Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen
[2016] VCC 608
•13 May 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-15-01104
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ANH TUAN NGUYEN |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 4, 6 and 11 May 2016 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 13 May 2016 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 608 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Ms K. Hamill (at plea) Ms L. Stevenson (at sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R. Stary (at plea) Ms K. Ljubicic (at sentence) | Stary Norton Halphen |
HER HONOUR:
1 Anh Nguyen, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivating a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity. The maximum penalty applicable to that offence is 25 years’ imprisonment.
2 By way of background, you were born in 1985, and at the time of this offending were 29 and at sentence, 30 years of age. At the time of this offending, you lived at a property in Cairnlea with your wife, Thi Hoai Thu Pham.
3 On 14 November 2014, Zahn Real Estate were managing agents for a property at 234 Manningham Road, Doncaster. You attended at the real estate office, with a female you introduced as your ‘wife’, Hana Nguyen (Hana).
4 On 21 November 2014, you and Hana completed a 12-month Residential Tenancy Agreement and Bond Lodgement form for the rental of the Doncaster property, which was to commence on 25 November 2014. You paid the bond and one month’s rental in cash.
5 Three days later you returned to the real estate office and collected the keys to the property. On 22 January 2015 you again attended and paid $1,600 in cash for rent.
6 From around early-February 2015, your wife, Pham, observed you were regularly absent from the Cairnlea property until at least midnight and often did not return home at all.
7 Peter Dimmy, who lives close to the Doncaster property, noticed that it had been leased in around December 2014. He had not seen anyone living at the address since that time, but occasionally saw a light on at the property. He also noticed there were dogs at the property that would bark frequently, in particular barking constantly from around 6.00 pm on 17 February 2015 and throughout the following day. Mr Dimmy called police early in the morning of 19 February 2015 to complain.
8 Two units from Doncaster police attended the property, arriving at approximately 2.40 am on 19 February 2015 in response to that complaint.
9 Sergeant Farrell saw a car with its boot open in the carport of the property and four dogs in the back yard jumping in and out of the car boot. He saw lights on and could hear the sound of running water inside the house. He became concerned about the welfare of the occupants after not receiving a response to police calls or knocks on the door. With the assistance of the fire brigade, police gained entry to the house at approximately 3.00 am on 19 February 2015.
10 When they entered the house, police found three rooms devoted to the hydroponic cultivation of cannabis. The windows of those rooms were boarded up with timber and black plastic sheeting.
11 Police left the property after ascertaining that no one was present. A search warrant was obtained and executed at 8.15 am.
12 During that search, police seized a number of items, as outlined in paragraph 12 of the prosecution opening, which included a total of 86 plants, with a total weight of 91.397 kilograms. The plants were analysed as being cannabis (Charge 1, cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis). Seventeen of the plants seized were mature, or close to maturity, with leaves and flowering heads, weighing approximately 45.6 kilograms, equating to an air-dried weight of approximately 11.4 kilograms. Had the remaining immature plants been grown to maturity, they would have been likely to yield 31 to 63 kilograms (air-dried) of leaves and flowering heads.
13
An electrical contractor attended the Doncaster property on the morning of
19 February and an illegal meter bypass was found.
14 Energy Australia is the electricity retailer for the Doncaster property, and their records show that supply was connected on 28 November 2014 in the name of Kevin Tran.
15 Police also found personal items at the Doncaster property that suggested occupation of it, including a green and white toothbrush. Resultant DNA analysis of the bristles and head of the toothbrush showed that your DNA profile matched one contributor, and another contributor was Ms Thi Van Tran (Hana).
16 The four dogs found at the Doncaster property were scanned for microchips. Two of the dogs were listed and registered at your Cairnlea home address, one to you and another to your wife, Pham. One of the other dogs was registered on the same database to “Tim Trevorrow”. The prosecution asserts you placed Pham’s dog at the Doncaster property with the other dogs found there.
17 On 20 February 2015, police searched your Cairnlea property and found a number of documents, as outlined in paragraph 20 of the prosecution opening, including copies of documents located in your bedroom associated with the rental of the Doncaster property. Police also found a number of items similar to those used in the hydroponic set-up at the Doncaster property.
