Director of Public Prosecutions v Richardson

[2015] VCC 1319

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

AT BAIRNSDALE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-15-01224

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

WILLIAM JOHN RICHARDSON

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MURPHY
WHERE HELD:	Bairnsdale
DATE OF HEARING:	23 & 25 September 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	25 September 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Richardson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VCC 1319

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Accused	Mr J. Sullivan	Sullivan Braham
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr S. Ginsbourg with Mr A. Cecil	Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Seriousness of the offence

1William John Richardson, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing serious injury, in the first count of the complainant is Krystal Greenland, the second count of the complainant is Glenn Neville.  The maximum penalty on each count is 5 years' imprisonment.

The circumstances of the offences

2The offences occurred on 1 June 2014.  At the time you were living in the Swifts Creek area and on the night before you had been at the local recreation reserve where there had been a game of football celebrating a long-serving player up there who had turned 100.  You drove your dual cab 4x4 Ute to the recreation reserve and commenced drinking.  About 6 o'clock that day you attended at the Albion Hotel at Swifts Creek and continued drinking an unknown quantity with other members of the community.  At some point during the night you were taken back to the recreation reserve by Mr David Shell to ensure the car had been locked.  You, however, drove the vehicle back to the hotel against the protestations of Mr Shell and left it closer to the hotel. 

3At about 1 am the next morning the hotel was closed and you were part of a group still present at closing time and then it was agreed that that group would proceed back to your place; a gentleman much older than you in his late 40s and also the first complainant, Ms Greenland, who was aged about 18 at the time, back towards your place which is a distance of about 2.7 kilometres from the centre of Swifts Creek. It was agreed that the other people would walk back to your place.  You offered a lift to your housemate.  He declined to take a lift.  After about 1.7 kilometres up the road you lost control of the car on a bend.  It rolled and Ms Greenland, who did not have a seatbelt on, was thrown from the car; Mr Neville was trapped inside.  You did not suffer any injuries.  Police were called, an ambulance was called.  A PBT indicated that you had a blood alcohol of .136 at the time.  You were conveyed to Bairnsdale Hospital and a blood test was undertaken about 4 and a half hours later indicating a .145 BCA.  Dr O'Dell has indicated that, reading it back, you might have had at the time of the accident anything between 1.195 and possibly up to .245 percent alcohol at the time of the driving and of course you were on 0.0 alcohol at the time on your probationary license.

4As a result of the crash Ms Greenland and Mr Neville suffered serious injuries.  In particular, Ms Greenland suffered multiple jaw, facial and teeth fractures resulting in continuing medical treatment as well as soft tissue trauma.  Mr Neville received a fracture to his C6 vertebrae, requiring ongoing treatment. 

5You gave a “no comment” interview with the police about three months later.  You were charged in about April of this year and when the matter came on for a further committal hearing on 15 July 2015 you indicated that you were prepared to plead guilty and the matter then proceeded with a hand-up-brief to this Court.

Prior convictions

6You have admitted three prior convictions.  You had a single appearance before the Bairnsdale Magistrates Court on 2 October 2013 and on two counts of driving in a manner that is dangerous; you were convicted and fined an aggregate sentence of $1000, your license was cancelled and you were disqualified for driving for six months.  On the same day on a charge of failing to stop a motor vehicle on request you were convicted and fined $1000. 

Seriousness of the offences

7I am required to determine your moral culpability for the offences.  Your counsel did not dispute that this was serious offending.  The learned Crown prosecutor, Mr Ginsbourg, submitted that this was a serious example of a single vehicle accident.  The road was in good condition and it was only the driving conditions rendered unsafe by your blood alcohol content that led to the accident.  You must have been in no doubt you were well over the limit.

8In assessing the seriousness of these offences, the learned Crown prosecutor submitted that the Court must look at the level of risk that other road users have been exposed to and the potential consequences.  This includes the risk to other persons in your vehicle who ultimately did sustain injuries.  The risk to other road users at that time on the night on a lonely country highway was probably lower.  That is a matter I take into account in the overall circumstances. 

