Director of Public Prosecutions v Paterson
[2017] VCC 1451
•6 October 2017
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-17-00675
Indictment No G13383891
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| STEPHEN JOHN PATERSON |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TRAPNELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 25 August and 2 October 2017 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 6 October 2017 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Paterson | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VCC 1451 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE
Catchwords: Attempt to pervert the course of justice – Accused falsely informed police that he was the driver of a motor vehicle at the time of a collision when in fact the driver was his brother-in‑law who was a serving member of Victoria Police at the time – Offender aged 35 years at time of sentence, 33 years at time of offence – Early guilty plea – No prior convictions – Cooperation with police – Undertaking to give evidence against co‑accused resulting in co‑accused pleading guilty to attempting to pervert the course of public justice
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 s.320; Sentencing Act 1991.
Cases Cited:Andrews (1972) 57 Cr App R 254; Healy (unreported, Victorian Court of Appeal, 4 August 1997); DPP v Josefski (2005) 13 VR 85; Byrne v The Queen [2015] 73 MVR 350
Sentence: Community Corrections Order for 2 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms J L Piggott | Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr B W Johnston | Balmer & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Stephen John Paterson, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to common law. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment,[1] which is the highest fixed maximum penalty in the criminal calendar. This indicates the seriousness with which the legislature on behalf of the Victorian community views this offence. The particulars of the indictment to which you have pleaded guilty allege that you did an act which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice, in that you falsely stated to a member of Victoria Police that you were the driver of a motor vehicle involved in a collision on 26 December 2015 whilst being aware that Jamie Robert Mackenzie was the driver involved in the said motor vehicle collision. Jamie Robert Mackenzie (“Mackenzie”) was your brother-in‑law at the relevant time.
[1]Section 320 Crimes Act 1958
The Facts
2 The prosecution has filed an amended summary of prosecution opening dated 28 September 2017, which I have been told by your counsel I can treat as a statement of agreed facts.[2]
[2]Exhibit P2
3 The collision occurred in the Greensborough IGA car park, and involved Mackenzie’s car and a car driven by Ms Debbie Mitchell (“Mitchell”).
4 On 26 December 2015, Mackenzie was hosting a Boxing Day party at his home. At about 5.16pm, Mackenzie drove his black Holden Cruze sedan to the nearby Greensborough IGA to purchase some cigarettes. Simon Rowsanski (“Rowsanski”) went with him. Mackenzie parked the vehicle in the supermarket car park and both men entered the supermarket.
5 Mitchell was driving a motor vehicle. She was waiting for her friend to finish shopping. Mitchell’s car was parked in the centre row facing the entry and exit of the IGA. Mitchell saw Mackenzie and Rowsanski exit the IGA, enter the car park, and get into the Holden Cruze. She saw that the driver was bald with a sleeve tattoo on his left arm and the passenger was larger and had a bushy beard. This subsequently became relevant to the proper identification of the driver of the motor vehicle at the relevant time.
6 Ms Kacie Graham (“Graham”) saw the two men earlier in the supermarket. She came out of the IGA and waited at the crossway for Mitchell to pick her up. She waited on the kerb. She noticed the man with the tattoos driving and the bearded man was the passenger in the Holden Cruze.
7 Mitchell noticed that the Holden Cruze had reversed, completed its exit from the parking bay, and was proceeding towards the crossway. It stopped, and its occupants spoke to Graham. Mitchell drove her car out of the parking bay and turned slightly right and forward into the driveway lane. She stopped the car behind the Holden Cruze and waited for Graham to finish talking to the occupants of the Holden Cruze.
8 The driver of the Holden Cruze said to Graham: “I’ll make a path for you, princess”. Graham saw the driver put the Holden Cruz into reverse and immediately reverse backwards. The vehicle reversed about a metre, hitting the front of Mitchell’s car.