18 On 20 February 2015, you went to the Doncaster police station, were arrested and took part in a record of interview. Amongst other things, you stated that you met an overseas student Van Tran (Hana) in approximately June/July 2014 and commenced a relationship with her. That in around October 2014 she told you she was pregnant.
19 You said Tran asked you to pay for her school fees, but when you refused, she told you someone else called Cuong had paid the fees for her.
20 You said Cuong had arranged the Doncaster property for Tran to live in. You said you attended the office of Zahn Real Estate with Tran to sign the rental agreement and that Cuong paid the bond and rent for the property. You admitted you kept copies of the rental documents at your Cairnlea property.
21 You said you went to the Doncaster property when you had a day off work, about four or five times in total, spending a number of hours there. You knew the Doncaster property was being used to cultivate cannabis, but said you did not tell police about it because Tran was finishing a crop for Cuong as a means of repaying her debt to him.
22 You estimated there were 50 to 60 cannabis plants growing at the Doncaster property.
23 You admitted using a toothbrush at the property.
24 Regarding items found in the garage at your Cairnlea property, you said Cuong had asked you to store them at your house. You knew the items were to be used for the purpose of cultivating a cannabis crop.
25 The prosecution says your account regarding the involvement of Cuong was untrue and an attempt by you to shift the blame in relation to your offending.
26 On 19 June 2015, police spoke to Cuong Do, the owner of the driver’s licence found at your Cairnlea property. Mr Do said he had lost his licence around two years’ earlier. He denied knowing Ms Tran (Hana), and he declined to make a statement.
27 Ms Tran departed Australia for Vietnam on 14 February 2015, five days before police discovered the crop. She was arrested when she returned on 20 July 2015 and gave a ‘no comment’ record of interview.
28 Neither Ms Tran nor Mr Do have been charged in relation to this offending.
29 In relation to the cultivation charge, it was initially put on the basis of your rental of the Doncaster property, having the guard dogs at the property and spending time at the property tending the crop, as evidenced by the presence of your DNA on the toothbrush, but I shall return to the now basis of the charge later in these sentencing remarks.
30 This matter proceeded to a contested committal on 25 June 2015, at which time the informant and corroborator were cross-examined.
31 You offered to plead guilty to cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis on 3 February 2016. Your plea of guilty is, therefore, late in the piece.
32 Albeit entered late, you have pleaded guilty to this charge and you are entitled to have that fact taken into account in your favour, and I do so.
33 The community, by your plea of guilty, has been spared the time and cost of a trial, albeit I note a contested committal did occur involving two police witnesses.
34 I am prepared to accept your plea of guilty indicates some remorse for your offending, although I am concerned whether such is genuine remorse particularly in light of your relevant prior offending.
35
You have been in custody since you were arrested on 20 February, and as at
4 May 2016 you had then spent 439 days in custody.
36 The prosecution made application for a disposal order in relation to the cannabis, cultivation equipment, and various other items seized pursuant to the search warrant. Counsel on your behalf, Mr Stary, consented to the making of the order and I make the order in the terms sought.
37 I turn to your prior criminal history. On 19 September 2011 you were arrested and remanded in custody in relation to earlier relevant offending subsequently dealt with at the Melbourne County Court on 22 June 2012. There were two indictments then before the Court, Indictment B12587841 for possess cannabis, cultivate cannabis and possession of a false document (a driver's licence). On Indictment B12026444.1, on possess cannabis, cultivate cannabis. You were sentenced to a total effective sentence of 9 months, which then equated to the time you had at that time served in custody by way of pre-sentence detention. That sentence was imposed by his Honour Judge Punshon of this Court (Exhibit C). That offending is very concerning in light of your present charge.
38
You next appeared at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court on a charge of unlawful assault and failing to answer bail on 25 September 2014 and were fined and a conviction recorded. It was just two months after that sentence on
25 September 2014 that you commenced your offending before me on
25 November 2014.
39 You have, as I have said, concerning relevant prior offences. It seems you did not learn from the nine months you spent in custody for cultivating cannabis as you have, yet again, ventured down the same path. This time, however, a commercial quantity was involved.
