Director of Public Prosecutions v Ray
[2016] VCC 1057
•19 July 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT WODONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 16-00453
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DONNY RAY |
---
| JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HOGAN |
| WHERE HELD: | Wodonga |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 8 & 18 July 2016 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 19 July 2016 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ray |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 1057 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: 3 charges of theft, 1 charge of armed robbery, 1 charge of reckless conduct placing others in danger of serious injury, 1 summary charge of being a learner driver without an experienced driver and 1 summary charge of failing to stop when signalled by police.
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence: TES 3 years and 7 months imprisonment. NPP 22 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr A. Moore | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr A. Hands | Mr M. Vaccaro |
HER HONOUR:
1Donny Jeremy Ray, you have pleaded guilty to three charges of theft, each of which carries a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment, one charge of armed robbery which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment and one charge of recklessly engaging in conduct placing persons in danger of serious injury, which carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
2In addition, you have consented to summary charges being transferred from the Magistrates' Court to this court and have pleaded guilty to them. The first of those is a charge of being a learner driver who drove a motor vehicle without an experienced driver beside him, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units. The second summary charge is failing to stop driving a motor vehicle when signalled to do so by police, which carries a maximum penalty of ten penalty units.
3The circumstances of your offending are summarised in the summary of prosecution opening, (Exhibit A). On 26 November 2015, in company with your half-brother, Tory Privett, who was aged 16 years, you stole a utility from the front yard of the house of its owner, Russell O'Brian in Wodonga, (Charge 1).
4You and your accused then drove to an APCO Service Station in Wodonga, where you filled the utility with $53.37 worth of petrol and drive off without attempting to pay for it, (Charge 2).
5You and your co-accused then drove to Shepparton and stopped at the Wahring truck stop on the Goulburn Valley Highway where you stole $39.90 worth of petrol, (Charge 3).
6You and your co-accused then went to a nearby supermarket and purchased a large kitchen knife. You then drove to the rear of the United Service Station in Melbourne Road, Shepparton. While you remained in the vehicle, your co-accused covered his face with a black and white handkerchief, and armed himself with a knife. He then entered the store and pointed the knife at the attendant, Mr Edukulla. Mr Edukulla removed the till from the cash register and your co-accused stole the $700 which was in it and ran out of the store and joined you in the stolen utility and you drive off, (Charge 4).
7You and your co-accused purchased some food and alcohol and some more petrol in Shepparton. By this stage, police had been alerted to the armed robbery. A police officer observed that the utility you were driving matched the vehicle at the scene of the armed robbery. He pursued you and your co-accused and activated the siren on the police car. However, you accelerated away heavily, heading south on the Goulburn Valley Highway.
8Later that night, two members of the Wodonga Highway Patrol followed your vehicle, while you accelerated to speeds of 120 to 130 km per hour and swerved erratically from left to right within the lane in which you were driving, (Charge 5).
9The police attempted to intercept the utility by activating the police siren and flashing the headlights but you continued driving towards Rutherglen and police terminated the pursuant. This is the conduct constituting the summary charge of failing to stop when signalled by police.
10At the time of driving, you had a learner's permit, but were not driving with an experienced driver beside you. This is the conduct constituting the summary charge of being a learner driver without an experienced driver.
11On 28 November 2015, the utility was found in New South Wales, having been set on fire and completely destroyed. On 1 December 2015, you attended Wodonga Police Station and handed yourself in. You were arrested and interviewed and made admissions to the offences. You stated at the time of the armed robbery, "I was too far off me head on ice and had been for days." You stated that the stolen money had gone towards partying and “Ice”.
12You are presently aged 32 years, having been born on 24 September 1983. You come before the court with an extensive criminal history in New South Wales, dating back to 2003. Your offending includes stalking, multiple offences of being armed with the intent to commit an indictable offence, multiple dishonesty offences, such as dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime and breaking and entering, multiple offences of driving whilst disqualified, multiple offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, multiple offences of being an unaccompanied learner driver and offences of breaching an Intervention Order. In Hobart and in Wodonga, you also have convictions for contravening an Intervention Order.
13Over many years, you have received a variety of sentences, including a good behaviour bond, Community Service Orders, fines, suspended sentences of imprisonment and six immediate sentences of imprisonment, ranging from eight months to 12 months in duration.