9 Mitchell then noticed the Holden Cruze suddenly reverse very quickly into her car. Mitchell sounded the horn, but it was too late. Graham yelled out, “No.” The Holden Cruze reversed straight into Mitchell’s car. It hit the driver’s side headlight, grill, and bumper bar, as the car was on an angle. As it hit, there was a loud bang. The Holden Cruze then moved forward slightly and quickly. Graham heard the driver say: “I’ll just stop around the corner.” As the car drove off Graham took its registration number. Mitchell also recorded the registration number, which was ZPS 246. After inspecting the damage Mitchell and Graham drove around the corner; however, the Holden Cruze could not be located.
10 Graham rang the police and informed them of the collision and the fact that the driver of the other vehicle had left the scene without exchanging details. Mitchell and Graham attended the Greensborough Police station, where they spoke with Constable Adam Clements and made statements.
11 A registration check identified that the vehicle was registered to Mackenzie, who at the relevant time was a Victoria Police officer known to Constable Clements. He informed his Section Sergeant, Sergeant Dixon, who obtained the personal mobile phone number for Mackenzie.
12 At about 6.38pm, Sergeant Dixon phoned Mackenzie and identified herself. The man she spoke to identified himself as Mackenzie. He said that he had been hosting a Boxing Day party and that people had been coming and going all afternoon.
13 Sergeant Dixon asked Mackenzie what car he had and Mackenzie replied that he had a Corolla and that it was in his mother-in-law’s carport. When Dixon asked Mackenzie about the Holden Cruze registered to his name, Mackenzie replied that people had been using it all day to go to and from the house to get alcohol.
14 Sergeant Dixon asked Mackenzie who had been driving the Holden Cruze when it was involved in the collision at the IGA car park. Mackenzie said he could not say who was driving. Dixon asked him to clarify if he could not or did not want to say who was driving. Mackenzie said that his car had been used all afternoon by various people to go to and from the bottle shop to buy alcohol, and the supermarket for supplies. Dixon then reminded Mackenzie that, being a member of Victoria Police, he would be aware of his obligations to disclose the details of the driver to police in these circumstances.
15 Mackenzie said there was nothing on the rear bumper of his motor vehicle (presumably referring to damage), and that he would send emails to her email account attaching photographs of the rear of his motor vehicle. Mackenzie said he would ask around those present at the party in order to ascertain who was driving the Holden Cruze at the relevant time.
16 At 6.42pm, Sergeant Dixon sent an email to Mackenzie’s mobile phone requesting that he send the photographs. At 6.43pm she received three return emails with MMS picture images attached; however, she was unable to open the files on her computer.
17 At 6.45pm, Sergeant Dixon had a conversation with Mitchell. Mitchell provided a description of the driver as being olive skinned, well built, tattoos on his left arm, and bald. The passenger, Mitchell said, was of a bigger build and had a “Kelly” beard.
18 Sergeant Dixon then had a phone conversation with the man she had spoken to earlier who had identified himself as Jamie Mackenzie. Mackenzie said that it was his brother-in-law who had been driving the car. Dixon asked to speak to him. This was clearly a reference to you. Dixon then spoke to a person who stated that he was you, gave your date of birth, and provided your driver licence number, mobile phone number, and home address. By your guilty plea, you admit that it was in fact you who had the conversation at this time with Sergeant Dixon.
19 On questioning, you said you did not realise that there had been a collision. You said there were people on the crossing, you heard a beep, they crossed, they left. You said you felt a bump. Sergeant Dixon concluded that you had been drinking by the sound of your voice. She asked you if you had been drinking, and you said you had “had a few”.
20 As there were no police units in the area available to speak to you and your brother-in‑law or inspect the Holden Cruze for damage, Sergeant Dixon asked you if she could provide your details to the other driver. You consented to this.
21 On 31 December 2015 police obtained CCTV footage of the cash register area of the IGA supermarket in Greensborough and also CCTV footage of the collision between the two vehicles.
22 On 25 February 2016 you attended the Greensborough police station and spoke to Constable Clements about the incident. You provided your licence as identification, and stated that you had been driving the Holden Cruze at the Apollo Parkways on 26 December 2016, but that you were unaware that you had hit anyone when driving in the car park. The conversation was recorded by Constable Clements.
23 On 1 April 2016 Constable Clements viewed the CCTV footage, in which he saw a man he recognised as a sworn police officer from Mill Park police station. Constable Clements could not remember the officer’s name, but subsequently determined that his name was Jamie Mackenzie. Constable Clements could not see you anywhere in the CCTV footage.
