Director of Public Prosecutions v Parr
[2014] VCC 1097
•1 July 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT GEELONG
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-13-02364
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| V |
| DAVID PARR |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL | |
WHERE HELD: | Geelong | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 May 2014, 23 June 2014 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 1 July 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v. Parr | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 1097 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr B. Nibbs | OPP |
| For the Accused | Mr L. Hartnett and Ms K. Blair | Michael Brugman Barrister and Solicitor |
HER HONOUR:
1 David Parr, you have been convicted by a jury of six charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16, and five of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16.
2 All charges concern the one child, now a young woman, Vivienne.[1] Vivienne had been under the guardianship of the Secretary of the Department of Human Services since her early childhood. In early 1995 at the age of 12, she was removed from the home of her aunt, in whose care she had been since she was three. Some months later, in May 1995, at about the time that she turned 13, she was placed with foster parents in a family group home. She remained in that home with her foster parents, their own children and three other foster children, until her guardianship expired when she turned 18.
[1] Pseudonym used.
3 Consistently with the way the family group home was intended to operate, Vivienne and the other fostered children lived as and were treated as part of the family by the foster parents.
4 Your wife was employed to provide respite care for Vivienne and the other three fostered children who lived in the family group home. Initially that was one weekend a month, parts of the school holidays or other extended periods when the foster parents took holidays. On those occasions, you, along with your wife and two sons would move into the family group home for those periods of respite care. Whilst your wife was the employed respite carer, you participated in the care of the fostered children as well as your own during those periods. On occasions, you looked after Vivienne alone and took her out with you on her own whilst your wife tended to the other children.
5 After some time, you moved to Adelaide for work, but you continued to have contact with Vivienne, although the contact was not as frequent. Your wife returned periodically to Victoria to provide respite care at the family group home and at times you accompanied her. On those occasions, you would again live in the home with Vivienne and the other three fostered children, your wife and your own sons.
6 As part of the respite care arrangements, you and your wife took Vivienne on holidays with your children from time to time. In addition, as you and your wife were friendly with Vivienne's foster parents, there was social contact between the families. At times, that also involved Vivienne. You took her to the football, on some four‑wheel drive camping holidays with your four‑wheel drive club, and her foster parents took her with them when they stayed with you in Adelaide during one school holiday.
7 On your return to Victoria after three or so years in Adelaide, the opportunities to visit or stay in the family group home continued, whether through the continued engagement of your wife as a respite carer or by reason of the friendship between you and Vivienne's foster parents. So the opportunities to have access to Vivienne continued up until the time she turned 18 and lived in the family group home and beyond.
8 She was, as you knew, and as you had told the police when you were interviewed, a child who had a difficult and traumatic life before her placement in the family group home. In your interview with the police you described her when she first came into the family group home as being in her early teens, very highly strung and immature for her age. You showed an awareness of some of the traumatic experiences that she had endured whilst in the care of her aunt before she came into the family group home.
9 The matters came to light when Vivienne made a complaint to the police in October 2012. She made a statement in which she recounted a number of specific incidents occurring from the ages of 13 to 18 and some beyond. She also gave a general account of other like conduct over that same period but she was unable to detail with the specificity needed for the laying of charges for many of the other acts which she said occurred.
10 Having made her statement, she was asked if she was prepared to telephone you and speak to you about what she said had occurred and she agreed to do so. That is what police and investigators call a pre-text call. As is the practice, that conversation was recorded.
11 It was in late October 2012 that the conversation occurred. In that conversation, you admitted to Vivienne having engaged in sexual acts with her during the period that she was in the family group home and in the period immediately after she turned 18, when she had been moved by DHS from the family group home to independent but to some extent supported accommodation in a flat nearby.
12 In that phone conversation with Vivienne, you acknowledged having sexual activity with her. When she asked you how old she was at the time, you said, "I don't know, 14 or something, I think." When she said she thought she was younger, 12 or 13 when it started, you denied that. When she said that she thought it started not long after she started living in the family group home, you said you thought it was after she had been there a while. Towards the end of the conversation, you said to her, "I'll be brutally honest with you. I mean, I've been worried for many years about bloody cops knocking on my door. That's the sort of thing that's been playing on my mind.”
