Director of Public Prosecutions v Ozer

[2018] VCC 606

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 15-01451

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

HAKAN OZER

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 March 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 April 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ozer
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VCC 606

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: Aggravated burglary, recklessly cause injury, threat to kill and summary offence - prison and CCO imposed. Inability to comply as in immigration detention. Variation and resentencing.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr. A. Brennan	OPP
For the Accused	Ms. H. Cooper	Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

1Hakan Ozer, I sentenced you on 8 March 2016, as you know, to 12 months' imprisonment and a two-year community corrections order.

2That was for serious offending which had occurred on 21 December 2014.  It was an aggravated burglary, a recklessly causing injury, a threat to kill and there was also a summary offence of contravening a Family Violence Intervention order. 

3The chronology assumes some real significance in this case.  At the time of that plea and the plea was on 7 March 2016 and the sentence the next day on 8 March, counsel had been urging me to consider that you had served sufficient time in custody. 

4You had done 244 days to that point.  In fact, the prosecutor agreed that it was open to me to release you immediately onto a community corrections order.  I disagreed. 

5Though you had done the 244 days, you were on bail when I saw you, but I had to return you to custody on this combined sentence that I imposed. 

6My expectation, of course, was that you would serve the balance of that 12 month term and then be released upon the community corrections order, so that would have been in about three or four months after I dealt with you.

7There was no suggestion on the plea that there were any potential immigration issues arising in this case.  Indeed, I was told that you were an Australian citizen.  Of course later events disclosed that this was not the position at all and the immigration status has been extraordinarily problematic here, to say the least.

8On 6 July 2016, the 12 month term that I imposed lapsed.  That was the expiry date of my 12 month term.   You ordinarily would have been released.  You were released from prison, but your release led you straight into Immigration Detention out at Maribyrnong.  Your visa had been cancelled on 2 June 2016.

9It got worse than that even.  You moved from Maribyrnong up to Christmas Island.  So the chronology had you go to Maribyrnong then to Christmas Island for a couple of months, back to Maribyrnong, and then back up to Christmas Island for something like five months. 

10Your actual release took place on 26 June 2017.  That was as a result of a successful hearing at the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal.  That hearing had taken place on 15 June and the result was published on 26 June 2017.  Your appeal was allowed, and so you came into the community about a year after I had expected that you would.  Of course, I knew nothing about any of this. 

11Breach proceedings were launched in relation to the community corrections order that I placed you on, and I think the first mention of that was on 6 December of last year.  It is, I think fair to say, I was pretty unimpressed with the nature of the breach allegation, in the sense it was being suggested, in the report that had been filed, that you had failed to engage with the services in relation to your community corrections order. 

12The suggestion of disengagement was provoked by the fact that there had been a couple of directions given for you to report as directed, written directions sent to a particular address, and at least one of those came back, "return to sender."  But the reality is, of course, that you had not engaged, you had been in custody for a large portion of the time. 

13Now true it is, you had been released from custody on 26 June 2017 and I suppose it would have been theoretically possible to launch a breach proceeding targeting your failure to report within two clear working days, but that was not the nature of the breach allegation. 

14The breach related to, as I have said, a failure to report as directed on 19 July 2017, and 6 July 2017 and those dates related to a couple of letters that had been sent out to an address. 

15As I say, at least one of those had come back, "Return to sender" and as I take it from the submissions made before me in the course of the breach (when it was listed), there was going to be a live issue even as to the lack of engagement anyway.  There was a suggestion being pressed that you had rung Corrections and been told that your community corrections officer was on leave.

16I do not need to reach a final decision about that at all actually, because the breach ultimately has been withdrawn. 

17Returning then to 6 December 2017 last year when I saw you initially.  What I recognised is that you had not really had much of an opportunity to actually engage, given that you had been up in Christmas Island for something like seven months all up.  You had been down at Maribyrnong Immigration Detention for a significant period as well, and at that stage of course, when I saw you in December, you were not in custody.  It struck me then that the most sensible course would be to promote your actual engagement with the order, and I made that suggestion, both to you and to the officer who appeared by way of video-link.

18The problem, of course, was that there was never going to be enough time for you to perform the various obligations under the order, because so much time had elapsed.  But, I adjourned the case on your application to 5 February 2018  in the hope that some sense by that stage, would be made as to whether the breach would be admitted or not, or whether it would even be persisted with or not. 

