Director of Public Prosecutions v Stanton
[2020] VCC 663
•21 May 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 20-00159
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM STANTON |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 14 May 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 May 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Stanton |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 663 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: sentence, guilty plea, knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, possession drug of dependence, trafficking commercial quantity of drug of dependence, disadvantaged childhood, PTSD, remorse, burden of imprisonment, COVID-19
Legislation Cited: s6AAA Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; R v Fernando [2017] VSCA 208 and Gregory Gregory (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151 v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 3 years and 7 months with non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months.
Sentence 6AAA declaration: 5 years and 2 months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 3 years and 8 months imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms J. Fallar | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Terry | Chris McLennan & Co |
HIS HONOUR:
1Christopher William Stanton, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, one charge of possession of a drug of dependence, one charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity in a drug of dependence, one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence and the summary charge of unlicensed driving.
2The maximum penalties are as follows: knowingly deal with the proceeds of crime, 15 years' imprisonment; the possession of a drug of dependence, one year imprisonment, because in this case it was for personal use; trafficking in a drug of dependence in a commercial quantity, 25 years' imprisonment; trafficking in a drug of dependence, 15 years; and unlicensed driving, six months' imprisonment.
3The facts of this matter are set in the prosecution opening, which was tendered and marked as Exhibit P1 on the plea.
4By way of background, Mr Stanton, you were born on 19 February 1992. At the time of your offending you were therefore aged 27. You were unemployed and living at Unit 402/54 High Street, Preston. You are now aged 28.
Circumstances of the offences
5On 19 June 2019, you and an unknown female associated checked into the Boulevard Motor Inn in Mildura for a one-night stay. You and this female checked out of the motel the following morning around 11 am. When the owner of the motel was cleaning the room, she found a snap-lock bag containing a small quantity of methylamphetamine in a bin. This is the basis for Charge 2, possession of methylamphetamine. It is put, and the prosecution have accepted, that the methylamphetamine was for personal use. The owner contacted the police on 30 June.
6On 30 June 2019, the co-offender in the other charges, Rochelle Mattiazzo, agreed to drive you from Mildura to Melbourne so you could purchase two ounces of methylamphetamine for trafficking in Mildura. On 2 July 2019, you told Mattiazzo that you had purchased ecstasy pills straight from the pill press. You said you paid $4 a pill and you intended to sell them in Mildura for $20 to $25.
7At about 11:00am on the same day you and Ms Mattiazzo drove to an address in the northern suburbs of Melbourne where you purchased two ounces of methylamphetamine. On 3 July 2019, you and Ms Mattiazzo left your place in Preston and drove to Mildura via the Calder Highway in a green Cherokee wagon. You drove. You told Ms Mattiazzo that you had hidden methylamphetamine in the bonnet of the vehicle.
8At about 3.55pm, as you approached the town of Carwarp, you saw police conducting random breath tests ahead. In response you suddenly pulled to the left of the road and stopped to avoid police. Police then intercepted your vehicle. Licence checks revealed that you had never held a driver's licence. This is the basis of the summary charge unlicensed driving. When you were arrested you told police that there was a bottle of ecstasy tablets and a small bag of methylamphetamine in the car.
9Police searched the car and they found the following:
a.one small snap-lock bag containing a substance in the form of white crystals alongside the driver's seat;
b.one small and two medium snap-lock bags containing a substance in the form of off-white crystals in the roof lining of the rear speaker shelf; and
c.an Extra chewing gum bottle containing a substance in the form of 114 tablets in the centre console.
10The substances contained in the four snap-lock bags were analysed. The total quality of the substances 137.7 grams. This included approximately 73 grams of methylamphetamine. This is the basis for Charge 3, trafficking in a drug of dependence, commercial quantity. The commercial quantity for methylamphetamine pure is 50 grams.
11The 114 tablets in the Extra chewing gum bottle were analysed. The substance contained N-ethylpentylone, which is an analogue of pentylone. The total quantity of the substance including the N-ethylpentylone was 67.1 grams, but the purity was never determined. This is the basis of the trafficking charge.