40
Mr Stary, who appeared on your behalf, prepared a written outline of submissions for your plea hearing (Exhibit 1) and addressed them during the course of the plea. You conceded the plants located at Manningham Road exceeded the commercial quantity threshold. You maintained, according to
Mr Stary, your account in the record of interview, that Hana Nguyen was Thi Van Tran. Regarding Cuong Do, Mr Stary submitted that person was known to police and had relevant prior convictions. He submitted the presence of DNA of Thi Van Tran having been located on the same toothbrush as your DNA at the premises, supported your answers in the interview relevant to her involvement at the property.
41 Mr Stary submitted that both Ms Tran and Mr Do were also involved in this offending, and he urged to a greater degree than you. I discussed the basis of the prosecution case at some length with Mr Stary.
42 Ultimately, Mr Stary’s submission was that the prosecution case (paragraph 27 of the prosecution opening) relevant to you tending the crop at the Manningham Road address, was not supported by the evidence. That submission raised a number of issues regarding your plea of guilty to the charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, and ultimately led to this plea hearing being adjourned.
43
Mr Stary had submitted that your instructions were that you knew the property had been rented and you had been part of that, having signed the lease agreement. You however did not live at the property, rather it was Ms Tran.
Mr Stary submitted that conclusion was consistent with the items located in the house. In summary, Mr Stary submitted your involvement was that you were having an affair with Ms Tran and would simply visit her at the home, albeit aware that there was a crop there.
44 The prosecution sought instructions in relation to that submission.
45 Correspondence was received by me from the prosecution dated 9 May 2016, at which time the prosecution conceded they were not able to point to any evidence that would prevent the court from being satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your involvement did not extend to actively tending the crop. The prosecution otherwise relied upon the matters set out in the prosecution opening.
46 I discussed this briefly with Mr Stary on 11 May 2016 and that I would sentence you on the basis there was no proof you actually physically tended the crops. Your involvement included signing the relevant lease documentation for the property, attending the property on a number of occasions, being aware the property was used for cultivation of cannabis, and providing cash payment of rent each month to the estate agent. As for the involvement of any other potential co‑offenders, the prosecution described Ms Tran as being a minder of the crop, but beyond that there was no further description of her involvement, nor any proof of specific involvement of the person Cuong.
47
In my opinion, to suggest any further particularisation of involvement of either Do or Tran in cultivation of cannabis at Manningham Road, on the material before me cannot be ascertained. The police, following investigation of both Do and Tran have not charged either with any offending relating to this property. It may be that the police only became aware of the toothbrush and the clothing of Ms Tran following the interview with her, however they did not seek to
re-interview her.
48 Mr Stary tendered two drug screens which showed negative results for illicit substances whilst in custody.
49
Turning to your background and history, you are married to Thi Pham, who is employed in hospitality at Melbourne airport. Your wife came to Australia on
28 February 2014, having been sponsored by you. You married on 26 March 2014. Your wife was on a spousal visa. It is clear your wife had no knowledge of your infidelity and was unaware of your offending until spoken to by police on 23 February 2015. Despite that knowledge, she has remained supportive of you and I am told would continue to support you upon your release from prison. Both your wife and your mother were in court to support you during the various plea hearings.
50 Providing further detail of your background and history was the report from Stephen Gault, Clinical Psychologist, dated 21 March 2016. You were born in a village near Hanoi, an only child. Your father had drinking and gambling problems and there was conflict between your parents on a regular basis.
51 Your parents separated when you were 8, you initially staying with your father for two years, then to your mother for a period of time, then back to your father until you completed your secondary education. Your parents divorced on your 18th birthday.
52 Your mother obtained a scholarship from the Army, to spend 12 months in Australia to learn English. In Australia, she met an Australian man, they married in 2004, but divorced in 2009.
53 You said you enjoyed your schooling and made friends easily, although lost interest in school at Years 11 and 12. After completing your secondary education you went to Russia to study chemical engineering, completing three years of that degree with good marks, although, as I understand it, not finishing that qualification. You came to Australia in 2007.
54 After coming to Australia, you worked for six months in the Mildura and Robinvale areas picking fruit before returning to Melbourne and working as a waiter in a noodle shop. You also spent time working as a waiter at a restaurant in Prahran, then for 12 months worked at a bowling centre at Highpoint. You also worked as a kitchen-hand in the Qantas first-class lounge at Tullamarine for 18 months, until your prison sentence of nine months.