19The matter though, became further complicated by the fact that you then went back into custody.  On 28 January of this year you were back in custody again, back in Immigration Detention with your visa being cancelled as I understand it on 9 January of this year.  The 28th of January was the date that you came to police notice.  You were allegedly driving on that day and detected driving when you should not have been and then, no doubt, a search was made on the police computer system, giving rise to this alert from the Immigration order, and you went into custody and you have been in custody since.

20At this stage, there has been no charge laid in relation to that driving offence, but the reason for that as I was told, was that the police were awaiting the determination of the Immigration issues.  The sense was that you were going to be deported.  I am not sure whether that is right or not, and again, it is not critical to my decision. 

21At the appearance on 5 February when you came back before me, there was a further adjournment application.  It was again to determine if the breach was going to be admitted or not, or if there would be a variation application.  It was really to permit your counsel to get her hands on the Corrections file to work out whether you should be admitting the breach or not.

22Either way though, at that stage, it was pretty obvious that you were not in a position to comply with the order.  It seemed to me that whether it proceeded by way of breach or variation, it was going to have to proceed in one way or another because the order could not just be left in the position that it was in, that is, with you not able to comply.

23In any event, I adjourned the case to 21 March, and the last part of the chronology is that there was a mention, where I authorised the release for copying of the community corrections file, which had been subpoenaed.  That was to permit Ms Cooper to make judgments as to whether you should be admitting the breach or not.

24The matter came back before me then on 21 March of this year.  At that stage, the breach was listed, and at that stage the court had been advised that the breach was in dispute. 

25Now it seemed to me before we engaged in the formal hearing on that day, that there had to be some sensible consideration of the realities of your position, and I raised those concerns.

26Evidence was going to be called on the breach and there were going to be contentions made, as to your endeavours to contact your community corrections officer upon your release from Immigration Detention.  There was obviously going to be a factual dispute because of course there was no mention of any of that in the Corrections file, but again, it occurred to me that there was not much point in embarking upon such a hearing as that in circumstances where, even if you were successful and even if the breach was found not to be established, there was going to inevitably be a further application made, either by you, or by Corrections to vary the order.

27So I raised my concerns with the parties. Those concerns related to the absurdity of conducting that sort of hearing in relation to the breach when it would not finally resolve any of these true issues.  It would resolve the breach issue but not what would happen with the order.  Not whether there would be a fresh breach application for non-attendance within two clear working days or any fresh breach if there was any charge arising out of the January driving event, but even if none of those things took place, there was still the issue of the order in place, and one that you could not comply with.  That would surely have required a variation application to be brought either by you or by Corrections.  So I stood the matter down and came back onto the Bench later that day to be told that the breach was now withdrawn.  That was sensible.  Instead there was a variation application that had been filed by Corrections which was recognising the practical reality of your position.  You had no possibility of actually complying with this order and that approach was conceded as being appropriate by your counsel.  She did not take issue with the short service of any of the material or that summons, and I then heard the variation application; on 21 March. 

28Having heard the variation application on 21 March, I adjourned the case to today's date.  In the meantime, of course, you have remained in Immigration Detention and that looks likely to persist for quite some time into the future.  We cannot determine for how long you will be there.

29So this chronology that I have spent perhaps far too long dealing with, has been a pretty tortuous one and you have been living it.  When you first came before me, you had been in custody then you had been out of custody on bail on the day of the original plea.  You came before me.  I sent you to prison. 

30You served that sentence. You got out of prison, but not free into the community.  You went into Immigration Detention.  You got out of Immigration Detention.  You went back into Immigration Detention.  As I say it is a tortured chronology and though you have served my 12 month term of imprisonment obviously, there has been a period of, it must be close now to 15 months, where you have been in Immigration Detention in these various periods that I have described.

31It is not strict pre-sentence detention under my sentence.  That much is plain, but the fact is that it has arisen directly as a result of the cancellation of the visa on these two occasions, following from my sentence.  It is likely also that even the fact of the breach proceeding being brought would have been germane to that cancellation order. 

32The further complication as though I need any further complication is that you have a rape trial listed in September of this year.  You also have a Federal Court case on foot.  I say on-foot. The end date for the filing of documentary material is 10 May of this year, but there is no court date listed. 

33Your current predicament in Immigration Detention arises as a result of the Minister coming over the top of the order of the AAT in cancelling your visa afresh, and so that is what you are now appealing in the Federal Court but at a date we simply cannot determine, and until that is dealt with, you are going nowhere.  You will be remaining in Immigration Detention either at Maribyrnong or perhaps elsewhere. Who knows.

