Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen
[2021] VCC 1854
•17 November 2021
29 October 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-21-00250
CR-21-00560
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| VAN NGUYEN |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE GWYNN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 29 October 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 17 November 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Nguyen | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1854 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal Law
Catchwords: Cultivation of a narcotic plant in not less than a commercial quantity
Legislation Cited: Section 5 (2H) of the Sentencing Act 1991; Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases Cited:DPP v Mataj & Ors [2020] VCC 1020; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169; Guden v The Queen [2010] 28 VR 288; Akot v The Queen 2020 VSCA 55; Nguyen v The Queen [2017] VSCA 286; Rossi v The Queen [2021] VSCA 296
Sentence: 10 months imprisonment, 52 days reckoned as served.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D. Hannan | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Mr W. Barker | Giorgianni & Liang Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1 Van Nguyen, you have pleaded guilty on indictment to one charge of cultivation of a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity.
2
In sentencing you for this crime I must have regard to the maximum penalty for the offence you have committed. For cultivation of a narcotic plant in not less than a commercial quantity the maximum penalty is 25 years' imprisonment.
A commercial quantity of cannabis is quantified as 100 cannabis plants or 25 kilograms of cannabis.
3 The circumstances of your offending are set out in a 'Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea' dated 29 September 2021. This is an agreed document and represents your acceptance of the elements of the offence to which you have pleaded guilty as well as the factual basis on which I am to sentence.
4 I will not repeat the entire summary of prosecution opening as it is a document of record, but, in brief terms, the offending that gives rise to this charge occurred in November of 2020, when you were 73 years of age.
The offending
5 At 12.23 pm on Monday 9 October 2020, police patrolled the address of 8 St Albans Street, Mount Waverly ("the Mount Waverley house") on suspicion of there being a cannabis crop in existence. They observed a white Toyota RAV4 with number plate IOK 1QZ parked at the end of the driveway - a car used by you.
6
At 8.20 am on 16 November 2020, police executed a search warrant at
45 Rose Street, Box Hill ("the Box Hill house"). The white Toyota RAV4 seen at the Mount Waverley house the week earlier, was in the driveway. A HiAce van registered to you was also located.
7 You were the only person present at the Box Hill house and, upon answering the door to police in your underwear, you were immediately cooperative and indicated the presence of the crop of cannabis within.
8
Police located a sophisticated hydroponic system with 156 cannabis plants growing in three bedrooms in the Box Hill house; that is, 1.56 times the commercial quantity of plants. There was a total of 31.88 kilograms, or
1.27 times a commercial weight of cannabis.
9 An electrical bypass was located in the roof space of the house. The house was rented to a Phan Hai Le, believed to be a fictitious name. You have not been charged with the theft of electricity and will not be punished for it. Such facts were referred to in order to give understanding to the context of your offending.
10 At about 12.35 pm on the same day, a search warrant was executed at the Mount Waverley house. No persons were present. A sophisticated hydroponic system with a total of 79 cannabis plants growing was located, that is, .79 times the commercial quantity of plants, weighing 46.89 kilograms, or 1.87 times a commercial weight of cannabis.
11 Again an electrical bypass was located in the roof space of the premises.
12 The house was leased by its owner to Phan Hai Le on 12 July 2020.
13 Investigations revealed your connection to each of the crop houses.
14 Your connection to the Box Hill house is put on the basis that you were located and arrested at this address upon execution of the search warrant and the Toyota HiAce van was present and registered in your name.
15 Your connection to the Mount Waverley house is put on the basis of the location of the Toyota RAV4 at the address a week earlier; your fingerprints being located on a drinking glass, ashtray and grow lamps within the property; prescriptions for medication in your name and a Big W receipt for two box fans purchased by you were located in the bin. A receipt for payment of an electricity bill for the Mount Waverley house was located in the kitchen with subsequent investigations confirming that you attended at Australia Post to pay that bill on 16 October 2020.
