Director of Public Prosecutions v Mortimer

[2018] VCC 1877

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

AT WARRNAMBOOL
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 17-01426

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ROBERT MORTIMER

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Warrnambool
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 November 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Mortimer
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VCC 1877

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms M. Brown
For the Accused	Mr C. Baker

HIS HONOUR: 

1Robert Mortimer, in March 2016, you were communicating inappropriately with a young 13-year-old child.  She reported what you were doing to the police in her State.  She did not wish to pursue a prosecution of you for what you had been saying and sending to her. 

2The police utilising appropriate investigatory techniques commenced to communicate with you, pretending to be a 14-year-old friend of the first child.  The police assumed the identity, Haley.  I will refer to the putative victim as Haley.  You always believed and acted as if she were a 14-year-old school child.  This police investigation commenced on or about 5 April 2016 and within minutes of the communication first starting, you were seeking photographs of the child and asking if she had the use of a webcam. 

3On 6 April, you again asked for photographs of her.  Then you said the following things to her and I quote, "I have chatted to young girls for a few years, just in chat rooms, not in real - a real meet up.  So has just been online.  Nothing more.  I do like girls your age and older and even girls, 13 like Megan[1].  So I'm fine with that.  As for my age, I am 55 years old.  Is that okay with you?" 

[1] A pseudonym name

4You went on, "I can send you more photos if you want, even nude shots if you like."  You then continued, "May I also ask you, are you a virgin?  And do you have nice boobies and a bald pussy?"

5Haley sent - that is the police - sent you a picture of a schoolgirl in uniform.  Your response was "H'mm, cute.  Do you wear panties or G-string?  Do you have a bald pussy?"

6The depravity of your conduct is self-evident in those early communications.  You then went on, escalating the sexualised conduct by offering to send photographs of your penis to Haley, someone you believed was a 14-year-old child.  The communications again elevating in the seriousness of your depravity when you said, "I want to have sex with a girl your age.  In saying that, I'm willing to be friendly with a girl your age and slowly get to know you first before going that next step with her.  I can teach you when and if that happens." 

7Under a pretext that her mother had banned her from the internet, Haley did not communicate with you directly again until 12 April.  You had in the meantime pestered her, seeking to have conversations by mobile phone.  On 12 April, you sent disturbing photographs of you holding your erect penis.  Your requests for photographs of her and descriptions of the underwear that she wore and what size continued.  You wanted her to text you using her mobile phone. 

8It was said by Haley that she was going to Mount Gambier.  You said that you lived 45 minutes away and asked when she would be there.  You continued to try to have her call you and you tried to call her.  On 21 April 2016, you communicated with her, saying, "Can I ask you something personal?  Do you have a hairy vagina or have you ever had a guy lick you out?"  You went on, "Can I tell you a secret?  I want to have sex with a girl your age."  You asked her if she liked the photos of your penis.  You then said, "It would be great if you were interested in me too.  No pressure."  Then you said, "I want to taste your vagina lips, lick your inner lips and suck your clitoris."  You then asked her her breast size.  You then asked her to send photographs of herself naked or at least in her underwear. 

9By 26 April 2016, you were speaking about meeting up one day to talk and "maybe fool around".  You spoke of going to the movies with her and enquired if she was coming back to Mount Gambier.  You told her, "I like you and I want to be with you."  The next day you sent more photos of your erect penis, asking if she liked them.  Communication continued to 6 May 2016 and thereafter the police blocked you as a caller. 

10I was told that due to inadequate resources the police could not arrange to arrest you until 20 January 2017.  In your record of interview, you made

11admissions to the offending involving Haley.  It is that offending no more and no less that you fall to be sentenced for.  However, in your record of interview, you confirmed and elaborated on an aspect of an early conversation that you had with Haley.  That is, in your record of interview, you told police that you had been communicating online with under aged girls in the past.  You indicated this conduct had been going on for six years.

12You utilised a website called Chat Avenue.  In your communications you said underage girls would offer naked photographs and you asked some underage girls for such photographs.  You gave some fanciful self-justifying explanations that the underage girls were pursuing you rather than the other way around, that the conversations were about having sex with the underage children, it was the child would initiate it.  You said that in the chats and in seeking pictures or photos, you were not seeking sexual gratification but it was out of pure curiosity.  All this is revealing of your lack of insight, your minimisation of your serious crimes motivated by your entrenched paedophilic sexual desires.

