Director of Public Prosecutions v Petkovski
[2017] VCC 1529
•19 October 2017
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT GEELONG CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-17-00127
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| VILIAM PETKOVSKI |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Hampel | |
WHERE HELD: | Geelong | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 October 2017 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 19 October 2017 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Petkovski | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VCC 1529 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr J. Dickie | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Pearson (for plea) Mr M. Vines (for sentence) | Vines Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1 The interception of packages containing methamphetamine, amphetamine and MDMA, ordered through the darkweb site Silk Road, which had been posted to two addresses in Bell Park and Geelong West between June 2013 and February 2014, have led to you, Viliam Petkovski, pleading guilty to two rolled-up charges of importation of a marketable quantity of border controlled drugs. The police investigation conducted as a result of the interception of the parcels also led to you pleading guilty to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence between May and November 2012.
2 I have already sentenced a co-offender, Robert Stojanovoski, who agreed to allow you to direct the delivery of parcels of drugs ordered through Silk Road to his home address on a related charge.
3
The circumstances of the offending to which you have pleaded guilty are these. Shortly after meeting a man by the name of Joe Kovak in April or May 2012, you offered to sell him ice and he became a regular customer. Between May and November 2012, you sold him a point of ice on about ten or 20 separate occasions. He paid you $100 for each supply. This forms the basis of
Charge 1, trafficking.
4 During the time that you were supplying ice to Mr Kovak, you told him that you were looking to import drugs from overseas and having them posted to you. You told him that you were doing so, based on advice obtained through the Silk Road website, by having the parcels addressed to names other than yours and preferably to addresses other than yours. You asked Mr Kovak if he was prepared to lend his name and address, that is, to act as a post box for the receipt of drugs ordered by you through Silk Road. He declined.
5
Despite Mr Kovak’s refusal to participate in the scheme, between 4 June 2013 and 5 February 2014, four parcels of drugs were intercepted by Customs, which were addressed to Mr Kovak at your home address. The first of those parcels contained a single tablet, 0.1 grams of MDMA. The other parcels contained greater quantities. One parcel contained a DVD cover, in which there was
a bag containing 5.5 grams of crystal, which yielded 4.1 grams of pure MDMA. The other two parcels were envelopes, one containing 4.7 grams of powder, which yielded 3 grams of amphetamine, and the other an envelope containing 8.3 grams of paste, with a very low yield, only 0.4 grams of pure amphetamine. It is this that gives rise to Charge 2, the first charge of importing a marketable quantity of border controlled drugs.
6 From 3 September 2013 until 19 January 2014, that is, commencing whilst you were still having parcels directed to Mr Kovak to your home address, you also directed parcels containing drugs ordered from the Silk Road website to be delivered to the address of Robert Stojanovski. Some of those parcels were addressed to Mr Stojanovski, others to the former owner of his house.
7 Although there is no charge relating to this, the evidence before me reveals that you were also Mr Stojanovski’s drug dealer. You were also supplying him with ice and it is apparently through that relationship that the sending of the parcels to his address occurred.
8 The first of the parcels that went to Mr Stojanovski’s address was directed to the former owner of his home and it was intercepted by Customs on 3 September 2013. It contained a packet of earphones and 19 green tablets containing 7.8 grams, or 2.9 grams pure of MDMA. There is no evidence on the material before me that Mr Stojanovski was aware of this particular importation.
9 However shortly after, on 19 September 2013, you engaged Mr Stojanovski in a scheme where parcels were directed, either to him or to the former owner of his house, at his home address. They were to be collected by him and passed on to you. You paid him in kind, a point of ice worth $100 for each successful delivery. Between 19 September 2013 and 19 January 2014, whilst this agreement was still on foot, two parcels were delivered to Mr Stojanovski’s address and passed on to you by him. As these two parcels were not intercepted, whilst it can be inferred that they contained drugs, there is no evidence as to the type of drug or quantity.