13 You were interviewed some days later. When interviewed, you chose to answer questions and initially denied any sexual activity at all with Vivienne. You minimised the amount of time that you had spent with her. You denied having spoken to her just days earlier about sexual activity with her in her childhood. You sought to blacken her character, and you told the police that you had been warned that she might make false allegations against you. That, you suggested, was because, knowing of the disadvantaged circumstances of her life before she was placed in the family group home, you had been told there was a risk that your efforts to help her would be turned against you.
14 You specifically denied having had a conversation with Vivienne only days earlier in which she had raised and you had discussed your sexual activity with her when she was in the family group home and shortly after that.
15 You were visibly shocked when told in the interview that the conversation with Vivienne had been recorded. You asked for and were given a break in the interview to compose yourself. In what I am satisfied was an attempt to remind yourself of exactly what you had admitted to, you asked to hear the conversation replayed before answering further questions. When that was denied, you chose nonetheless to continue to answer questions. You gave an account then in which you admitted having engaged in sexual activity with Vivienne before and after she turned 16, but again, as you had with her, you denied it began when she was as young as 12 or 13.
16 Again, you said to the police, as you had to Vivienne, that you had been waiting for it to come up, that is, for the police to come and question you. In response to the specific allegations detailed by Vivienne in her statement, you denied some, and in respect of others said you did not recall the occasion or circumstances. You volunteered information about some sexual activity, some of which you said occurred before she was 16. In asserting that all the activity was, as you believed, consensual, you said, "As far as I was concerned, it was as consensual as what it can be if she's under 16."
17 You had told Vivienne in the recorded conversation with her that you had had feelings for her and that at one stage you would have run away with her. At one stage during your interview with the police, you said something similar to them. Later though to the police, you described it as "more a lust thing than anything else".
18 You told Vivienne that you had thought of the activity as consenting, as fun or a fun thing. You told her you had feelings for her, affection and sexual. You told her you thought that she was looking for love. When she asked what it was for you, you said affection, a sexual thing, teaching her, and the danger. You apologised to Vivienne for having caused her, as you then seemed to acknowledge, pain and distress.
19 Towards the end of your police interview, you were asked what the family group home rules were in relation to sexual activity with children in care. You said, "It's moral rules, it's general rules, you just don't. It doesn't happen. We were there to help and protect them, not to do what I did."
20 Vivienne was cross-examined at length at trial. Her truthfulness and reliability were subject to searching scrutiny. Her history, including her history in the placement with her aunt, as well as during her time in the family group home was explored in some detail. It became clear to her that your counsel had had access to the extensive records in the possession of DHS concerning her life in care. This constitutes a significant intrusion into her past and is a heavy price for a complainant in her circumstances to pay, particularly when you had admitted to engaging in sexual activity with her before she was 16.
21 You did not give evidence at trial. Despite your admissions to Vivienne and to the police of engaging in sexual activity with Vivienne before she was 16 and after, your case at trial was that whatever may have happened, none of the specific acts the subject of the charges occurred, or if they did, the prosecution could not prove that they occurred before Vivienne turned 16 or when she was between the ages of 16 and 17 and under your care, supervision and authority as the case may be.
22 On the jury verdicts, it is clear that I have to sentence you for taking advantage of her and sexually abusing her from the age of 13.
23 Charges 1 and 2 concern two separate occasions on the same day or on two consecutive days during the first year that Vivienne was in the family group home and before you moved to Adelaide. The first charge of indecent act is that of kissing Vivienne on an occasion when you had returned with her to the family group home after having taken her out somewhere over the weekend and the two of you were alone.
24 Charge 2 is a charge also of indecent act, also of a kiss occurring later that day or the following day.
25 Charges 3 to 9 concern seven separate acts occurring as part of a single episode, again it would appear during a respite care period. On this occasion, again you had Vivienne in your own care. Your wife and the three fostered children and your own children were somewhere else. You had gone back to your house not far from the family group home and taken Vivienne with you and the sexual activity that then occurred occurred either in the hallway of the house or in your own bedroom, in the bed you shared otherwise with your wife.