34So it's a most complicated chronology and it makes the task of a judge here today in what I judge to be a re-sentencing exercise, quite complicated.

35Ms Cooper who acts on your behalf, argued that I should take into account the very same matters that had previously been relied upon on the plea that was conducted on your behalf back in 2016 by Mr Stephen Payne. 

36For instance, the fact that you had pleaded guilty.  This is if I am re-sentencing, taking into account that you had pleaded guilty, done so at an early stage, you had remorse, no criminal history, that you had spent not just the 12 months imprisonment that I had imposed, but also this significant period in Immigration Detention since, and that those periods where you were out of custody, you had actually, at some point, engaged as brief as that engagement was, you had attended upon the Corrections offices and complied with the directions given after my encouragement for you to re-engage.  She also reminded me of the age of the offences, occurring as they did, back in December of 2014 and that there is nothing outstanding. 

37In custody, she said you were taking your medication, you were getting psychiatric treatment, you had support from a new partner, and you had tried, as best you could, to comply once you were in a position to comply but quite simply, you were now not able to comply with this order for the reasons that I have disclosed. 

38As to the detention, the periods where you had been detained, over and above of course, the prison sentence that I imposed, this was no picnic.  You were subjected to quite onerous conditions.  The trip up to Christmas Island that you  made on those two occasions entails something like an 11 and a half hour plane trip, where you were travelling in hand-cuffs. 

39Up in that location, I was told, you had no access to visitors - of course you did not - up there.  It was less onerous at Maribyrnong.  At least you had access to visits on a daily basis and programs and the like, but she argued that I should have strong regard to the fact that you had been in Immigration Detention for the periods that you had, and in the circumstances where there were significant reductions in your liberty of movement.

40Ms Farrell, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution on the date of the variation application, suggested by way of submission, that there was not a great deal of mitigation to be given to the fact that you have remained out of trouble and had not reoffended. After all you had been in custody for most of the time.

41She said of the Immigration Detention, that it was a relevant factor but that it was not pre-sentence detention, and that it could not be treated as such, and she referred me off to a case of Falzon, a decision of the High Court. 

42There was no question that the variation application had to succeed, and once a variation application succeeds, there are only a handful of options open to a court.  There was no sense in confirming the order.  That simply was not appropriate. 

43There was no sense in cancelling the order and making no further order.  I am dealing still, with very serious offences.  So Ms Cooper's suggestion that I cancel the order and make no further order did not find favour with me at all.  I judged that option to be unthinkable. 

44

As I say, this was serious offending.  It was dealt with in a relatively lenient fashion.  It may not have seemed like it to you, but a 12 month term of imprisonment in combination with a Community Corrections Order was a long way removed from the most serious sentencing outcomes in this sort of case. My view was that the only appropriate option was to cancel the order and to

re-sentence you, so to act under 48(M)(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act.  

45That requires a court to take into account the extent of your compliance with the order and I do that.  It has been pretty limited, but for the reasons that I have announced, and those reasons are pretty obvious.  You did not have the ability to engage with this order for a significant period of the time.  When you were out in the community and when you were encouraged by me back in December when I asked you to engage, you did.  But again, that engagement was pretty brief, because within a short space of time, you were back in custody so there has just been that physical impossibility of complying with this order.

46

So, I judge this to be an appropriate case then to cancel the order, and to

re-sentence.  I do not think there is any utility in me repeating all of the agreed facts in relation to your offending, nor do I think is there any particular need for me to restate the very many matters that I previously took into account, which I will take account again. 

47They are referred to in my lengthy reasons that are published on 8 March 2016 and this re-sentencing exercise today should be seen in light of those reasons as well, so they will be annexed, or incorporated into my reasons today.

48So as I have said already, the various matters that were raised, I take into account again, including of course, an early guilty plea, the presence of some remorse, the fact that even when I saw you, you had spent time in custody including 35 days in pretty harsh circumstances owing to the prison riots. 

49There were four factors that I took into account relating to the decision of the Court of Appeal of Verdins v The Queen.  I made judgments then as to your prospects of rehabilitation, taking into account your age, your background, your very good employment history.  I thought they were good then, and I have no reason to alter those views.

50I made a number of statements as to the offence seriousness.  Again, I do not see any particular need or utility in going back and re-stating all those same things.  They have not changed, nor has there been any change to the need for the court to have regard to totality of sentence, other than the extent to which I now have to have regard to the matters that I could never have even forecast, that is you going into custody in the way you have, in Immigration Detention. 