55 After you left prison, you worked for six months as an information technology technician with a further brief stint in the Qantas first-class lounge until your criminal record was discovered. You then obtained employment at the Park Royal Hotel and were there for seven months prior to being remanded in custody for this charge.
56 On a return trip to Vietnam in 2009, you met your future wife and sponsored her to come to Australia in 2014, marrying in March that year. You spoke positively of that relationship, although there seems to have been some 'dissatisfaction' by you at various times as referred to within the report of Mr Gault, and I will not further elaborate. Your wife has visited you in prison, as has your mother.
57 You had never received psychological or psychiatric treatment.
58 You have high blood cholesterol and non-insulin-dependent diabetes, but no other medical conditions.
59 You do not consume alcohol, although described occasionally smoking cannabis from 2011 ‘perhaps every few months’. You had taken ecstasy on a few occasions.
60 You started gambling at 19, when you were living in Russia, although it was not problem gambling at that time.
61 After arriving in Australia in 2007, upon receipt of your first pay-packet at AMF Bowling in 2009, you obtained a credit card with a limit of $2,500 and spent that on gambling within a week. At times you have not had enough money for food and bills, borrowing from others to gamble.
62 There had, however, been a number of periods of months when you had been abstinent from gambling, such as when you had run out of money or needed to buy something major, such as a car. You had also been able to save money to send to your father in Vietnam. You described your return to gambling after abstinence as “sometimes it is about getting bored”. You had not sought treatment you said for your gambling problem, although I note from documents tendered at your plea hearing in 2012 you completed all components of the counselling program with Gamblers’ Help in January and February 2012.
63 You said your first conviction for cannabis cultivation resulted from a gambling debt, that you had been largely abstinent from gambling for a period of about 11 months, from the time of your marriage in March 2014 until you were taken into custody in February 2015. You said it was your girlfriend’s gambling debt that led to the cannabis cultivation, the basis of the current charge.
64 In prison most recently you had been working in the kitchen and had also completed a number of courses, to which I shall later refer.
65 Upon release from prison you intend to live with your wife and mother.
66 In the opinion of Mr Gault, there was nothing in your presentation to indicate serious mental illness, and I note that your counsel, Mr Stary, was not relying upon the principles in R v Verdins & Ors[1] in that regard. That, in my opinion, was an appropriate concession on the material before me. Whilst I note in the opinion of Mr Gault you did meet the DSM-5 Criteria for a gambling disorder, in my opinion your gambling was not to the extent of “pathological gambler” and nor more generally was ‘your gambling’, if any, at the time of this offending motivation for your involvement in it.
[1] (2007) 16 VR 269
67 You had also participated in a number of programs and courses whilst in custody and a number of certificates were tendered, although ultimately it appeared that only two certificates handed up actually related to your current period on remand, specifically a ‘Participate in the Workplace Safety Arrangements’, and ‘Communicate with Others in Familiar and Predictable Contexts’.
68 Mr Stary referred to you having been a remand prisoner since the recent riot at prison and being held in maximum security, which he said had impacted upon your access to programs. As he understood it, as a remandee there was no credit given for the lockdown compared with sentenced prisoners who received credits. However, as I discussed with him, some further analysis is required of your time on remand, including the progress of this matter, which included a contested committal and your entering of a plea of not guilty at that time. It was not until approximately February 2016 an offer was made to resolve your offending. A significant period of your time on remand has been spent as a result of you maintaining until February 2016, that you were not guilty of the offence to which you have now pleaded guilty.
69 The regime in which you are currently living whilst on remand as a direct result of the riot may be harsh, however it is, in my opinion, not appropriate to mitigate your sentence due to the harsher conditions to which you have been subjected to as a result of riots by other prisoners.
70 Mr Stary conceded specific and general deterrence were relevant sentencing considerations for your offending.
71 You are conscious you have damaged the relationship with your wife, but she is at least willing, it seems, to attempt to salvage it. You have somewhere to live, both with your wife and mother upon release from custody he urged.
72 Mr Stary also again on 11 May urged the importance of your plea of guilty to this charge. I have not lost sight of that and I have already referred to it.