14Tendered at the plea hearing on 8 July 2016, on your behalf, was a report from Mr Jeffrey Cummins, forensic psychologist, dated 6 June 2016,(Exhibit 1). He took a history that, for the last six years, you have been on a mood stabiliser, Tegretol, and in 2015 you were also prescribed an anti-psychotic mood stabiliser, Largactil, and an anti-depressant. Mr Cummins did not record the condition which necessitated such medication, but your counsel, Mr Hands, stated that he believed that you had been diagnosed with a Bipolar Disorder some six years ago.
15Mr Cummins recorded the history that your parents separated when you were ten years old. You told him that there was no bond with your father, who had a problem with alcohol in the past and suffers Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms. Your mother also, had been an alcoholic in the past and your relationship with her has been intermittent. You were reared largely by your maternal grandparents. Apparently you were a victim of domestic violence from your father and were also sexually abused by one of your mother's male drinking partners.
16Mr Cummins took a history that you have nightmares and flashbacks in relation to the two childhood experiences which I have mentioned. One was watching your father cut his wrists because of his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms and the other was the sexual abuse which you suffered. Both of these events occurred when you were ten years old.
17You had a dysfunctional upbringing during which your parents frequently moved. Initially, you left school at age 14 years and worked on dairy farms and at abattoirs in Queensland and Goulburn. At one stage, you were sent to Queensland to reside with an uncle and then returned back to live with your mother in Goulburn and re-attended school to Year 10 level. You have worked from time to time in abattoirs and as a concreter, but describe mainly living a drug-using lifestyle, particularly abusing amphetamines in recent years.
18Mr Cummins recorded that, on approximately three occasions, you had taken overdoses of your mood stabilising medication. The most recent of these was late in 2015. Apparently this was in response to hearing that one of your former partners, who lives in Hobart, had surrendered your three children to the Department of Human Services. It appears that you have six children from three different relationships and have been of limited support to them and have breached Intervention Orders, particularly in relation to the mother of three of your children in Hobart.
19Mr Cummins stated that, on examination, you did not present as being psychotic or schizophrenic or having an anti-social personality disorder. He formed the conclusion that you were suffering from multiple Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders, referable to your traumatic childhood. He considered that you did not have significant insight into your history of traumatisation and it impacted upon your psychological functioning, particularly your anger management, which he considered was inevitably linked to your history of traumatisation. He considered that it was highly significant that, after having never received any mental health treatment, you had been engaged in mental health treatment whilst on remand in custody. (I here interpolate that Mr Cummins also noted that you had never undergone any drug detoxification apart from periods of incarceration. Mr Cummins' history that you have never received any mental health treatment prior to going into custody is incorrect.)
20Mr Cummins considered that your offending behaviour was connected with you suffering from a previously undiagnosed and untreated Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which impaired your perception, judgment and reasoning. However, he also accepted that your perception, judgment and reasoning was impaired as a result of your dependency on methamphetamine and cannabis. He considered that the longer you spend in custody, the more entrenched your symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder are likely to become.
21At the request of your counsel, Mr Hands, the plea hearing was adjourned part-heard to 18 July 2016, so that material concerning your earlier psychiatric history could be put before the court. On 18 July, tendered as Exhibit 4, was a further report of Mr Cummins dated 14 July 2016, with an annexed report from an earlier treating psychiatrist, Dr Wilson, dated 13 July 2016. In addition, four discharge summaries following your psychiatric admissions to Nolan House in Albury were tendered as Exhibit 5.
22Mr Hands submitted that the material before the court demonstrated that you suffer a long-standing psychiatric impairment, even though Dr Wilson and
Mr Cummins differ as to the nature of that impairment. Dr Wilson had diagnosed Bipolar Effective Disorder, when he treated you in Hobart on four occasions over August and September 2015. Mr Cummins had diagnosed you as suffering symptoms of a Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as well as being dependent on amphetamines, cannabis and methamphetamine.23Mr Hands submitted that in the circumstances, all six limbs of R v Verdins[1] apply to reduce your moral culpability for your offending, to moderate the emphasis to be given for general and specific deterrence and to have a bearing on the kind of sentence to be imposed as a sentence of imprisonment is likely to weigh more heavily upon you than a person of normal health and there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on your mental health.