51What I did not take into account at the time, I was not able to, and there was no reason for me to even think it reasonable to contemplate, was the risk of deportation.  I was told you were an Australian citizen, I had no reason to think otherwise. I had no reason to think that you were at risk and I did not.

52In fact, of course, what we now learn is there is a sizeable risk.  Your visa has been cancelled by the Minister.  It has been re-instated following the AAT decision.  The Minister has come over the top and for a second time, has cancelled your visa, and that has a pending hearing in the Federal Court.  We do not when that is going to take place.  We do not know what is going to happen at that hearing.  We do not know what is going to happen after that hearing. 

53The consequence of all of this is you have spent a period of close to 15 months in Immigration Detention and that is over and above the 12 month period of imprisonment that I imposed. 

54

The prosecution argued or seemed to argue to me on the last occasion, that really only limited regard could be had to that time in custody at Maribyrnong and up at Christmas Island, owing to that High Court decision of Falzon.

I do not accept that submission.

55The case of Falzon was a constitutional case, and really has no application to the task of a sentencing judge in this sort of re-sentencing exercise.  I also have the case of Coronado to consider, which I think suggests a quite different approach. 

56It is impossible in the sentencing exercise that I am now faced with, that I can disregard that significant period that you have spent in Immigration Detention, it had a connection to this offending and to my sentence, and maybe even to the breach proceeding being launched. 

57So the chronology on its' own is quite torturous, and of course, you are the person that has been living it.  It is torturous for me to list it and to state it, but you are the person who has been coming and going here-and-there, so I think I have to add into the equation, that sizeable portion that you have spent in custody in Immigration Detention.

58This is not a criticism of the authorities - but it is not a holiday.  It is relatively harsh, in the sense that up in Christmas Island you are removed from any sort of visits, you have restrictions on your liberty, of your freedom to come and go. 

59It is less harsh in Maribyrnong but it is still no holiday camp for you, and I have the additional aspect also, - I think I can take into account - of the risk of loss of opportunity to permanently settle in this country.  You have been here since 2004. 

60There is uncertainty in my mind as to how this is all going to play-out.  How could I know?  But there must be great uncertainty in your mind as to where this is all going to lead, so all of that increases the custodial experience.  It would increase the burden of any further imprisonment imposed upon you, no question about that, and no doubt it is increasing the burden of you being held where you are.  Are you staying, are you going?  When is it all going to be resolved?  How is it all going to be resolved?  There are no answers to any of these things. 

61This is not a case where you have, as sometimes occurs, defied the court's order.  When I saw you on 8 March 2016, my expectation was that you would be released, having served the balance of my 12 month sentence, so in the not-too-distant future then, and go on to the community corrections order.

62That is not what happened.  I am not being critical of anyone for it not happening.  The fact is that the Minister had the power to cancel your visa and did.  The point I am making though is that this is not a case of some wilful, defiance in relation to a court order, as not uncommonly exists and I do accept that there was some effort made prior to the variation being ultimately listed with your engaging after my December 2017 encouragement to re-engage on the order.

63I am required to take into account the extent of your compliance. I take into account all of the submissions made, and I must say, this is an unusual sentencing task.  It is a re-sentencing task, but it is a re-sentencing task owing to your inability to comply with the existing order and essentially, my inability to impose a similar order into the future.

64Now, I cannot just wave away the actual offending.  It was serious offending.  It still is.  That has not altered in the time since we first met in March of 2016. 

65I am still re-sentencing in relation to undoubtedly serious offending, but in circumstances where perhaps there had been a fair bit of heat in the relationship back then. We have had an extra significant period of isolation there, isolation also from your children I should say. You have a new partner and as I have said, I do not see the need to re-state all the matters that I have taken into account previously. 

66I take them into account again, with the additional matters that I have spoken of.  So we are almost two years down the track from the point of what I thought would be your release date, and you have spent a very significant portion in Immigration detention, close to 15 months. 

67So that chronology has been a tortured one and it may continue to be so.  I have no idea what lies ahead in the Federal Court.  I have no idea what lies ahead post any Federal Court decision, even one going in your favour. 

68One can have no certainty about any of these things, because also what lies ahead is a rape trial.  I have no idea what lies ahead in that rape trial.  It is a fair bet though, that a finding of guilty, if one is ever reached in relation to that, will start the whole process of cancellation of visa's afresh I would have thought.