16
You were arrested and charged in relation to the Box Hill matter on
16 November 2020 and gave ‘no comment’ answers to questions posed to you during a recorded interview- as is your right. You were released on bail on
17 December 2020, having spent 31 days on remand.
Gravity of offending
17 The charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis incorporates your involvement in the cultivation of the crops located at both the Box Hill house and the Mount Waverley house on a single date. After careful discussion with the prosecution and your counsel at your plea, the parties agreed that I am to sentence you on the basis of a commercial quantity of cannabis at Box Hill, being 156 cannabis plants, that is, 1.56 times the commercial quantity of plants, and a total of 3.88 kilograms, or 1.27 times the commercial weight, of cannabis, plus a quantity of cannabis at the Mount Waverley address, which was in an amount not said by the Crown to be known to you.
18 I turn now to the gravity of the offending. Your counsel referred me to the decision in Nguyen v The Queen [2017] VSCA 286, which sets out a list of factors to consider when analysing the role and moral culpability of an offender and includes the tasks performed, nature of relationship to others involved in the enterprise, degree of trust, size and scope of the operation and any expectation of reward or gain by the offender.
19 Not all of this information is known to me, but I certainly accept that you were towards the lower end of any hierarchy and expected or received limited reward.
20 The prosecution submits that your offending spans two separate properties, both of which contained a commercial quantity of cannabis being cultivated in a sophisticated and highly organised manner, albeit for a single day.
21 Whilst the Crown case is not put on the basis that you were responsible for the initial setup of a house, or funding that setup, or that you were expecting to profit from the harvesting of the crops, they submit that your role cannot be characterised as a "mere crop sitter" given the extent of your involvement in the enterprise. This includes the degree of trust placed in you by those controlling the cultivations to secure the plants; your responsibility for the security of the crop at Box Hill and living at the property; your attendance at the Mount Waverley house on at least one occasion and your fingerprints being found on household items and, importantly, grow lamps; your payment of the electricity bill for the Mount Waverley house; and your purchasing the two box fans for use in the cultivation at the Mount Waverley house.
22 I do accept that in these ways you provided security and an assurance that the equipment was working and that your presence allowed the entrepreneurs controlling the cultivation to remain at arm's length and avoid detection, as does any crop sitter. It is not suggested that you are a principal offender. I accept that your role is slightly elevated above that of a mere crop sitter, given the factors raised, and as you played some preparatory role at Mount Waverley but, in my view, you are otherwise a minion, albeit at two properties.
23
In a quantity-based sentencing regime, I am being asked to assess your offending in the way outlined by the parties. It is only contended that you had the relevant knowledge of the cannabis at the Box Hill premises, which, in itself, was over a commercial quantity in terms of the number of plants located at the premises and the weight of them. By the same token, by virtue of your plea, it cannot be ignored that you were at least aware of cannabis at the
Mount Waverley premises, albeit, not of it being in a commercial quantity.
24 I assess the gravity of your particular offending to be towards the mid-range for an offence of its type, such that such descriptions assist.
25 In addition, you were prepared to be involved in what you must have at some point realised to be part of the pernicious trade of drug trafficking. It is a lucrative business with enormous negative and devastating impact on the community through the offending that results from drug addition, the physical and mental health impacts and the behaviours drugs then produce.
26 General deterrence and denunciation are an important part of the sentencing mix and the message needs to be clear to those who may be tempted to engage in such activities, on whatever level, that stern punishment will result.
Comparable cases
27 I was helpfully referred to a range of comparable cases sentencing offenders charged with cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis and have had recourse to those decisions. Not surprisingly, there were differences in each case from your particular situation.
28
Not one case dealt with a person of your age, or your age without a prior criminal history. I was referred to one case that dealt with sentencing for cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis during the court's response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, that being DPP v Mataj & Ors [2020] VCC 1020. However, it was a case that dealt with three offenders, each of whom were Albanian.
29 In that case, each of the accused, Mataj, Vashna, and Marinaj, pleaded guilty to cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis on a single date, 9 October 2019. This offending involved 95 cannabis plants, or 0.95 times the commercial quantity, which weighed 118.95 kilograms, close to five times a commercial quantity. Each was accepted by the Crown to be a "crop sitter".
30
It was an early plea for each offender, none of whom had a criminal history.