9Looking at the matter overall, this offending must be regarded as in the mid-range of seriousness when considering the level of dangerousness exposed by your driving.   Driving at that level of alcohol, whether it is .136 which was assessed at the time on the original instrument or read back by Dr O'Dell that .19 just indicates you were completely incapable of driving the vehicle safely.   The consequences of the driving are of a lower order given the contents of the two victim impact statements which I have considered. 

10In her victim impact statement, the first complainant indicates that she did not believe that she would be suffering any long-term consequences.  But she did say that her teeth still need attention but "once repaired I will have an awesome smile." She says "the opinion of my medical team are that I should have no long-term effects physically."  She has got a slight scar under her chin apparently, according to the victim impact statement. 

11On the resumed plea this morning Mr Ginsbourg tendered a medical report from the brief from a doctor indicating the severity of the actual injuries that she suffered at the time.  It is clear that there was multiple fractures of her jaw.  Other parts of her face have been repaired and you are indeed lucky that the sequelae appear be relatively mild although she is still having dental treatment. 

12Mr Ginsbourg noted that the complainant may have understated her injuries out of loyalty to you; apparently she is a friend of yours.  But the Court was entitled to infer that she had forgiven you for the event and held no grudge against you. 

13In relation to the second complainant in this matter, Mr Neville, he is here in Court today.  He filed a victim impact statement which indicated that the incident created significant stress, anger and level of uncomfortableness for all parties involved and connected in any way.  “The well-being and enjoyment of life for his family in our small community was affected in the short-term” and he said his family was extremely stressed and levels of anxiety were very high at the time.  He mentioned that his wife was extremely distressed because she was a local schoolteacher and had to battle on with him being off work for a period of four months. This created financial implications for them as well as for their children.  He had suffered a fractured vertebrae; he was unable to work for four months let alone participate in any sport or leisure activities. But he was pleased that the Transport Accident Commission had paid all his expenses but he did drawdown on the savings, he lost money and his wife had to take time off work to go down to the hospital. It was indicated on the course of the plea by Mr Sullivan that Mr Neville suffered no long-term sequelae. 

14The attitude of victims in criminal offending is a matter that can be taken into consideration in sentencing but it cannot be determinative. I take into account that Mr Neville is prepared to come to Court to support you on the plea. Ms Greenland clearly still has consequences from the accident but she does not appear to harbour any grudge against you.  Notwithstanding I am satisfied that Ms Greenland has some long-term physical consequences, she is still requiring dental treatment, the long-term sequelae to both complainants in this matter places that offending in that respect at a mid to lower level of the range. 

15In considering your overall moral culpability I must also consider the fact that you in fact you have two prior convictions for dangerous driving and this goes to increase your moral culpability. Further, you were on a probationary licence at the time which did impose a mandatory zero alcohol level. In your favour in considering your overall moral culpability, although you had the prior convictions for dangerous driving and failing to stop, you did not have any prior convictions for drink driving or for speeding or disqualification offences.   

Matters in mitigation

16The matters in mitigation were outlined on the plea by your counsel, Mr Sullivan. You are the oldest of four children and your father is a grazier and local electrician at Swifts Creek.  Your mother was or is a local nurse.  Your parents were in Court to support you along with a large number of family and other members from the community.  You went to the local school until Year 9 and then you attended a private school in Melbourne as a boarder and completed Year 12.  You have one sister in tertiary education in Melbourne and two younger siblings at a private school in Sale. 

17After you completed your Year 12 you commenced an apprenticeship as an electrician and completed part of that apprenticeship in Melbourne before transferring your apprenticeship to your father in Swifts Creek.  You successfully completed that electrician apprenticeship.  After this event, you went to the Northern Territory and worked for a period up there on a station.  On the plea, Mr Sullivan tendered a reference from the manager of the station indicating that you had been a good worker up there, trustworthy, reliable and a sociable sort of person.  You have now returned to Victoria to face this music. 

18Your counsel, Mr Sullivan, a very experienced practitioner and well known in the area, put everything he could in mitigation in this matter.  First, he referred to your early plea of guilty.  The prosecutor accepted that you are entitled to the benefit of an early plea of guilty.  He indicated you were adamant that you were always going to plead guilty and the two complainants have not been required for cross-examination by way of a committal and their injuries have not been disputed; you did not dispute the blood alcohol level.  