10
A further five parcels addressed to Mr Stojanovski’s home address were intercepted. Three of the five intercepted parcels contained envelopes in which MDMA, in powder form, was packaged. One package contained MDMA in tablet form. The final package contained methamphetamine in crystalline form, concealed inside two computer desktop hard drives. The total amount of MDMA intended to be delivered to Mr Stojanovski’s address, or directed to be delivered to Mr Stojanovski's and intercepted by Customs, was 22.9 grams pure. The total amount of methamphetamine directed to be delivered to
Mr Stojanovski’s address and intercepted by Customs was 58.1 grams pure.
11
It is this that gives rise to a second rolled-up charge of importing a marketable quantity of border controlled drugs. By reason of the interception on
3 September 2013 of the first parcel, at a time before you enlisted
Mr Stojanovski’s assistance, the weight of the MDMA, the subject of this charge, is 2.9 grams more than the weight of MDMA referred to in the parallel charge to which Mr Stojanovski pleaded guilty.
12
Following the execution of the search warrant at Mr Stojanovski’s home on
3 February 2014, analysis of text messages on his mobile phone revealed contact with you on 19 September, 30 September and 2 October 2013, and
19 January and 21 January 2014, relating to the anticipated arrival of parcels containing drugs ordered through the Silk Road website.
13
Police executed a search warrant at your house on 18 February 2014. $10,100 in cash was found under shelf in your bedroom. Various telephones and electronic devices were also seized. Examination of those that revealed some been used, with several layers of encryption to access the Silk Road website to research importing drugs and the use of Bitcoin to purchase drugs online. Tracking numbers for two of the items imported were found, either on a USB stick at your home, or in the text messages exchanged between you and
Mr Stojanovski.
14 Although the warrant was executed on 18 February 2014, like your co-offender, Mr Stojanovski, there was a delay of two and a half years before charges were laid. It was not until 9 August 2016 that you were finally charged. Unlike your co-offender, you made no admissions at the time of your original arrest. It was not until the trials against the two of you were listed to commence and your co-offender had indicated, not only that he intended to plead guilty to what became a rolled-up charge of importation of a marketable quantity of border controlled drugs, reflecting his involvement, as I have just detailed it here but also give an undertaking to give evidence against you, in accordance with the admissions he had made at the time of his original arrest, which implicated you as well as himself, that you embarked upon negotiations with the prosecution. That led ultimately to the resolution of these charges against you and the entry of your guilty pleas to the charge of between dates trafficking, based on the admissions made by Mr Kovak, and to the rolled-up charges of importation of border controlled drugs, based on the intercepted packages direct to Mr Kovak at your address, the intercepted packages directed to Mr Stojanovski's address and the information relating to two packages which were not intercepted, and were delivered to him.
15
Yours, therefore, is a very late guilty plea. It clearly has utilitarian value, as it avoids the time and cost of trial. In my view, it carries greater weight than
a court door plea would normally carry because, as I indicated at the time that Mr Stojanovski was arraigned and gave his undertaking that that should lead to a re-evaluation by you and your legal advisors of the strength of the prosecution case against you. It is therefore a pragmatic acceptance of the strength of the case, but one which only obtained that added strength after Mr Stojanovski had agreed to give evidence against you and given his undertaking.
16 Following the hearing of the plea, the foreshadowed forfeiture application in respect of the money and the computer and electronic devices seized at your house has been made. It relates, not only to the $10,100 found in your house, but also a computer tower, a memory drive, a mobile phone and SIM card, three flash memory drives and an external hard drive. They are all obviously items of some value. You have now consented to the making of a forfeiture order in respect of that electronic equipment and the cash.
17 I take into account first that there is likely hardship to you, by reason of the forfeiture of those items, which, apart from the money, clearly had legitimate uses other than use for the importation of the drugs and also the fact that the consent to the forfeiture order indicates a co-operation with the authorities, consistent with the plea of guilty. I consider therefore, that the consent to the forfeiture application operates to reduce the sentence otherwise appropriate and as I indicated just before I commenced reading my reasons, I have revised down the sentence that I had actually proposed to pass on you, as a result of that added information.
