Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith

[2019] VCC 1855

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-18-01178

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

RICHARD SMITH
BRADLEY BERRY
STEPHEN MATHIESON

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMITH
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 November 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v SMITH
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1855

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

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

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M. Perry
For Accused SMITH	Ms A. Liang
For Accused BERRY	Mr D. Georgiou
For Accused MATHIESON	Mr J. Dickinson

HIS HONOUR:

1Richard Smith, Bradley Berry and Stephen Mathieson, you have each been found guilty by a jury of the offences of aggravated burglary, contrary to s.77 of the Crimes Act 1958, causing injury intentionally, contrary to s.18 of that Act, and kidnapping, contrary to s.63A of that Act.

2The circumstances of your offending are that on 3 January 2017, each of you entered premises at Nepean Avenue, Hampton East, as trespassers, with intent to commit an offence involving assault to a person therein.  It is not necessary in these reasons to identify the occupant of those premises and I shall refer to him merely as the complainant.  At the time of your entry, you each knew that there was a person in the premises.  The complainant had answered a knock on his door.  On opening it, Mr Smith and Mr Berry forced their way into the premises.  The complainant had unsuccessfully tried to prevent your entry, but was not successful.  On entering the premises, the complainant was pushed back, tackled to the floor.  Mr Mathieson followed Mr Smith and Mr Berry in.

3The complainant's wrists were cable tied.  At one point the complainant managed to partially break free from the cable tie and attempted to escape.  He was dragged back in, punched to the head a number of times.  The complainant was in fear for his safety and elected, I find, to cooperate with you in order to remain safe.  You advised the complainant that the three of you had come to collect money owed by the complainant, or to take possession of a machine known as a dyno, which you understood was in his possession.  The dyno was a large and expensive piece of machinery that had been purchased by the complainant's mother, for use by the complainant in his mechanics business.  It had cost approximately $50,000.  It had scarcely been used.

4By way of background, at the relevant time, the complainant was indebted to a man named Scuderi, in relation to the supply of marijuana by him to the complainant.  It would seem that, in circumstances not disclosed in the evidence, you, Mr Mathieson, had taken over that debt owed by the complainant to Scuderi.  Prior to 3 January, Mr Mathieson had attended at the complainant's premises on more than one occasion, in an attempt to recover the debt.  He had been unsuccessful.

5On one occasion, Mr Mathieson attended the premises and an altercation with the complainant had occurred.  It would seem that the complainant resisted
Mr Mathieson with some force and directed him not to return.  On 3 January, Mr Mathieson attended at the complainant's premises in the company of
Mr Smith and Mr Berry, who I am satisfied had been recruited to provide physical assistance to Mr Mathieson.  Both Mr Berry and Mr Smith were at the time, employees of Mr Mathieson's transport business.

6At the time, the dyno machine was not at the complainant's premises, it was at a workshop owned by a friend of the complainant's in Cranbourne.  I accept that at the time that the three of you arrived at the complainant's premises, you knew of the existence of the dyno, knew it was of considerable value and that the purpose of your attending there was to persuade the complainant to hand over the dyno in lieu of the drug debt in question.  You, having cable tied the complainant, escorted him from the premises, forced him into the backseat of a car in which you had arrived.  A neighbour of the complainant's had heard the sound of voices demanding money and the sounds of struggling coming from the complainant's premises.  She called 000, described the car outside the apartment and provided police with its registration number.

7Once in the vehicle, the complainant observed that Mr Berry, sitting next to him in the back of the car, had a knife in his hand.  The origin of the knife, and precisely when it came into Mr Berry's possession, was not disclosed by the evidence.  It is possible that he brought it with him into the premises, but it is also possible that he obtained it whilst he was in the premises.  The jury verdicts on the charge of aggravated burglary are consistent with both scenarios.  I am unable to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the knife was in possession of any of you at the time that you actually entered the premises. 

8The car was driven to a point where a truck was parked in South Road.  The car pulled up next to the truck, Mr Mathieson left the car and entered the truck and drove it.  Mr Smith drove the car, Mr Berry remained in the rear seat with the complainant.  The two vehicles drove to Cranbourne and stopped near to the workshop where the dyno was stored.  The complainant called his friend and advised him that he had sold the dyno and that two persons would come to collect it shortly. This in effect authorised the complainant's friend to give possession of the dyno to you. 