19Next, you are entitled to the benefit of remorse. There was evidence of remorse in the three character references from Mr Smith and from Mr Jeremy O'Neal, the gentleman who worked with you as a senior electrician at Laser Electrical at Swifts Creek where he was the senior electrician and, in addition, a letter from a local Swifts Creek resident, Mr Mauger. Mr Mauger indicates that you have been actively involved in the local community. 

20On the plea, Mr Sullivan also led evidence from Mr Cummins, a long-standing local in the area who knows your family and has known you because he has a son about the same age as you, and also Mr Gallagher, who is a long-standing teacher who taught you and knows you well.  They both indicate that you are of good character and you have made community contributions.  You are entitled to the benefit of that in this matter.  Next, Mr Sullivan put that you had taken action to address the underlying causes of this offending.  He noted that you have undertaken alcohol counselling and modified your drinking habits.  Mr Cummins indicated, and Mr Sullivan did not really dispute, that when you returned to Melbourne you had been involved in binge drinking and indeed with Mr Cummins' son.  But since the offending, on the account and
Mr Cummins and Mr Gallagher, who have had an opportunity to observe your changed behaviour, they have seen that since that time you have in fact addressed the underlying problems and Mr Cummins' evidence was very persuasive on this point. 

21The report tendered on the plea from a psychologist, Mr Jeremy Parker, has also indicated that you have "sought counselling" and you have developed strategies to minimise your drinking. You stated that you are committed to continuing with the counselling: "His report of his alcohol consumption is that he has reduced the amount and frequency of his drinking. He understands that his alcohol use was problematic and immature. Mr Richardson’s discussion around alcohol would suggest that he understands the physical, mental and employment consequences of such use."  Mr Parker assessed you as having a low risk of reoffending. The Community Corrections Assessment Officer also opined that you have a low risk of reoffending.

22In sentencing you I must have regard to your prospects of rehabilitation. On the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that I must regard those prospects as very good.  Given your remorse, the actions you have taken to address your drinking problems and the evidence from Mr Gallagher and
Mr Cummins that there has been a marked change in your behaviour, this does bode well for the future.

23The fact that you have a trade qualification and have been in the workforce is also a very important factor in considering your prospects of rehabilitation.
Mr Cummins gave evidence that he has offered you a job next week. 

24It is clearly in the interests of the community that the steps that you have undertaken for your rehabilitation be encouraged.

The central issue on the plea

25The central issue to be determined on this plea is whether the offending here calls for a term of immediate imprisonment to be served. Mr Ginsbourg submitted that it does require such a term to be served. Mr Sullivan, your counsel, submitted that a Community Corrections Order would be within range.  Mr Sullivan referred to the recent decision of Boulton, a guideline judgement on the matter.  The Court is familiar with this decision. At paragraph 30 of the decision the Court said:

"Sentencing judges should proceed on the basis that there is now a very broad range of cases in which it will be appropriate to impose a suitably structured CCO, either alone or in conjunction with a shorter term of imprisonment, including cases where a sentence of imprisonment would formally have been regarded as the only option."

26Mr Sullivan referred to paragraph 9 of the appendix where the court said in relation to young offenders:

“A CCO is likely to be a particularly important sentencing option in the case of a young offender where there may be a perceived conflict between the need to punish the offender and the importance both to the community and to the offender of rehabilitating the offender. Since the CCO is used to rehabilitate and punish simultaneously, the conflict is likely to be reduced. Instead of needing to give less weight to denunciation or specific or general deterrence, in order to promote the young offender's rehabilitation, the court will be able to fashion a CCO which adequately achieves all those purposes at once.”

You were aged 21 1/2 at the time of this offending and you are nearly 23.  You are not a youth but you are a youngish offender. 

27As I indicated to Mr Sullivan in the course of the plea, current sentencing practices in relation to this offence usually require the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment to be immediately served with a head sentence of between 18 months and two years.

28The issue in this case is whether in the light of the guideline judgement in Boulton the ends of sentencing can be achieved by the imposition of a suitably structured community corrections order.