26 Charge 3 is a charge of indecent act, of kissing Vivienne on the breast.
27 Charge 4 is a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16, sexual penetration by inserting your tongue into her vagina and licking her clitoris.
28 Charge 5 is another charge of sexual penetration, this one relating to putting your fingers into her vagina.
29 Charge 6 is a charge of indecent act with a child under 16, this relating to your then masturbating yourself in her presence.
30 Charge 7 is a charge of sexual penetration, this of subjecting Vivienne to oral sex, that is, penetrating her mouth with your penis.
31 Charge 8 is a further charge of sexual penetration, this one a charge of penile/vaginal penetration or sexual intercourse. This was an act of unprotected sexual intercourse which continued until you ejaculated.
32 Charge 9 is a charge of kissing Vivienne at the end of all of these events and as you were leaving the house.
33 Charges 10 to 11 are a separate episode again, two separate acts within that separate episode. They occurred in Vivienne' bedroom in the family group home. The evidence in respect of these comes not from Vivienne but rather from what you volunteered to the police in the course of your interview. Both acts occurred in Vivienne' bedroom and you told the police that they occurred on the floor because her bed was squeaky and you wanted to avoid any prospect of detection if the squeaks from the bed were heard.
34 Charge 10 is a charge of sexual intercourse, penile/vaginal penetration, again unprotected.
35 Charge 11 is a charge of penetration, by penetrating her vagina with your tongue.
36 These are serious offences. Each is punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
37 The Indictment as filed charged as an aggravating feature in respect of each of the charges of sexual penetration that Vivienne was under your care, supervision and authority at the time of each of these acts. That, in respect of a child under 16, is not an element of the offence but an aggravating feature for sentencing purposes. As such, a jury finding that that aggravating feature existed is required in order to sentence for that aggravating feature.
38 By contrast, it is an element of the offence of engaging in an act of sexual penetration with a child over 16 but under 18 that that child was under the person's care, supervision or authority at the time.
39 The Indictment, as originally framed, also included some charges of indecent act with or sexual penetration of a child aged 16 or 17 under care, supervision or authority. Most of those charges were laid as alternatives to charges of indecent act with or sexual penetration of a child under 16. Even if a jury had been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the acts the subject of those charges occurred, the evidence of the time frame in which those acts were said to have occurred spanned the period before and after Vivienne’s 16th birthday. On the evidence, there was no rational basis on which a jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the acts occurred either before or after Vivienne's 16th birthday. When that became clear, those charges were withdrawn or not proceeded with.
40 That left at the start of the trial - that is, after the jury had been empanelled - one charge on the Indictment of a charge of sexual penetration of a child of 16 or 17 who was under your care, supervision and authority at the time. In the course of the trial after the close of the Crown case, that charge was withdrawn from the jury's consideration, and was therefore the subject of a verdict of not guilty because by the close of the Crown case, the evidence as to when it occurred, if it did occur, was also equivocal, that is, there was no rational basis for a jury verdict that it had occurred before the complainant turned 16 or after.
41 So by the time the defence opened its case, the only charges on the Indictment were the 11 charges alleged to have occurred when the complainant was under 16. By inadvertence, once the Indictment was cleared of the charges where care, supervision and authority was an element, its presence as an aggravating feature of a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 was overlooked.
42 When I provided a draft question trail to the parties in the course of the trial, although some allegations or corrections were raised by counsel, the absence of the averment in respect of care, supervision and authority of a child under 16 in respect to the sexual penetration charges was not brought to my attention. At the close of the evidence the Crown did not address on it and neither, understandably in the circumstances, did the defence. I did not charge on it, and even then, its absence was not brought to my attention.
43 In those circumstances, no verdict was sought or should have been sought from the jury on that aggravating feature for sentencing purposes. Had it been before the jury, and had the jury been satisfied that Vivienne was under your care, supervision and authority at the time of any of the charges of sexual penetration which the jury has found proven, the maximum sentence for those charges would have been 15 years in prison, not 10.