[1](2007) 16 VR 269
24Exhibit 5 contains discharge summaries for admissions to Nolan House from 13 to 15 October 2007, 16 to 22 April 2013, 2 to 6 November 2015 and 15 to
23 November 2015.25The 2007 summary notes a presentation with 12 months of auditory hallucinations and a past history of intravenous drug use and an exposure to your father cutting his wrists when you were ten years old. The diagnosis was “Drug Withdrawal”, with previous or long-term diagnoses of “Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” and “Poly-substance abuse”. You were discharged from Nolan House for follow up by Drug and Alcohol Services and Community Mental Health.
26The 2013 summary notes a voluntary presentation with an intentional overdose of your medication, Carbamazepine (Tegretol). After an argument with your de facto partner, you were noted to be oriented and to have been non-compliant with medication for 12 months and a daily user of cannabis for 15 years and a regular amphetamine user for 12 months. You remained an inpatient voluntarily. The diagnosis was “Situational crisis” and “Cannabis abuse”. The previous or long-term diagnosis was “Cluster B personality (Anti-social/ Borderline)”.
27The summary relating to your admission from 2 to
6 November 2015, notes that you presented claiming perceptual disturbance and other psychotic phenomena, but there were no objective or obvious symptoms. You were admitted as an involuntary patient, with the provisional diagnosis of anti-social or borderline personality disorder, currently probably withdrawing from cannabis, with increased psychotic symptoms. You were referred to the drug and alcohol service for review and out-patient follow up. It was noted that you had been an amphetamine user for the last five years and had been on the waiting list for rehabilitation in Tasmania. However, you had moved back to Albury prior to admission. It was also noted that your cannabis use had increased to 1 gram daily and you had detoxified over the four days of your admission.28The summary relating to your admission from 15 to 23 November again notes that you presented claiming perceptual disturbance and psychotic phenomena. Again, there were no objective or obvious signs. You were admitted as a voluntary patient and described as having an anti-social/borderline personality disorder. You claimed you wished you were dead and claimed you had two personalities, one of which was trying to kill the other. By discharge you were described as cheerful and relaxed, stating you would sort things out on your own. You were not viewed as an acute risk and discharged for follow up with Stephen Gill at Area Mental Health Service on 24 November 2015 at 11 am. Your medications were noted to be Periciazine, an anti-psychotic, 10 milligrams in the morning and 20 milligrams at night, carbamazepine CR (Tegretol), a mood stabiliser, 400 milligrams daily and moclobemide (Aurorix), an anti-depressant 800 milligrams daily.
29It would seem that when you were seeing Dr Wilson in Hobart in August and September 2015, he took a history that you were giving often violent about other people and had seen a psychiatrist since the age of 25 because of your temper. You had been diagnosed in the past as having Bipolar Affective Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder and Anti-Social Disorder and Paranoia. You gave a history of having taken overdoses of Tegretol and Zyprexa in the past, and described amphetamines as giving you a “calm high” until they wear off and marijuana as making you rather depressed.
30Dr Wilson noted that you showed no delusions nor hallucinations and were cognitively intact. He noted that you were very anxious and depressed about not being able to see your children and your brain kept ticking over at night and you suffered sleep disturbance. You were taking Tegretol and Zyprexa to help you sleep. He noticed you had a history of being withdrawn and made a diagnosis of “Social Phobia” and prescribed the anti-depressant, Moclobemide, 150 milligrams twice per day. You found this helpful and the dose was increased to 300 milligrams per day. Dr Wilson added the anti-psychotic medication, Pericyazine, which reduces anger. He considered that you had a Bipolar Affective Disorder and also prescribed Carbamazepine (Tegretol) as a mood stabiliser at a dosage of 400 milligrams twice per day.
31Having received Dr Wilson's report, Mr Cummins noted that it did not refer to your daily use of both cannabis and methamphetamine, nor did it refer to various traumatic events in your life. He considered the clinical history which you provided to him (that is to Mr Cummins) was more consistent with a history of mood regulation problems and anger management issues related to chronic illicit substance use than a history of Bipolar Affective Disorder. Mr Cummins maintains his earlier opinion that your presentation is consistent with you being a long-term poly drug user, dependent on amphetamines, cannabis and methamphetamine in conjunction with suffering symptoms of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
32In Verdins case, it was held that, where an offender suffered a serious psychiatric or intellectual disability, it was appropriate to moderate the emphasis on general deterrence because the disability had played an important role in diminishing the offender's capacity to form a rational judgment in relation to the offending. Whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender and their effect on his mental capacity, whether at the time of offending or sentence or both.