29This morning, Mr Sullivan tended a document from the Corrections Advisory Council that indicated that over the six-year period of the survey to 2013, wholly suspended sentences were imposed around 33% of the cases and that imprisonment was imposed in half the cases. The median sentence for individual counts was 18 months and the median sentence in all cases was two years and five months with a non-parole period of 15 months. Mr Sullivan referred to s.36 of the Sentencing Act where the Parliament indicated that a Community Corrections Order may be appropriate where previously a suspended sentence had been imposed.  The sentencing statistics provided by Mr Sullivan indicate that while at least half offenders for this offence are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, in a minority of cases that term of imprisonment has been wholly suspended by the higher courts.  The question is whether the application of the guideline of Boulton allows this Court, applying principles of proportionality and parsimony, to impose a community corrections order with or without a term of imprisonment in this case.

30As I have indicated, in paragraph 30 of the appendix to Boulton the Court has instructed sentencing courts to apply an incremental approach to the application of a Community Corrections Order and where they fit into the sentencing hierarchy.  It follows from this that previous cases that might have considered in the Court of Appeal before the Boulton guideline are of only limited use in determining what is an appropriate sentence in this case. 

31In support of his submission that a Community Corrections Order ought be imposed, Mr Sullivan submitted that an appropriate condition in this case could be a requirement that you abstain from alcohol for some period. I do not regard that as an appropriate condition in this case because whenever you do get a license again, for a considerable period, I think it is two years, you will be required as a probationary driver to go 0.0 alcohol.

32In sentencing you, I am required to balance the interests of the community in general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation with the interests of the community in your rehabilitation.  General deterrence and denunciation are important sentencing considerations in these types of offences.  A signal must be sent to drivers, particularly young drivers, that a car is a lethal weapon and all drivers owe a duty to all other road users, including their own passengers, not to drive when they are under the influence of alcohol.  Another important sentencing consideration in these types of cases where there has been a death or injury, in this case an injury, is what has been described as social rehabilitation.  

33In the case of R v Towle [2009] VSCA 280, the Court of Appeal referred to social rehabilitation as an important sentencing factor and cited an earlier case of Neethling, a case of dangerous driving causing death, and said this:

"In cases such as these, sentencing performs an important function of social rehabilitation.  As this court said recently in Neethling, also a case of dangerous driving causing death, the rationale of the criminal law is to be minimise the damage occasioned by anti-social behaviour by limiting the occasions on which it occurs by reinforcing the values of the community by vindicating the rights of victims and by rehabilitating offenders.  The sentence functioning enables the courts on behalf of the community to state with crystal clarity that conduct of the particular kind will not be tolerated.  Sentencing performs an important function of social rehabilitation."

As Vincent JA said in DPP v DJK,

"This notion of social rehabilitation is one that I do not believe has been accorded anything significant recognition as an identifiable underlying concern of the criminal justice system.  It seems to me that the process of social and personal recovery which we attempt to achieve in order to ameliorate the consequences of a crime can be impeded or facilitated by the response of the courts.  The imposition of a sentence often constitutes both a practical and ritual completion of a protracted, painful period.  It signifies the recognition by society of the nature and significance of the wrong that has been done to affected members, the assertion of values and the public attribution of responsibility for the wrongdoing to the perpetrator. If the balancing of values and considerations represented by the sentence which of course must include those factors which militate in favour of mitigation of penalty is capable of being achieved by a reasonably objective member of the community as just, the process of recovery is more likely to be assisted.  If not, there will almost certainly be created a sense of injustice in the community generally, the damages, the respect in which our criminal justice system is held and which may never be removed.  Indeed, from the victim's perspective, an apparent failure of the system to recognise the real significance of what has occurred in the life of that person as a consequence of the commission of the crime may well aggravate the situation.  In our view, those remarks apply with particular force to the offence of this devastating kind. "

Similar considerations appear to inform the statement of Hunt CJ at CL in New South Wales in Musumeci that:

"The sentence must be seen to have a reasonable proportionality to the objective circumstances of the crime and persuasive subjective considerations must not lead to inadequate weight being given to those objective circumstances." 

Similar circumstances was expressed by CJ Spiegelmen in Jurisic,

"It has long been accepted that denunciation of criminal conduct is a relevant factor in the sentencing process.  In the course of such denunciations courts do and should have regard to the moral sense of the community and to community expectations of appropriate punishment.  Courts are, however, aware that the requirements of justice and the requirements of mercy are often in conflict but we live in a society which values both justice and mercy."

