Director of Public Prosecutions v Rohi
[2020] VCC 713
•28 May 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-18-01626
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| REZA ROHI |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 May 2020 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 28 May 2020 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Rohi | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 713 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms S. Holmes | Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R. de Kretser | James Dowsley & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1 Reza Rohi, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to possess a marketable quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug contrary to ss.11.1(1) and 307.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), the border controlled drug being opium. The maximum penalty applicable to that offence is 25 years’ imprisonment or 5,000 penalty units or both. I stop there. Is everyone okay? You can hear? Mr de Kretser, you're okay?
2 MR de KRETSER: Yes, Your Honour.
3 HER HONOUR: You're okay, Ms Holmes?
4 MS HOLMES: Yes, Your Honour.
5 HER HONOUR: You're okay, Mr Interpreter? Yes. And Mr Rohi's okay?
6 INTERPRETER: Yeah, he can hear me.
7 HER HONOUR: Great, we'll keep going. Everyone's happy, basically. All right.
8 It is not necessary for me to recount in great detail the facts of this matter, as they are on transcript, the matter having been opened in some detail by the learned prosecutor consistent with Exhibit A. I proceed to sentence you on the basis of the facts as summarised by the prosecution and discussed during the course of the plea hearing. It is sufficient for present purposes to simply say the facts in the case are most serious and disturbing, your behaviour obviously unacceptable.
9 I turn to a summary of it. At the time of this offending, you were 26 years of age and you are 29 at sentence.
10 On 23 November 2017 a consignment arrived into Melbourne from Turkey on Qatar Airways Flight 904. The consignee was yourself to a home address in Glenroy, the consignor Murat Al from Istanbul, Turkey. The goods were described as “kitchen equipment”.
11 On 24 November 2017, Australian Border Force (“ABF”) officers x‑rayed the consignment and saw anomalies that required further examination. They conducted a partial deconstruction of the consignment that revealed it contained a brown substance that presumptively tested positive for opium.
12 On 13 December 2017, the Australian Federal Police (“AFP”) attended ABF Air Cargo Operations at Melbourne Airport and took possession of the consignment.
13 On 18 January 2018, you attended Customs House at Melbourne Airport, Tullamarine, and attempted to collect the consignment.
14 On that same date, a short time later, AFP members attended Customs House and took you into custody, also seizing a black Apple iPhone 8 then in your possession.
15 At 7.07pm on 18 January 2018 you participated in a record of interview with investigating officers during which you said you went to the airport with your friend. You went to Customs to ask questions about the parcel and were told to wait at a bench. Police arrived. You declined to answer questions in response to the allegations. To decline to answer was of course your right.
16 Turning to the police investigation. Forensic analysis of the mobile phone seized from you on 18 January 2018 revealed a number of foreign audio messages in an instant messaging application “Telegram”. The analysis also identified the following. A picture of a mincing machine created 10 November 2017, a picture of a QR track shipment dated 20 December 2017 and the picture of an invoice for a mincing machine.
17 Further analysis of the “Telegram” messages on your mobile phone revealed conversations between “Reza” and “Milad”. The prosecution allege you are ‘Milad’ and ‘Reza’, a contact overseas, saved in the contacts of your phone. Conversations between you and “Reza” relevant to your offending were contained within Exhibit A at paragraph 11.
18 Those conversations occurred from 6.55pm 18 October 2017 to 7.50pm,
17 January 2018, the day prior to your arrest. Those phone calls indicate you were in need of money and include “Reza” telling “Milad” (you) if the consignment arrives he would have another one to pack and send over. That “Milad” (you) will pocket 10,000 a month (and that is in an 11 pm,
26 November 2017, message). On 1 December 2017 reference was made to “Milad” (you) begging for $240 as your electricity bill was overdue. Also, money was sought by you on 7 December 2017 and 8 December 2017.
19 One of the messages on 8 January 2018 referred to “Reza” talking about smuggling 3 kilograms of opium. Three hours later, on 8 January 2018, in a conversation “Milad” (you) told “Reza” that you were “so much into this our status will jump and our credentials will go high”.
20 On 17 January 2018 there was a message that “Reza tells Milad he is going to pack and send over one after another like a train, week by week.”
21 On 9 February 2018 AFP forensics examined the consignment which revealed it contained 7,920.3 grams of brown resin concealed in the metal tubing within the metal machine.
22 Analysis of that brown resin revealed the substance was opium and adulterated with 1.4% caffeine and 18% paracetamol. The percentage of opium was 80.6%.