9I accept that the complainant did so out of fear and that at no time had he agreed to sell the dyno to you, or agreed that you should take possession of it.  I accept that he allowed you to take possession of it because he believed he had no other choice.  Mr Mathieson and Mr Smith travelled in the truck to the workshop where they loaded the dyno onto the truck.  Mr Berry remained in the car with the complainant.  I accept that Mr Berry was observed by the complainant to still have the knife in his possession at that point.

10The complainant was then driven back to his premises where he handed over a laptop computer to you, which was required in order to operate the dyno.  The three of you then departed his premises after directing him not to contact police.  The dyno has never been recovered.  The complainant's mother contacted police after she had been phoned by the complainant.  The following day police attended at the Cranbourne workshop, viewed CCTV footage from the previous day which showed Mr Mathieson and Mr Smith loading the machinery onto the truck and then leaving the area.  Mr Berry was arrested by police on 13 July 2017, about six months later.  Mr Mathieson was arrested on 7 August 2017.  Mr Smith handed himself into police on 9 August of 2017 and he was arrested on that date. 

11Police took possession of, and arranged for analysis of cable ties found later at the complainant's premises.  Evidence presented at your trial showed a likelihood that the DNA found on the tyres was that of Mr Mathieson.  This conduct on the part of the three of you constituted the offences of aggravated burglary, causing injury intentionally and kidnapping.  Photographs of the complainant taken in the day or so following your offences showed that he had suffered a number of bruises and abrasions to his body.  The maximum penalties imposed by Parliament for these offences are aggravated burglary, 25 years’ imprisonment, kidnapping, 25 years’ imprisonment and intentionally causing injury, 10 years’ imprisonment.  I now turn to each of you individually.

12Mr Smith, you are aged 37 and at the time of these offences, you were aged 34.  You have lived with a partner for about three years.  The two of you have a daughter aged about 18 months.  Prior to your incarceration, you were living with your partner's parents at their home in Corio.  You have two children aged 12 and 13 from a previous relationship.  It appears that you have a good relationship with your current partner's parents.  They were in court supporting you during your plea hearing.  I was informed that when you are released from custody, they are happy to have you return to reside with them.

13A report from Mr Ian MacKinnon, psychologist, was tendered on your behalf.  It was dated 29 September 2019.  His report contains details of your background as informed by you.  You grew up in the Geelong area with one sibling and four half siblings.  Your parents separated in your infancy.  You reported that your mother had left your father because of domestic violence issues.  You advised Mr MacKinnon that you had been abused as a child regularly, violent abuse and emotional abuse, along with some sexual abuse.  Your mother died when you were aged about 11.  You attended about ten different primary schools and were expelled from school halfway through Year 7.  You changed schools and were expelled from the new school during Year 8.

14You commenced working for an irrigation company for about a year and then in a warehouse, where it would appear that you obtained a forklift licence.  You advised Mr McKinnon that you had worked most of your life on and off.  You admitted to him that the use of drugs had interfered with your employment.  I accept that you have had a serious illicit drug problem from the age of about 15.  At that age, you commenced using heroin and it appears that you have been battling a heroin addiction for most of your life.

15You had been prescribed Suboxone for about 10 years prior to being remanded in relation to these offences.  In addition, you have regularly used cannabis, cocaine, methylamphetamine, GHB, ecstasy, Normison and Xanax.  You told Mr MacKinnon that for the last two years, since being with your partner, you have not used drugs much and that you have not used marijuana since 2007.  You told him that during 2018 to 2019, you only used heroin occasionally.  In the past, you have attended for substance abuse counselling as part of previous court orders and you have undergone residential detox rehabilitation on two occasions.  At Barwon Prison you were prescribed methadone.

16Prior to your recent incarceration, you were working for your partner's father.  This involved the planting of trees in parks.  You told Mr MacKinnon that you enjoyed the work and were hopeful to resume that work upon your release from prison.  Mr MacKinnon was of the view that you presented with a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and polysubstance dependence disorder.  He was of the opinion that compared with your prospects several years ago, you now had significantly improved prospects for establishing an illicit drug free and responsible lifestyle, without offending.