33In considering the principles of Verdins case last year in the DPP v O'Neil,[2] the Court of Appeal stated, "There must be an established evidentiary basis for moderating the principles of general deterrence in a particular case. For that to occur, it is not sufficient that the offender suffer from a particular mental impairment. There must be a proper and informed consideration of how that impairment might have either materially diminished the capacity of the offender to reason appropriately at the time of the offence concerning the wrongfulness of his or her offending or how the offender's condition might make the full application of the principles of general deterrence repugnant to the underlying sense of humanity which guides proper sentencing." The court made plain that the principles do not apply to personality disorders.
[2][2015] VSCA 325
34You have a lengthy mental health history and various diagnoses have been made over the years. These include Poly-substance abuse, Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Anti-social or Borderline Personality, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia and Depression. However, I do not accept that there is an evidentiary basis for Mr Cummins' opinion that there is a nexus between your offending and a previously undiagnosed and untreated Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which impaired your perception, judgment and reasoning.
35Contrary to Mr Cummins’ beliefs, the Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was not undiagnosed. Exhibit 5 demonstrates that it had been diagnosed back in October 2007 at Nolan House and you were discharged from there with a note, "CMHT follow up, family worker, case manager, psychotherapy, psychiatrist, psychotherapy medications." The court has not been told whether you did attend for such follow up and the next discharge summary from Nolan House is seven years later, which notes that you overdosed on Carbamazepine (Tegretol) in a context of having been non-compliant with medications for 12 months prior to presentation and having been a daily methamphetamine user for the past 12 months.
36When Dr Wilson saw you in August and September 2015, your conversation was normal and you showed no delusions or hallucinations. You were cognitively intact and he described you as having partial judgment and partial insight.
37When you presented at Nolan House three weeks before the offending on 2 November 2015, despite claiming perceptual disturbance and psychotic phenomena, the clinicians found no objective or obvious symptoms of delusional context. You were recorded as having reasonable insight and poor judgment secondary to personality traits, with the provisional diagnosis of Anti-Social or Borderline personality disorder and probable withdrawal from cannabis. Appointments were made for follow up with your GP, the Mental Health Service and Drug and Alcohol Service. No information is available to the court as to whether you kept those appointments.
38On your last admission to Nolan House from which you were discharged only three days prior to your offending, you again claimed to have perceptual disturbance and psychotic phenomena but, again, there were no objective or obvious signs. Dr Darlenburger assessed you as having an Anti-social Borderline personality disorder. You were upset and wanting to go to Tasmania to sort out your three children who have been placed in care. As previously mentioned, when discharged, you were noted to be cheerful, not suicidal and not an acute risk and were planning to return to Tasmania where your ex-partner and three children were living. It was noted that you had been on a waiting list in Tasmania for rehabilitation for your amphetamine and cannabis use. Thus, three days prior to your offending, there is no evidence that your mental functioning was impaired by any serious psychiatric condition. What then happened, as you told Mr Cummins, was that you, "Lost the plot" after your former partner told you she had given your children to DHS, and you went on “an ice binge” for three days. It was in this context that you stole the car and stole the petrol. You stated, "The armed robbery was a desperate attempt to get money for more drugs."
39In the light of the foregoing, I do not find evidence supporting the submission that any serious mental disability diminished your judgment at the time of the offending. Rather, the inescapable conclusion is that you committed these crimes because you were affected by illicit drugs and, indeed, this is what you told the police. Accordingly, there is no basis for finding that principles 1 to 4 of Verdins apply by reason of any impaired mental functioning at the time of the offending.
40You continue to be treated in custody with a similar regime of anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medication to stabilise your mood as you were prescribed at Nolan House and by Dr Wilson in Tasmania. It appears that you are stable and engaging well with the Mobile Forensic Mental Health Service.
41There is evidence from Mr Cummins that you are suffering from symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which include flashbacks and nightmares. There has been nothing documented about this from the prison authorities or the Mobile Forensic Mental Health Services to the effect that these or any other symptoms are so debilitating at the time of sentence to justify the application of principles 2 to 4 of Verdins. However, I consider that your Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms and your complex mental health issues, generally, may cause your sentence to weigh more heavily upon you, than would be the case for a person who did not have those problems. I also accept Mr Cummins' view that your Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms may become more entrenched whilst you are in custody. Both of these factors cause me to mitigate the punishment imposed to some degree.