I have had recourse to the entire decision, but in short compass:
· Mr Mataj was in his mid-20s and relied on his early plea, youth, character, prospects of rehabilitation, hardship of the custodial setting during COVID-19, fear of deportation, and the existence of two medical conditions, which the judge took the view could be accommodated in the custodial setting.
· Mr Vashna was in his mid-20s and relied on his impoverished childhood, good character, prospects of rehabilitation, early plea, hardship in prison due to COVID-19 and fear of deportation.
· Mr Marinaj was also in his mid-20s and relied on his early plea, remorse, relative youth, good character, prospects of rehabilitation, fear of deportation and hardship in prison due to COVID-19. Mr Marinaj did have a respiratory condition and had additional anxiety in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
31
The sentencing judge saw value in the pleas entered by Mr Mataj and
Mr Marinaj particularly, as there was little evidence against them apart from their presence at the premises where the cannabis was located, as well as allegations of flight.
32 Each offender was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.
33 Whilst there are appreciable differences, the quantity of cannabis is not that disparate (arguably more in the case of Mataj, Vashna and Marinaj), albeit confined to one property. You can rely on your age in a different way. You have 73 years without any prior history, on any view of it, an extensive period of complying with community's expectations and one in which to assess your actual prospects of rehabilitation.
Plea of guilty
34 I turn to your plea of guilty. The Sentencing Act obliges me to take into account - just pardon me a moment. I'm just checking that Mr Nguyen is following and whether or not he needs a break, Mr Interpreter?
35 INTERPRETER: He said, he can hear me, but he doesn't understand every single thing that you've said.
36 HER HONOUR: Can you indicate, Mr Interpreter, that he will have the opportunity with Mr Barker at the end to have everything explained to him. I am referring to a lot of legal principles and likely to refer to a few more. So I'm not surprised he's having some difficulty understanding. But as I've said, Mr Barker will take the time with him at the completion. Is there anything he'd like me to go over?
37 INTERPRETER: He said he has extreme difficulty hearing.
38 HER HONOUR: Great.
39 INTERPRETER: Excuse me, Your Honour.
40 HER HONOUR: Yes.
41 INTERPRETER: I'm not sure (indistinct words) just his hearing.
42 HER HONOUR: Yes.
43 INTERPRETER: Because I can hear myself at home with the microphone strapped to my headpiece clearly. And he has the benefit of (indistinct words) as well as the telephone, so there's no reason why he couldn't hear me clearly. So I'm not sure whether Mr Barker has problems speaking to him in the past, in regards to his hearing?
44
MR BARKER: Your Honour, I can make a comment, I was going to make another suggestion. But there's never been a problem where – well, Mr Nguyen's never had a problem hearing me, but I note that I've never spoken to him without an instructor properly. But I also have been and will continue taking notes of everything that Your Honour said, so in that discussion that
Your Honour said I'll have with Mr Nguyen at the end, there's not a thing that Your Honour has said today that I won't be able to go over with him.
45 HER HONOUR: Mr Interpreter, would you be able to check with Mr Nguyen if there's anybody in the room that could turn the phone volume up?
46 INTERPRETER: He said my voice is coming through more of an echo.
47 HER HONOUR: Probably poor quality equipment. I don't know. My associates are suggesting that Mr Nguyen is in fact hearing things through the phone as well as through the WebEx, which might be creating the echo. And it might well be we can just effectively do it through the WebEx. I'm going to stand down for that experiment to be undertaken, otherwise it is really important obviously that Mr Nguyen can participate in this and at worst we come back tomorrow.
48 MR BARKER: Your Honour, I'm happy to install a copy of those things while Your Honour stands down. I can make the note that Mr Nguyen's not holding the phone directly to his ear, so that's one of the things that I'll discuss with him, in that time.
49 HER HONOUR: I'm going to stand down. We'll have a little experiment as to how he can best hear.
50 MR BARKER: Thank you, Your Honour.
(Short adjournment.)