I have got to try and apply those sentiments here.

34In applying those sentiments I also have regard to paragraph 13 of the Boulton appendix which says:

"Axiomatically nothing is as punitive as prison.  At the same time the opportunities for rehabilitation in prison are severely limited and imprisonment can be seriously detrimental for the offender.  In practice, therefore, a conclusion that imprisonment is the only appropriate punishment is a conclusion that the retributive and deterrent purposes of punishment must take precedence." 

35In sentencing I have taken into account that it appears that a substantial proportion of the Swifts Creek community have travelled down here in support of you.  That is relevant to the issue of social rehabilitation as well as your prospects for rehabilitation, and I refer to paragraph 13 again. 

36In sentencing you I have also taken into account the punitive effect of a period of licence disqualification on you. Your roots are in one of the most remote areas of this State where alternatives to motor vehicles by way of public transport are minimal. A period of licence disqualification will impact disparately on you compared with an offender living in an urban area. It will impose hardship on you and your family and friends and have the potential to restrict your employment opportunities. 

37Having considered the matters in Neethling that I referred to, for the following reasons I have decided that sentencing purposes can be achieved in this case by the imposition of a Community Corrections Order and not by the imposition of a term of imprisonment to be served.

38First, you are still a relatively young man being just under the age of 23 and 21 ½ at the time of the offences. While the cases have said that youth takes a backseat in these types of cases, in Boulton the Court has confirmed that relative youth is still a consideration in all sentencing. Next, I regard considerations of specific deterrence as having less weight in this case due to the following:

39First, there was positive evidence of remorse and victim empathy from Mr Cummins and Mr Gallagher and in the three references.  Next, you have taken positive steps to address the root cause of the offending here, namely by reigning in your excessive drinking. This is confirmed by both the character witnesses called and by the psychological report.

40Next, you have been assessed by the psychologist and by the Office of Corrections as being as a low risk of recidivism.

41Next, you have a trade and have contributed to your local community and been a productive member of the workforce. You have strong family and community support.

42All these matters lead to a conclusion that a period of imprisonment would retard your rehabilitation and deprive the local community and indeed the community at large of a productive member.

43This then leads to a consideration as to whether a community corrections order can meet sentencing needs.  As your counsel has indicated it is hardly in the community interest to throw a young person into the criminogenic atmosphere of prison unless there is no other alternative.  In this case I am satisfied that general deterrence can be served by the imposition of a lengthy Community Corrections Order with a substantial community work component. This alone is punishment, particularly given that you are a tradesman otherwise in a position to work for remuneration seven days a week.

44Next, I am satisfied that some of the ends of general deterrence have already been achieved in this case on the basis of the evidence of Mr Gallagher, who indicates that this event really has shaken up the local community and has resulted in a change in behaviour of the locals in the area. This is a not insignificant matter and I do take into account.

45In relation to specific deterrence, as I indicated, Mr Parker has indicated that you understand the underlying cause of this event and are seeking to address it. That you have taken remedial action is supported by the evidence of
Mr Cummins and Mr Gallagher.

46It is appropriate to encourage your rehabilitation by annexing to a Community Corrections Order a requirement that you continue to undertake alcohol and drug counselling as directed and also undertake a road trauma awareness program.

47Licence disqualification is also an important punishment in these cases.  There is a mandatory cancellation and disqualification for a period of 18 months attached to this offence. As I have indicated, given your location any period of licence disqualification does bear more heavily on people in country areas particularly in remote areas like yours. It is appropriate, however, as a matter of punishment that there be a substantial period of licence disqualification both for reasons of general deterrence and specific deterrence. As indicated in Boulton a Community Corrections Order is an onerous disposition because it contains within it a requirement that for its duration you not commit a further offence and if you do breach the order, this breaches the order and allows you to be brought back for re-sentencing on this offence as well.

48Weighing all those matters, I am satisfied that a Community Corrections Order is an appropriate sentencing disposition. 

49You have indicated that you are prepared to consent to a Community Corrections Order.