13To the police in your record of interview you claimed not to search the internet for child pornography but notwithstanding that, your search terms included these terms, "Young girls", "Young", "Young teens" but you claimed that you got nothing out of it.  In respect of the communications with Hayley, you said that you may have sent nude photos of yourself for shock, for the shock factor.  You said you did not intend to meet Hayley, a matter I will return back to.

14As can be readily seen from your record of interview, there was a concerning set of self-justifying answers.  Your explanations and excuses are revealing of a troubling attitude.  Your computer and phone equipment was seized and interrogated.  What you had downloaded was 154 images and four videos of vile child pornography.  Using the well accepted child exploitation system scales, what was found was 128 images of category one, 21 images and four videos of category two, three images of category three and two images of category four.

15The descriptions provided to me are, as usual, disturbing.  The majority of images and videos are of pre-teen females and there are, amongst the images of the children, children as young as four, forced to engage in sexual activity.  I will not describe the contents any further but what is shown is photographs and videos of bewildering sexual abuse of children.  Your possession of these images depicting cruel, criminal exploitation of children fosters and encourages the ongoing sexual violation of children.  You are, by your possession of the child pornography, part of the sexual violation, the trading of it.

16It is noted that your possession of the child pornography is not further aggravated by you on-trading or profiteering directly.  Many others who come before the courts have greater quantities and images more unspeakably vile than yours.  But you nonetheless sought out from the dark corners of the internet and then kept what was found on your computer and other equipment.  Whatever may be said of other crimes, your possession of your child pornography is serious offending requiring punishment that denounces what you did and deters others from engaging in this depraved conduct.

17To return to the offending arising from your direct communication with Hayley, you were charged and pleaded guilty to a charge of grooming a child for sexual activity using a carriage service.  All the communications are aggregated into a single charge between the dates of 5 April and 9 May 2016.  The second charge was one of soliciting child pornography using a carriage service, being the occasion on 21 April 2016, when you requested naked photographs of Hayley, or at least of her in her underwear.

18As to the seriousness of these offences, I can do no better than the authoritative words of the very experienced Court of Appeal, a Victoria Bench, of President Maxwell, Justice Nettle and Justice Weinberg in The Queen v Gaja, when in 2008 they said the following at paragraph 56:

"The legislature views conduct of this kind as deplorable.  The legislation creating this offence has been introduced as a measure against an increasing trend of paedophiles using the internet as a means of accessing children and thereby grooming them for subsequent sexual offending". The offender's conduct was to be regarded as no less morally reprehensible merely because the person to whom the communication made was, unbeknown to him, an undercover police officer.  The Court of Criminal Appeal in dealing with the Commonwealth grooming offences said in The Queen v Asplund in 2010 at paragraph 50 the following:

"The offences of which the respondent was convicted have the potential to do great damage to young persons in the community.  They are hard to detect and general deterrence is of particular significance when sentencing.  The need to protect children and young persons from predators using electronic facilities has been recognised by the Parliament in providing for these offences and must be enforced by the courts with sentences of appropriate severity".

19That part of The Queen v Asplund was referred to by the Court of Appeal in Victoria just recently in 2017, in Meadows v The Queen at paragraph 49.  The Court of Appeal in another decision later in 2017, being the DPP v Singh said the following at paragraph 60.  But it said the following, though at that time it was just dealing with and discussing the offence of procuring a child for sexual activity, which has a maximum term of 15 years, not the 12-year maximum for this offence.  But it said this.

"The seriousness of the offences under that section is not to be underestimated.  (But in my view, if I interpolate, it is to attach to this offence).  The conduct which it prohibits is insidious and often highly damaging.  The offending is calculated to harm children who are vulnerable to abusive, predatory approaches which are, of their nature, liable to be kept secret from third parties.  The maximum penalty for the offence is very substantial.  The authorities are clear that the offence usually merits a term of immediate imprisonment.  Lesser sentencing dispositions should be very rare.  While there are a number of instances of non-custodial sentences having been upheld after appeal, several of them turn on features peculiar to Crown appeals.  None of them should be seen as anything other than exceptional".

