Director of Public Prosecutions v Obrist
[2014] VCC 1678
•8 October 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR -13-01153
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PENNY CHREE OBRIST |
---
| JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE COHEN |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | Trial: 30 June, 1 July, 4 July, 7 - 11 July, 14-15 July 2014 Plea hearing: 22 August, 30 September 2014 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 October 2014 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Obrist |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 1678 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: Sentencing; armed robbery
Catchwords: Jury verdict; armed robbery x 2 and attempted armed robbery; prior criminal history; borderline intellectual capacity; co-offender pleaded guilty
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited: R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102
Sentence: TES: 6 years’ imprisonment; NPP 3 years, 5 months---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Accused | Mr J. Wheelahan (on Trial and Plea) Ms L. Heffes (on Sentence) | Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr B. Stougiannos | Office of Public Prosecutions |
HER HONOUR:
1Penny Chree Obrist, you were found guilty by a jury on one charge attempted armed robbery and two charges of armed robbery. You have also pleaded guilty to a summary charge which you agree to have transferred to this court; that is a charge of possessing an offensive weapon without a license. You have also admitted an extensive range of prior offences in New South Wales and Victoria to which I shall refer later.
2The maximum penalty for armed robbery is 25 years' imprisonment. For attempted armed robbery it is 20 years' imprisonment, and for the summary charge of possessing an offensive weapon without a license it is a 120 penalty unit fine or one year imprisonment. Those maximum penalties, in particular those for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery, indicate how seriously these offences are regarded by the community through parliament and I must, and do, take those into account.
3The circumstances of the offences were explored at length during your trial and I shall only repeat them briefly here. They were committed together with your then boyfriend, Mr Tyson Sirotich , with whom you had been living in a flat in Pender Street, Thornbury.
4On New Year's Eve 2012, you and Mr Sirotich were out on bicycles in the Thornbury/Preston area. At about 11.00 pm Mr Chirag Shah was waiting at the tram stop at the corner of St George's Road and Hutton Street, Thornbury, to catch a tram into the city to meet a friend and watch the fireworks. You and Mr Sirotich rode towards him, dismounted from your bicycles and left them in the bushes. You then approached Mr Shah and engaged him in conversation by first asking for a cigarette and then for change. When he said he did not have either you said "Are you for real?" At that stage Mr Sirotich approached and produced knife and demanded Mr Shah's mobile phone and wallet or he would be stabbed.
5Instead of handing over those items Mr Shah ran from the tram stop and managed to outrun the two of you who only followed him to the corner. These events are the basis of Charge 1, of attempted armed robbery.
6Mr Shah understandably was very scared and shaken at the time. He ran to another tram stop and got on a tram and then rang 000. It is clear from that recorded call that he was anxious to inform the police in case you tried to rob someone else.
7Less than 20 minutes later, Ms Bernadette Desmond and a friend were near the tram stop near the corner of Gilbert Road and Miller Street, Preston, which is only one or two tram stops beyond that at which Mr Shah was confronted. She was confronted by a man and a woman with pushbikes who approached. One held a rusty looking knife and demanded her wallet. She could not recall whether it was the man or woman who had the knife or who spoke, but fearing that she would be hurt she pulled out her mobile phone, which was in a case looking like a wallet, and threw it to the robbers, that is to you and Mr Sirotich , who took it and rode off on the bicycles. These events give rise to Charge 2 or armed robbery. The approaching by bicycle and then leaving by bicycle is captured on some CCTV footage although it is impossible to distinguish the identity except that there is a man and a woman involved.
8Ms Desmond flagged down a car whose driver called 000. Her mobile phone was subsequently found in the possession of a man living in the same block of flats where you were staying with Mr Sirotich and who gave evidence that he had bought it from Mr Sirotich some days later when you were also present.