51 HER HONOUR: Thank you. Thank you Mr Nguyen, hopefully this new arrangement will make things easier for you?
52 INTERPRETER: Yes, he just confirmed he can hear me now.
53 HER HONOUR: Mr Nguyen would you like me to start the sentence again, because I'm happy to do so?
54 OFFENDER: (Through Interpreter) I don't want to make it that difficult for everyone. Can you just continue where you left off.
55 HER HONOUR: Well, I am happy to start again if he would prefer that?
56 OFFENDER: Please just continue.
57 HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. I am now dealing with the relevance of his plea of guilty.
58 The Sentencing Act obliges me to take into account the stage at which you entered your guilty plea. No committal hearing was held. You indicated your willingness to plead guilty to the charge on this indictment following participation in the case conference process, as part of the County Court's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
59 Case conferences are designed to discuss pathways to resolution where possible, or to narrow the issues prior to any listing of a trial. Your decision to resolve and plead guilty in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic has additional utilitarian value as it provides certainty and finality to all parties in circumstances where the court's operations have been significantly disrupted and many trial dates remain as yet unfixed.
60 In the decision of Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169 at paragraph 39, the Court of Appeal said, and I quote"
'A plea of guilty entered during the currency of the COVID-19 pandemic is worthy of greater weight in mitigation than a similar plea entered at a time when the community and the courts are not afflicted by the pandemic's effects. A plea of guilty during the pandemic ordinarily should attract a more pronounced amelioration of sentence than at another time.'
61 The importance of the utilitarian benefit from a plea of guilty at this time, was recently reinforced in the decision of Rossi v The Queen [2021] VSCA 296, which repeated the following from Worboyes, and again I quote:
“[W]e therefore consider that, whilst the courts of this State continue to labour under the adverse effects of the pandemic, a sentencing court should view a plea of guilty as carrying with it a greater utilitarian benefit than at other times and in other circumstances, and, concomitantly, as attracting an augmented mitigatory effect on sentence, simply because the plea will benefit the beleaguered administration of justice. Given the unhappy state of the courts’ lists, the courts must, in an endeavour to alleviate the strain on the system, encourage those accused who are guilty to so plead. Such encouragement must come from an actual and palpable amelioration of sentence”
62 It is important in that context that you are able to identify and understand the discount that attaches to your plea of guilty and, importantly, that it is also effectively communicated to others who may be considering a similar course at this time.
63 You were committed for trial on two separate briefs with separate charges arising from each of the crop houses. The resolution which ultimately unfolded therefore, in effect, represented an early opportunity to plead guilty to the appropriate charge. In that sense it remains a plea at an early stage and this fact is recognised by the Crown.
64 You could have chosen to run two separate trials. Your plea also has utilitarian value in saving the court the time and expense of contested proceedings and witnesses the need to attend court and give evidence.
65 I also accept your plea is one of remorse. This is also conceded by the prosecution.
66 These factors are significant and will all be taken into account in your favour.
Criminal history
67 You have no criminal history and I accept that you have led an otherwise law-abiding life.
Personal circumstances
68 I turn now to your personal circumstances. Tendered on your plea was a psychological assessment report authored by Warren Simmons, Consulting Psychologist, who helpfully sets out your personal background.
69 You are now 74 years of age and were born and initially raised in New Caledonia. Sadly, your mother died in 1954, when you were only seven years of age. When you were about 14 years old, your family moved back to Vietnam. Your father passed away three years later, when you were 17, as a result of a workplace accident. You were the first born to your parent's union, and you report that in total there were five sons and four daughters from your parents and your father's earlier marriage. You reported to Mr Simmons a largely very positive experience of childhood, though with some difficulties upon the family's return to Vietnam.
70 You completed seven years of schooling in New Caledonia and a further three years in Vietnam. You report having done well in all subjects, but struggling a little to learn Vietnamese. You were required to complete four years of compulsory military training and then worked in labouring roles for six or seven years.
71 You commenced a relationship and married your former wife in Vietnam in 1977. Your daughter Anna was born in 1978. In 1979, you travelled to Hong Kong for 12 months and then decided to migrate to New Zealand, as you had been there previously with your father, and felt that the country was bigger than New Caledonia and would therefore provide greater opportunities, whilst also not being far from your mother's grave in New Caledonia.
