descriptions you were a serial armed robber who used firearms to subdue your victims and steal property on a number of occasions. And I note the lesser role played by you, Mr Jankovski, in the Elwood matter. Mr Mann, your prospects for rehabilitation are not as favourable as those for your co-offender. For these reasons, I consider I should pass different sentences upon each of you.
52 I say to each of you on behalf of the community - I strongly denounce this shocking offending conduct.
Sentences
53 Mr Mann, please stand up. On the charge of armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment. I order that you serve a period of 4 years' imprisonment before which you shall not be eligible for release upon parole.
54 But for you plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with a minimum of 6 years. Please sit down for the moment.
55 Mr Jankovski, please stand up. On the charge of armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. I order that you serve a period of 3 years' imprisonment before which you shall not be eligible for release upon parole.
56 I declare that pre‑sentence detention of 56 days be reckoned as already served on that sentence and that that declaration be entered in the records of the Court.
57 But for you plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with a minimum of 5 years. Please sit down for the moment.
58 I will make the forfeiture order which is not opposed. I hand that down.
59 Mr Mann and Mr Jankovski, you need to go with the prison officers now, thank you. Please remove the offenders.
60 [Offenders removed]
0
0
0