9Three nights later, that is on 3 January 2013, at approximately 11.00 pm, Ms Bridget McDowell alighted from the no.112 tram one stop away from where Mr Shah had been accosted. She walked along the main road and then turned into a side street where her sister lived. Some doors along you called out to her and then approached her, produced a knife which was held at about her shoulder height pointing towards her neck, and you demanded her bag, which she gave you as she feared she would be stabbed. You took her handbag which contained various items and some cash. She turned around, and saw Mr Sirotich sitting on a bicycle behind her, and he demanded her mobile phone which she handed over as she was scared. These events constitute Charge 3 of armed robbery.
10Some days later when police executed a search warrant at the flat where you were living at the time with Mr Sirotich they found the handbag and wallet which had been stolen from Ms McDowell, makeup from her handbag in the bathroom, and in Mr Sirotich 's backpack several of Ms McDowell's identification cards.
11In your backpack they found a knife meeting the description of the silver handled one she described as used to threaten her by the female robber. Your possession of that knife is the basis of the summary charge against you.
12You were arrested on 14 January 2013 and interviewed by police but denied any involvement or knowledge of these offences. At one stage you said you had only moved in a few days earlier with Mr Sirotich, although at another stage you refer to having done so a couple of months earlier. You still gave your address as that of your mother. You agreed that Mr Sirotich had been your boyfriend for some five to six months. You claim not to recall much of the specific matters you were asked about because of the amount of alcohol you'd been drinking.
13Although you denied involvement, and pleaded not guilty at trial, since the verdict you have been assessed by a psychologist, Ms Lechner, who reports that you acknowledged being present at the robberies. Your counsel, Mr Wheelahan, submitted that on checking that may have been only a reference to one of the incidents but to me that makes little sense in the context that Ms Lechner says you said you were threatened by Mr Sirotich into being present for these robberies. In any event I sentence you on the basis of the jury's finding that you participated in all three offences which is a necessary inference to draw from their findings of guilt on all three charges.
14Although you are not to be punished for exercising your legal right to plead not guilty and put the prosecution to proof of each offence, you are not entitled to any of the leniency which a plea of guilty would have attracted. Not only has the community incurred the time and cost of your trial and, of course, for the disputed committal hearing, those have been witnesses inconvenienced and for the victims the stress of coming to court and having to recall the events. I do not see anything to indicate that you have felt any genuine remorse for your offending in general terms nor for the individuals who were obviously very frightened at the time. Notwithstanding that Ms Lechner says that you expressed remorse, I have not seen any sign of that through the trial, or indeed what she reports you told her. Clearly you do regret the position in which you have now found yourself as a result.
15I have read the victim impact statements from Ms Desmond and Ms McDowell. Although there was not one from Mr Shah I heard both recording of his call to 000 immediately after your attempted robbery of him, and his evidence during the trial, as I did with Ms McDowell.
16All three of the victims were young adults in their 20's going about their lives and activities, and who ought to have been able to do so safely and without being put in fear of harm or, for that matter, being robbed. They were each understandably very frightened by the experience of being confronted at night and threatened with a knife by you and Mr Sirotich . I accept that the experience has continued to have some ongoing emotional effect on each of them and in particular on Ms McDowell, although I shall not repeat the details of what she sets out in her victim impact statement . I do accept that those consequences to her have not been short lived.
17The targeting of pedestrians to rob, especially at night, by threatening them with a weapon if they do not hand over their valuables has unfortunately become quite common. Notwithstanding that the description "soft target" has come to be used to describe this and similar situations, there is nothing soft about the experience for the victims. While not at the more serious level of armed robberies that come before the courts, these incidents undermine the confidence of ordinary people wanting to use public transport or walk after dark, and the community requires that such offending be punished sufficiently to denounce such offences and punish those who commit them, and also to deter others from attempting them by sending the message that such offences will receive stern punishment.