24 On 12 May 2016 you were interviewed in relation to this offence. You agreed with the general details of the accident put to you, but said that you did not know there had been a collision. You said that your passenger was “Simon,” one of Mackenzie’s friends. You were advised by Constable Clements that you may be charged with failing to exchange details after an accident.
25 Also on 12 May 2016, police interviewed Mackenzie. He confirmed that he was the owner of the Holden Cruze, registered number ZPS 246. He confirmed that he went to the IGA on 26 December 2015 to buy cigarettes. He stated that on leaving the car park he stopped at the crossing, went to reverse, and thought he might have hit the car behind. He said he panicked, because he was having money troubles at the time, and was scared, so he drove off. He did not know if there was any damage to the other car, but he knew that he was involved in a collision. He did not recall any conversation with the woman at the crossing or saying that he would “pull around the corner”.
26 Mackenzie recalled a phone call from police about an hour after his initial conversation with Sergeant Dixon. He could not recall the details of this conversation, but thought that he spoke to a female sergeant who asked for him to send photos of his car. Mackenzie recalled that halfway through the conversation his brother-in-law, you, had a conversation with the sergeant. Mackenzie could not recall if he said anything to you, or if you simply grabbed the phone from him. Mackenzie said he was not privy to the conversation between you and Dixon, but believed that you suggested to Dixon that you were the driver of the Holden Cruze at the relevant time.
27 Mackenzie recalled that you were at home when he arrived back from the supermarket, and in the vicinity when he, Mackenzie, had the phone conversation with Dixon. Mackenzie believed he had a conversation with you about you taking responsibility for the collision. Mackenzie also assumed that you had in fact taken responsibility for the collision, as he “didn’t hear anything else from that.” Mackenzie said he first became aware that you had taken responsibility after you hung up the phone from speaking with Sergeant Dixon. Mackenzie denied having any conversation with you between the time he was speaking to Sergeant Dixon and when you took the phone from him.
28 When questioned about any subsequent conversation, Mackenzie said there would have been, but it would have been minimal, if any, conversation. Mackenzie stated that he did not go to police to advise them it was not you driving, as he was overwhelmed and wanted to forget about the situation.
29 Mackenzie stated that he gave his insurance company your name as being the driver at the relevant time. There was no damage to Mackenzie’s vehicle, according to him. He was shown the insurance form with his name and your name on it. He was also shown the CCTV still, and identified himself, as the person in the black clothing, and his friend Simon also depicted in the image. He said he had no reason for failing to exchange names and addresses after the collision.
30 This matter first came on for hearing before me as a plea on 27 August 2017. At that time it was indicated to me that you were prepared to make a statement implicating Mackenzie in the offence of attempting to pervert the course of public justice. At that stage Mackenzie’s matter was booked in for a five-day trial. I indicated to your counsel that if you were prepared to make such a statement, this would of course be a significant mitigating circumstance in any sentence I was subsequently to impose on you. Given the indication that was made, I adjourned the plea part-heard to 2 October 2017 so that a statement could be taken from you. I also ordered a pre-sentence report as to your suitability for a community correction order.
31 On 27 August 2017, you made a statement to police.[3] In that statement you stated that you were present when Mackenzie was on the phone to Sergeant Dixon. You said that you saw that Mackenzie was distressed. You gestured to Mackenzie by tapping him on the shoulder or the arm to gain his attention. Mackenzie took the phone away from his ear, and you whispered to him “Just say it was me driving.” Mackenzie then told Sergeant Dixon that it was you who was driving. Mackenzie then handed the phone to you, and you spoke to Sergeant Dixon.
[3]Exhibit D7
32 You then had a conversation with Sergeant Dixon in which you gave her your name and licence details and authorised her to hand the information over to the other driver.
33 About one or two weeks later, you went interstate for work. On your return, you were contacted by Greensborough police and received a voicemail message requesting that you call back. You contacted Mackenzie and asked him what to do. Mackenzie told you to stick to the story that you were driving when the collision occurred. There was then a brief further discussion between you and Mackenzie regarding the incident.
