Director of Public Prosecutions v Saleh

[2021] VCC 735

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

 Revised

Not Restricted

 Suitable for Publication

AT BALLARAT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 19-01986

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ALI SALEH

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE GUCCIARDO
WHERE HELD:	Ballarat
DATE OF HEARING:	16 April 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Saleh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VCC 735

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  Plea

Catchwords:  Burglary, thefts, Aggravated burglary (person present)- a number committed over 2 days, disguise, night time entry, reckless intent, Youthful offender, drug use, relevant priors, offences committed whilst on a Youth Attendance Order, relevance of cardiac disease, negative Youth Justice Assessment, reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, Youth Justice Centre Order (2 years).

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:  

Sentence:  2 years YJC Order, fine, licence disqualification.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms C. Quinn
For the Accused	Ms D. Caruso

HIS HONOUR:

1Ali Saleh, you pleaded guilty to one indictment which contained 11 charges; two of burglary, five of theft, one attempted theft, one possession of a drug of dependence, and two aggravated burglaries where at that time of entering a building, a person was then present and you were reckless as to whether or not was then so present.  You also pleaded to a related summary charge of driving a motor vehicle during a period of disqualification.

2The circumstances of your offending were outlined in a document tendered by the prosecution.  This was a detailed summary of agreed facts and I rely on that to describe briefly the events related to your offending for the purposes of this sentence.  You were 18 years of age at the time of the offending; you are now 20 years old.  You turn 21 on 16 August 2021. 

3Between 25-26 March 2019, you, in the company of others, engaged in a spree of offending involving eight incidents.  Your co-offenders were not identified and none of the victims were previously known to you.  The first charge concerns a burglary at Donvale at 8 am the morning of 25 March 2019.  You were the driver of a car and, together with two others, you went to that address.  You went to the door and rang the doorbell.  You had something pulled over your face.  When there was no answer, you returned to the car and two others went to the house and yelled out, 'Police,' a number of times.  They entered the house and went upstairs.  Both had their heads covered.  The woman was inside the house and confronted them and they desisted and left.  You drove away with them.  You were complicit in the burglary.  The prosecution case was that you were not complicit in your co-offenders' actions inside the house.

4Some 30 minutes later, you drove to an address Montmorency.  You found a car parked in its driveway and you removed the numberplates for it.  This was Charge 2, theft. 

5At about 9.45 am, you drove the two others to an address in Viewbank.  There, they ran at the front door and opened it and made their way into the house and back yard.  Inside, was a young boy of 15 years by himself.  He was frightened and grabbed a knife from the kitchen and went into the back yard.  There he was met by the co-offenders who took his knife but told him they would not hurt him.  They rummaged through the house taking valuables and keys.  This was Charge 3 of aggravated burglary and Charge 4 of theft.  You were the driver and complicit in the plan to commit a burglary and to steal.  You were reckless, on the prosecution case, as to the probability that a person would be present.  The prosecution, again, did not allege you were complicit in the action of co-offenders inside the residence.

6A short time later, you had driven to East Kew.  There, you went through a private residence and owners observed two males run out of their home.  You were the driver of the getaway car.  Jewellery and cash was stolen (Charges 5 and 6 of burglary and theft).  The prosecution does not allege that you entered the premises there.

7The next morning at 12.45 am on 26 March, you returned to the Viewbank address where the young man mentioned above and his family had been the victim.  You used a key stolen then and you tried to start a car and then opened the boot, looking for items to steal.  This is the basis for Charge 7, attempted theft.  Later that morning, with co-offenders, you went to the private residence in Glen Iris.  The owner was sleeping and he woke to find a person standing at the foot of the bed in his bedroom.  The owner screamed and the intruder ran downstairs and the two others ran out of the house.  You were one of them.  You searched the house for items of value and stole a wallet, cash, various bank and ID cards and a passport (Charge 9 of theft and Charge 8, aggravated burglary).  All three offenders at that point were wearing balaclavas or hoodies.  The wallet was later found in the car that you drove at the time of your arrest.  You were charged on the basis that you were reckless as to the probability that persons would be within the house. 

8About an hour later at 5 am, you drove to Prahran.  You were driving the car.  You stopped next to a Mercedes motor vehicle.  One of you smashed a window on that car, unlocked the car and entered to steal items.  A set of keys was stolen (Charge 10).  The keys were located in the car you were arrested in. 