18 As the prosecution rightly submitted, importations of marketable quantities of border controlled drugs are serious offences. One measure of the seriousness is the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament, namely 25 years' imprisonment or a fine of $850,000. The seriousness of the offending can also be measured, in part, by reference to the quantity of drugs imported and the amount by which they exceed the threshold for a marketable quantity. The amount of MDMA imported as a result of the circumstances of both the importation charges was 54 times the marketable quantity. That compares to 40 times the marketable quantity for your co-offender, Mr Stojanovski, in respect of his equivalent charge to your Charge 3. The amount of methamphetamine imported was 29 times the marketable quantity. That is the same as that relating to Mr Stojanovski in his equivalent of your Charge 3. In your case, arising out of the circumstances of Charge 2, there is also an amount of amphetamine which is six times the marketable quantity.
19
Although your instructions as put to me on the plea that you were, yourself,
a user of methamphetamine, it was acknowledged that this was a commercial operation that you had engaged in. That is, that even if you were using some of what was received, or intended to use some of what you had ordered for your own use, you intended to supply the drugs to others, and for profit as well. As the materials found at your home revealed, you had set up accounts for Silk Road and Bitcoin and had that large amount of cash concealed in your home. This was at a time, as I was told, you were unemployed. The trafficking, too, clearly has a commercial aspect to it.
20 A person who engages in a course of conduct involving the importation of marketable quantities of border controlled drugs and who engages in trafficking drug of dependence for profit and so far as the importations are concerned, using the subterfuges that you used, the encrypted websites, payment by Bitcoin and arranging for deliveries to names or addresses other than your own, will usually be required to serve a substantial custodial sentence.
21 As I said when sentencing your co offender, Mr Stojanovski, as the prosecution rightly pointed out, great social consequences flow from the movement of border controlled drugs into Australia and their distribution within Australia. It is often difficult to detect drugs imported into the country and the ingenuity of those involved in this illicit trade sometimes appears to know no bounds. Law enforcement agencies and authorities are often forced to play catch-up and the balance which must be achieved between ensuring the freedoms and liberties of law-abiding citizens in a society and detecting importations of border controlled drugs and avoidance of unnecessary impeding of everyday honest and legitimate commercial and private cross-border transactions, means that not all importations are easily detected.
22
For you too, the needs of general deterrence must be given significant weight. The sentence for those caught engaged in the importation of border controlled substances and in the trafficking of drugs of dependence, must be sufficiently severe to deter those who might otherwise be tempted to become involved in such activities. The financial rewards, whether they be by way of offsetting the cost of the purchase of their own drugs, or by selling to others, or by making
a profit over and above that, must not be seen or perceived to outweigh the risk of punishment. The sentence must be sufficient to deter other people from taking the risks that you did, or at least to make them think about whether it is worth the risk.
23
Mr Pearson acknowledged in the course of the plea, that in most cases,
a custodial sentence was inevitable, but submitted that it was not so in your case. He relied on the following matters: Parity, exceptional hardship and the impact of delay.
24
So far as parity is concerned, he submitted that the similarities in your circumstances and those of Mr Stojanovski, outweighed the differences in your circumstances. You were both men of about the same age, late-30s or
early-40s. Neither of you have any significant or relevant prior convictions or subsequent convictions. Both of you had fallen victim to the disappearance of the manufacturing industry in this area and had found yourselves, after extended periods of employment from leaving school until your 30s, unemployed and idle. Both had, in the circumstances of the inexcusable two and a half year delay by the prosecution in bringing the charges after the execution of the warrants, addressed your substance use and had returned to living useful and productive lives. In other words, that both had used the delay, despite the oppression of having the matters hanging unresolved over your heads, to rehabilitate yourselves.
25
Mr Pearson acknowledged that the roles played by you and Mr Stojanovski were different, that you were the principal, that your offending was more widespread and occurred over a longer period. He acknowledged that
Mr Stojanovski had made admissions, made a statement implicating you and given his undertaking, all of which had to be reflected in a lesser sentence for him. He acknowledged that your guilty plea was later and precipitated by the undertaking given by Mr Stojanovski to give evidence against you.
26 Those differences counting in Mr Stojanovski’s favour, he submitted, were outweighed by the exceptional hardship which would be caused to your child, were you to be sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment. I will return to that after I have dealt with delay.