18In assessing your culpability I must also take into account that you have a prior criminal history which has been in both Victoria and New South Wales. It starts some 14 years ago with multiple charges of theft, going equipped to steal, and handling or receiving stolen goods, and in New South Wales what I take to be relatively comparable charges of larceny, and break and enter a building to steal.
19In 2003 in New South Wales you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment and it seems that while serving that you were referred to a Drug Court program which you found of considerable assistance in tackling your underlying addictions, although you were returned to custody for some breaches. I am told that you served about six months of that sentence actually in custody.
20Of significance, given your background, is that there was a period of about eight years during which you were not brought before courts following that term of imprisonment, and I am told that that was because you were adhering to a methadone program and trying to establish a stable life for your children, two of whom were born after your release from custody.
21However you relapsed into both drug and alcohol abuse and further offending bringing you before New South Wales courts again from July 2011 to January 2012 for several relatively minor charges but including several breaches of bail. You apparently then returned to Victoria in 2012, and in October you were convicted on several theft and theft-related charges, and placed on a Community Based Order with rehabilitative conditions for drugs, alcohol and to attend CASA and Turning Point. As your counsel said, you failed spectacularly at that Order.
22I am told that you relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse and offending after your children were taken from your care by the New South Wales Department of Human Services following which you returned to Victoria. The timing does not seem absolutely accurate in that the taking of your children into care by the New South Wales Department I am told elsewhere, was partly because you had relapsed into drug abuse as well as the fact that they were living in a violent environment.
23In Victoria, your mother and some of your siblings live, and I note that your mother was in court throughout the trial and still is, and one of your sisters for some of the hearings. I accept that however problematic their own lives may have been, there is still a family bond and support for you. That will be important to your prospects of re-establishing a life for yourself on release from prison.
24Your prior criminal record indicates that you have a longstanding history of dishonesty offences, but that you are able to maintain a sustained period without offending when highly motivated to create a stable home for your children. I note that that shows that you are capable of abstaining from the drugs and abuse of alcohol, and of refraining from offending, when highly enough motivated to do so.
25I note that none of your prior offences are as serious as armed robbery and none seem to have involved violence or threatened violence. Nevertheless with your history and as these offences occurred less than three months into a Community Based Order, one of the purposes of your sentence must be specific deterrence - that is, to try to stop you from re-offending by imposing a stern enough sentence to impress upon you that you should not offend again.
26I turn now to more of your personal circumstances. You are now aged 33. You are said to have grown up in Queensland, the youngest of your mother's six children, as part of a blended family, with four older half-siblings, and a brother also the child of your father. Apparently the family moved around a lot and you were exposed to the instability of those frequent moves through your childhood which, no doubt, had some effect on your schooling as well as other factors to which I shall refer shortly. Apparently one sister died at the age of 15, following which your parents could not cope and took to substance abuse, and you have told Ms Lechner the family fell apart.
27You told Ms Lechner that you completed primary school but never attended high school. You have never been employed. By age 12 you were living in an abusive relationship with a man who also exposed you to drugs and offending, and you experienced juvenile custody in your teens. Of course that does not show on the criminal record that I have been referring to.
28You have been involved in further violent and abusive relationships, lasting many years. On your description of Mr Sirotich as "weird and sadistic", Ms Lechner describes you as presenting with symptoms of what is referred to as “Battered Wife Syndrome”.
29You have three children, the eldest a daughter now aged 13, and two younger children now aged nine and seven with whose father you had a long but apparently also abusive and violent relationship. It was from that environment that the children were removed by the New South Wales Department of Human Services.
30I understand that you hope to return to New South Wales in due course and to re-establish contact with your children, but clearly that would require you to commit to abstinence from drugs and alcohol abuse, and to convince authorities there that you have established a safe and stable enough environment for your children. Otherwise there would be the very real risk of them falling into the same cycle you have of substance abuse, abusive relationships, and offending.