42It is to your credit that, whilst you have been on remand since 1 December 2015, you have been engaging with the Mobile Forensic Mental Health Service at the Metropolitan Remand Centre. A letter from Kirsten Hendrickson, senior social worker, with the Mobile Forensic Mental Health Service dated 24 July 2016 was tendered as Exhibit 2. This confirmed that you had completed five sessions of an introductory skills work program to manage mental health called, "Time for the mind," as well as four sessions of the "Road to recovery" group program. Her letter also confirmed that you have completed 17 individual counselling sessions, focused upon mental health and coping strategies. Various certificates for the mental health programs undertaken by you in custody were tendered as Exhibit 3. It is encouraging to see that you have taken advantage of rehabilitation programs to assist your mental health.
43Mr Ray, the crimes for which I must sentence you show a very serious disregard for the law, as does your criminal history. The offending for which I must sentence you, appears to be a significant escalation of your criminal offending, particularly the armed robbery and the dangerous driving at appallingly high speeds whilst you attempted to evade police. It is frightening to reflect upon the fact that you were behind the wheel of a vehicle whilst affected by methamphetamine. Indeed, you should not have been driving at all. I here note that you have never held a driver's licence and you have a long history of disregarding the law by driving when you should not have been.
44It is also appalling that you dragged your 16 year old brother into your criminal conduct. I here note that he has been dealt with in the Children's Court. It is not submitted that parity should apply in these circumstances.
45The prosecution have tendered two Victim Impact Statements. The one from
Mr Edakulla, who was your victim in the armed robbery, speaks of the deep, emotional distress that he has suffered in the armed robbery such that he is too scared to work at night again. The Victim Impact Statement from Mr O'Brien from whom you stole the utility, speaks of the financial hardship he suffered because he was reliant on his utility to carry out his work as a contractor and how difficult it is for him, at the age of 61 years, to be able to find employment. He also relied upon his utility to take his wife, who is mentally unwell, camping and fishing and has suffered a loss in that regard by you stealing and needlessly destroying his vehicle. All of the consequences mentioned by Mr Edukulla and Mr O'Brien are foreseeable and understandable effects of your selfish, dishonest and violent offending.46In sentencing for these offences, the court must denounce your conduct and emphasise general deterrence, so that others who might be minded to commit such offences will know that they will meet with appropriate punishment. I have taken into account your Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and general, vulnerable mental health as warranting some degree of mitigation of the punishment imposed. But I have made plain that I consider your irresponsible use of Ice was the main factor behind this serious escalation in your offending. You have demonstrated by your past history that you have a propensity for both violence and dishonesty. For this reason, I must also place emphasis in sentencing you on specific deterrence as well.
47In your favour, I take into account that you voluntarily handed yourself into police and have made admissions to the offences. You pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and from what is said by Mr Cummins, it appears that you have some remorse. By reason of your early remorseful pleas, you are entitled to a high discount on the sentence which, otherwise, would have been imposed. You have spared your victims having to give evidence and have saved the state the time and expense of a trial.
48Whilst your criminal history does not inspire optimism for rehabilitation, it is of significance that you have been taking mood stabilisation and anti-depressant medication over a number of years now, albeit that you have not always been compliant. Your history of overdoses shows a vulnerability, although it would appear that your failure to comply with prescribed medication, and abuse of illicit drugs has probably also played a role in that vulnerability.
49I do take it account that at the time of your offending, you were homeless and were worried about your three children who had been taken into care in Tasmania. Unhappily, you seem to have a maladaptive way of dealing with stress by using illicit drugs, which, not only does not solve your problems, but ends up making them worse. Nevertheless, you are only 32 years old and it is impressive that you have engaged with Mental Health counselling and courses whilst you have been on remand. This gives some greater cause for optimism concerning your rehabilitation than, otherwise, would be the case. At least you are receiving some psychological therapy and being kept compliant with prescribed medication.
50There can be no doubt that the only appropriate sentence is an immediate custodial sentence. It may be that, if you remain drug free and continue to engage in trying to improve your mental health whilst in custody, you might be better equipped to function upon your release on parole. As I have said, you are only 32 years old, you may be able to turn your life around. Whether you do so will be a matter for you and that depends upon your abstaining from illicit drugs and engaging appropriately with mental health treatment.