50Should you agree I am proposing to impose a Community Corrections Order as follows as an aggregate sentence.  The duration is to be 30 months. You will be required to undertake 300 hours of community work.

51You will be under supervision.

52You will be required to undertake a road trauma awareness program.  You will be required for a period of 12 months to engage in alcohol counselling as directed. Your licenses will be cancelled and you will be disqualified from driving for a period of 30 months.

53In imposing such a sentence I indicate to you and to the community that I have applied principles of parsimony in proceeding to impose a sentence that does not involve a term of imprisonment.  I see a term of imprisonment as inappropriate given the actions that you have taken since the offence to address your drinking problem and that any such sentence would impede your rehabilitation.  Next I am satisfied in accordance with paragraph 30 of Boulton it is necessary for courts to carefully and incrementally consider the appropriateness of a Community Corrections Order as an alternative to previous wholly or partially suspended sentences in cases that would otherwise call for a significant term of imprisonment. Thoughtful members of the community will always give weight in considering a disposition to the fact that an offender is a youngish offender who is also entitled to draw on the contributions that they have already made to the community. Thoughtful members of the community will also accept that prisons are criminogenic places and ought be reserved for offenders where there are no other alternatives available. Having carefully considered the matter, I am satisfied that yours is not such a case.  I am going to stand down while the relevant documents are prepared.  I would ask that Mr Sullivan explain them carefully to you and then if you are prepared to sign the document we will resume. 

(Short adjournment.)

54Mr Richardson, as I tried to indicate why I imposed this sentence on you and I have got to explain it to you. You are on a Community Corrections Order for 30 months and it has got mandatory conditions, the first of which is that you have got to attend there within two business days in Bairnsdale.  The first condition is you are not to commit an offence carrying a term of imprisonment for the next 30 months, comply with any directions under the Sentencing Regulations, report or receive visits when they call you or if they turn up there.  You have got to advise them of a change of address within two clear business days, not leave Victoria without permission and obey all lawful instructions.  They are the general conditions that apply to all Community Corrections Orders.  In addition to that I am imposing 300 hours of community work.  They will make the arrangements for you and it means you have got to turn up for that, do the community work until you have clocked up 300 hours and then you have also got to be under supervision of the Community Corrections Officer as I have said, and then for the next 12 months you have got to undertake assessment, rehabilitation and treatment for alcohol abuse or dependency as directed, so it might include going to the current counsellor you are with or some other counsellor, whatever they direct, and then engage in a road trauma awareness program.

55I remind you if you do commit an offence in the next 30 months or you breach any of those conditions then you will commit an offence by doing that, you will be then sentenced to whatever offence you commit and you come back and I will decide whether I am going to continue with the order or throw you in jail.  Do you understand that? 

56ACCUSED:  Yes, Your Honour.

57HIS HONOUR:  I am giving you this opportunity and I declare that had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to two years jail as an aggregate sentence with a 15 months minimum.  In addition, I have cancelled your licenses and you are off the road for 30 months and then you have got to get a license again and go back on P plates.  So if you are caught driving a car in the next 30 months that is an offence carrying a term of imprisonment, that will breach the Community-based Order and I can assure you, you will not get any sympathy from me when I come back up to deal with that personally. 

58Any matters I have left, Mr Cecil?

59MR CECIL:  There is one matter I've overlooked, Your Honour.

60HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

61MR CECIL:  These days our office is obliged to make an application for a 464 order in circumstances where there's a conviction for any indictable ‑ ‑ ‑

62HIS HONOUR:  Have you got the form?

63MR CECIL:  I've got those orders made.

64HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

65MR CECIL:  I apologise for the lateness of them.

66HIS HONOUR:  That's all right.  This is a serious offence and I'm going to order that you provide a sample, saliva swab, to the police for that.  Hand them up.

67MR CECIL:  Thank you.

68HIS HONOUR:  And the police can use reasonable force to get that sample that I have ordered that you provide and you can explain that to him,
Mr Sullivan.

69MR SULLIVAN:  Yes, Your Honour.

70HIS HONOUR:  All right, yes.  Mr Sullivan, I want to thank you for your assistance in this plea and Mr Ginsbourg and Mr Cecil, and thank the members of the community for coming down in the matter. 

- - -