73 Ms Hamill, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution, referred to Mr Stary’s written submissions. She referred to the suggestion at paragraph 13 of his submissions that you were denied the opportunity to speak to a lawyer at the time of interview with police. She submitted that at the initial interview, you chose to answer “no comment” to the questions asked. Your house was then searched and the record of interview continued. That you specifically then said you did not want to exercise your rights. It was also apparent, submitted Ms Hamill, that you had previously stated that you understood your rights at the time you were being questioned by police. Ultimately I did not understand Mr Stary to be relying upon this in mitigation of sentence, and nor do I consider this to be mitigatory and nor is it aggravating.
74 Regarding Mr Stary’s submission that you had spent four weeks in lockdown as a result of the riots in the Metropolitan Remand Centre in June 2015, the suggestion that you had little capacity to undertake programs on remand, she said, was not consistent with you having undertaken the courses to which I have previously referred, whilst currently in custody and that you were working in the prison. Ms Hamill clarified at that stage, relevant to Exhibit 5, that a number of the certificates originally tendered to me were undertaken by you during the term of imprisonment imposed by his Honour Judge Punshon, i.e. whilst on remand because, of course, that sentence took into account your time on remand.
75 Ms Hamill submitted that your spending four weeks in lockdown as a result of the prison riots would not result in substantial or any moderation of your sentence, and I agree this does not moderate your sentence.
76 Referring to Mr Stary’s submission you had a gambling addiction at the time of this offending, Ms Hamill submitted references made by Mr Stary in his submissions at paragraph 24 were inaccurate, and that would appear to be so.
77 Ms Hamill also submitted, regarding the reference by Mr Stary to the statement of Thu Pham (page 67 of the depositions). It was clear, Ms Hamill submitted and I accept, that the involvement of Ms Tran in this incident was because of her gambling and not your gambling.
78 Further, regarding any suggestion you had a gambling disorder at the time of this offending, as suggested by Mr Gault, Ms Hamill made reference to Mr Gault stating you had not had any treatment for this in the past. That you had in fact received treatment in the past. The prosecution submitted on all the material before me that did not support a submission that your gambling in any way led to your offending.
79 Ms Hamill submitted the conclusions of Mr Gault regarding your prospects of rehabilitation, in essence referable to gambling, was therefore based on incorrect facts. I agree there are some concerning aspects of his report as described.
80 In my opinion no weight can be given to Mr Stary’s submission that gambling was the reason for your involvement in your offending.
81 Addressing paragraph 26 of Mr Stary’s submission, Ms Hamill submitted you entered your plea of guilty late, just two months prior to the day the trial was to start and had not made any previous offers to plead guilty. Your plea of guilty, as I have said, was not entered early in the piece, however ultimately your plea of guilty is significant, as I have previously stated and referred to.
82 Turning to Mr Stary’s submission regarding paragraph 27, Ms Hamill submitted as your possible deportation could be subject to a review process, it could not be said with any certainty you would be deported. I understood Mr Stary to agree with that. In that regard, I discussed briefly with counsel the decisions of Konomala v The Queen[2], Guden v The Queen[3] and Nei Lin Da Costa Jnr v The Queen[4].
[2] [2016] VSCA 48
[3] [2010] VSCA 201
[4] [2016] VSCA 49
83 Ms Hamill also referred me to Schneider v The Queen[5], paragraphs 24 and 25 as having some relevance to you.
[5] [2016] VSCA 76
84 Having heard from Mr Stary regarding your mother and wife’s ongoing support, I accept that your period of imprisonment may make your time more burdensome, being aware of possible deportation. However, having said that, I also consider it likely you would be well aware of this possibility given your prior relevant history and nevertheless your re-offending, this time at a commercial level.
85 Turning to paragraph 35 of Mr Stary’s submission, Ms Hamill submitted that Mr Stary’s reference to your lack of ability to work in prison was inconsistent with you working as a billet. Further, his submission that you had not been able to engage in meaningful rehabilitative programs was inconsistent with the two courses you had completed and to which I have previously referred.
86 Ultimately, I must determine on all the material before me, your prospects of rehabilitation. Given your repeated similar offending (albeit not previously for ‘commercial quantity’), and offending so soon after your most recent prior court appearance, I do have concerns about your rehabilitation prospects. Obviously gaol has not deterred you.