27 Delay was a significant factor here. As I have already characterised it, that two and a half year delay by the prosecution in bringing the charges after the execution of the warrants, is inexcusable. Although you did not, when questioned, make admissions, and when charged, indicate an intention, up until the last minute, to contest the charges, something that is perhaps consistent with either avoidance of the inevitable, or a hope that it might all go away, I accept that you too, although not to the same extent as Mr Stojanovski, have had this matter hanging over your head for three and a half years. Two and a half years before the laying of charges and the just over 12 months since then. That is an oppression which also warrants some reduction in sentence.
28 More significantly, however, you have used the time well, it would appear. You have not been charged with any further drug-related offences. You have had one court appearance arising out of what I was told was an angry altercation with your child’s mother, which resulted in minor property damage, but you have not otherwise come to the attention of the police or the courts. I am told, although, it is Bar table assertion only, that you have ceased your drug use and that you have recently returned to employment. Most significant, though, is the involvement with your daughter. I accept that these are all matters which indicate positive benefits arising out of the unfortunate delay and which count in your favour. I accept that they also justify characterising your prospects for rehabilitation as good.
29 Dealing then with the issue of hardship around which much of Mr Pearson’s plea submissions focussed. I was told you had full and sole custody of your eight year old daughter, a child who had recovered from the significant physical and emotional neglect that she had endured when in the care of her substance abusing mother in the first years of her life. I was told the child is now flourishing, emotionally, physically and academically whilst in your care. I was told that her mother has had no contact with her from the time that she was three and that after a period in your parents' care, she had come to live with you. I want to note that I am referring to her as your child, rather than by name, in order to protect her privacy and not because I am seeking to, in any way, dehumanise or devalue her.
30 The significance of your care for your child is indeed a weighty matter. Were you to be imprisoned, she would be deprived of the person who has cared for her, either solely or significantly over the last few years. Given the neglect that she had suffered in her early years, loss of the parent who has been such a part in overseeing her recovery and has assisting in giving her much needed stability, it was said, could imperil that recovery. She is properly to characterised as an innocent victim of your wrongdoing and the impact on her must be carefully considered.
31
The following observations are also relevant. On the materials before me and on what I was told in the course of the plea, the child was in your care, either solely or shared with your parents over the extended period of your offending. That is, from 2012, when you were trafficking to Mr Kovak and over the period from June 2013 to February 2014, when you were engaged in importing the drugs through Silk Road. There was evidence in the depositions, both from
Mr Kovak and Mr Stojanovski, that the child was present when you supplied them with drugs. Mr Pearson put to me that your instructions were that you were using or abusing methamphetamine at the time of the offending. Even if you did not actually administer the drugs to yourself in your child's presence, as I was told were your instructions, you were using, receiving and storing drugs in the house and supplying them to others from the house whilst she was in your care.
32
It does not sit comfortably to use your responsibility to care for your daughter and the risk to her wellbeing, were you to be imprisoned, as a reason for
a non-custodial sentence, when you were, apparently without compunction during the protracted period of the offending, exposing her to the fact of and the risks associated with your illegal drug-related activities.
33
Although I am told you are now your daughter’s primary caregiver, it is clear that your parents, particularly your mother, have played and continue to play
a significant role in her life. It would appear that when she was first removed from her mother’s care, it was your parents and not you who assumed primary responsibility for her.
34 I was provided with a number of reports from the consultant paediatrician who was responsible for her care, covering the period from October 2012 to October 2013. That is, covering a substantial part of the period of offending. Those reports refer to the child living with her grandparents and describe her grandmother, that is, your mother, as the primary caregiver and the one who, in the reports, was given credit for the child’s progress.
35 The final report, dated 10 October 2013, reports the grandparents had finally been awarded full custody of the child, without any custody or visitation rights being given to the birthmother, who, the reports said, had failed to avail herself of opportunities to have contact with the child.