44 Although, were I the fact finder, I would have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, consistently with the jury verdicts and with my view of the evidence, that Vivienne was under your care, supervision and authority at the time of the acts of penetration in the second and third episodes, I consider I cannot take into account as an aggravating feature that she was under your care, supervision and authority.
45 It is for that reason that I have set out the detail I have and described the circumstances of your contact with Vivienne occurring through your wife's employment, and your contact, including unsupervised contact with her, arising through that.
46 As you said in your interview, when asked how you were able to take Vivienne off by herself if you were not a respite carer, you said, "I suppose we're considered to be - we're part of the deal, I suppose. We do a lot of work around the house and do a lot of the caring, but [my wife] was the one actually employed by the service provider as the carer. But it's one of those things where you are the package parent."
47 What I do take into account, not that Vivienne was under your care, supervision and authority at the time of any of the acts, but that there was a more generalised breach of trust, not just the trust that arises from the disparity in your ages and life circumstances, you were 31 at the time the offending commenced, to her 13, but also the trust that arises from the circumstances in which you had contact with Vivienne and came to be a trusted person in the household of a family group home where she, a child under the guardianship of the State, was placed.
48 Your wife's employment, your permission to be living in that household with Vivienne because of that, your friendship and contact with Vivienne's foster parents are all features of those circumstances. In addition, this was a gross breach of trust because of Vivienne's circumstances as a child without biological family of her own to care for her, a child who was under the guardianship of the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, and who had had, as you knew, a traumatic upbringing before her placement in that family group home and her fostering.
49 I accept Vivienne's evidence that you told her that no-one would believe her if she revealed what you had done and that she would be removed from the family group home and the care of her foster parents. I also accept her evidence that she had or believed she had, for the first time in her life a safe haven when she was fostered and placed in that family group home, that she came to love and trust her foster parents and wanted very much to be and remain part of that family. That was a much greater thing for her because of the disadvantage and deprivation that she had suffered in her earlier childhood.
50 Whether you had feelings of love for this child as she then was, as you told her, or whether, as you told the police, it was just lust or a fun thing, is not to the point. You took gross advantage of a vulnerable child and you used her for your own selfish sexual pleasure.
51 The impact on Vivienne has been profound. That was clear, not only from her victim impact statement, but also from the answers she gave in the course of the trial. It affected her throughout the time of her foster placement, through her early adulthood, through to the time of the trial, and it is clear from what she said in her victim impact statement and at times from the way she gave evidence that giving evidence at trial and being subjected to the cross‑examination was clearly a traumatic experience for her that reawakened many memories that she had tried to suppress or to otherwise deal with.
52 She is a remarkable young woman. She has had much more disadvantage than most young people in our society have and yet she has shown extraordinary insight and resilience and it is to be hoped that she will be able to continue to work with that to understand her own strengths and to be able to continue to take control of her life and to live a happy and fulfilled future. If she does, it is through no help of yours and with no thanks to you. That is a shame that you should carry for the whole of your life.
53 It is clear that subject to considerations personal to you, denunciation, deterrence and just punishment loom large. You were 31 when this offending commenced, a mature adult, married, with two young children of your own. You are fortunate to still enjoy the love and support of your wife whose trust you also betrayed throughout this and you are fortunate also to continue to enjoy the love and support of your sons. It is not great modelling for them, is it?
54 You have no convictions predating the commencement of this offending, and none occurring during or after it. There is nothing in your background which might shed light on this offending. You grew up in a stable and loving family and you have worked and worked well all your adult life. You have a long history of voluntary engagement and assisting others, as well as engaging well in paid employment and self-employment. You have taken obvious pride in providing well for your family and in improving your employment opportunities over your life. You have no history of physical or mental illness, intellectual disability, psychological condition or disturbance or substance abuse which sheds light on your offending. You have some physical health problems, in particular sleep apnoea, gout and atrial fibrillation which might bear adversely on your incarceration, and you have been diagnosed as suffering a reactive depression, that is, reactive to the circumstances of being charged and facing trial and then of conviction which may also bear adversely on the way you spend your time in prison. However, there is nothing in those matters that I have itemised that would bear adversely on your prospects for rehabilitation.