23 Subtracting impurities, the amount of opium seized was 6,367.9 grams. The marketable quantity for opium is 20 grams. The amount seized therefore equated to over 318 times the marketable quantity.
24 You were charged on 18 January 2018 with a filing hearing the following day. There were subsequently a number of committal mentions, the matter ultimately proceeding by way of straight hand-up brief.
25 At the County Court there were a number of hearings relevant to funding this matter. At a final directions hearing on 24 October 2018 your trial was listed to commence on 14 October 2019. Between 4 and 7 October 2019, negotiations between those representing you and the prosecution occurred and the matter subsequently resolved.
26 On 14 October 2019 you pleaded guilty to the charge on the indictment and the matter was listed for a plea hearing.
27 Your plea of guilty was entered effectively at the commencement of your trial. However, I note that for a significant period of time at various directions hearings funding was an issue, and with a number of solicitors involved over time, thus precluding, I suppose, finalisation of the matter until around the time of your trial. Whilst it was not an early plea as such, I accept it was at the earliest opportunity you had to indicate your intention to plead guilty. There had not previously been a contested committal and it took time for solicitors to become involved in discussions with the prosecution in an attempt to resolve your offending to a suitable indictment.
28 You have pleaded guilty to this charge and you are entitled to have that fact taken into account in your favour, and I do so. The community, by your plea of guilty, has been spared the time and cost of a trial and witnesses have not been required to give evidence. Your plea of guilty has utilitarian benefit. I note this matter resolved and you pleaded guilty shortly prior, as I said, to your trial commencing; that is, at a relatively late stage, but it is nevertheless a plea of guilty and, as I have said, has utilitarian benefit and is relevant in mitigation of your sentence.
29 In the circumstances I am prepared to accept your plea of guilty indicates remorse for your offending now, although I am concerned about the extent of your remorse given the message at 7.50 pm on 17 January 2018, the day prior to your arrest, discussing potentially further such transactions. I am of course aware there were no such subsequent transactions alleged by the prosecution and you are to be sentenced only on the charge before me.
30 You do not have any prior criminal history nor is there anything subsequent or pending.
31 For completeness, I state there are no co-offenders to these proceedings and therefore parity is not a sentencing consideration.
32 Your counsel, Mr de Kretser, provided a written outline of submissions for your plea hearing (Exhibit 1) and addressed them during the course of it.
33 Details were provided of your background and history. You were born in Tehran. Your parents remain in Iran and are retired. You have intermittent contact with your parents and scarce contact with your siblings (three brothers and four sisters).
34 You were educated in Iran to the age of 16. Your family fled Iran due to the political unrest, moving from country to country to seek refugee status. You were, as a result, unable to continue schooling. You were hospitalised in Iran when you were 12 after witnessing your grandmother’s death.
35 In 2009, at age 17, you arrived in Australia from Italy, then in Immigration Detention for six months. You began learning English in detention and were subsequently granted a refugee visa and settled in Melbourne.
36 You were granted permanent residency in 2010, subsequently applying for Australian citizenship, however failing the test due to your poor English.
37 You were to sit the test again, however this offending occurred.
38 In Melbourne you participated in the sport of wrestling with some success.
39 In 2013, at age 22, you met your wife, Jana, whilst in Thailand. She is of Russian background and you married in 2015. Your wife is currently on a partner visa and a permanent resident, her visa 'linked’ to yours.
40 Mr de Kretser appropriately and correctly acknowledged your offending was serious, given the nature of it, the quantity involved and the value of the substance.
41 He submitted this was not a case of greed, rather to pay your household bills and repay a drug debt arising from your then opium addiction. You are no longer, I was told, addicted to opium.
42 Mr de Kretser conceded your offending showed an intention on your part to continue with the drug transaction, despite at one point being told by Reza not to and being told to delete messages on your mobile phone. There was, I was told by the prosecution, subsequent correspondence (not contained in the prosecution opening) which confirmed Reza was under pressure from, as I understood it, those higher up the chain to continue with this transaction.
43 He submitted your role was to act as a delivery point for the consignment and you were not involved in organising the importation or shipment. The prosecution accept that that was so.
44 Mr de Kretser referred to the brief of evidence, which indicated you were financially desperate at the time of this offending and had been given directions by others, including “Reza”. You were to receive money for your offending which was to go towards your everyday expenses, including rent and utility bills, not, he urged, to live a lavish lifestyle. At the time of this offending you also had an opium addiction due to self-medicating for severe back pain. You have now been on a Methadone program for 2 years and 3 months.