34 A photograph was taken of Mackenzie which shows the tattoos on his right and left arm. A photograph of you also shows a tattoo on your left arm.
35 A quotation for damage to Mitchell’s vehicle was obtained in the sum of $1669.71.
36 Photo stills from CCTV camera footage show Mackenzie inside the IGA store at the relevant time and the Holden Cruze and the other vehicle, both before and after the collision.
The Proceedings against Jamie Robert Mackenzie
37 Mackenzie was charged on summons on 28 November 2016 and the matter was listed for a one-day committal hearing, to be heard on 4 April 2017. At that committal hearing you indicated that you would plead guilty to the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice and your matter proceeded by way of straight hand‑up brief. However, Mackenzie’s committal proceeded and he was committed for trial.
38 At an initial directions hearing in this Court before her Honour Judge Cotterell on 5 April 2017, McKenzie’s matter was listed for a five-day trial commencing on 20 November 2017.
39 A final directions hearing was held in the Mackenzie matter on 21 September 2017, approximately four weeks after you made your statement implicating Mackenzie in the offence. The Court was advised that the matter in relation to Mackenzie was in the process of resolving.
40 On 28 September 2017, Mackenzie was arraigned in this Court and pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to pervert the course of public justice. The plea hearing in relation to that matter is listed before me on 20 November 2017.
41 At the plea hearing in your matter before me on 2 October 2017, you gave a sworn undertaking to give evidence against Mackenzie in accordance with your statement, which you affirmed, and which was tendered as Exhibit D7. It is clear that the giving of your statement, and you indicating your preparedness to give an undertaking, which you have subsequently given, was critical in Mackenzie accepting responsibility for his offending conduct and pleading guilty to the offence at the mention and arraignment hearing held in this Court on 28 September 2017. This is clearly a very significant mitigating circumstance in your case, and one which, in my view, has been sufficient to mean that you do not have to receive an immediate custodial sentence, but can be sentenced to a community correction order.
Personal circumstances
42 You were born on 10 February 1982 and are now aged 35 years. At the time of the offence you were 33 years of age. You are married and have two children, aged six and five years respectively. You had a happy upbringing. Whilst your parents divorced about ten years ago, you retain good relationships with both parents. Your mother lives in Victoria, and your father lives on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. You have a brother who is a police officer in Queensland, a sister, and another brother. A number of your family were present supporting you in court at both hearings before me. It is clear you have strong family support.
43 You were born in New Zealand at Westport, on the west coast of the South Island. You attended Nelson Primary School to Year 5, Nelson Intermediate School in Years 6 and 7, and Nelson Boys’ College to the end of Year 9. You left high school to commence a TAFE course in “Chef’s combined trade” at the Nelson Polytechnic College. You completed the three-year course, which included both full-time study and placements at a number of restaurants.
44 After completing your apprenticeship you came to Melbourne to work as a chef. You have been employed in the hospitality industry as a chef ever since completing your apprenticeship. You have never been unemployed or in receipt of Centrelink benefits.
45 In 2004 you became qualified as a merchant seaman, following in your father’s footsteps, your father being a marine engineer. Since completing that course you have remained employed offshore as a chef on a number of vessels. For the past two years you have been employed as a chef with Australian Offshore Solutions. Currently, you are the head chef on the MPSV Atlantis Dweller, an offshore support vessel, which is presently performing inspection, maintenance and repair work on a gas project some miles to the northwest of Broome. You have been working on this particular project for the past three months. This requires you to be on board the ship for 4–5 weeks, and then you have 4–5 weeks off. You work a total of 182 days a year on board. Your working hours are lengthy, working 13 hours a day, seven days a week.
46 I was told that in order to work on a vessel which plies international waters, it is important that you are able to obtain visas for numerous countries, including the United States of America. Accordingly, it was submitted on your behalf that the recording of a conviction in this case would be extremely detrimental to your further employment in the industry in which you have been employed for a number of years.