9A short time after the smash and grab in Prahran, police observed the car you were driving and attempted to intercept it.  You took off and evaded police.  You drove on to Lalor.  There, at about 7 am, you were observed in the driver's seat of your car asleep.  The car was stationary in the middle of the left lane of a suburban street.  Police attended and found you asleep and arrested you.  You were wearing a black jacket with a hood, black pants and black gloves.  A small quantity of cannabis was located in the car and an assortment of stolen items from the offending which had proceeded your arrest.  At the time of this offending, you were disqualified from driving a motor vehicle (Summary Charge 14). 

10Victim impact statements were tendered to the court.  The victim in relation to count 1 was Kerry.  The woman who was confronted with two men in her house and who yelled at them to leave wrote that the impact on her was significant.  The events of the morning in question, rendered her hypervigilant.  She could not be home by herself for the first week.  Her feelings of insecurity, anxiety and fear were constant, as was her panic reactions.  She felt angry and vulnerable and her safety greatly diminished.  She experienced nightmares.  Her existing medical condition was exacerbated, delaying any healing.  Her physical trauma was evidence, as well as psychological trauma. 

11The family had to install video cameras for peace of mind.  A carpark was added.  Alarms were set up and monitors to secure the home.  Items of clothing, colours, smells and particular times trigger unpleasant memories for her.  New locks, windows, security and other measures have had to be taken.  Her social life has change.  She needed to take antidepressants.  She writes that she is mentally, physical, emotionally and financially exhausted.  I take her impact statement into account. 

12Mr Kumar, the victim of offence Charge 9 who discovered a person standing near his bed at about 4 am on March 26 and saw two others run out of his house, also wrote a victim impact statement.  He experienced sleep disturbance, fearfulness and hypervigilance.  His lack of sleep has affected his health and he had to bring in a housemate into his home to feel safer.  He took time off work with consequent loss of earnings.  The front door had to be replaced.  He felt distressed and inconvenienced by the aggravated burglary and theft and I take his victim impact statement into account.

13Mr Leggett had seen two men run out of his home and suffered the theft of his property at Charges 5 and 6.  He and his wife are in their 80s and therefore vulnerable.  They had to increase security around their home, setting alarms and locks and had become also more wary of their own security concerns and this has also had a financial cost.  His very measured and dignified victim impact statement also included an exaltation to you Ali Saleh that you might receive help and guidance to put you in a better way of life for your future.  I take this victim impact statement into account.

14I take your plea into account.  Although the matter came to this court as a trial, a number of serious charges were withdrawn in a negotiation which resulted in your ultimate plea.  This also included a factual resolution which was objectively less serious, with a number of concessions as to the level of complicity and blameworthiness being indicated in the prosecution summary which I have recited.  The plea, I consider to have been made reasonably early, though, not at the earliest time perhaps.  Its utility is significant, having avoided a long and costly criminal trial, and has particular value at a time in which the justice system is seeking to recover from the setback of the pandemic and the impact of significant delays which it forced upon the system.

15I take your plea into account.  I have read some material in which your remorse is mentioned.  I accept that, having had an opportunity to reflect on your offences and the impact on the victims, particularly the 15-year-old boy in the house at Viewbank and the occupants of the homes which were also broken into, that you have expressed regret at your behaviour and remorse for your actions.  Your plea is also some evidence of remorse.  Your plea will result in a reduction in your sentence. 

16The crimes of burglary and theft are serious criminal offences carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.  I consider that the offences of possession of a drug of dependence of a small quantity of cannabis and the attempted theft of keys from the car in Charge 7 are nowhere near as serious and will not attract significant penalties.  Aggravated burglary, however, carries a maximum of 25 years imprisonment.  This maximum is one of the matters that can act as a yardstick when determining penalty, amongst the many considerations to be taken into account.  It indicates the level of seriousness with which the Parliament assigns to such a crime.  It can, of course, be committed in varying circumstances covering a very wide spectrum. 

17The objective seriousness of your offending here, particularly Charges 3 and 8, must be judged according to what it is said you did on these two occasions.  Firstly, these are offences committed with reckless intent as to the presence of persons in the premises to be burgled.  In relation to the first instance, it is not said that you were present in the home of the Ilieva family, but you were the getaway driver and that you were complicit in the plan with two others to commit a burglary there, being reckless to the probability that persons would be present.  As to this charge, you knew your co-offenders would enter the house and likely steal items of value and you provided a ready escape for them.  Although you are not responsible legally for their conduct once inside the house, your reckless intent as to persons present remains an aggravated burglary.