12You were arrested and you were interviewed at the Mildura police station on 3 July 2019. You made admissions as follows:
a. you owned the small amount of methylamphetamine located in the motel room when you checked out;
b. you owned the Extra chewing gum bottle containing 114 ecstasy tablets, stating it was for personal use;
c. you owned the methylamphetamine contained in the small snap-lock bag located by the side of your car seat; and
d. you initially denied knowledge of the other bags of methylamphetamine; however, later you said the bags belonged to you and you took the bags out when you wanted to use the drug.
13On 25 July 2019 police seized bank records from the National Australia Bank account held in your name, which was opened in July 2019. A review of the bank records showed that you received a Newstart allowance of approximately $623.67 cents fortnightly; that known drug associates deposited amounts of money totalling $39,880 into your bank account; that on 1 July 2019 you withdrew $14,000. You have pleaded guilty on the basis that you knew this money was the proceeds of crime. This is the basis of Charge 1, knowingly deal in the proceeds of crime.
Guilty plea
14You pleaded guilty to the charges on the indictment at a committal mention in this matter. It was a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. You have by your plea of guilty saved the community the time and cost of the trial and facilitated the course of justice, therefore I give you credit for the utilitarian value of your plea. I am also prepared to accept your guilty plea is indicative of some remorse for this offending. On the issue of remorse, I have also taken into account that you made admissions in your record of interview and expressed some remorse to the psychologist who provided a report in this matter, Mr Ian McKinnon.
Personal Circumstances
15Your personal circumstances are set out in Mr Terry's written submissions and in the report of Mr McKinnon. Your parents had drug issues and they must have been incapable of looking after you properly because you were in the care of the state from the age of two. Your father was sent to prison several times. You had two full sisters and three half-siblings. You told Mr McKinnon that your childhood was an unsettled and confusing one and that your memories of it are not clear.
16You were placed with many different foster families until you reached your teenage years. You told Mr McKinnon that one foster parent couple had abused you and your older sister. One of your foster families moved to Queensland and you went with them. They could not cope with your behaviour and you ran away. You then ended up in foster care in Queensland. In your teenage years you lived in various different youth residential care units in Queensland.
17At the age of 16 you returned to Melbourne. You lived with your father and his girlfriend for some time. This did not work out because your father and his girlfriend were using drugs. After this you resided in squats and couch surfed before trying again to live with your father in a caravan park. Since teenage years you have moved around constantly, never settling anywhere for long. You have lived in Sale, Mildura and New South Wales.
18You received a long sentence in Broken Hill for reckless wounding in 2015. You had this sentence transferred to Victoria. You were granted parole in early 2018, but this was eventually revoked, and you ended up serving the balance of the sentence. As I understand the record, you were released in October 2018.
19It was in this period after your release that you first started to use Ice. Because of your parents' drug problems, you had stayed away from drugs before this, apart from cannabis and alcohol, using both from the age of 13. In relation to Ice use in this period you say, 'Once I tried it, I never put it down'.
20You are still in touch with your father, who now lives in Rosebud. Your mother lives in Clifton Hill. You have a four-year-old daughter named Ava who lives with her mother Rachel in Mildura. You started a relationship with your current girlfriend Kiely in the period after you were released from prison and prior to this offending. Kiely lives in Doreen. You now have a child together. She gave birth to a boy in March this year.
21You went to a lot of different primary schools and to a secondary school in Queensland. You started Year 9, but you did not finish it. You report that you do have good language skills and you read and write well. Your only significant employment has been at a supermarket in Queensland and some landscaping with your father. You have participated in prison-based drug awareness programs in the past but say you have had no drug treatment in the wider community.
22In prison you are being held in the protection unit. You say that you feel paranoid that people are after you in mainstream prison. You have been trying to improve your health and fitness in the time you have been on remand. When you are released you intend to live with your girlfriend and your child. Your girlfriend works as a beauty therapist and you say she is a good influence on you. You would like to be a good family man and a good father to your children.