69So there is great uncertainty in all of this.  But there is no uncertainty in this aspect; that you remain in custody in Immigration detention as you have had your visa cancelled and that will be until, at the earliest, any successful appeal in the Federal Court.

70So I regard this as a most unusual sentencing task, and I have found it extremely difficult.

71If you had turned around on 8 March of 2016 and said, "I'm not consenting to a Community Corrections Order" well my task would have been very simple.  I would have given you a sizeable term of imprisonment.  I would have fixed a non-parole period.  That would have been my only option at that stage, but that of course, is not what you did.

72Logic might suggest that here we are in April of 2018, that is not the stance that you are taking, but the practical reality is that you cannot do a Community Corrections Order and it might be said that logic should dictate that the same outcome should come to bear, that is, a head sentence with a non-parole period.

73It seems to me that would ignore the circumstances that have occurred since I sentenced you.  It would ignore the fact that this is not a case of willing disregard or defiance of an order. It is simply that the order is impossible for you to comply with.

74So to impose a head sentence with a non-parole period strikes me as being an unsatisfactory outcome, given the chronology I have had placed before me.  One would have to take into account in the Coronado-type fashion, the time that you have spent in custody in Immigration detention, that even in the fixing of a non-parole period, there would need to be a recognition of the reality of your position.  You are not going to be free to be released on parole at this point in time.  You are held in relation to the Immigration detention matters.

75Now I know that a court is not meant to have regard to the possibility of executive action, but at some point, one has to be practical in this respect.  You are where you are, and you are going nowhere, and that is the position, whatever I do.

76So I am going to adopt what I judge to be an unusual course.  It would seem unusual to anyone reading the actual outcome without any of the reasons. I do not want it thrown back in my face or the face of any other judge who comes to sentence in relation to this sort of matter.  We need no reminding as to how serious this sort of offending is, and the Court of Appeal have told us that repeatedly. 

77This is the disposition that I am going to impose in this re-sentencing exercise, is not the sort of disposition that ordinarily is even vaguely open to a court.  It is available here by virtue of the particularly highly unusual circumstances I have set out in some detail.

78So the variation application; I am satisfied that the variation application is made out.  I then am required to deal with you under the later provisions of 48(M).  My view is the only appropriate order is to cancel the community corrections order, and then to deal with you as though I just found you guilty of those offences under that provision. 

79If I could release you on a fresh community corrections order, I would, but I cannot.

80I have memories as a young advocate back in the days before the Sentencing Act where a disposition known as a Common Law Bond was employed sometimes for actually very serious offending. That required a court to adjourn a case for a period of time without finally determining the case. Now of course, in this case, I passed the sentences that I passed back in March of 2016, but I have to have regard to all that has occurred since, including the fact of you serving the 12 month term and then, in my judgment, the significant weight that has to be given to the other period that you have not been free in the community and have been held in immigration detention.

81It is for these reasons and only for these reasons, that I have regarded it as appropriate in the re-sentencing exercise, so on all charges, that is the aggravated burglary, the recklessly causing injury, threat to kill and the summary offence of contravening the family violence intervention order, I am going to convict you and I am going to release you under the provisions of s.72 of the Sentencing Act, that is, to place you on an undertaking for you to be of good behaviour and that is for a period of two and a half years from today's date. 

82So I convict you of these offences.  I place you on that undertaking under that provision.  It starts today, it goes for 30 months.  You must be of good behaviour during the period of the undertaking and you must attend before the court only if called on to do during the period of the adjournment.  So essentially it is a good behaviour bond, if you like.  All right? It would have been unthinkable on 8 March 2016 that such a disposition could ever have been selected by any judge.  Indeed had I imposed this order back then, it undoubtedly would have been the subject of a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal.  Maybe yet the prosecution might contemplate appealing this order, I do not know and I do not much care. 

83The fact is though, it is not open to me to deal with you by way of a community corrections order, which is what I would do if I could.  You have served a sizeable period in custody, either pursuant to the prison sentence or pursuant to immigration detention.  In all the circumstances, I judge this to be the appropriate disposition.

84I will have that order come down.  Just have a look and satisfy yourself that it mirrors my intention.

85MR BRENNAN:  Your Honour, I just wanted to raise an issue.  I am not sure, it's a fresh issue as of Monday this week.

86HIS HONOUR:  Monday this week.