20What has been said by the appellate courts and applied by sentencing judges is that general deterrence and denunciation or adequate punishment are of the utmost importance.  Proper social values must be restated by the punishment imposed on predator sexual offenders like you.  These offences are hard to detect, evidenced by your own frank admission of engaging in sexual communication with underage girls for six years.  The offences are more prevalent, enabled by younger children using the internet and using enticing social media platforms and communication apps.

21The capacity of parents or adults to supervise and protect vulnerable children from predators like you is ever more difficult in modern times.  The courts must do as the law has required of courts from time immemorial and that is to protect the vulnerable from harm and protect social values from corroding influences.  In these days that means the courts punishing those that skulk about not in playgrounds or parks but in cyber space.  Your offending undermines the positive benefits offered by the internet and internet communication tools.

22In this case your behaviour was persistent, calculated in an insidious way to escalate the grooming, moving from questions about boyfriends to questions about virginity, to the appearance of her genitalia, up to describing how you would have sex with her, how you would teach her, how you wanted to have sex with girls her age.  You told her to keep the conversations and your depraved photographs of your erect penis hidden from her parents.  While you made no or took no explicit steps to cover your identity, you had done what you were doing with Hayley with impunity for six years previously and it is to be supposed you felt secure enough from law enforcement to reveal your identity.  That said, you knew what you were doing was wrong. 

23It was said by your counsel in his well-considered plea, that you did not display some of the aggravating circumstances present in some other cases, such as not using direct threats or violent language.  And, as mentioned, you did not try to conceal your real identity.

24It was said that the period of the offending was limited, approximately 34 days.  But that was because the police ended the communication.  You were, when there were pauses in the communication, persistent in trying to get the child to re-engage.  As to your intentions to meet up with Hayley, though you later denied you would have ever gone through with it, I am of the view to the criminal standard that it was your hope to ultimately meet up and have physical sexual activity.

25That hope was expressed but nothing more was done.  I have already read some of your own words, which made clear your hopes.  And I add that at the end, on 26 April, you asked her if she was still interested in maybe meeting one day to talk and maybe fool around.  Hayley then asked you and you then said - how this would occur and you said, "I don't know at this time but in the future, so do you want to meet me?"

26As to your personal circumstances, you are now 57.  You were at the time of your offending, as you frankly told the child, 55.  You were raised in Mildura.  You had difficulties at school and left at the end of year ten.  You told the medicolegal psychologist that you saw for this plea of an attempt by an adult to take advantage of you when you were a child but your screams put an end to that.  Shortly after school, you commenced work in a local hospital laundry where you remained for 22 years.

27Your employment ended when the laundry services were privatised.  You re-trained as a cleaner and worked for about four years in that field.  Thereafter you have been on a disability pension, that is since the age of about 45, maybe 48 or thereabouts.  You ceased working because you had what you described as a nervous breakdown.  You had married some time before at around the age of 31.  Your wife, who continues to support you, also suffered a nervous breakdown.  You did not seek or receive any treatment at that time, although you have been prescribed anti-depressant medication.

28You and your wife moved to Casterton so as to care for her elderly father.  You lived with her but are without any other social or family supports.  Your wife's health is poor and she relies on you.  You and she are diabetics and you have high blood pressure, all of which are medicated.  Letters from your wife's general practitioner made it clear how reliant on you she was.  That said, no submission as put that this hardship was at the required level of exceptional circumstances for it to be migratory.

29Any incarceration will weigh heavily on you as worry about her.  I have taken that into account.  You have no prior or subsequent criminal convictions.  Your prior or your previous good character is to your credit.  But as the authorities make plain, this mitigating factor is of less weight in offence of this kind.  Also by your own admission, your character was one which involved similar communication for children the past six years.