Psychological evidence
23I turn to the psychological report provided by Mr McKinnon. Mr McKinnon says you are of normal intelligence. He says that you appear to be suffering symptoms meeting the clinical criteria of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). In his view the main reason for your post-traumatic stress disorder is your removal from your mother's care and subsequent multiple placements as a child. He says that the developmental traumas as a result have caused significant long-term damage to your psychological and emotional integrity.
24He says that because you grew up bereft of a stable family unit and without a stable address that left you socially adrift with very loose connections to people and place. Mr McKinnon is of the opinion that your early involvement with alcohol; your challenging behaviour and the resultant negative consequences; and your eventual involvement in a criminal milieu; impeded your ability to ameliorate the post-traumatic stress disorder and in fact further fuelled it. He does not believe your antisocial and criminal traits are entirely entrenched and you have expressed a desire to improve and rehabilitate yourself and avoid going back to prison.
25Mr McKinnon is of the view that your PTSD probably made a significant contribution to the offending by degrading your ability to reason and make sound judgment, distorting your perception, fuelling paranoid impulses, elevating your impulsivity, weakening your powers of consequential thinking, engendering a self-absorbed perspective that lacked empathy and moral content and severely diminishing your awareness and normal adult and community responsibility.
26I have some reservations about the label of post-traumatic stress disorder applied to the psychological issues listed by Mr McKinnon. I note his observation that a number of the symptoms he describes are commonly associated with borderline personality disorder; however, the prosecution did not really contest this diagnosis. Mr Terry submits based om Mr McKinnon's report that limbs 1 and 3 of the Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 (“Verdins”) principles are enlivened and that your post-traumatic stress disorder is a basis for moderation of moral culpability, denunciation and general deterrence.
27The prosecution submitted that there was an insufficient causal link between these matters and the offending in this case. Ultimately, I find myself in agreement with this submission. In my view the manifestations of what Mr McKinnon describes as your post-traumatic stress disorder are remote from the calculated conduct involved in this offending. This was not impulsive offending; it was not driven by paranoia; I do not see the absence of consequential thinking as being anything other than in the background of your conduct.
28You were making considered decisions in this offending over a period of time leading up to you arrest on the day of the offences. In my opinion the offending here was driven by profit and no doubt your overall behaviour and judgment was also influenced by your use of methylamphetamine. You certainly exhibited self-absorption and an absence of morality, but such things do not need to arise from mental impairment. They are in fact not unusual in cases of chronic drug use.
29I am not satisfied that your capacity to reason appropriately about the wrongfulness of your conduct at the time of the offending was significantly diminished by your mental state or that there is a sufficiently direct connection here between the matters raised in Mr McKinnon's report and the offending to warrant the moderation argued for by an application of the Verdins principles.
30The prosecutor Ms Fallar conceded that what is set out in the psychological report is relevant to the burden of your imprisonment and I do take this into account in the sentencing.
31What does emerge clearly from the report and is not in dispute is your deprived childhood and adolescence and how that has contributed to your personal characteristics as an adult. The personal traits arising from the deprivation of your upbringing have seen you gravitate to criminal activity and an antisocial milieu. As a consequence of your upbringing your personal development has been impeded by a lack of stability in residential arrangements, interpersonal relationships and the absence of meaningful employment. These things set you on a downward path from a young age.
32The prosecution accepted on the plea that the matters raised in Mr McKinnon's report constituted sufficient evidence of the respondent's background and deprivation to engage the Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 (“Bugmy”) principles to some extent. In Bugmy the High Court described the manner in which factors of disadvantage are relevant to an assessment of an offender's moral culpability in the following terms:
'The experience of growing up in an environment surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may leave its mark on a person throughout life. Among other things, a background of that kind may compromise the person's capacity to mature and to learn from experience. It is a feature of the person's make-up and remains relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding that the person has a long history of offending.
'Because the effects of profound childhood deprivation do not diminish with the passage of time and repeated offending, it is right to speak of giving "full weight" to an offender's deprived background in every sentencing decision'.