51Would you stand up please. On the charges on the indictment you are sentenced as follows:
Charge 1, theft of a motor vehicle, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six months.
Charge 2, theft of petrol, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two months.
Charge 3, theft of petrol, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two months.
Charge 4, armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three years.
Charge 5, reckless conduct placing police in danger of serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 12 months.
52On the summary charges, you are sentenced as follows:
Charge 7, being a learner driver without an experienced driver, you are convicted and fined $500.
Charge 8, failing to stop when signalled by police, you are convicted and fined $500.
53The sentence of three years imposed on Charge 4 is the base sentence. I order that one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 1, one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 and four months of the sentence imposed on Charge 5, be served cumulatively upon the sentenced imposed on Charge 4 and upon each other.
54The total effective sentence is thus three years and seven months' imprisonment. I direct that you serve a period of 22 months before becoming eligible for parole. I declare a period of 232 days pre-sentence detention to be time reckoned as already served under the sentences imposed this day.
55Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I state that, had it not been for your pleas of guilty, the total effective sentence imposed this day would have been six and a half years' imprisonment with non-parole period of four years.
56Pursuant to s.86 of the Sentencing Act, I order that you pay compensation to Mr Russel O'Brian of $2,000, to United Petroleum of $700, to APCO of $53.37 and to Caltex Wahring the sum of $39.90.
57Pursuant to s.464ZF2 of the Crimes Act 1958, I order that you undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a scraping from the mouth in accordance with sub division 30A of part 3 of the Crimes Act 1958, until a sample of sufficient standard is obtained and placed on the database. I am satisfied that this order is justified by reason of the seriousness of the circumstances of offending, your prior convictions and the fact that the order is by consent.
58Mr Ray, you need to be aware that, if you do not consent to the taking of the sample of saliva, then the police may use reasonable force to enable that forensic procedure to be conducted. The procedure involves a cotton swab being taken of saliva inside your mouth. Would you please be seated.
59Mr Tipstaff, I will just hand down a copy for each of the parties of the 464ZF and the various compensation orders, thank you. Thank you. Could you please take
Mr Ray from the court?60MR HANDS: Sorry, before you do, Your Honour.
61HER HONOUR: Yes.
62MR HANDS: I undertook to provide ‑ ‑ ‑
63HER HONOUR: Sorry, just a moment, would you ‑ ‑ ‑
64MR HANDS: I undertook to provide the original of Mr Cummins' supplementary report and I seek to tender that now, Your Honour.
65HER HONOUR: Thank you.
66MR HANDS: Secondly, custody management issues, I don't know if I touched on those or not, but he's receiving 800 ml of Tegretol.
67HER HONOUR: But they know that, he has been there for 232 days.
68MR HANDS: Yes, I just want it on the record, Your Honour, because in the cells people get lost. 800 ml of Tegretol, 300 ml of Largactil, and 10 ml ‑ ‑ ‑
69HER HONOUR: Has he been getting that medication in the cells?
70MR HANDS: It's all right, it's under control. He has been in lockdown since July last year, that will be taken into account in relation to time served, I think they get two days for the price of one.
71HER HONOUR: Well that is an administrative matter, that is not a matter for me.
72MR HANDS: It is, just on the record.
73HER HONOUR: In the light of the fact that there is clear evidence that he is being treated by the Mobile Forensic Mental Health Service and that he is being administered medication, I did not feel it necessary to put custody management issues on the order, but do you feel I should?
74MR HANDS: I do, I do because if they spend time in cells up the country it assists with the administration of that.
75HER HONOUR: But he is in fact getting his medication here. The order has been confirmed.
76MR HANDS: It has, Your Honour. I just - look, he may well go straight back to MRC, but given that the prisons are full, people spend days and weeks in country prisons.
77HER HONOUR: Look I am prepared to put a handwritten note to the electronic orders to that effect.
78MR HANDS: That would be fine, yes.
79HER HONOUR: I will do that.
80MR HANDS: Thank you very much.
81HER HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Hands, for your efforts in endeavouring to clarify your client's prior mental health history. It is just so frustrating that legal practitioners go straight to a forensic psychologist’s report when there has been obviously a long history of treatment and it would be far more useful to go to treaters, but there we are.
82MR HANDS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
83(At this stage the court proceeded to another matter.)
84HER HONOUR: Sorry, you can take Mr Ray from the court, thank you.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
0
0