36 There were a number of references to the child’s mother and her past role in parenting in those reports, but there was no reference to you having a past, or then current role in her care. Whether your parents have relinquished custody to you, or whether you share in her care now, was not made clear to me on the plea and whether they, or you had formal custody at the time of the offending, again was not made clear. However, I am satisfied, based on the evidence in the depositions from Mr Kovak and Mr Stojanovski, that she was, at times, in your care and present in the house when you were involved in the criminal activity for which you now come to be sentenced. That your parents are still involved in your daughter's life was acknowledged by you. One tangible illustration of that and the continuing commitment they have to her welfare, is that I was told it is they who have taken on the responsibility for paying the fees of the private school she now attends.
37 I am satisfied, on the materials before me, that your child's needs will be well met by her grandparents. They will be able to provide her with stability and having regard to the evidence of their roles, particularly that of your mother in her life since she was removed from her mother’s care when she was three, continuity.
38 The effect of this is to diminish the strength of the arguments relied on that sought to establish that your role in your child’s wellbeing would create such hardship as to constitute exceptional circumstances, justifying the imposition of a merciful, but disproportionate sentence. That is, one which did not involve imprisonment.
39 I am not satisfied that you have discharged the onus that rests on you to establish exceptional hardship by reason of your daughter's circumstances. Sadly, all too often, children and the elderly parents on whom the responsibility for caring for an offender's children falls if an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, are the ones who suffer. But to state the obvious, that is something you should have thought of at the time.
40 I accept however, that the evidence is clear that the child has flourished since she went into your parents' care and that you have been involved with and committed to her and her welfare since that time. I accept that she has been, at least for substantial periods, in your personal care and you have assumed personal responsibility for her.
41 I accept that it will be hard for her to have the stability that she has enjoyed since she was removed from her mother’s care, shared between, in whatever proportion it has been, you and your parents. I accept that that stability will be significantly disrupted by your incarceration. I accept your appreciation of that and the potential impact on her will make imprisonment more onerous for you. I take that into account as a significant factor in reducing the sentences otherwise appropriate. In other words, it is a punishment that you must suffer, separate from the court proceeding and that you are responsible for, as a result of your behaviour.
42
So far as parity is concerned, your sentence on Charge 3 must be greater than the sentence I imposed on Mr Stojanovski in respect of Charge 4, his equivalent charge. You were the principal, the deviser and executor of the plan. As
Mr Pearson put it on the plea, you “owned” the drugs. More than that, you ordered them, paid for them, chose what quantity and type that you wanted and directed where they would be delivered and in what name. There is one more shipment in Charge 3, compared to those in which, on Charge 4, Mr Stojanovski acknowledged an involvement and for which he was sentenced. And I take the view that his sentence must be significantly different from yours, because of the undertaking to assist. Whilst parity does not strictly apply, I have sought, taking into account the differences that I have identified, to make the sentences proportionate to each other.
43 I treat charges 2 and 3 as a course of conduct and although involving different addressees, a different, but overlapping period and for Charge 2, lesser quantities of drugs, I accept the submission that there should be substantial concurrency to reflect that those two charges represent a course of conduct.
44 I treat Charge 1 as a separate charge and the partial cumulation order I make with respect to that, reflects the best way in which I can resolve the tension between sentencing for a discrete offence and the needs of totality.
45 I was provided with schedules of what were described as comparable cases by both prosecution and defence. Those collated by Mr Dickie all involved substantial terms of imprisonment. Those collated by Mr Pearson involved release on a recognizance release order, immediately, or after a very short term of imprisonment. The very disparity in the schedules confirmed the importance of the principle established by numerous appellate decisions, that each case must be considered on its own particular facts. So doing the best I can, I have arrived at sentences which in fact fall below those in Mr Dickie’s schedule, but above those in Mr Pearson’s.
46 Could you now please stand.
47 Viliam Petkovski, on the charges to which you pleaded guilty, you are convicted.
On Charge 1 of trafficking, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six months.
On Charge 2 of importation of a marketable quantity of border controlled drugs, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 18 months.
On Charge 3 of importation of a marketable quantity of border controlled drugs, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three years.
48 The sentence on Charge 1 is to commence today.
49 The sentence on Charge 2 to commence one month after the sentence on Charge 1 commences.
50 Sentence on Charge 3 is to commence three months after the sentence on Charge 1 commences, that is, two months after the sentence on Charge 2 commences.