33In relation to the concept of full weight the High Court went on to explain that an application of Bugmy principles may have different significance to different principles in sentencing in that there is a tension between the Bugmy considerations and other sentencing factors such as prospects of rehabilitation and community protection.
34In the end I have formed the view that the deprivations of your childhood and teenage years are relevant as a mitigating factor. You never had the benefit of a stable and supportive upbringing and proper guidance from your parents. Your personality traits and psychological make-up are necessarily a product of your formative years. These matters are relevant in assessing your moral culpability. They help to explain the downward trajectory of your adult life and your inability to break away from criminal behaviour. Some moderation of the assessment of your moral culpability is appropriate.
Gravity of offences
35I turn to the gravity of your offending. Your offending was serious. You quite deliberately set out to distribute two different drugs in search of profit. You purchased supplies specifically for this purpose. Trafficking in a commercial quantity is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years. This reflects the seriousness of the offence, as does the penalty for trafficking simpliciter, which is 15 years.
36In this case Charge 3 and Charge 4 are framed as single-day offences based on possession for sale. The amount of methylamphetamine found is not that far above the prescribed commercial quantity, which is a pure amount of 50 grams. Both matters tend towards an assessment of your offending at the lower end of the range for trafficking in a drug of dependence in a commercial quantity. This is what was submitted by Mr Terry and the prosecutor agreed that your offending is at the lower end of the range for trafficking in a drug of dependence in a commercial quantity.
37That does not mean this is anything other than serious offending. In this case you quite deliberately set out to sell drugs in a regional town. No doubt this is what you would have done if police had not have intercepted you in Carwarp. This offending was calculated, planned and intended to net you significant profit.
38The prosecutor in her submissions postulated some estimates as to the likely profits. In my view, beyond the observation that the proceeds were potentially significant if you had been able to carry out your plan, any estimation by me as to the quantum of it would be speculative.
39Methylamphetamine does enormous damage to the lives of the individuals addicted to it and its use is at the heart of a lot of very serious offences, including very serious driving offences and offences of violence and dishonesty. It is a destructive and corrosive force in the community contributing to a variety of social problems. People who are prepared to distribute such drugs for profit must expect lengthy gaol sentences to deter other potential traffickers and to express the court's denunciation of such conduct.
40The trafficking of the ecstasy, or, sorry, I should say the N-ethylpentylone and the proceeds or crime charge add to the overall criminality of your offending. They are less serious offences than the trafficking commercial quantity, but they are still serious offences in their own right. You acknowledge by your plea that you knew the almost $40,000 put into your bank account was derived from criminal activity. This is a substantial amount and the conduct reinforces that you were well entrenched in criminal behaviour at that time.
41I accept that some of this money was withdrawn and used to fund the drug trafficking you have pleaded guilty to. To this extent there is some overlap between the charges, which I will reflect in the orders for cumulation so as to avoid double punishment.
42As to moral culpability, even having regard to the moderation by reason of your upbringing, it is still significant.
Prospects of rehabilitation
43I turn to your criminal record and your prospects of rehabilitation.
44Mr Stanton, you have an unfortunate criminal record. You have prior convictions for assaults, robberies and attempted robberies and a range of other offences. You have received sentences of youth training centre in the past and you received a substantial prison sentence in Broken Hill to which I have earlier referred. These offences occurred about 10 months after that sentence. You were not able to successfully complete the parole.
45Importantly you have no prior convictions for trafficking drugs. No doubt some of your offending can be explained by the psychological issues raised in Mr McKinnon's report. In fact, many of the prior convictions are more in line with the psychological issues he describes than are the current offences. Your criminal history is relevant to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation and to some extent specific deterrence, less so because you have no prior convictions for similar offending.
46Your patterns of criminal behaviour are now reasonably long-standing, and, on my assessment, you have spent a significant percentage of the last eight years in custody. Your rehabilitation will hinge on your ability to maintain stable and positive relationships and residential arrangements. It goes without saying that you need to stay away from drugs and, I suspect, alcohol. You have expressed your desire to be a decent family man and a good father to your son. You are a person of reasonable intelligence and you are still a relatively young man at the age of 28. You certainly have a chance of leading a productive life when you are released, but it will be no easy task for you. Having regard to your history and the circumstances of this offending, I currently assess your prospects of rehabilitation is guarded.