55 Glowing testimonials have been provided by your wife and by two people who have known you for a long time and speak well of your commitment to your family and your broader community engagement. They stand in stark contrast to your grossly abusive behaviour in respect of this young woman.
56 I accept that your family support, your continued employability, the absence of other convictions and the absence of any disabling conditions of the sort that I have detailed all count in your favour in assessing your prospects for rehabilitation. It is to be hoped that the process of trial, conviction and incarceration will carry weight in deterring you from exploiting another child in the future. However, there must be weight given to specific as well as general deterrence, and the weight to be given to your prospects for rehabilitation must be tempered by your continued denial of the charges despite the admissions to Vivienne and to the police and the absence of any remorse so far as she is concerned for your conduct.
57 Whilst you are not to be punished for exercising your right to plead not guilty, I do not consider that I should take into account in your favour or as a mitigating feature the fact that as a result of funding your defence, you and your wife have suffered and will continue to suffer financial hardship. I was told that you have mortgaged the family home to fund your defence, and that your wife alone cannot maintain that mortgage. That, if I may say, is entirely of your own making.
58 On your own account to the complainant and to the police, there was unlawful and inappropriate sexual activity with Vivienne before she turned 16. There was further inappropriate sexual activity with the complainant when she was between 16 and 18 and it was at least arguable that she was under your care, supervision and authority at times between the ages of 16 and 18.
59 Even if you disputed the particular acts alleged by Vivienne in her statement, you admitted to others occurring both before she was 16 and after. Nothing was put to me to indicate, notwithstanding that, that you took any steps to resolve the charges by pleas of guilty to those matters that you did admit and that constituted criminal offences. Thus, the financial hardship by going to trial and not attempting to resolve the matter is, as I say, a matter entirely of your own making, and that your wife has been put in a position where her share in the family home has also been imperilled by this is again a matter of your responsibility but not, I see, a matter that should mitigate your sentence.
60 It might be said that just as you put your own selfish sexual pleasure ahead of the interests of this vulnerable child, you have imperilled not only your financial security but your wife's as well. Had you sought to take responsibility for what, on your own account, you had done, you might at least have been able to provide some buffer for your wife from the financial consequences of your own wrongdoing from the inevitable incarceration that flows from conviction for offences such as these and therefore from being able to earn an income and contribute to the family income.
61 Your doctor had diagnosed you as suffering from depression reactive to the consequences of being charged not long after you were charged and continuing throughout the period up to trial. Not surprisingly, that reactive depression has continued to affect you since your conviction and remand in custody. In custody you have sought help and you have been provided with what appears to be, from the records from Justice Health that were provided to me, appropriate assistance in custody. The Justice Health records indicate that you have already been offered counselling and that that will continue.
62 I accept that as a first-time prisoner at the age of 51, imprisonment will be difficult for you, and that your reactive depression may continue for some, if not all the time of your sentence. That will make imprisonment more onerous for you than it would for somebody not suffering from reactive depression and I moderate the sentence accordingly.
63 I accept that for sentencing purposes I should treat this as three separate episodes of offending, not as 11 separate stand-alone offences. You come to be sentenced for offences occurring before Vivienne turned 16. I accept that it is not an aggravating feature that there was, on Vivienne' account and on yours, further sexual activity after she turned 16, and which continued for some time after her 18th birthday. I do take into account Vivienne' evidence that in addition to the three episodes the subject of the jury verdicts, there was other sexual misconduct by you on most occasions that you were present when your wife provided respite care and therefore that there was other inappropriate sexual activity with Vivienne before she turned 16.
64 I also accept her evidence for sentencing purposes that the acts of sexual penetration the subject of the second episode - the sexual penetration charges included in Charges 3 to 9 - were not the first acts of sexual penetration that you had engaged in with her. When I say I accept, I mean I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I treat the charges for which I must sentence you as three separate episodes, but not three isolated and never otherwise occurring acts, three episodes which were not isolated incidents.