45 You instructed you also became involved in this offending to settle a drug debt, to which I previously referred, that you had incurred with other persons involved in importation.
46
Addressing your plea of guilty, whilst conceding it was not an early plea,
Mr de Kretser submitted it was still of utilitarian benefit and I agree, and I have referred to that. I accept it is an indicator of your remorse and provides some evidence of your prospects of rehabilitation, and I also note in that regard your lack of other criminal offending.
47 Mr de Kretser also submitted when you were interviewed by police you provided the name of a co-offender. The prosecution stated the informant had no recollection of that name being provided. Ultimately, Mr de Kretser did not rely on this in any significant way assisting the police investigation other than provision of a name.
48 Reference was made by Mr de Kretser to the opinion of Mr Jeffrey Cummins that you suffer Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to your traumatic childhood. In the opinion of Mr Cummins, your mental health “would most likely deteriorate – and quite possibly significantly so - when he is incarcerated.” (underlining added). Mr de Kretser urged the report of
Mr Cummins enlivened R vVerdins & Ors[1] principles 5 and 6. I agree.
[1](2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’).
49 Mr de Kretser conceded you did not attract Verdins principles 1 through to 4, however urged your moral culpability for this offending was low given the circumstances in which it occurred and the reason for it.
50 Mr de Kretser also made reference to you earlier this year (or late 2019) attending a police station reporting suicidal ideation and, as a result, being transferred to the Royal Melbourne Hospital for observation.
51 You are currently prescribed 90 milligrams of Methadone and continue to have issues with your back pain.
52 Turning to your role in this offending, in my opinion it was to provide an address for the product that was to be sent. Your ‘job’ was then to collect the drug at the airport. It seems you had not been advised of any particular person coming to collect the product from you, apparently on a “you would be notified” basis by others involved in this importation. You were a willing participant, providing your home address and personal details to collect the item and retain it until its subsequent collection.
53 In my opinion your moral culpability for this offending is high. You were an integral part of it, although I do accept your moral culpability is slightly lowered as a result of the circumstances of it described by Mr de Kretser, including financial need.
54 Mr de Kretser relied upon your background of trauma as a refugee and hardship as a matter relevant to sentencing, relying on cases such as Bugmy v The Queen.[2]
[2](2013) 249 CLR 571.
55 I accept your background is one involving hardship. Given that background it is somewhat surprising that when you had the opportunity to live in Australia you would jeopardise your chances of staying here by this offending. I have no doubt you were aware that your offending would most likely lead to a term of imprisonment and most likely affect your visa status within Australia. You were also aware your partner’s visa was 'linked' to yours and that your offending could jeopardize her ability to remain in Australia.
56 Mr de Kretser referred to your lack of prior convictions, and in particular that you had been in the community for two years and approximately four months since your arrest and had not committed any further offences, and I also note that and am aware of that.
57 You retain the support of your wife and your remaining immediate family live in Iran.
58 You have been employed intermittently over recent years as a bricklayer.
59 Mr de Kretser urged you would benefit from drug counselling upon release from custody and engagement with pro-social community organisations.
60 Regarding your risk of re-offending, relying on your lack of criminal history, age at the time of this offending, 26, and no subsequent offending since your arrest, Mr de Kretser urged that I could take a favourable view of your prospects of rehabilitation. I regard your prospects at this stage as good, although much will depend on your financial situation.
61 In fixing an appropriate sentence I must seek to maximise your chances of rehabilitation as they may be.
62 Whilst you are not a young offender as defined in the Sentencing Act 1991, I accept that at age 26 your rehabilitation prospects (at 29) are a relevant sentencing consideration. You have, I note, been in Australia for a significant period of time.
63 Mr de Kretser submitted that given your visa status it was likely you would face deportation following your sentence, that imprisonment would be more burdensome for you knowing that you would likely to be deported upon expiry of your sentence, and I accept that is so. It was also, he submitted, likely that your wife would also be deported, given her visa status. I am sure, as I have said, you were aware of the prospects of deportation at the time of your offending.
64 Regarding deportation Ms Holmes, for the prosecution, conceded you would be concerned about your potential deportation and that of your partner (wife). That such could be taken into account as making your time in prison more onerous being so concerned, including reference to Zhao v R.[3] I accept you will be anxious about your likely deportation and I accept that uncertainty will make your time more difficult for you than a prisoner without that uncertainty.