Burden of imprisonment
47I turn to the burden of imprisonment in this case. It was submitted by Mr Terry that several matters will increase the burden of your imprisonment. First, he referred to your status as a protection prisoner. Second, you are a person whose partner recently gave birth to your son. It was said that this contributes to the burden of your imprisonment because you are not where you should be, with your partner and a young baby. Third, the impact of the COVID-19 situation means that you have had no visits since your son was born and have only been able to see him and your partner by video. This combined with the prevalence of lockdowns, including a current lockdown at your prison, has increased the burden of your imprisonment.
48Finally, I take into account the issues raised in the psychological report, conceded by the prosecution to increase your burden of imprisonment. I accept that this sentence will weigh heavily on you for the reasons I have set out.
Legal principles
49The cases of R v Fernando [2017] VSCA 208 (“Fernando”) and Gregory v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151 (“Gregory”) both relate to trafficking in commercial quantities in methylamphetamine. In Gregory the Court of Appeal said there should be an uplift in sentencing practice for offending in the upper category of trafficking in commercial quantity. In Fernando, decided soon after Gregory, Redlich JA said that the uplifting sentences:
'Will have an increasingly diminished effect as one moves from the upper to the middle and lower categories of seriousness [and that Gregory will result in] modest increases in the sentences in the lowest category'.
50In Fernando Ashleigh JA said he entertained some doubt as to whether Gregory applied to the lower category of offending. He observed that the sentence imposed by Redlich JA in resentencing the appellant only involved a minor adjustment for the impact of Gregory.
51Both Mr Terry and the prosecutor agreed that Fernando is a relevant comparator to the facts of your offending, being a lower category example of the offence.
52Of course, there are several differences, the most significant of which is that the offender in that case ran a trial and had prior convictions for trafficking. He was also on a community correction order when the offending took place. Balanced against that there is clear evidence here of planning and the imminence of the sale of the drugs when you were stopped on the way to Mildura. The fact that you were prepared to drive the length of the state to a regional town to sell the drugs is relevant to the assessment of the offending.
53Mr Terry referred me to a number of sentencing decisions of this court for like offending, which I have considered. Ms Fallar provided the sentencing statistics for trafficking in commercial quantities of drugs. I have had regard to these matters and to current sentencing practices, which are of course a guide but not a controlling factor in sentencing.
54The purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence both specific and general, rehabilitation and denunciation of your actions, and of course protection of the community. I have had regard to a range of factors in sentencing you including the seriousness of your offending, your culpability for it and to your personal circumstances. I must also seek to ensure as far as possible that you are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
55In formulating the sentence in this case, I have had regard to the totality principle which requires me to ensure that your overall sentence remained just and appropriate for the whole of your offending. I have moderated the orders for cumulation to the extent necessary to give effect to the principle of totality. In arriving at the orders for cumulation I have also had regard to the overlap between Charges 1 and 3 and the close connection in time and circumstance between Charge 4 and Charge 3.
Sentence
56Balancing as best as I can, Mr Stanton, I have arrived at the following sentences in your case.
57On Charge 1, knowingly dealing in proceeds of crime, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of 14 months. On Charge 2, possession of a drug of dependence, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of seven days. On Charge 3, trafficking in a commercial quantity, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of three years and one month. On Charge 4, trafficking, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of 12 months. On Summary Charge 8, the unlicensed driving, I impose a fine of $250.
58Charge 3 is the base sentence. I order that four months on the sentence of Charge 1. Two months on the sentence for Charge 4 are to be made cumulative on the sentence of Charge 3 and on each other. This makes a total effective sentence of three years and seven months. Does that add up? I think it does.
59I order that, Mr Stanton, you are to serve a non-parole period of two years and three months. I declare that 309 days of pre-sentence detention shall be deducted from the sentence that I have imposed pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act. This will be entered into the records of the court.