47 As I indicated to you on the previous occasion, I will be imposing a community correction order in your case, mainly by reason of your undertaking and cooperation with police and the benefit that has derived for the Victorian community by reason of the change in attitude of your co‑accused, Mackenzie, who is a serving Victoria Police officer.
48 In exercising my discretion whether or not to record a conviction, I have had regard to all the circumstances of your case, including the nature of the offence, your character and past history, and the impact of recording a conviction on your economic and social wellbeing and on your employment prospects. Whilst this is clearly a very serious offence, you fall to be sentenced as a person of good character with no prior criminal history, and it is clear that the impact of my recording a conviction would be seriously detrimental to your economic and social wellbeing and to your employment prospects in the career in which you are currently engaged. Accordingly, I will exercise my discretion to not record a conviction in this case.
49 So far as drugs and alcohol are concerned, I was advised by your counsel that you do not have an issue with drugs or alcohol. You instructed your counsel that you are frequently drug and alcohol tested while at work, as the offshore operations of the vessel that you work on is a dry centre, and the company has a zero tolerance policy regarding its employees being in any way engaged in taking drugs or alcohol whilst on board. However, it is clear that you were adversely affected by alcohol at the time of committing this offence, and it is likely that this affected your judgment at that time. Accordingly, I will require a condition of the community correction order that you undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol and drug abuse as required by the regional manager. Indeed, you told the police in your record of interview that when you made the decision to lie to the police officer regarding your driving of Mackenzie’s motor vehicle at the relevant time, your decision was made under the influence of alcohol.[4]
[4]Question 56, record of interview page 8
Mitigating circumstances
50 As previously noted, you have no prior or subsequent criminal matters, including for driving offences.
51 You have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and I accept that this has both a utilitarian value and is indicative of true contrition and remorse in your case.
52 At your plea hearing I received in evidence a number of character references, from:
(i) Martyn William Paterson, your father, undated[5]
[5]Exhibit D2
(ii) Geoffrey Donley, dated 10 July 2017[6]
[6]Exhibit D3
(iii) Dana Maree Paterson, your wife, dated 16 August 2017,[7] and
(iv) Ken Brown, offshore catering chief steward, Australian Offshore Solutions, dated 7 July 2017.[8]
[7]Exhibit D4
[8]Exhibit D5
53 I accept the contents of those character references accurately reflect you as a person of prior good character, and that this offence is out of character for you.
54 I have also read the letter you wrote dated 21 July 2017.[9] I accept the heartfelt expressions of remorse contained therein; and that, together with your plea of guilty, indicates to me that you do demonstrate true contrition and remorse for your offending conduct. It further demonstrates the fact that this incident has been a salutary lesson to you, and that you are unlikely to reoffend in the future. Accordingly I will give little weight, if any, to the principle of specific deterrence.
[9]Exhibit D6
Offence seriousness
55 Your counsel conceded on your behalf that any attempt to pervert the course of justice is a serious offence. However, he submitted that in this particular case the offending fell at the lower end of the spectrum. I do not accept that characterisation of your offending conduct. Conduct which undermines or threatens the administration of justice is viewed very seriously by the courts. In Andrews[10] Widgery LCJ said:
However, there are few more serious offences possible in the present day ... than those which tend to distort the course of public justice and prevent the Courts from producing true and just results in the cases before them.
[10](1972) 57 Cr App R 254 at 258,
56 Charles JA of the Victorian Court of Appeal quoted with approval the sentencing judge in the case of Healy[11] who observed:
[T]he administration of justice depends upon the system operating so that people who commit crimes are pursued, are brought to court and are punished, and those who take part in trying to interfere with that system commit a grave injustice insofar as the community is concerned.
[11]unreported, Victorian Court of Appeal, 4 August 1997
57 The motive for your crime was to prevent a serving Victoria Police officer, who was sworn to uphold the law, from being held responsible for a reasonably trifling motor vehicle collision. He had done the wrong thing. He had left the scene of the accident. He was not prepared to take responsibility for the collision and any offences arising therefrom. He had been drinking, and it is likely that he was of the view that he may be over the prescribed concentration of alcohol at the time of the collision. He sought to avoid responsibility, and, in the circumstances, caused you to take that responsibility for him, and by doing so to seek to defeat the course of public justice. In my view this was far from a lower-end example of this offence.