87 Having said that, I must however when sentencing, take into account the possibility of your rehabilitation.
88 Turning to the appropriate sentence for your offending, Ms Hamill submitted an immediate term of imprisonment was the only appropriate disposition (including a non-parole period). That to impose a term of imprisonment with a community correction order, she submitted, would not sufficiently meet the requirements of sentencing pursuant to s.5 Sentencing Act 1991.
89 Ms Hamill submitted there was the need for just punishment and denunciation when sentencing you, also for general and specific deterrence. Turning to the need for specific deterrence, Ms Hamill referred to the prosecution openings prepared for the two Indictments that were before his Honour Judge Punshon and refers to those charges.
90 You had now, Ms Hamill submitted, been engaged in a third incident involving cultivation of cannabis, this time in a commercial quantity, which represented an escalation of your offending and over a longer period than the previous one day and two months for which you were sentenced by his Honour Judge Punshon. I agree.
91 Ms Hamill submitted there was a need for general deterrence when sentencing you. This type of offending is prevalent. I agree general deterrence is also relevant when sentencing you.
92
Ms Hamill referred to Doan v The Queen[6] and McGrath v The Queen[7].
Ms Hamill also referred to sentencing snapshots for this offending, albeit somewhat dated.
[6] [2010] VSCA 250
[7] [2015] VSCA 176
93 I discussed with Ms Hamill the difficulty comparing cases factually, as facts vary enormously case to case, as do all matters in mitigation of sentence. There are also difficulties with the sentencing snapshots. Whilst they also have their place, they do not give details such as whether or not parity was an issue, whether Verdins principles applied and any prior convictions a particular offender might have had.
94 I do, however, note this is the third time you have appeared before the court for cultivation of a cannabis crop, and yet the first for a commercial quantity.
95 As well as matters personal to you to which I have referred, including your prospects of rehabilitation, I must also take into account matters such as general deterrence, as I have said, which is important in a case such as this.
96 I must consider the need for specific deterrence when sentencing you, as you have a prior relevant history of offending.
97 I must also consider the question of protection of members of the community from you and bear in mind the likelihood of your re-offending. This concerns me.
98 I am called upon by the Sentencing Act 1991 to manifest the community’s denunciation and generally to impose a just punishment.
99 I have carefully considered the sentencing submissions urged by Mr Stary, being mindful, as I am, on the now basis on which the prosecution now puts your offending.
100 In my opinion a combination disposition of a term of imprisonment and a community correction order would not be an appropriate or adequate sentence you for your offending. In so concluding I have taken into account the decision of Boulton & Ors v R[8] and cases which have recently considered since Boulton including Alam v The Queen[9], DPP v Maxfield[10], Hutchinson v The Queen,[11] just to mention a few.
[8] [2014] VSCA 342
[9] [2015] VSCA 48
[10] [2015] VSCA 95
[11] [2015] VSCA 115
101 I regard your offending as very serious indeed, albeit your role as now conceded by the prosecution.
102 I sentence you as follows.
103 On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment, and I direct you serve 2 years and 6 months before you are eligible for parole.
104 Pursuant to s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, had you been found guilty of this offence following jury verdict, in other words if you had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years.
105
Pursuant to s.18(4) Sentencing Act 1991, I declare you have spent 448 days in custody by way of pre-sentence detention (up to and including yesterday,
12 May 2016), and I direct that that be entered into the records of the court.
106 The prosecution also made application for a disposal order. This was consented to on your behalf by Mr Stary. I make the order in the terms sought.
107 I do not think there are any other orders, but can you just check the PSD please, I want to make sure that is right.
108 MS HAMILL: That is correct, Your Honour.
109 HER HONOUR: That is right, up to and including yesterday?
110 MS HAMILL: Yes, Your Honour.
111 HER HONOUR: Every day counts, it has got to be right. You agree with that?
112 MS HAMILL: Yes, Your Honour.
113 HER HONOUR: All right, excellent. All right, thank you.
114 (Disposal order signed and acknowledged.)
115 Thanks, Mr Nguyen, out you go please.
- - -
2
0