30Your plea of guilty is of value and it means your sentence will be lower than it otherwise would have been.  Your plea of guilty is taken as a sign of remorse.  The question of other evidence of remorse is not straightforward.  Your record of interview contained, as I said, self-justifications and efforts to blame or pass responsibility onto the children.  To the psychologist, Ms Matthews, who was engaged for the purposes of this plea, you said such things as this - or she wrote, you were unable to recall how you first encountered Megan.  It is hard to know whether that is the previous child or Hayley.  It would appear that that is the reference to Hayley.  Suggesting that she contacted you first.  You further stated that although you proposed to meet up with Megan, you would have never gone ahead with it.  "I was just talking, certainly not going to act on it".

31However, you reported being shocked and disgusted with yourself sending pictures and talking in an explicit manner to Megan.  Ms Matthews wrote, however, implied that this was not a sexual experience for him, as he has never had the desire to touch anyone that was that age.  You were reported as being remorseful of chatting with underage girls; however, you reiterated that you were not doing anything physical and were not planning to do so.

32Ms Matthews goes on, that you reported being unaware of what impact your actions may have had on Megan, stating, "Really don't know about children these days or how - about their lives".  She notes that you reported that although you understood the current laws regarding child sexual exploitation, you did not realise that you were breaking them, as you had no intention or desire to become physical with underage persons. 

33You reiterated that your actions were "Wrong" and adding that you were "Disgusted with yourself".  You went on to state that you should have gone about it in a better way then you did.  When asked what things you could have done better, you said you should not have been in the chat room in the first place, not get involved, not send the photographs.  In regard to the photographs, you said you had no intention to share, having taken them, to share them with anyone.  However, then stated, "I don't know why I took them, I should have deleted them".

34You then went on about what you would like to say to the court.  You said or stated that you now realise what you had done and that you would never go down the same route again, "Remorseful for what happened and sorry if it wrecked a young lady's life".  She finally concluded that in respect of your cognition based your language, education and employment history, it is estimated that you have a borderline range of cognitive function and insight was observed to be patchy.

35These matters appear to, in my view, concern Ms Matthews.  I add that you have been undergoing treatment from a psychologist - local psychologist, both before and after the offence.  I was told that the fixed fee structure of Victoria Legal Aid meant no report was obtained.  Again I say as I have said many times of medicolegal psychologists that I do not understand why they do not simply communicate with their professional colleagues who are treating offenders like you to get a more informed analysis or a longer view or perspective about, in this case, your psychological make up and your prognosis, that is from someone who has seen you for a number of years both before and after this offending.

36But Ms Matthews did analyse your risk for future like sexual offending.  She concluded that given all the circumstances of your engagement over some years with young children and your possession of child pornography, that you satisfied the criteria of paedophilia.  In her view your risk of reoffending was between low to moderate.  What was concerning to Ms Matthews was your minimisation and your deficits in insight about the impact of child exploitation activities on children.  Her view was that your risk could be lowered by engagement in sex offender treatment programs.

37Your prospects for rehabilitation are difficult to confidently predict.  You are a risk for like offending though in the broad scale of low, moderate and high, you are said to be low to moderate.  I am concerned about your lack of real insight into your wrongdoing and the seriousness of your crimes.  In the end, I consider your prospects for reform to be no better than guarded.  Your counsel submitted that any sentence should not involve any term of actual incarceration.  He urged, in effect, a combined penalty involving a community corrections order and appropriate sex offender programs.

38The prosecution submitted that the only adequate or appropriate sentence was one involving immediate imprisonment for each charge.  It was pointed out that an undertaking to complete a sex offender's program with two years could be ordered as a special condition of any good behaviour period.  I have taken into account all these submissions and all the submissions made by both counsel, together with the authorities and the comparison cases referred to by counsel.  Each case is different and other cases are no more than a broad yard stick or guide. 

39In considering your circumstances, your crimes and your prospects for the future I am firmly of the view that the importance sentencing purposes or sentencing considerations as set out in the Commonwealth Crimes Act cannot be met otherwise than by a period of imprisonment, grave as that always is.  Anything other than imprisonment would not adequately punish or send the important message of deterrence.  In fact a sentence other than imprisonment would undermine an important aspect of deterrence, being consistency in sentencing.

40As the courts have said of committing the crimes like you have committed, there must be an expectation that imprisonment will ordinarily be imposed.  Yours is one of those cases.  I have not overlooked the need for rehabilitation and protection of the community by having you treated for your deviant behaviours.  Thus I will compel you to undertake a sex offenders program on your release.