72 In New Zealand you worked in a plastics factory until you started your own bakery business in 1988, which you continued until 2005. Your business was very successful.
73 I am told your family life in New Zealand was happy until your daughter became ill and developed serious renal problems when she was 19. In 2000, you donated one of your kidneys so that she could have a transplant, but tragically she passed away three years later.
74 You and your then wife understandably struggled with the loss of your daughter. Your marriage broke down and your business failed in that context. You moved to Australia in 2010 in part, I am told, to escape a place with so many negative associations.
75 After coming to Australia you met your now partner Kieu, with whom you have a positive relationship and who attended your plea hearing in support of you.
76 You are not said to be a user of cannabis.
77 It is difficult to understand your resort to offending after such a blameless life. You instruct that you were approached at the casino to play the role that you did in circumstances where you had been living on an income derived from a pension and were vulnerable to the entreaties made.
78 You have reported to Mr Simmons that your offending commenced with you being asked to sleep at the house each night and that you were given money to do so. You said that you knew that cannabis was being grown at the house, and while you knew it was wrong, you were not aware of how a serious an issue it was. Doubtless you are now. You did not attempt to justify your behaviour and expressed your remorse to Mr Simmons.
79 Mr Simmons concluded that you are not in any need of specific interventions at this time and that the likelihood of further offending is very limited. I accept that opinion is likely to be accurate.
80 Your counsel also points to your immediate admissions to police at the door that there was cannabis present within the house, that you never contested the facts alleged against you, but entered your plea of guilty to the appropriate charge at an early stage whilst being aware of the effects of s5(2H) of the Sentencing Act, to which I will later refer, as well as your expressions of remorse at several points to Mr Simmons.
Prospects of rehabilitation
81 Your counsel submits on your behalf that you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation, as evidenced by your otherwise law-abiding life, your solid working history and success in business and family life. It was also submitted that you have effectively achieved your rehabilitation through your total compliance with bail conditions, including reporting conditions, and the absence of further offending.
82 I accept that your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.
83 The Sentencing Act does require me to have regard to your character. Albeit serious, you have committed your first offence very much in the latter stages of your life and, in that sense, it would appear your offending is very much out of character. It is not likely to repeat itself. There does not appear to be a need to give much, if any, weight to specific deterrence or protection of the community in the sentencing mix.
84 The 31 days which you spent on remand before receiving bail and the additional remand period post your plea hearing on 29 October 2021 already has a role to play in terms of both a sanction and deterrent at your age and stage of life.
Deportation
85 I am told that you are a New Zealand citizen and reside in Australia on a special category visa. This visa is technically indefinite and is the visa all New Zealanders are granted upon entry to Australia. It can be cancelled like any other non-permanent resident visa.
86 The Minister for Immigration must cancel a person's visa if that person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, under the Migration Act, but has power to revoke the cancellation if satisfied that there is a reason to do so and the person may seek a merits review of a decision not to revoke the cancellation.
87 In the decision of Guden v The Queen (2010) 28 VR 288 it was recognised that prospective deportation is a factor which may increase the impact that a sentence of imprisonment may have on an offender, both during any remand or sentence period and upon release.
88 That same decision states that the proper assessment of the weight to be given in any particular case to a risk of deportation would normally require evidence sufficient to permit a sensible quantification of that risk and that it would also be necessary for a prisoner to demonstrate that deportation in his case, or her case, would in fact be a hardship.
89 This was expanded upon in Akot v The Queen [2020] VSCA 55, which stated, and I again quote:
'The potential for an offender to be deported at the completion of a sentence is relevant to the sentence in two ways. First, the prospect of deportation renders the imprisonment more onerous because the prisoner will face the prospect of deportation. Secondly, the deportation, should it occur, would constitute an additional punishment, because it destroys the opportunity for the offender to settle permanently in this country.'
90 Axiomatically, the same decision referred to it being a matter for the sentencing judge as to the weight deportation is given in moderating any sentence. Any sentence imposed must still reflect the nature and gravity of the actual offending. A sentencing judge should not impose a sentence to avoid the operation of the Migration Act. Such action is a matter for the Executive.