51 So in State terms, Charge 3 is the base sentence and one month of the sentence on Charge 1; and two months of sentence on Charge 2, are to be served cumulatively upon each other and on Charge 3.
52 That makes a total effective sentence of both State and Federal offences, of three years and three months.
53 I fix a non-parole period of one year and six months. I direct that you must serve that before being eligible for parole.
54 I declare that you have spent three days in pre-sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served.
55 I declare, pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of four years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years.
56 Being satisfied that it is appropriate to make the forfeiture order sought, I do so.
57 Now, the sentences that I pronounced, properly reflect Commonwealth law?
58
MR DICKIE: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour has indicated that with
Charges 2 and 3, that they commence one month after today and then three months, I think it is, after today, is that correct? Or is it - - -
59 HER HONOUR: I would - - -
60 MR DICKIE: That would be correct, because it is three years and three months is the intention, Your Honour, so all I wanted to clarify was that that would mean that Charge 2 commences on 19 November of this year and then Charge 3 would commence on 19 January of next years.
61 HER HONOUR: And does that give me - - -
62 MR DICKIE: About three years and three months that Your Honour has indicated as the intention.
63
HER HONOUR: So I said Charge - yes, that is right. The sentence on
Charge 3 to commence three months after the sentence on Charge 1.
64 MR DICKIE: Yes.
65 HER HONOUR: And the sentence on Charge 2, to commence one month after the sentence on Charge 1.
66 MR DICKIE: Yes, Your Honour.
67 HER HONOUR: Yes.
68 MR DICKIE: Yes, so it does specify it, in terms of dates, Your Honour, but Your Honour's made it very clear when the sentences commence and that's all Your Honour's obliged to do.
69 HER HONOUR: Yes. I thought that was the better way to do it, because if there are days that are required to be deducted administratively for lockdowns or things like that, - - -
70 MR DICKIE: Yes, Your Honour.
71 HER HONOUR: - - - I thought it was better to have it by reference to a period of time after the commencement of a first, rather than a fixed date. But - - -
72 MR DICKIE: So long as it's clear, Your Honour, and Your Honour's made it very clear when they commence and that's all that's required.
73 HER HONOUR: All right, thank you, Mr Dickie.
74 MR DICKIE: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
75 HER HONOUR: And no further orders?
76 MR DICKIE: No, Your Honour.
77 HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. I will just sign that forfeiture order. Right, I have signed the forfeiture order. Thank you.
78 Could you remove Mr Petkovski please.
79 MR VINES: As Your Honour pleases.
80 HER HONOUR: Just wait a moment please Mr Vines.
81 Remove Mr Petkovski please.
82 Mr Vines, I take the view that sentencing is the most important thing - matter that this court does and that those who appear for sentence, should be robed. In fact, you are required to be robed. No request for dispensation from robing was made. In earlier years, I would have refused to commence until you were robed, because I take it as a sign that sentencing is not being treated seriously and it is not respectful to the court. I did not do it, because I did not want to add to the distress of your client, but I want to make it very clear, someone of your seniority should know that you are required to be robed.
83 MR VINES: I am terribly sorry, Your Honour.
84 HER HONOUR: And if you are not going to robe, you should at least, - - -
85 MR VINES: Yes,
86
HER HONOUR: - - - in advance, request leave and make sure you do it at
a time that if leave is refused, the other parties, not only your client, but everybody else in the proceeding, are not disadvantaged.
87 MR VINES: I am suitably admonished, Your Honour, in the face - I didn't know and - but I certainly do so now and I'll make sure I don't make the same mistake next time.
88 HER HONOUR: I raised it in a way I did, Mr Vines, so that I did not embaress you in front of your client.
89 MR VINES: Thank you, Your Honour.
90 HER HONOUR: It is an educative thing, but it is a signifying of the importance of - - -
91 MR VINES: Yes, I - - -
92 HER HONOUR: - - - what the court does at this stage of the process.
93 MR VINES: I would certainly not wish to do anything to disrespect the court.
94 HER HONOUR: I am sure you would not, thank you. All right, I will stand down while we change over.
- - -
0
0
0