18The second charge, as far as you are concerned, is objectively even more serious.  On that occasion, you actually entered the home and searched the premises.  This was the place at which Mr Kumar found one of you in his bedroom in the middle of the night.  You were wearing balaclavas or hoodies and you were only, a few hours later, found wearing dark clothing and black gloves.  You were similarly reckless as to the probability that persons would be present within the house.  Your role was an important and valuable one, providing transport and a getaway for the others. 

19The offences were committed in company in various locations, seemingly in a crime spree over two days.  You disguised your appearances with dark clothes and dark colours.  Fortunately, you and your accomplices did not physically assault or use weapons upon the occupants.  Theirs may been actions fuelled by drug use but, for that reason, not excusable at all.  It is difficult to say accurately what level of planning was involved in your conduct.  It is not sophisticated offending and the reckless nature of your intent I consider more impetuous and ill-considered than premeditated, beyond a general intent to steal from homes. 

20Though it is true that the theft of the numberplates and your possession of clone plates on your car at your arrest indicates that you had adverted to being identified by reference to them, ultimately, this did not facilitate your criminal enterprise.  In my view, these two offences are serious.  The community is dismayed and perturbed by such intrusion and invasion into their homes.  A citizen is entitled to be safe and secure in his/her own home and the community looks to the court for protection to denounce such behaviour as totally unacceptable and to punish the offender involved proportionately and to deter anyone who is minded to commit similar offences.  In this sense, just punishment and general deterrence is paramount in this sentence. 

21There are other important sentencing considerations and other important principles which I must take into account in arriving at a sentence.  In your case, these other aspects make for a very difficult sentencing disposition.  Those matters are considerations of specific deterrence and rehabilitation prospects.  When considering these and the other aspects I have mentioned, sentencing you becomes a complex matter.  The most significant aspect is your youth and the way, secondly, in which you have, over the last few years, been in contact with criminal justice system.  Ultimately, this calls for an evaluation of what is an appropriate and proportionate sentencing response to your criminality by an evaluation of each principle and factor I have mentioned and the instinctive sentence that is required.  I will deal with these factors, as each brings to bear weight upon the ultimate disposition. 

22I take into account your personal circumstances.  You were 18 at the time of the offences; you are now 20 years old; you will be 21 in August.  You were born in Melbourne to a family of Lebanese origins.  You have two siblings.  Your parents often fought and ultimately separated.  Your mother has been incarcerated on more than one occasion for trafficking drugs.  You lived with your father until age 13 or 14 when your father re-partnered.  When your mother was released, you went to live with her for some time but, by the time these offences took place, you had lived with your father again for some time.  You argued with your stepmother, damaged her car and had an order against you on her behalf which was taken out.  At that point, you found yourself homeless and living in the streets for a while.  You returned to live with your mother for a while. 

23As to your education, you went to school to year 11 and dropped out, having struggled academically and with school discipline, having been expelled on one occasion and suspended on others.  You have a minimal work history, though in the front, you have some limited experience with bricklaying and steel work with your uncle.  You started drinking alcohol at 18, but it has been other substances which have had more profound effect on you.  You began cannabis use at age 16, with that use escalating with time.  You started using cocaine at 17, with increased use again.  You also used a benzodiazepine Xanax at that time, which persisted to daily use and there was drug use in the family, with your mother using ice and your brother using cocaine and cannabis and diagnosed with drug induced psychosis.  Your drug use appears to certainly have a very deleterious effect on your mental functioning, at least as far as memory and information recall are concerned, probably beyond.  You have never had any contact with mental health services outside the court system.  I shall return to this aspect in a moment. 

24You were recently diagnosed with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy.  This first became evidence in police custody and you, upon transfer to hospital, the condition was diagnosed and you underwent surgery to have a defibrillator implanted in your chest.  You have experienced chest pain and fainting in the past, again, while in custody, requiring a number of hospitalisations.  You now take medication for this condition. 

25I received a number of reports, both old and recent, about your progress, including one which I sought from Youth Justice.  I will refer to these in a moment.  I have read them each carefully and will extract the salient parts.  Before doing so, I have looked at your prior criminal record in the context of your personal circumstances and the reports I have read is they are related in terms of content and significance. 