[3][2018] VSCA 267 [62-65] (‘Zhao’).
65 Mr de Kretser submitted your language and cultural issues would make prison more burdensome for you, as English was your second language. I do take into account this is your first time in custody and that your English is limited.
66 Upon entry into the prison system it is likely you will spend 14 days in isolation and with no ‘in person’ meetings with your wife due to COVID‑19, I accept that is so.
67 It was accepted by Mr de Kretser that relevant sentencing principles required a custodial term be imposed, however urged your non-parole period be of shorter duration.
68 I turn to the report of Mr Jeffrey Cummins, clinical and forensic psychologist, dated 23 March 2020. He assessed you on 13 March 2020. Before him was a referral to a psychologist dated 13 June 2015 describing your opiate addiction, at that time, of approximately 12 months’ duration.
69 Mr Cummins referred to medical material available to him and summarised by him within his report, and I have read that medical material.
70 Also before Mr Cummins was correspondence including a file note of
19 August 2016 referring to you having started using street opioid ‘again’, and reference to you having been prescribed various medications including Effexor (anti-depressant).
71 Mr Cummins also noted reference in the medical material to Methadone therapy as early as December 2015. File notes of 13 June 2015 indicated you had been using opiates, 2 to 3 grams per day, over approximately 12 months at the time of that report.
72 Other file notes from 16 May 2016 to 28 September 2019 referred to your opium addiction and you having been prescribed in the past Tramal, Panadeine Forte and Diazepam.
73 Mr Cummins also noted referral to a chiropractor and physiotherapist for your chronic low back pain.
74 Details were also provided in Mr Cummins’ report regarding your background and history, which I will not repeat although have read.
75 You described having been prescribed Methadone approximately four years prior to Mr Cummins report, now 90 milligrams daily.
76 You thought you may have been hospitalised in the psychiatric ward/hospital when you were 12, having witnessed your grandmother’s death. You said you thought you were diagnosed with “shock” and hospitalised for approximately two weeks. You described that approximately four months prior to interview with Mr Cummins you had suicidal thoughts, and that your wife contacted police and you were taken to Royal Melbourne Hospital, remaining overnight in the Emergency Department. You declined, however, to accept mental health treatment from the CATT Team.
77 You described some counselling from a Dr Coffey at Foundation House, although you were very vague about your contact with him and gave the impression you only intermittently attended over a number of years. Regarding your exposure to trauma when you were in Iran, you said you did not remember the details.
78 Regarding opium use, you said when you were young you lacked the right guidance, missed your family and began to smoke opium. When you got a sore back you used more opium, became addicted to it and got into debt. This offending, you said, provided you with the opportunity to earn money, and at the time you thought that was a good thing. Since arrest you said you had “tapered” down on opium, having replaced opium with Methadone.
79 At the time of this offending you said you used up to 3 or 4 grams of opium daily. You instructed you were no longer using opium or any other illicit drugs.
80 In summary, Mr Cummins said that you stated you had become dependent on opium about four to four and a half years ago and had been medicated since on a broad range of opiate and analgesics prescribed for back pain as a substitute for opium. At the time of your arrest you were dependent on opium.
81 You said you regretted this offending and felt stressed regarding your situation, that you did not appreciate the full seriousness of your offending behaviour at the time of it. I, however, find that difficult to accept; particularly in light of the phone messages referred to within Exhibit A.
82 Mr Cummins concluded you presented as of low-average intelligence, not intellectually disabled. You presented as being moderately depressed and mildly anxious (underlining added).
83 You had intermittently received counselling for trauma-related symptoms and on the basis of your comments at interview Mr Cummins concluded it was “likely” you suffered from trauma and stressor-related disorder in the form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, although at interview Mr Cummins noted your focus was very much upon your current legal situation.
84 Your mental health, Mr Cummins opined, would “most probably” deteriorate and “quite possibly” significantly when incarcerated (underlining added). Your offending behaviour, he concluded, was situationally motivated in the hope you would receive some cash payment and opium for your involvement in this offending.
85 There was a reference by Hassan Soleimanikish (undated), which was tendered, who had known you for many years. He regarded you as a person of good moral character and a decent person. You were remorseful for your offending (see Exhibit 4).
86 As well as matters personal to you, your counsel referred to some authorities which I have read and considered. DPP v Abad,[4] DPP v Jalalatfard,[5] and DPP (Cth) v Alfartose.[6]
[4][2019] VCC 870 (‘Abad’).