17However, he considered that your post-release prospects would depend very much on the state of your relationship with your current partner.  Should that relationship fail, Mr MacKinnon considered that you would be a high risk of psychological deterioration and likely to relapse into illicit substance abuse and associated offending.  He considered that you would probably benefit from maintaining general practitioner referrals and resuming a course of antidepressant medication and Suboxone maintenance.  He considered that additional substance abuse treatment would be appropriate, should you relapse into illicit substance abuse.

18He considered that you appeared likely to be able to cope well enough with imprisonment, but you did require ongoing psychological therapy, which you were not currently receiving.  He pointed out that a lengthy term of imprisonment may cause your relationship with your partner to fail and your bonds with your children to weaken.  You have a number of prior convictions relating to dishonesty, drugs and violence going back to about 1999.  These include numerous charges of theft, theft of motor vehicles, burglary, possessing money being the proceeds of crime, going equipped to steal, obtaining property by deception, trafficking of ecstasy, resisting police, driving whilst disqualified, aggravated burglary in circumstances where you were in possession of an offensive weapon, armed robbery, affray, criminal damage and discharging a missile to cause injury.

19Since the offences, the subject of this trial, you have been convicted of handling or receiving stolen goods, failing a drug blood test within three hours of driving, careless driving, resisting a police officer, failing to stop a vehicle on police direction, possession of cannabis, dangerous driving whilst pursued by police, possessing a controlled weapon without excuse, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, resisting an emergency worker on duty, recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, damaging an emergency service vehicle by reckless driving, reckless conduct endangering serious injury and most recently, possession of heroin.

20Whilst not being prior convictions, these later offences have relevance in that your more recent convictions lead me to conclude that your prospects for rehabilitation in the future are guarded at best.  I take into account your troubled upbringing.  I acknowledge the lack of any father figure in your life, the death of your mother when you were aged about 11 and your physical and your emotional abuse at a relatively early age.  I take into account the character references tendered at your plea hearing from Betty Ristevski, your partner's mother and from Paul Milos, your partner's father.  Both speak highly of you, and are aware of your use of drugs prior to your arrest and your improvement since. 

21Bradley Berry, you are aged 42 and at the time of these offences, you were aged 39.  You are unmarried, you have no children.  You have three siblings and I am informed that none of them, nor your parents, have any criminal history.  You were brought up in the Hoppers Crossing area where you attended secondary school and later were educated at Bacchus Marsh High School.  Your counsel advised me that you commenced to seriously misbehave when aged about 16 and were expelled from school in Year 10.

22Your parents, it would seem, separated when you were reasonably young.  Your mother formed a relationship with a new partner who was described by your counsel as a seasoned criminal and who introduced you to illicit drugs.  He would inject you with amphetamines when you were about 16 years old and also advised you how to go about stealing.  After being with him for about two years, your mother left him.  She and you both changed your name to Brookes, in order to avoid detection by her former partner.  I am advised that you have legally changed your name to Southern Brookes.

23You worked as a cabinetmaker and began an apprenticeship in that trade when you were 18.  This has discontinued as a consequence of a back injury.  You began using heroin at the age of 18 and this became a daily habit until you were aged about 22.  At that time you were sentenced to prison for five months.  Upon your release, I was informed that you got your life together for a number of years, living with your father and playing for local football teams, whilst working as a carpenter and remaining drug free for a time.  During that period, you formed a significant relationship with a young woman, but when that relationship ended, you resumed using heroin.  You lost your job and returned to criminal activities. 

24Since 2014, you have worked continuously for your co-offender Stephen Mathieson as a transport driver.  You have been in a new relationship with a young lady for the last five years and you are, I was informed, engaged to be married.  She is employed as a pathologist nurse and continues to support you.  Your father, now aged about 63, is in poor health and suffers from frontal lobe syndrome, dementia, aphasia, diagnosed earlier this year and with poor prognosis.