58 However, I do accept that your involvement in the offence was spontaneous and not planned, that you did not personally benefit in any way from committing this offence, and that you acted out of a misguided sense of altruism towards your brother-in‑law, whom you perceived was in a serious position with regards to his job in the event that he was convicted of an offence arising out of the motor vehicle collision.
59 I accept that the consequences for you of being charged with this offence have been quite significant, and that this has made you extremely anxious as to the effect this might have on you, your family, and your future prospects of employment. I am of the view that by reason of your past good character, and the effect that this offence has had on you personally, there is no need to give significant weight to the principle of specific deterrence in your case. However, by reason of the nature of this crime and the seriousness with which it is viewed, general deterrence, denunciation, and just punishment must figure prominently in any sentence that I impose.
60 I accept that you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation. In this regard your counsel relied upon:
(i) the stable supports you have in the community, including your family and friends;
(ii) your insight into the offending, including your remorse;
(iii) the fact that you have stable housing;
(iv) your excellent employment history, including your current employment; and
(v) the fact that you have no prior or subsequent criminal history whatsoever.
61 In subsequent submissions headed ‘Further defence submissions in mitigation’, dated 26 September 2017, provided at the hearing on 2 October,[12] it was further put on your behalf that the statement you provided to police on 27 August 2017 was a “full and frank account of what occurred on 26 December 2015” and that you implicated your co‑accused, Mackenzie, in the offending. I accept this characterisation of your statement.
[12]Exhibit D8
62 Clearly also, your sworn undertaking to give evidence in accordance with your statement at any trial of Mackenzie is a significant mitigating circumstance, which entitles you to a significant discount on any sentence which I might otherwise have imposed. I also accept that this statement and your undertaking have been crucial in the resolution of the matters outstanding against Mackenzie. I accept your counsel’s characterisation that these are significant matters which ought to attract a significant sentencing discount.
Current sentencing practices
63 At the hearing on 27 August 2017 I was provided with a copy of the relevant sentencing snapshot for attempting to pervert the course of public justice. In the nature of these generalised statistics, I have to be of found that of not much assistance. However, at the hearing on 2 October 2017, I was provided with a lengthy document setting out all of the decisions of this Court in this area handed down in 2016, which contained significant detail and were certainly suitable for the purposes of establishing current sentencing practices by reason of relevantly comparable or instructively different cases. I have had regard to that material.
64 I have also had regard to the decisions of the Victorian Court of Appeal in DPP v Josefski[13] and Byrne v The Queen.[14] Ultimately, your counsel at the hearing on 2 October 2017 submitted that a community corrections order was within range in all the circumstances. The prosecution conceded also that this was within range, and that is the sentence which I indicated on the previous occasion that I would ultimately impose.
[13](2005) 13 VR 85
[14][2015] 73 MVR 350
65 Stand up, Mr Paterson.
66 On the charge of attempting to pervert the course of public justice you are, without conviction, sentenced to a community corrections order for a period of two years.
67 In addition to the terms set out in s45(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, which I will explain to you in a moment, you will be required to perform 500 hours of unpaid community work under s48C, and under s48D(3)(b) you must undergo assessment and treatment, including testing, for alcohol abuse or dependency as required by the Secretary.
68 This offence arises out of a motor vehicle collision in which it is reasonable to infer alcohol played a role, albeit you were not the driver at the relevant time. Nonetheless you sought to take steps to avoid the driver being dealt with for any offences that he may have committed. Accordingly, I consider it is appropriate to order under s48(1) the attachment of a residual condition that you attend a road trauma awareness seminar conducted by Road Trauma Support Services or such other body as the Secretary determines.
69 Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I state that but for your plea of guilty and undertaking to give evidence against McKenzie I would have sentenced you to 2 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months’ imprisonment.
70 In considering the matters set out in s 464ZF(8) of the Crimes Act 1958 I have formed the opinion that in all the circumstances of this case the making of an order under that section is not justified. Accordingly, I decline to make a s 464ZF order in respect of you Mr Paterson.
- - -
0
1
0