[5][2018] VCC 1719 (‘Jalalatfard’).
[6][2015] VCC 913 (‘Alfartose’).
87 He urged your offending was similar to that in Abad, that the offending in Jalalatfard was more serious offending than yours; your role less than the offender in that case.
88 It is difficult comparing cases factually, as facts vary enormously case to case, as do all matters in mitigation of sentence and personal to an offender.
89 The prosecution filed written submissions on sentence and also referred to a number of authorities (Exhibit B). I have read the cases provided in addition - Nguyen v The Queen[7] referred to by her Honour Judge Gwynn in Jalalatfard and discussed with counsel in your case.
[7](2011) 31 VR 673.
90 Ms Holmes, for the prosecution, did not take issue with the submission by
Mr de Kretser referable to your offending compared to Abad and Alfartose, although urged that those decisions were from this Court and the prosecution providing appellate Court decisions for consideration of sentence. The prosecution conceded there was unlikely to be any cases in direct comparison to your offending and I agree.
91 The prosecution submitted sentencing options for offending such as yours would ordinarily involve immediate imprisonment and urged, in your case, the appropriate sentence would involve an immediate term of imprisonment with a non-parole period.
92 In so submitting, the prosecution referred to a number of relevant considerations; s.16A(2) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). I have taken into account those matters referred to by the prosecution (see Exhibit B, paragraph 6).
93 Addressing the objective seriousness of your offending, I was referred to the seriousness with which Parliament viewed this offending, given the maximum penalty applicable, noting ‘attempt’ and actual completion of such an offence had the same maximum penalty.
94 The prosecution also referred to the weight of the drug as relevant when determining the seriousness of your offending, with the amount of pure opium 6,367.9 grams (318 times the marketable quantity).
95 The prosecution referred to the value of the drug and commerciality of your offending. The wholesale value of the drug was between $118,500 and $158,000 with an estimated street value (per gram) between $198,007.50 and $475,218.
96 Your offending, the prosecution urged, was more serious if for commercial reward. Yours was motivated by financial reward, you clearly expressing financial hardship at the time. I add I accept your offending was not to fund a lavish lifestyle or greed. Nevertheless, you hoped to receive amounts of money that were not inconsequential relevant to your then financial situation.
97 Turning to your role in this offending. Whilst you were not the organiser of the package the prosecution submitted your role was to collect the package, and as such you were an integral part of the scheme to import a significant quantity of opium. Akin to a ‘courier’, you played an essential role and were in a trusted position that enabled attempting the importation to occur. You were also keen to collect the package. Your moral culpability, the prosecution submitted, was high. I agree, as I have previously stated.
98 General deterrence and denunciation were prime sentencing considerations for this offending, with such considerations, the prosecution urged, generally outweighing subjective circumstances. Reference was made to the difficulty detecting such offending and the great social consequences that flowed from movement of such drugs into Australia, and distributed within Australia.
99 The prosecution submitted those involved in this offending (including you) would likely know of the risk of incurring a substantial sentence if apprehended. I agree.
100 The prosecution conceded your plea of guilty has utilitarian value, however this was a strong prosecution case.
101 Turning to your age. At 29, with no prior convictions and the mental health conditions as diagnosed by Mr Cummins, the prosecution conceded that the submissions contained in the written defence plea submissions (Exhibit 1) under the heading “Psychological and Physical Factors”.
102 Ms Holmes submitted your prior good character, whilst relevant, had less weight in these types of cases than might otherwise apply. That, in my opinion, is consistent with the authorities. Further, the greater the anticipated reward the higher culpability. Ms Holmes conceded you were seeking smaller amounts of money, with no discussion of any large sums of money to be actually paid to you for your involvement in this offending, and I agree.
103 The prosecution accepted Verdins limbs 5 and 6 were enlivened and therefore relevant to sentence, and I sentence on that basis, as I previously stated.
104 Whilst the prosecution conceded your lack of prior convictions and age meant you were likely to be a ‘low risk’ of re-offending, the prosecution submitted those factors should not outweigh the need for general deterrence and denunciation. I agree.
105 The prosecution submitted I was not precluded from fixing a non-parole period simply because you ‘may be’ liable to be deported. That is so. It was, however, conceded the prospect of deportation may increase the burden of imprisonment on you, and I also accept that is so.
106 I was directed to comparative sentences of other courts across Australia. Comparable sentences in part illustrate, yet do not define, the possible range of available sentences (see Exhibit C).