25You have a disturbing number of prior convictions, going back to 1995.  These convictions, in the main, relate to matters of dishonesty and drugs.  You have convictions for burglary, theft, theft of a motor vehicle, reckless driving, driving at a speed dangerous, possession of heroin, using heroin, using threatening words in public, recklessly causing injury, driving whilst disqualified, escape from lawful custody, assaulting police, receiving stolen goods, trafficking heroin, obtaining property by deception, criminal damage, unlawfully being on premises, failing to answer bail, unlawful assault, possessing a prohibited weapon, driving in a manner dangerous, possessing heroin, failing to stop a motor vehicle on request of police, resisting police, going equipped to steal or cheat and, in addition, you have three convictions for a breach of suspended sentence order and two convictions for breaching terms of a community based order.  I take into account that prior to your offending conduct in January of 2017, the most recent convictions before that were in late 2013. 

26A report from Mr Jim Tatlock of Habitat Therapeutics Private Hospital, dated
14 February 2019, was tendered at your plea hearing.  He reported that you were under the supervision of that hospital for about two months from early November 2018 until early January 2019.  You were engaged in a program to address maladaptive behaviours and create permanent change in clients. 
Mr Tatlock reported that you quickly took to the program and were demonstrating application to recovery methods.  He reported that during your stay, you had other external issues with partners and family members, which complicated your progress.  They appeared to resolve. 

27During your time with Habitat, you were drug and alcohol tested on fifteen occasions and returned negative results.  You were also prescribed medication to assist with addiction recovery.  You were appointed a senior resident in recognition of your good work and leadership skills.  You took on leadership roles and actively sought to increase personal responsibilities.  Mr Tatlock was of the opinion that with the correct supportive environment, continued active participation in Narcotics Anonymous and maintaining a drug and alcohol free lifestyle, the likelihood of recidivism was minimal.

28A report from a psychologist Jessica Cooke, dated 28 December 2018 was also tendered.  She saw you on a number of occasions whilst you were an inpatient at the Habitat clinic.  She considered that your drug addiction had been the primary driver of many years of incarceration for drug related crimes.  As at late December 2018, she was of the view that you should complete your inpatient treatment at Habitat until you attained abstinence from opioids.  It appears that you did complete that treatment.  She considered that you met the criteria for opioid use disorder. 

29A further report from Jessica Cooke dated 18 April 2019 indicated that you had, since December 2018, attended a further six sessions of psychotherapy by way of treatment for underlying long-term addiction in criminal behaviour.  You missed two scheduled appointments in February and April 2019.  She reported that you had remained on drug replacement therapy and had not used drugs.  You had continued to attend some Narcotic Anonymous meetings.  Various character references were tendered on your behalf from your partner, Shona Smith, and a friend, Lisa Peters.  Both references refer to you being kind and generous and a loving and caring partner. 

30Your counsel submitted to me that your recent efforts at rehabilitation indicated a positive resolve and insight into your offending that all goodwill for your future.  On the basis of the material put before me, I consider that your prospects for rehabilitation are guarded, although it is commendable that you have now, albeit somewhat belatedly, participated in counselling for your addiction issues.  I note that your progress in that regard since April 2019 is unknown and not the subject of any report or evidence.

31Mr Mathieson, you are aged 35 and at the time of this offending, you were aged 32.  You are married, have three children.  The eldest aged 15 is a child from an earlier relationship.  You and your wife have a daughter aged two and a son aged 11 months.  A significant number of character references were tendered on your behalf at your plea hearing.  These were from persons including your mother, your wife, your daughter, your father-in-law, sister-in-law, close friends, work colleagues, school friends, relatives of your wife and some of your employees.  Each of the character referees speak of you in glowing terms, as a person of good character and a loving family man. 

32You appear to have been brought up in a stable, happy and supportive family.  You appear to have been involved in part-time work since the age of 13, jobs such as newspaper delivery boy, kitchenhand, hospital orderly and various labouring and warehousing jobs.  You attended secondary school between Year 7 and Year 9 at Caulfield Grammar School and in Years 10 to 12, at Sandringham High School.  You went on to complete an Advanced Diploma in International Business at Holmesglen TAFE.  At the age of 23, you commenced a business with the purchase of a truck for local transport jobs.