41As I intend to impose a sentence of imprisonment for each of the charges, then for Charge 3 you are a serious sexual offender.  Protection of the community has, for that offence, been the primary sentencing purpose.  I am required to impose a sentence cumulative on the other sentences unless I otherwise order.  That said, I am mindful of the tension between Parliament's intent in the serious offender provisions and the principle of totality.

42The child pornography offences are separate from your grooming offences and this must be acknowledged and properly punished.  I do not intend to fully cumulate and I will otherwise order but there must be a very significant degree of cumulation, as this legislation, the serious offender legislations means that you must be sentenced differently to other offenders.  Can you please stand?

43In respect of Charge 1, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and four months.  On Charge 2 you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of six months.  On Charge 3 you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.  Charge 1 commences eight months after the sentenced imposed on Charge 3.  Charge 2 also commences eight months after the sentence imposed on Charge 3, that is, it is wholly concurrent with the other Commonwealth offence.

44That means, in effect, a total sentence of three years.  On Charge 1, I order that you be released on a recognisance release order after serving 16 months of that term.  I further order that as a condition of the recognisance release order that you be of good behaviour and satisfy a condition:  that you be of good behaviour for 24 months and that as a condition you enrol and participate and complete a sex offenders course.

45In respect of Charge 3, you are a serious sexual offender and I make that declaration which will be entered into the records of the court.  There is a Sex Offenders Registration Act requirement is there Ms Brown?

46MS BROWN:  Yes, Your Honour, the reporting obligations are for life.

47HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  As a consequence of the offences that you have committed, you must register under the Sex Offenders Registration Act.  That is mandatory.  The period of time is also mandatory and that is life.  That Act is to protect the community from the risk of sexual offences of the kind that you committed.  Had you pleaded not guilty to these offences and been found guilty of them I would have imposed a sentence of four years and six months with a non-parole period of three years.  Now, in respect of the Commonwealth and State sentences and the like, these are confounding things.  Is it accurate and does it work?

48MS BROWN:  Your Honour, I would ‑ ‑ ‑

49HIS HONOUR:  Or do you need some time to work it out?

50MS BROWN:  I would, Your Honour, if ‑ ‑ ‑

51HIS HONOUR:  Yes, of course.  Thank you.  Likewise, Mr Baker - Mr Mortimer, you can seated.  There's a document that you have to sign.  And it's this.  I sign a document telling - that it says that I've given you a document, being relating to the Sex Offenders Registration Act.  You also sign a document saying that you have received that document.

52It is the contents of the document that count, that set out all the requirements that are placed upon you in respect of your sex offender registration.  Those requirements are significant and onerous and the consequences are serious if you do not comply with that.  That document will be provided to you for you to sign.  Is there any other orders required?

53MS BROWN:  No, Your Honour.

54HIS HONOUR:  What happens to all the equipment that was taken and seized and whatever?

55MS BROWN:  There's been a consent to forfeiture and retention document provided to ‑ ‑ ‑

56HIS HONOUR:  And that just happens through that process?  Thank you.

57MS BROWN:  Yes, it'll be signed by the offender, Your Honour.

58HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.

59MS BROWN:  I appreciate that Your Honour has another matter ‑ ‑ ‑

60HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

61MS BROWN:  Would Your Honour prefer ‑ ‑ ‑

62HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  What we need to do is, Mr Mortimer can be taken to the cells at an appropriate time.  If it's necessary for him to return, he'll return.  If it's not required, he'll remain in the cells.

63MS BROWN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

64HIS HONOUR:  Is that satisfactory?

65MS BROWN:  Yes, Your Honour.

66HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  Mr Mortimer, the imposition of a gaol term and when there are combined Commonwealth and State offences, is diabolically difficult for no good reason.  It needs to be checked by the lawyers.  If there's been some technical error, it'll be fixed up.  If there hasn't been, then the sentence that I've announced will start and continue and you'll be required to undertake the recognisance release.  Does he have to sign a document if that's the case?   I think he does.

67MS BROWN:  Your Honour, he has to - he does have to sign the recognisance.