31After the trial you were assessed by clinical and forensic psychologist, Ms Carla Lechner. On the background and history you gave her, she found that you had a history of poly-substance abuse, and presented with symptoms referred to as battered wife syndrome, in particular for not leaving the abusive relationship in which you have found yourself.
32You apparently even expressed the view that you would be prepared to return to a relationship with Mr Sirotich . You told her that you had been present at the robberies due to feeling under duress from Mr Sirotich who you say threatened you with more harm if you did not participate. That is far from the version he gave but I will discuss that shortly.
33Ms Lechner considered that your presentation indicated a range of symptoms of depression, and on the BDI self-report inventory for depression you scored at the top of the moderate range for clinical depression. I disregard where she has later expressed in her report that you suffered a Major Depressive disorder as it is not consistent with her earlier findings.
34She assessed you as in the borderline intellectual range, and recommended neuro-psychological assessment which subsequently occurred. She found you cognitively, that is, your range of thinking, and emotionally immature, and felt that you were easily overwhelmed by social and emotional factors that undermine your judgment, and also easily influenced by others. She considered that you meet the criteria for diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. You described a history of poly-substance use including that throughout the time you were with Mr Sirotich you were using what you called "ice”, “pot” and alcohol. Ms Lechner found that you have few adaptive coping skills and strategies, and made recommendations for structure in your rehabilitation.
35As a result of Ms Lechner's report you were also assessed by neuro-psychologist, Dr Sheryl Monteith. Her testing of your cognitive skills put you in the borderline range with a full scale IQ of 71, which, factoring in a margin of five per cent variance, meant that your results could be in a range from Extremely Low to Borderline. She noted that your immediate attention and working memory capacity were borderline, and varied due to your varying ability to focus, divide and sustain attention. She found your speed of information processing was higher than that, being low-average for people of your age group. Amongst various functions she discussed, you had difficulty generating alternative approaches to a problem, but did better with external structure provided. You had reduced planning, self-organisation and self-monitoring skills.
36Dr Monteith considered that her findings were consistent with a diagnosis of mild intellectual disability, notwithstanding the IQ score being borderline. She felt that your behaviour or adaptive skills and social veneer masked the extent of your underlying cognitive disability. She considered that your intellectual disability is likely to be one factor amongst many others that has contributed to your offending. This is because of your reduced reasoning capacity and reduced ability to foresee the consequences, and also because you are likely to be easily influenced by others. She also noted that under the acute influence of substances your level of cognitive impairment is likely to be exacerbated.
37Dr Monteith also considered that your intellectual disability would make you more vulnerable to negative influence in prison and she considered it important that prison staff be aware of your cognitive impairment as you are more disabled than you appear on presentation. She made various recommendations for addressing your issues including maximising structure, consistency and routine, with simple and concrete language in instructions.
38Based on the opinions of Ms Lechner and Dr Monteith I am satisfied that your intellectual functioning is in a range so limited that it probably did contribute to your offending, in that your judgment is likely to have been reduced and that would have been exacerbated by the effects of the drugs and alcohol you were abusing at the time. That does not mean that you are to be excused for abusing drugs and alcohol. It also does not mean that you did not know that what you were doing was wrong. You are still criminally responsible for your actions and involvement. However these diagnoses and assessments show that pursuant to principles set out in Verdins case it would be appropriate to moderate the role of some of the sentencing factors I have already discussed.
39In my view general deterrence should be moderated to a considerable extent in your sentence, and also specific deterrence, although your history of offending means that, in my view, discouragement of you from re-offending remains of some weight. I also accept that your blameworthiness, that is your culpability, should be seen as somewhat reduced although again not eliminated.
40Dr Monteith's comments about your experience of custody in that you will be more vulnerable to be influenced by others, I did not take as going to show that you will find imprisonment harder than someone with higher intellectual functioning, but it is a factor to be taken into account in your custody management.