107 As well as matters personal to you to which I have referred, including your prospects of rehabilitation which I find to be good, I must also take into account matters such as deterrence, especially general deterrence, which is of considerable importance in a case such as this.
108 There is also the need for specific deterrence when sentencing you. Whilst you do not have a prior criminal history or anything subsequent or pending, your involvement was over a number of days.
109 I must also consider the need to protect the members of the community from you and bear in mind the likelihood of your re-offending. I am comforted to a degree by your lack of previous and subsequent offending.
110 I am called upon by the Sentencing Act 1991 to manifest the community’s denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment.
111 I sentence you as follows.
112 On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. That sentence starts today.
113 In fixing a non-parole period, s.19AKA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) is relevant.
114 I fix a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. In my opinion that is a short non-parole period.
115 In further explaining this Order – the head sentence is 4 years with a minimum of 2 years and 3 months before you are eligible for parole.
116 You will be required to serve a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years 3 months and thereafter, if released on parole, the balance of your sentence will be served in the community on parole, subject of course to any order for deportation.
117 Pursuant to s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty to this charge and been found guilty of it, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 4 months.
118
Pursuant to s.18(4) Sentencing Act 1991, I declare you have spent 14 days in custody by way of pre‑sentence detention up to and including yesterday,
27 May 2020, and I direct this be entered into the records of the Court.
119 Thank you, Mr Interpreter. Keep going. Do you agree with the 14 days,
Ms Holmes and Mr de Kretser?
120 COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honour.
121 HER HONOUR: Excellent. Now, were there any other orders, Ms Holmes? I don't have a note of it.
122 MS HOLMES: No, there's no other orders sought, Your Honour.
123 HER HONOUR: Well, I'll just say no other orders sought. Now, as this is a Commonwealth matter is the wording of the sentence consistent with the Commonwealth requirements?
124 MS HOLMES: Yes, Your Honour.
125 HER HONOUR: Okay, yes.
126 MS HOLMES: Yes, Your Honour.
127 HER HONOUR: I've just had to wait for the interpreter to interpret that. And your answer is yes it does?
128 MS HOLMES: Yes, Your Honour.
129 HER HONOUR: Yes. Mr de Kretser, do you agree that that's in terms consistent with Commonwealth legislation?
130 MR de KRETSER: It's consistent with how I've seen it before, Your Honour, yes.
131 HER HONOUR: Yes, okay. Thank you. All right. Now, I'm going to, in a moment, disconnect this link, so – and I realise the informant I can't see, but I'm assuming he's there somewhere, so that's fine. I wasn't ignoring the informant, just not visible to me. Is everyone ready for me to disconnect this link?
132 COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honour.
133 HER HONOUR: Mr Interpreter, can you tell Mr Rohi I'm now going to disconnect the link and that there may be contact – someone will probably speak to him from his solicitor's office or the barrister in the future – in the near future – about this sentence.
134 MR de KRETSER: Yes, we'll - - -
135 HER HONOUR: Hold on, hold on.
136 MR de KRETSER: We'll try and make contact and vice versa.
137 HER HONOUR: Hold on, hold on. Okay, now your turn. I'm sorry, the interpreter was talking.
138 INTERPRETER: Sorry, Your Honour.
139 MR de KRETSER: I was just indicating that - - -
140 HER HONOUR: Yes. So just, Mr de Kretser, hold on. Interpreter's talking.
141 INTERPRETER: Mr Rohi has a question in regards to the four years and two years and three months. He should talk to his lawyer or - - -
142 HER HONOUR: Yes, his lawyer will speak to him about the sentence. Can you let Mr Rohi know that? His lawyer will do that. It may not be today, but it'll be in the next few days. Is that right, Mr de Kretser?
143 MR de KRETSER: Correct, Your Honour. Yes.
144 HER HONOUR: And can you say that Mr de Kretser agreed it will be in the next few days. He can't tell you exactly when because he's got to get – they have to work out the system to speak to their people in prison, it's complicated. All right, I'm now going to disconnect the link, so this'll be your last chance. Anyone got anything to say? No?
145 MR de KRETSER: As Your Honour pleases.
146 HER HONOUR: All right. Thanks for your involvement in this WebEx arrangement and I do thank the prison, if there's anyone there with Mr Rohi, for their help today. I know it was not easy to organise and they did it very well, so thanks for that. All right, we'll disconnect everything please, Mr Butler.
147 MR de KRETSER: As Your Honour pleases.
- - -
0
7
0