26You first appeared in the Children's Court in 2015, aged 14.  On that occasion, you were charged with theft of a car, burglary, armed robbery, and a driving offence.  You were placed on a bond.  The following year, aged 15, you were convicted for handling stolen goods, attempted burglary, bail offence, and resist arrest; placed on probation for eight months.  Later that year, now aged 16, further period of probation was ordered by the Children's Court for possession of cannabis and hindering an emergency worker.  In 2017, on your 17th birthday, you were fined for unlicensed driving.  Then, in November 2018, aged 18, you were convicted for attempted aggravated burglary, burglary, attempted robbery, armed robbery, aggravated burglary person present, and reckless conduct endangering serious injury.  Further charges were of attempted burglary, handling of stolen goods, thefts of cars, a series of unlicensed driving, bail offences, fail to stop after an accident, and dangerous driving while pursued by police. 

27By the time this matter came before the Heidelberg Court, you had been on remand for 180 days.  On some of the more serious charges, you were placed on a Youth Justice Centre Order for six months and for others you were placed on a Youth Attendance Order for 12 months from 27 November 2019.  The offences for which I will sentence you today, therefore can be seen to have been committed by you while you were subject of a Youth Attendance Order just four months after the November appearance in court. 

28Although your prior history is as recited, your antecedence include two matters which came before the court in February 2020 and December 2020 and about which I was properly informed.  On reviewing that material, I should also mention that there was an appearance in September 2020.  At time you committed these offences, you were on bail.  You were convicted in February 2020 and sentenced to 31 days' imprisonment by way of pre-sentence detention.  You then continued bail in these current matters.  Then on 16 October 2020, you were again remanded and on 8 December 2020, you were sentenced to a term of 12 months confinement by way of Youth Justice Centre Order which will expire, I was told, on 4 July 2021.  These offences were relevantly committed in October 2020 and earlier in September 2018 and involved driving whilst disqualified, thefts from cars, evading of police vehicles, drug possession of methylamphetamine, cocaine, butanediol, and handling stolen goods.

29These matters, particularly the prior, which is recorded in November 2018, are most concerning.  It appears that, in this period, from late 2018 to late 2020, your offending behaviour escalated significantly.  This, in my view, brings into consideration the application of specific deterrence in order to deter you from further offending.  Given that you have had some significant contact with Correctional Services and Youth Justice, I look to material and reports which have been prepared in this relevant period. 

30A Forensicare report dated 15 July 2020 was tendered.  In that report, the author writing for Magistrate at Broadmeadows Dr Fiona Best, noted you were then in a remand period that had begun two months before and that this was your third incarceration.  You were at Port Phillip in a single cell in mainstream.  The doctor noted your family background and history of drug use, as well as your heart condition.  She confirmed you were low to average borderline IQ with an attention difficulty and significant difficulties in retaining information and memory.  She was of the opinion that imprisonment would weigh more heavily on you as a consequence of these impairments and that imprisonment would lead to further deterioration.  I accept that opinion.  Dr Best is a consultant psychiatrist.

31It was fairly conceded by defence that this entangling your static impairments from your drug use at the time of the offending is a difficult task.  In my view, these impairments are much less likely to have had an impact on your offending than your drug use.  However, they are more likely to have relevance to the impact of reclusion upon you. 

32A report from Dr Gonzalez dated 20 September 2018 was also noted.  This was a Children's Court clinic report.  Dr Gonzalez is a clinical neuropsychologist.  She assessed your full-scale IQ at 71, with attention difficulties and extremely low memory function as at four-and-a-half months before the offences were committed.  What is of interest in this report is Dr Gonzalez's summary at p.3 of your earlier offending, which appeared motivated by negative peer influence, substance use, no set date program, and for financial gain.  Your engagement with Youth Justice case manager and Youth Support and Advocacy Services had been sporadic, but that at a group conference held in August 2018, you had expressed remorse and apologised to victims, that you had taken Xanax resulting in memory loss and, also, you acknowledged the impact of your offending on your family.