65 I accept that there should be some concurrency between the individual charges and episodes, and that I must apply the principle of totality.
66 As I said in the course of the plea, I do think that there should be some cumulation between the sentences on Charges 1 and 2, as Charge 2 can properly be seen as you emboldened by the success of your first indecent act, kissing Vivienne and her not reporting or complaining of it, emboldened to continuing to take advantage of her.
67 Although Charges 3 to 9 are part of one episode, the very number of different acts and positions that you exposed this child to, so sexualising her in a number of ways at that very young age, adds in my view to the overall seriousness of the conduct. The fact that although you had had a vasectomy and believed that you were free of any sexually transmitted disease, you engaged in unprotected sex with her, I do see as a feature that adds to the seriousness of the offending. There should be some cumulation between most of the charges in that cluster of Charges 3 to 9.
68 So far as Charges 10 and 11 are concerned, again although part of one episode, there are two separate acts and there must be some level of cumulation.
69 I have come to the view that no sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate for all of the charges. That means that you come to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender for Charges 3 through to 11 and I make that declaration on the register. There is no need to impose a disproportionate sentence in order to achieve the appropriate ends of sentencing, including protection of the community.
70 Pursuant to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act, the number and nature of offences mean that you are required to be placed on the Sex Offender Register for life. I will shortly have the conditions of registration provided to you as I am required to do.
71 Pursuant to s.464ZF, I make an order for the taking of a forensic sample. I must warn you, Mr Parr, that if you do not cooperate in the provision of that sample which will be by way of buccal sample, that is, the taking of a mouth swab, the police are authorised to use reasonable force for the taking of that sample and may use the more invasive method of obtaining one, namely, a blood test. Do you understand that?
72 PRISONER: Yes.
73 HER HONOUR: Could you please stand.
74 David Parr, on all charges of which the jury has found you guilty, you are convicted. On Charge 1, of indecent act, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four months and I direct that one month of that be served cumulatively.
75 On Charge 2, of indecent act, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four months and I direct that two months of that be served cumulatively.
76 On Charge 3, of indecent act, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of nine months and I direct that one month of that be served cumulatively.
77 On Charge 4, the first charge of sexual penetration, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four years and I make that the base sentence upon which all partial cumulation orders are to be served.
78 On Charge 5, of sexual penetration, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four years, and I direct that three months of that be served cumulatively.
79 On Charge 6, of indecent act, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 18 months and I direct that two months of that be served cumulatively.
80 On Charge 7, of sexual penetration, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four years and I direct that three months of that be served cumulatively.
81 On Charge 8, of sexual penetration, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four years and I direct that six months of that be served cumulatively.
82 On Charge 9, of indecent act, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six months.
83 On Charge 10, of sexual penetration, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four years and I direct that six months of that be served cumulatively.
84 On Charge 11, of sexual penetration, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four years and I direct that six months of that be served cumulatively.
85 That makes a total effective sentence of six years and six months and I direct that you serve a period of four years before being eligible for parole.
86 I declare that you have served 41 days in pre‑sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served.
87 I am now going to ask Mr Hartnett or Ms Blair to take the reporting conditions under the Sex Offenders Registration Act to you. I am required to ask you to sign a receipt for that, Mr Parr. You do not have to. The court record will show in any event that the reporting conditions have been provided to you.
88 MR HARTNETT: May I leave the Bar table, Your Honour?
89 HER HONOUR: Yes, you may. Mr Nibbs and Ms Blair, can you check the arithmetic while that is being done?
90 MR NIBBS: Yes, Your Honour.
91 HER HONOUR: Thank you. I note that you have signed the receipt, acknowledging that you have been provided with the conditions under the Sex Offenders Registration Act. Have I pronounced all the orders I need to make and are they correct?
92 MR NIBBS: Yes, Your Honour.
93 MR HARTNETT: They are, Your Honour.
94 HER HONOUR: I am afraid I have got another matter, so I cannot remain on the Bench. Could you remove Mr Parr, please.
---
0
0
0