68HIS HONOUR:  Can it be done now or is it required to be done only once we've sorted out precisely what the terms are?

69MS BROWN:  It can be done now, Your Honour, and then if there's any issue with the commencement dates and so on, that can be sorted out if there is a problem.

70HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

71MS BROWN:  Might I just show ‑ ‑ ‑

72HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

73MS BROWN:  ‑ ‑ ‑ the recognisance to my learned friend?  And ‑ ‑ ‑

74HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  And he'll also sign the sex offenders documentation.

75MS BROWN:  Pardon me, Your Honour, but I am not - I don't remember what the recognisance sum, specified by Your Honour ‑ ‑ ‑

76HIS HONOUR:  I didn't - I didn't say, $1,000.

77MS BROWN:  Thank you.

78HIS HONOUR:  (Indistinct words).

79MS BROWN:  Thank you.  So, that recognisance release order ‑ ‑ ‑

80HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

81MS BROWN:  ‑ ‑ ‑ has been prepared.

82HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

83MS BROWN:  When my learned friend has had an opportunity to check it ‑ ‑ ‑

84HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

85MS BROWN:  ‑ ‑ ‑ can I just indicate that some of the conditions on the recognisance have been struck out ‑ ‑ ‑

86HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

87MS BROWN:  ‑ ‑ ‑ simply because it's Your Honour's intention that he ‑ ‑ ‑

88HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

89MS BROWN:  ‑ ‑ ‑ do the sex offender treatment.

90HIS HONOUR:  It is, yes.

91MS BROWN:  Yes.

92HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  And the overall effect of the sentence should be three years with a two.  That is, he's to do two years and then it's to be - and then recognisance release or the year and good behaviour for two years (indistinct words) the sex offender's course.  That's the effect of it.  So, just check that that is how - the effect of what I want has been precisely articulated.

93MR BAKER:  May I approach Mr Mortimer?

94HIS HONOUR:  If you take those things - yes, thank you.  Mr Baker's not listening.  There's no communication with anyone in the court.  So, the lady who just got up needs to sit down ‑ ‑ ‑

95MR BAKER:  Sit down.

96HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ and remain completely where she is.  Thank you.

97MS BROWN:  Your Honour, thank you for that time.  The orders that Your Honour has made give effect to Your Honour's stated intention.  And apologies if I've just forgotten or failed to take account of one detail.

98HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

99MS BROWN:  Charge 3 was a sentence of 12 months.

100HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

101MS BROWN:  Did Your Honour set a non-parole period ‑ ‑ ‑

102HIS HONOUR:  No.

103MS BROWN:  ‑ ‑ ‑ in relation to Charge 3.

104HIS HONOUR:  No.

105MS BROWN:  Is Your Honour declining to set a non-parole period ‑ ‑ ‑

106HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

107MS BROWN:  ‑ ‑ ‑ in the circumstances.

108HIS HONOUR:  Correct.  Yes.

109MS BROWN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

110HIS HONOUR:  That's exactly right.  There's no need for it.  Mr Mortimer, having signed the acknowledgement that he's received a notification, reporting obligations and notification reporting period.  That'll be forwarded to chief commissioner of police in respect of the Sex Offenders Registration Act.  In respect of the recognisance release, that document has been signed by
Mr Mortimer.  I have signed it.  My associate will sign it and they'll be copies provided.  So, do you have the view that things are in order?

111MR BAKER:  It's my understanding they're in order, Your Honour.  May I approach Mr Mortimer again in relation to signing one further document?

112HIS HONOUR:  That's got something to do with court?

113MR BAKER:  Yes, Your Honour.  It's the authorisation for the forfeiture of the items.  We just wanted to make a slight amendment to it, before he signed it, Your Honour.

114HIS HONOUR:  Certainly.  All in order?  Thank you.  Is there anything further required?

115COUNSEL:  No, Your Honour.

116HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  And so there's no - the intention having and the figures and the technicalities have been checked.  There's no need to have this matter recalled at all.

117MS BROWN:  That's correct.

118HIS HONOUR:  Mr Mortimer can be taken to the cells.  I thank counsel for their very considerable assistance in difficult circumstances of State, Commonwealth offences.

‑ ‑ ‑