60In relation to the unlicensed driving I order that you are cancelled and disqualified from obtaining a further licence for a period of six months. Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act the total effective sentence I would have imposed but for the plea of guilty is five years and two months with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. Can I just check that the maths adds up?
61MR TERRY: Yes, Your Honour. But can I just check, the audio was reasonable, but I just want to make sure that I heard everything right.
62HIS HONOUR: Yes.
63MR TERRY: Charge 1, 18 months?
64HIS HONOUR: No, 14.
65MR TERRY: Charge 2 ‑ ‑ ‑
66HIS HONOUR: Charge 2 - I'll read it again, Mr Terry. Charge 2, seven days and that's concurrent. Charge 3, three years and one month.
67MR TERRY: Yes, correct.
68HIS HONOUR: You got that?
69MR TERRY: Yes.
70HIS HONOUR: Charge 4, 12 months.
71MR TERRY: Yes.
72HIS HONOUR: I have cumulated four months on Charge 1 and two months on Charge 4, making three years and seven months. I fix a non-parole period ‑ ‑ ‑
73MR TERRY: Yes.
74HIS HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ of two years and three months.
75MR TERRY: That all seemed to work out to me, Your Honour.
76HIS HONOUR: Yes. And I fine Mr Stanton $250 on the unlicensed driving and he's disqualified - and I ha e cancelled his licence and he is disqualified for a period of six months.
77MR TERRY: Yes, I've got all that, Your Honour.
78HIS HONOUR: And the 6AAA is five years, two months with three years and eight months. Now, just let me have a look at the orders here.
79MS FALLAR: Before Your Honour moves there, can I just confirm some - on Charge 8, unlicensed driving, that's with conviction a monetary penalty
of ‑ ‑ ‑80HIS HONOUR: With conviction, yes. Yes, sorry, I should have said that. All right. So, I've got a forfeiture order for $80, is that right?
81MR TERRY: Yes. No issue with that, Your Honour.
82HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, I'll make the forfeiture order for $80. Then there are some issues about the two iPhones and what is it, the jumper, did you say? The motorcycle - the black Finks jumper.
83MR TERRY: Yes.
84HIS HONOUR: All right. You want to get some instructions on all that, Ms Fallar?
85MS FALLAR: I do, Your Honour. Particularly there are a number of mobile phones, which particular mobile it is, so as a matter of fairness it would be appropriate for depends in the prosecution - defence to indicate which - exactly what mobile it is. Because all he says - so they're essentially objecting to 5, 6 and 8. We just need to know which iPhone it is and of course under the Confiscation Act if it is used, intended to be used in connection with, all these matters should have been dealt with outside court. But it didn't happen, so we will be seeking, if it is acceptable to Your Honour and my
learned ‑ ‑ ‑86HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. Well, that's fine. Whenever it should have been dealt with, I don't care really. But what do you want to do? Do you want to do it by email, or do you want to reconvene at some point?
87MR TERRY: Your Honour, can I suggest that I think the parties are going to work this out by agreement and email Your Honour that agreement. Essentially my client had another phone that was a personal phone and that's really the substance of this matter.
88HIS HONOUR: Well, how about you two have a discussion and then if you email my associate if there's an agreed order then I'll just make that order in chambers.
89MR TERRY: I'm happy with that.
90HIS HONOUR: Is that satisfactory, Ms Fallar?
91MS FALLAR: Because that's what I'm about to say, is we could do that and have the order done in chambers.
92HIS HONOUR: All right. Mr Stanton, did you hear all of that?
93OFFENDER: Yes, I did, Your Honour.
94HIS HONOUR: Nothing further?
95MS FALLAR: No, Your Honour.
96MR TERRY: If I could just have one minute with Mr Stanton ‑ ‑ ‑
97HIS HONOUR: We can leave the link on. All right, thank you both for your assistance in this matter. Thanks, Ms Fallar, thanks, Mr Terry.
98COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honour.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
4
0