33At age 25, you founded a business named Prime Transport Proprietary Limited.  I am informed that the company has five trucks and nine employees.  When aged 32, you founded a business which operates under the name of XGEN Management Proprietary Limited, which as I understand it, specialises in the collection of used engine oil. 

34You have been in a relationship with your wife Harn for fifteen years and you have been married to her for the last five.  In written submissions, your counsel advised me that your two businesses were likely to collapse with considerable financial loss as a result of your offending.  You have prior convictions going back to 2001.  These relate to theft of a motor vehicle, possession and use of controlled weapon without excuse, burglary, theft, possession of a prohibited weapon, which I am told was an ornamental knife, possession of a false document, which I was informed by counsel was a false driver's licence.  The most recent of these was about eight years prior to your offending for which I am now to sentence you.  I accept that your criminal record, although relating to some significant offences, and not being a record of which you should be at all proud, is a less prolific record than those of your co-offenders. 

35The purposes for which I may sentence you are set out in s.5(1) of the Sentencing Act of 1991.  I consider that the primary purposes for which you are to be sentenced, are to punish you—and this is each of you—punish each of you to an extent, and in a manner which is just in all the circumstances, to deter you and other persons in the community from committing offences of the same or similar character, to manifest the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which you engaged and to protect the community from you.

36I am also required to take into account the matters set out in s.5(2) of that Act.  Amongst those is whether you have shown any remorse for your offending.  I consider that none of you have shown any remorse.  Your counsel and character witnesses have described you Mr Mathieson, in essence, as a decent law-abiding family man, at least in recent years.  However, I do note that there has been no attempt to explain to this court the circumstances in which you came to be attempting to collect a debt owed by the complainant, in relation to the supply of marijuana to him.

37There has been no explanation to this court concerning the whereabouts of, or what happened to the complainant's valuable dyno when it was obtained by you.  It was plainly a very expensive piece of equipment.  I consider that the evidence demonstrated that you, Mr Mathieson, were the architect of the events constituting the offences committed on 3 January of 2017 by the three of you.

38Further, I consider it relevant that, at the time, you were the employer of Mr Smith and Mr Berry and occupied a position of some status and authority in relation to them.  They had nothing to do with the debt that you were seeking to collect.  The offences were committed on a normal working day, presumably one on which they would normally have expected to be performing tasks associated with their employment with you.  None of you are entitled to a discount on your sentences that would have been the case had you come before the court with a clear criminal record.  The Court of Appeal has previously stated that an adverse criminal record may impact on the sentencing process, as an indicator of the offender's moral culpability, prospects of rehabilitation, dangerous propensity and the community's need for protection and the increased importance of specific deterrence as a factor of sentencing.  I consider that
Mr Mathieson's record, although not perfect, is considerably better than those of Mr Smith and Mr Berry.

39The injuries suffered by the complainant were not, as it turned out, serious injuries.  However, I have no doubt that he was in significant fear for his health and safety once the three of you had entered his apartment and commenced to assault him.  It was one against three.  His hands were quickly cable tied, so that he was incapable of defending himself.  He would have had no idea as to the extent to which you intended to assault or injure him.

40Counsel for each of you submitted that an appropriate sentence would be a sentence of imprisonment, followed by a community correction order.  I am in possession of reports from Corrections Victoria stating that each of you has been assessed as suitable for a community correction order.  I had directed that those assessments be conducted after hearing submissions from your counsel at your plea hearing.  I made it very clear at that time that I had not decided that such orders were appropriate, but that I had decided that if I later came to the view that they were appropriate, it would be convenient to have you assessed on the day of your plea hearing, rather than having you brought back again to court for such assessment at a later date.

41The Sentencing Act provides that I may only impose a combined sentence and a community correction order if the term of imprisonment is for twelve months or less.  Taking into account the nature of your offending conduct and your past criminal histories, I have come to the conclusion, in each of your cases, that such a term of imprisonment in respect of the offences of aggravated burglary and of kidnapping, would not be an adequate sentence.  It would not adequately satisfy the sentencing purposes to which I have previously referred.