41Your counsel submitted that the effects of these personal circumstances, moderating your sentence, should lead to you receiving a sentence no more severe than Mr Sirotich , notwithstanding that he pleaded guilty.
42Mr Sirotich , as your co-offender pleaded guilty to the same three charges as you were found guilty of by a jury . He was sentenced by His Honour Judge Tinney in September last year to a total effective sentence of five and a half years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. The only other sentence involved for him was one of possessing cannabis which was found to only warrant a fine. In the meantime he had been serving a six month term of imprisonment for other offences, which I take to have been committed before the offences with you, that only came to court in mid-July last year.
43The individual sentences imposed by Judge Tinney were 13 months for attempted armed robbery, and three and a half years for each charge of armed robbery. Judge Tinney also stated that had Mr Sirotich not pleaded guilty his total effective sentence would have been seven and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five and a half years.
44I must consider the similarities and the differences between your situation and that of Mr Sirotich and decide whether there would be a justified sense of grievance by either of you if similar sentences were not imposed on both of you for the same offences.
45Mr Sirotich was entitled to considerable leniency in his sentence for pleading guilty, and that was done before a disputed committal hearing which would have had considerable utilitarian value. That means saving the community the time and cost of disputed hearings, and also reflected some remorse by him and his acceptance of responsibility for his offending. In contrast you do not attract any of that leniency.
46He was younger than you, and Judge Tinney was told that he was influenced by you because you were older and longer associated with drug abuse, and as he was said to be infatuated with you. As I have already outlined you told Ms Lechner that you were threatened with harm by him if you did not participate in the robberies. I am not in a position to make any finding of fact as to which, if either, of these accounts is correct. I take the same view as Judge Tinney did in relation to Mr Sirotich, that you both participated in each of the three incidents. You acted together as a team, and there should be no relevant differentiation between the blameworthiness attached to either of you for your respective roles in any of those three incidents. I note that while you made the initial approach to Mr Shah and Mr Sirotich produced the knife and demanded the items from him, it was you who first approached but also produced a knife and demanded items from Ms McDowell. It is not clear which of you took which role in the armed robbery of Ms Desmond. As I have said, and taking the same approach as did Judge Tinney, despite the proposition that Mr Sirotich was influenced by you, I sentence you on the basis that the two of you were equally blameworthy for all three of these incidents.
47It is admitted, however, that Mr Sirotich 's position should be considered as more serious because his criminal history, while not dating back as far as yours, included a term of imprisonment totalling two years with a non-parole period of 12 months', imposed in 2009. It was submitted that I should also take into account that after your joint offending he was sentenced on other offences for which six months' imprisonment was imposed. That sentence was taken into account by Judge Tinney in considering totality.
48Those are certainly more serious sentences, reflecting more serious offending or other more serious circumstances, than the more recent of your prior offences. However, as I have already outlined, while not for quite as many offences, and reflecting a less serious collection of offending than his prior term of imprisonment does for his prior offending, you had been placed on a Community Based Order for offences including dishonesty less than three months before the joint offending. Therefore I do not consider that Mr Sirotich's recent criminal record is very much more serious than yours, although I do take into account that to a degree, it is. I note that his record, as with yours, does not include any prior instances of armed robbery or of any other use of weapons or threat of violence. I infer from this that both of you seem to have stepped up the seriousness in the nature of your offending when acting together.
49As I have already explained, I am of the view that your sentence should be moderated to reflect the role of your underlying intellectual limitations and psychological conditions. For this reason I do not consider that your circumstances warrant a sentence as high as what Judge Tinney said he would have imposed on Mr Sirotich had he not pleaded guilty.
50I am also of the view that while your prospects of rehabilitation must be guarded, given your long history including the relapse after some reform into drug and alcohol abuse and further offending, you do have the motivation of wanting future contact with your children, and the past experience of managing to abstain from substance abuse and offending for a sustained period. Those seem to me to show that the there is a prospect that you may be able to re-establish yourself in a more stable and responsible life in the future if you keep that motivation of your children and their future high.