87MR BRENNAN:  I don't know the implications in relation to this particular sentence, but the Court of Appeal handed down a judgement in Luu - - -

88HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I have read Luu.

89MR BRENNAN:  You have read that.

90

HIS HONOUR:  I mean, that deals with the way in which a person is

re-sentenced, following a breach of a combination order and they have taken their time to give us any sort of guidance in this.  It has only taken about seven years.

91MR BRENNAN:  They have, Your Honour.

92HIS HONOUR:  But they have done it now. In that case, a prison term is being imposed and essentially involved the setting aside of the earlier prison term, the fixing of a new term and then a PSD declaration for the lot.

93MR BRENNAN:  Being the original PSD.

94HIS HONOUR:  Yes. 

95MR BRENNAN:  And the original sentence afresh.

96HIS HONOUR:  Correct.  But I am not faced with that.  I do not need to make any PSD declaration here, because I am not passing a term of imprisonment -

97MR BRENNAN:  Yes, Your Honour.

98HIS HONOUR:  - - -  that requires such an order.  If I was giving him a head sentence with a non-parole period, I would need at least to make the declaration in terms of the 12 months.

99MR BRENNAN:  Yes, Your Honour.

100HIS HONOUR:  What on Earth I would do in terms of the immigration detention, that would not be a strict PSD, so that would be taken into account by way of totality.  But no, I have read that case and I am awake to it, but it does not seem to me that it has the impact here though, does it?

101MR BRENNAN:  No, Your Honour. 

102HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

103MR BRENNAN:  I just wanted to raise it in case - yes.

104HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  No, thank you.  I had read it.

105MR BRENNAN:  As Your Honour pleases.

106HIS HONOUR:  Yes, all right.  I have got an old address on it, Ms Cooper, but I mean, the alternative is we put the Maribyrnong detention centre address on it.  I am not inclined to do that.

107MS COOPER:  That was the address that Mr Ozer was residing at prior to going into detention.  I don't see an issue with that.

108HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  All right.  Do you want to go down and just have a bit of chat to your client and just make sure he understands.

109MS COOPER:  Yes, Your Honour.

110HIS HONOUR:  Then I will have - my associate will come down and get it signed in a second, yes. 

111Mr Ozer, so I am putting you on this adjourned undertaking.  What that means is, you need to be of good behaviour for the next two and a half years.  All right?  If you are not, then firstly breaching this order is itself a criminal offence and that is punishable by a fine.  More significantly though, if you were to breach this order in any way, by being of bad behaviour, so that would be constituted by any criminal offending at all.  Then you would be brought back in breach of this order.  And if that occurred, you would be back in the same position at court, with potential re-sentencing for this same offending.  Do you understand?  Yes, that sort of setting you would have virtually no hope of avoiding a sizeable term of imprisonment, all right? 

112Now, currently you are held where you are held.  I have got no idea whether that is going to change or not, but as I say, any criminal offending would breach this order.  Any breach of any sort of intervention order, or any sort of failure to abide by conditions of bail, if you are ever admitted to bail, you have got to stay out of trouble.  That much is straightforward.  All right?  So two and a half years you need to be of good behaviour.  But that is the way I am dealing with you.  You will go down and see him downstairs, Ms Cooper, will you?    

113MS COOPER:  Yes, Your Honour.  We will just be outside, by yes, Your Honour.

114HIS HONOUR:  Yes, all right.  So that is all right. 

115So, Mr Ozer, do you understand the effect of this order?

116OFFENDER:  Yes.  Yes. 

117HIS HONOUR:  So I am adjourning the case off essentially for this two and a half year period, on the basis that you are of good behaviour.  Do you understand that? 

118OFFENDER:  I understand that.

119HIS HONOUR:  And you understand if you breach this order, you come back and you will likely be re-sentenced in relation to the same matter. 

120OFFENDER:  Yes.

121HIS HONOUR:  Do you confirm that you have signed this undertaking?  Do you acknowledge that you have signed this undertaking?

122OFFENDER:  Yes.

123HIS HONOUR:  Yes, all right.  Well Ms Cooper will have a chat to you outside shortly and - but that completes this matter at least and we will have to wait and see what happens in your others. 

124

All right, well that completes the matter then, so I will disconnect the link,

Ms Oush.

125MS OUSH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

126HIS HONOUR:  Yes, all right.  So Mr Ozer can be removed, thank you.  Perhaps I will - I might leave the Bench.  I will come back onto the Bench for my trial at 11.30.  Yes.          

- - -