42Aggravated burglary is a serious offence.  In the 2014 Court of Appeal decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Meyers, the court stated:

'Put simply, [it was] established that current sentencing practices for serious forms of aggravated burglary needed to change, as they did not reflect the objective seriousness of such offending.  Aggravated burglaries which involve confrontation and violence, or threats of violence, should be viewed very seriously, whether the target of the attack is a former domestic partner or a person against whom some other grievance is held'.

43In Meyers, the court listed a number of matters which will ordinarily be relevant to an assessment of the seriousness of an aggravated burglary offence.  These included firstly, the offender's intent at the point of entry.  Here, I am satisfied that the intent of each of you was to commit an assault on the complainant.  The court stated in Meyers that the offender's conduct, once inside the premises, will usually enable inferences to be drawn about the intent on entry.

44Secondly, the mode of entry.  Here I am satisfied that entry, although preceded by a knock on the door, was forceful, after it had been made clear that the complainant did not wish you to enter and was doing his best to resist your entry.  Your entry itself involved violence.

45Thirdly, whether a weapon was being carried.  Here, as stated above, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a weapon was carried at the point of entry.

46Fourthly, whether the offender was alone or in company.  Here, plainly, you were in company, each of you, three against one were the numbers.

47Fifthly, the time of day.  Here it occurred in broad daylight, in the morning, as opposed to the middle of the night which I accept was likely to have been even more intimidating.

48Sixthly, whether the offender or offenders knew or believed who would be inside. Here, plainly, you all knew that the complainant was inside at the time of entry.  He had opened the door and attempted to resist your entry.

49Seventhly, whether the offender was someone of whom the complainant was particularly frightened.  Here I am satisfied that, upon opening the door, the complainant recognised Mr Mathieson and would have known that you three were there in relation to the drug debt.  I am satisfied that he would have been in genuine fear of his safety.

50The complainant has been a user of a range of illicit drugs for a number of years before the date of your offending. He freely admitted this in his evidence.  However, that does not mean that he had no entitlement to the protection of the law.  It did not entitle you or anyone else with some monetary or commercial claim against him, to use violence or threats of violence in order to enforce such a claim, in the possible belief that, being a drug offender, he had no such rights or that he would not want to report the matter to police.

51In reaching my decision not to impose a community correction order on you, Mr Mathieson, I take no account at all of the comments of Jess Johncock of Corrections Victoria, in her report dated 29 October 2019, including her references to you of being targeted for urine analysis as a result of 'drug-related behaviour', or your 'complete denial regarding the offending behaviour and the impact this has placed on the victim and the wider community'.  My decision is based on the serious nature of the offences of aggravated burglary and kidnapping, the manner in which those offences were carried out and your criminal history. 

52Taking all of the circumstances into account, I have come to the conclusion that each of you should be sentenced as follows and if you would now stand please.  For the offence of aggravated burglary, you are each convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years.  This will be the base sentence.  For the offence of kidnapping, you are each convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years, of which eighteen months shall be served cumulatively to the base sentence.

53For the offence of causing injury intentionally, you are each convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months, which shall be served concurrently with the base sentence.  It follows that I have sentenced each of you to a total effective term of imprisonment of four years.  I direct that you shall not be eligible for parole until you have served two years of your respective sentences. 

54With regard to you Mr Smith and you Mr Mathieson, I am informed by your counsel and the prosecutor that you have both already served 85 days by way of pre-sentence detention, not including today.  I direct that in each of your cases, such period be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served under your respective sentences and I direct that this be recorded in the records of this court.

55With regard to you Mr Berry, I am informed by your counsel and the prosecutor, that you have served 128 days by way of pre-sentence detention, not including today and I direct that such period be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served by you under your sentence and I direct that this be recorded in the records of this court.  Mr Perry, remind me if you have already told what ancillary orders were sought, if any?

56MR PERRY:  I don't think we're seeking any, Your Honour.  There's automatic retention of the DNA which was obtained.  I'm not instructed to seek any other orders.

57HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  Is there any reason the other members of counsel have for not allowing the gentlemen to be taken downstairs at this point?

58MR DICKINSON:  No, Your Honour.

59MR GEORGIOU:  No, Your Honour.

60MS LIANG:  No, Your Honour.

61HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  Yes they may be taken downstairs, thank you. 

‑ ‑ ‑