51However, as you did not attract the considerable benefit of pleading guilty to these charges as Mr Sirotich, did I am of the view that your sentence, both the total and the non-parole period, must be higher than his for these charges. That is to appropriately reflect that there will be considerable reduction in sentence for pleading guilty at an early stage. In my view that could not justify a reasonable grievance on your part for receiving a somewhat higher sentence than him. On the contrary, if you receive no higher a sentence than him, after he pleaded guilty, it would create a justifiable sense of grievance on his part.
52I was also provided with sentencing snapshots to show the statistics as to sentences in the past for offences of this type, to assist me with assessing current sentencing practices. I have perused them, but not placed much weight on those in this case, partly because they are based predominantly on sentences after pleas of guilty, and do not differentiate those for which there were sentences after a verdict of guilty by a jury, but also because in this case there has been a co-offender already sentenced. I consider that considerations of parity and, of course, disparity, operate with more force than generalised current sentencing practice.
53It follows from all I have said, and was conceded by your counsel, that no sentence other than immediate imprisonment would be appropriate in the circumstances. As with Mr Sirotich some cumulation is required, to reflect that there were three separate instances when you and Mr Sirotich decided to approach and try to rob people, and cumulation should also reflect that there were three different victims as a result. Would you stand up now please.
54Penny Chree Obrist, on each of the charges you are convicted and sentenced as follows. On Charge 1, that is the attempted armed robbery of Mr Shah, three years' imprisonment. On Charge 2, armed robbery of Ms Desmond, four years' imprisonment. On Charge 3, armed robbery of Ms McDowell, four years' imprisonment. On the summary charge of possession of the knife, one month imprisonment.
55I direct that 12 months of each of the sentence on Charges 1 and 2 be served cumulatively on each other and on the sentence imposed on Charge 3. The sentences will otherwise be served concurrently. That makes a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment. I fix a minimum term before you could be eligible for parole of three years an five months.
56I declare 548 days of pre-sentence detention reckoned serve and I direct that that be recorded in the records of the court. It will be deducted administratively from both the head sentence and non-parole period.
57I also make an order for a forensic sample to be taken from you. I limit that to a scraping from the mouth. The reasons I make that order are the seriousness of the nature of the offending and your prior criminal history. I warn you, as I must, that if you resist the taking of that sample authorised officers or police may use reasonable force to take it. I am limiting it to a scraping from the inside of the mouth, which is the rubbing of a wad on the inside of your cheek. Unless you resist it is not very intrusive and should not require force.
58There was also an order sought on Charge 3 for restitution of the amount of money and value of items stolen from Ms McDowell. Although that amount was also ordered against Mr Sirotich I consider that it should be made against you also. It does not mean that Ms McDowell receives that amount twice. On the contrary, I also take into account that the realistic chances of it being paid by either you or Mr Sirotich may be low, but I am satisfied that Ms McDowell lost property of that value and I will make that order. That is a total of $1020.
59I also make the order for disposal of the knife that was sought. Now I was told but have not seen the details of whether some of the clothing is also to be forfeited. I see it is the last two items that are going to be returned eventually to you, the black Adidas jumper with three white vertical stripes and a pair of black Adidas track pants. I will make the disposal order for the balance of those items and the knife.
60MR STOUGIANNOS: Your Honour, pleases.
61MS HEFFES: Your Honour, pleases.
62HER HONOUR: You can take a seat for a few minutes, Ms Obrist. I've got to sign those orders. Is there anything I've got wrong or left out, and does the arithmetic work?
63MR STOUGIANNOS: This is - might be a bit pedantic. Just at one stage where Your Honour was talking about the s.6AAA discount and that Mr Sirotich being younger I understood you, when referring to the facts to say that the accused produced the knife in Mr Shah's case. Earlier on ‑ ‑ ‑
64HER HONOUR: No, no.