33Despite this, you were remanded the next day because you had committed offences whilst on bail, which had enabled you to attend the group conference.  You then wrote to the Magistrate, undertaking to be law abiding and to engage in drug counselling.  The manager of the Westgate unit at the Youth Justice precinct described you as a cooperative boy but unmotivated and lazy.  The testing conducted were not indicative of an intellectual disability, rather, a major neurocognitive disorder secondary to substance use.  However, Dr Gonzalez opined that benzodiazepine use result in the general loss of brain volume and that deficits that flow from this, like memory function, can be permanent, suggesting that you have an acquired brain injury.  Improvement may be potential with prolonged abstinence from drugs.  This led, at the time and probably currently, to possible social communication disorder or autism spectrum disorder.  You have, she concluded, a borderline intellectual adaptive function. 

34A bundle of reports as to supervised bail progress from July, September and October 2020 were noted.  You commenced supervised bail on 26 May 2020.  You appeared to be engaging well with support workers and, in this case, some optimism for prospects of rehabilitation as you had engaged with Youth Justice.  This of course proceeded the offending in October, later dealt with in December 2020.  At that time, it was said you had engaged positively and respectfully during appointments.  You were residing with you mother and aunt, had some appointments with a drug counsellor, you regularly engaged with a support worker from Youth Justice Alliance, attended in August to a psychiatric review and a clinical manager began NDIS referral.  And Mr Dowie, a YSAS worker, reported you had been engaging positively.

35In early October, the Youth Justice court advise reported Mr Dowie had explored a detox program following relapse recently and recommended you as a suitable candidate for a further period of Youth Justice supervised bail.  I also note that in February 2021, the National Disability Insurance Agency had return to you, confirming a plan which indicated Youth Justice would continue to support you.  This anticipated a parole hearing scheduled for 15 February 2021, which was then put on hold or postponed due to these matters currently before me.  The plan covered moving into independent living, funding for various mentoring support and skills training with a total funded support to February 2022 of some $60,000 for a very broad range of goals and services. 

36The last report received was from Youth Justice case manager and general manager from the northwest metropolitan region which carried out a suitability assessment for a Youth Justice Centre order at my request.  The authors listed the sources of information they consulted for their report which was dated 1 April 2021.  They noted you became distressed at recounting the 'violent and nasty' offending behaviour in question and that you were disappointed in yourself for attributing it to drug use and its effect upon you.  You asserted this was not your state of mind going forward. 

37They noted your history with Youth Justice since age 14, the various past disposition, including adult custody.  They noted you had been provided with
one-on-one support from Parkville College teachers, but on occasion appeared unmotivated due to the one-on-one nature programs.  They noted Mr Dowie, youth outreach worker from the Youth Support and Advocacy Services, advised your engagement had been sporadic but had only met on one occasion through no fault of yours.  They noted you had been offered full-time employment with Pro Steel Group, though you failed to complete a white card to expand employment opportunities.  You engaged well with youth offending programs and had been assigned to adolescent violence interaction program.  They noted the NDIS had allocated a specialist support coordinator.  They summarised your mental health state, as gleaned from the reports I have mentioned, as noted that you were eligible to receive a Youth Parole Order late December 2020, after a time served from remand period.

38They noted at p.5 that you demonstrated 'a willingness to participate with support services that will assist with your transition back into the community'. You had participated in ongoing planning for your Youth Parole Order which, however, was deferred. They then discussed your family circumstances, health and intellectual disability, noting you had poor motivation to enter a residential rehab facility. They noted you were currently at a Parkview unit on your own to allow for close monitoring of your medical condition. They concluded their report as to suitability (pp.8-10) by looking at the provisions of s.32 of the Sentencing Act and concluded that you did not represent with reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.  They referred in this content to adult custody which has reinforced your reduced motivation and poor attitudes.  This seemed to me to be a contrary argument to their ultimate conclusion. 

39They conceded some insight and victim awareness to you and agreed the index offences were of a lesser severity compared to previous offending, which appears to have its source in your impulsive decision making.  They write, your ability to sustain engagement with services and supports has become problematic.  They did not consider you to be particularly immature, impressionable or likely to be subjected to undesirable influences in adult prison, considering that there is no evidence for you not coping with the adult environment.  They conclude, you did not satisfy the criteria stipulated and so, therefore, you are not a suitable candidate for a Youth Justice Centre Order.  They opined that, 'You've continued towards a trajectory of entranced criminal behaviour.' 