91 It could not be said that your offending occurred in the context of coming to Australia for the sole purpose of engaging in criminal behaviour. Your ties to the community include the simple fact that you have made your life in Australia for the last 10 years and your partner also lives here.
92 In addition, New Zealand is a country you left in circumstances of the death of your daughter, subsequent breakdown of your marriage, and demise of your business.
93
Your counsel submits that I can take this into account in mitigation of sentence because of the hardship and anxiety created by the risk of deportation hanging over your head, as well as the extra punishment constituted by the loss of the opportunity to settle in Australia, when you have been here in excess of
10 years. It is not argued that this hardship is exceptional.
94 I accept that there is understandable anxiety caused by the fear of deportation when you have made your life in Australia, and New Zealand is a place of unhappy memories for you. I do take this into account in a general sense. It is an additional burden.
95 Of course the risk of deportation is but one of the factors to be taken into account in your case, and I have already referred to a number of them.
COVID-19
96 Your counsel submits that conditions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic make imprisonment substantially more onerous for you than for someone remanded or sentenced prior to the pandemic.
97 I accept that the Corrections response to COVID-19 has meant, in general, a period of quarantine upon entering custody, less access to freedom of movement, limits on personal visits and less access to programs and therapeutic interventions. This, in my view, does make the remand and sentenced prisoner experience more difficult than it would otherwise be. You have now been quarantined twice.
98 In your particular case, your counsel also submits that your age makes you more vulnerable to and more at risk of the serious effects of COVID-19. This is conceded. I also accept that, in that context, you would be more concerned for your own safety.
99 I accept that at your age, with no exposure to the criminal justice system, you are also likely to find the prison experience isolating, and take this factor into account, again in a general sense, as an additional burden upon you of the prison setting.
Section 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act
100 Cultivation of a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant is a Category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act and therefore, pursuant to s5(2H), I am required to impose a sentence of imprisonment unless one or more of the exceptions in that section apply. Your counsel concedes that no such exception applies in your case.
101 I do make the ancillary order for the disposal of plants and cultivation accoutrements in the terms as sought.
102 The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence include punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of matters such as the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and those of any victim.
103 I am also required to balance the interest of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interest of the community in seeking to ensure, where possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and are reintegrated into society.
104 I am now about to announce the sentence, I note the interpreter does not have a copy of what I am about to announce.
105
In relation to Charge 1, Mr Nguyen, you are convicted and sentenced to
10 months' imprisonment. Fifty-two days are reckoned as having already been served.
106 Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I direct that were it not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with a minimum of 12 months before being eligible for parole.
107 Now, I did tell the barristers I'd check in with them before I announced the sentence, but it's a bit late now. But I'll check in with each of you now, if there's anything that I missed, or if there's anything you wanted to bring to my attention?
108 COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
109
HER HONOUR: I do once again thank each of you for your assistance throughout this matter, it's been of enormous value, as it usually is with you
Mr Hannan and you Mr Barker. Mr Barker, I'll give you the opportunity then to speak with Mr Nguyen.
110 MR BARKER: I'm very grateful for that, Your Honour. As Your Honour pleases.
111 HER HONOUR: Otherwise, I'll close the court until 9.30 tomorrow. Thank you.
112
MR HANNAN: Your Honour can I just - there was a disposal order sought
to - I'm sorry Your Honour, I say no, there's nothing else, but there was a disposal order sought, I didn't hear Your Honour announce that.
113 HER HONOUR: I did announce the ancillary order, Mr Hannan.
114 MR HANNAN: Good, thank you.
115 MR BARKER: I agree with that Your Honour, I've got notes it was made.
116 MR HANNAN: Sorry, my - - -
117 HER HONOUR: Well I believe I made forfeiture of the accoutrements; that might be disposal rather than forfeiture but I do make it, all right.
118 MR HANNAN: You did too, sorry.
119 HER HONOUR: I'm going to go again now Mr Hannan. Although I believe I made it Mr Hannan, if that's all right.
120 MR HANNAN: Thank you, sorry.
121 HER HONOUR: All right.
- - -
0
6
0