65MR STOUGIANNOS: I'm just checking ‑ ‑ ‑
66HER HONOUR: Sorry if I did it was wrong.
67MR STOUGIANNOS: Yes. Earlier on you'd certainly presented it accurately in that the knife was produced by Sirotich but later on at that stage at the s.6AAA point I thought you said that the accused had that knife on that occasion.
68HER HONOUR: I thought it was - it's only clear that she had it on the McDowell occasion, the third incident.
69MR STOUGIANNOS: That's right then. So I won't take it any further.
70HER HONOUR: All right. If it comes through that I accidentally said Mr Shah and not Ms McDowell I'll certainly correct that on the revision.
71MR STOUGIANNOS: If Your Honour pleases.
72HER HONOUR: My understanding throughout and the evidence at the trial was it was Mr Sirotich who produced - sorry, Ms Obrist - it was the female who made the approach to Mr Shah and asked for cigarettes or money but only Mr Sirotich who had a knife that was produced. It was unclear from Ms Desmond, the middle incident, as to who had the knife or who made the demand.
73On the third occasion though it was the female who both made the approach and spoke and demanded the bag and produced the knife and Mr Sirotich only backed that up with demand at the end for the mobile phone as well.
74MR STOUGIANNOS: Yes we're in agreement about that, Your Honour.
75HER HONOUR: All right. If I said the wrong thing I'll correct that when I revise the sentence. I didn't mean it to reflect that.
76MR STOUGIANNOS: Sorry, there's one other thing ‑ ‑ ‑
77HER HONOUR: There's another one, is there? Yes.
78MR STOUGIANNOS: Yes. This calculation ‑ ‑ ‑
79HER HONOUR: Yes.
80MR STOUGIANNOS: The pre-sentence detention my learned friend believes it's 547. My instructor's re-checked that and agrees that we're one day over. So instead of 548 it's 547.
81HER HONOUR: All right.
82MR STOUGIANNOS: Yes I'm sorry about that, Your Honour.
83HER HONOUR: I knew I needed to check it when I came in this morning and ‑ ‑ ‑
84MS HEFFES: We'd accidentally counted today's date, Your Honour, sorry for that.
85HER HONOUR: That's all right. I think on the restitution order to Ms McDowell there's a - that will be a police station address I think that's on the back. Not her personal address.
86MR STOUGIANNOS: I think it is the address of the ‑ ‑ ‑
87HER HONOUR: 584 Spencer Street. That goes on the court file anyway and that goes - not a copy.
88MR STOUGIANNOS: That's right. Thank you, Your Honour.
89HER HONOUR: All right now just, Ms Heffes, I know your client's been in custody for a long time already so I'm assuming that she's had various assessments done but do you want a custody note or provision to custodial authorities have a copy of the neuro-psychological report that raises these issues of borderline to low intellectual functioning?
90MS HEFFES: I think that would be wise, Your Honour. I have to say though I haven't obtained Ms Obrist's instructions to release that report. Could I very briefly ‑ ‑ ‑
91HER HONOUR: If you'd like to get those instructions from her.
92MS HEFFES: Thank you. Yes, Your Honour, she's consented to that release. I think that would be an appropriate order to make.
93HER HONOUR: Yes I wouldn't release them without her permission but it seems to raise some recommendations for custodial authorities to take into account in her treatment in prison. It actually also recommends referral for a Disability Services finding.
94MS HEFFES: Yes. I might write to the prison, Your Honour, in relation to that issue and then enclose a copy of the report myself and ask them that they take that into account.
95HER HONOUR: Yes that would normally, as I understand it, have some influence on where she is accommodated and with whom but noting she's already been in prison for a year and a half I'm assuming there have been assessments along the way.
96MS HEFFES: Yes.
97HER HONOUR: All right, could we have Ms Obrist removed from the court room please.
- - -
0