40I have some considerable difficulty with this recommendation in the end.  The consideration of your relative youth leads me to a different conclusion as to disposition.  It was fairly conceded by the defence that a period of confinement is the only disposition available.  Even though these factors that I have outlined play a part in the final analysis, I find that your youth in this case compels me to a disposition which pays heed to its importance and which sensibly moderates on long-standing authority the principle of specific deterrence and general deterrence.  It impacts to reduce moral culpability and insignificantly effects the judgment as to prospects of rehabilitation. 

41I recognise that you have a history of relevant offending in your short years and that Youth Justice has seen the ups and down, the promise and the failures, the prospects and the poor performance, the inconsistent level of engagement and poor compliance, with so many people and agencies which have, over the years, attempted to assist you to become a law-abiding, productive citizen.  There is no doubt that the community would benefit primarily from your rehabilitation reclamation, rather than incarceration. 

42The prosecutor submitted your prospects were guarded because rehabilitation was not being achieved, that the end result is plain to see for you.  Rehabilitation is not 'out the window' said the prosecutor, but it would be fair too generous, on the evidence, to describe your prospects of rehabilitation as reasonable. 

43Of course, I must be guided by the requirements of s.32, as discussed during the plea. In my view, this lack of reliability and constancy of effort is the natural product of transient immaturity of youthful offenders. It is trite that youthful offenders are less mature and responsible than adults, often resulting in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions. This also makes them more vulnerable and susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures. Youth people have less control over their own environment. All of these considerations are applicable to you. As youthful offenders mature, the impetuousness or recklessness that dominate younger years subside. Maturity can lead to more considered reflection which can be the basis for rehabilitation and true remorse.

44The state of your history, the circumstances of the offending, your circumstances and the sentence principles to be applied together with other aspects of the synthesis I have mentioned, requires me to make a judgment that you are seemingly beyond redemption.  I am not persuaded that I should give your youth such diminishing value.  Permanent incorrigibility is fundamentally inconsistent with youth.  I am persuaded on balance that your prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable.  They may not be exceptional or excellent, but they are reasonable.  The array of agencies and services available to you are a powerful structure to enhance and enable these prospects. 

45In my view, the evidence does suggest you are immature, impressionable and likely to find adult prison florid with undesirable and influential opportunities to further corrupt you.  In my view, a Youth Justice Centre Order for a period of time to enable the prospects you do have to crystallise and realise in the appropriate order which combines an element of restraint of compulsion with opportunities for reclamation.  In making this order, I have had regard to the nature of the offence, to the age, character and past history of you as a young offender. 

46On the indictment K10791076.1, you are convicted and sentenced on the two counts of aggravated burglary and the remainder of the indictment to an aggregate order of two years Youth Justice Centre Order from today.  I will have these reasons entered into the records of the court.  On the charge of possessing a drug of dependence, you are convicted and fined $100.  On the summary charge of driving whilst disqualified, you are convicted and fined $200.  You are disqualified for a period of two years. 

- - -

HIS HONOUR:  This morning I received a draft order in relation to an order for compensation and I understand that you, Ms Caruso, wish to have something to say about that.

MS CARUSO:  Your Honour, I think because of my availability, I haven't received that and I haven't had the time to speak to Mr Saleh about it, but the only thing I do say is, Your Honour, he's been there on youth custody since – for a significant period of time.  He'll now be in custody for two more years.  His capacity to pay is limited.  However, I do note, of course, that it is an order that Your Honour could make even in those circumstances.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  Can I just say, without having you go through this material, what I have is, apart from the draft order, I have a tax invoice in relation to the replacement of the door to Mr Kumar's premises in Glen Iris which are the sum of that compensation.  It seems to me, when I look at it, it looks quite reasonable to me.  I do appreciate that his capacity for payment is obviously reduced, but I think on the basis of the offending, I should make this order. 

MS CARUSO:  Yes, thank you.

HIS HONOUR:  I make an order that Ali Saleh, convicted of aggravated burglary, I am satisfied that, as a result of the said offence, Veni Kumar has suffered damage to property and I order that Ali Saleh pay to Veni Kumar a compensation in the sum of $1747.  Ms Quinn, are there any other ancillary orders that I should make?

MS QUINN:  No.

MS CARUSO:  Your Honour, 6AAA.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  Yes, Ms Saleh, but for your plea, I would have sentenced you to two-and-a-half years Youth Justice Centre Order.  Yes, thank you all for attending. 

MS CARUSO:  As Your Honour pleases. 

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  I have a trial to continue, I'll stand down. 

- - -