Director of Public Prosecutions v Stewart, Rebekah Emily
[2017] VCC 390
•3 April 2017
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| GENERAL LIST |
Case No. CR-17-00070
Indictment No. G10879971
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| REBEKAH EMILY STEWART |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCINERNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Ballarat |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 29 March 2017 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 April 2017 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v STEWART, Rebekah Emily |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VCC 390 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – drive in a manner dangerous causing serious injury – failing to stop and render assistance following an accident – drive whilst disqualified – use unregistered motor vehicle – plea of guilty
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958, s319(1A); Road Safety Act 1986, s7(1)(a), s31, s61; s61(6); Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s145(A); Sentencing Act 1991, s89(3)
Cases Cited:Wassef v R [2011] VSCA 30; Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447; Tokay v R [2014] VSCA 172; Tang v R [2013] VSCA 31; Sarikaya v R [2015] VSCA 236; Nguyen v R [2014] VSCA 53; Stephens v R [2016] VSCA 121; Miller v R [2012] VSCA 265; Hasan v R (2010) 31 VR 28
Sentence:Total effective sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years. Section 6AAA declaration: Conviction and sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr P Bourke (plea hearing) Mr M Senia (sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr P Dunn QC (plea hearing) Ms K Ballard (sentence) | Doogue O’Brien George Pty Ltd |
HIS HONOUR:
1Rebekah Stewart, born on the 19th day of June 1992, who was 23 at the time of the accident and is now 24, appeared before this Court having pleaded guilty to two charges in Indictment G10879971. Mr Bourke appeared for the Director and Mr Senia appears today. Mr Dunn of Her Majesty's Counsel appeared on behalf of Ms Stewart and Ms Ballard appears today.
2The first of the charges was dangerous driving causing serious injury, an offence against s319(1A) of the Crimes Act 1958. That injury was caused on the 25th day of March 2016, and the immediate victim was Christian Ashby. The maximum penalty proscribed for such an offence is five years’ gaol.
3The second charge was one of fail to stop after the accident. The maximum penalty proscribed by Parliament for an offence against s61 of the Road Safety Act 1986 is a period of ten years’ gaol.
4In addition, I was asked by Ms Stewart’s counsel, pursuant to the provisions of s145(A) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, to take into account two summary offences for which she pleaded guilty through her counsel. The first was one of drive while disqualified, which is an offence against s30(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986. In this instance, being a second offence, the maximum penalty was 230 penalty units or two years’ gaol, and summary charge 6, being use unregistered vehicle, an offence against s7(1)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986, for which the maximum penalty, a first offence, is 25 penalty units.
5The circumstance of these particular offences are detailed in exhibit A, which is the Prosecution Opening. They are accepted by Mr Dunn as the facts upon which I am to sentence Ms Stewart.
6During the plea, the word “catastrophe” was used. It is a most apt word to describe the consequences of this accident in regard to all parties involved.
7The circumstances of these crimes are appalling, for no apparent reason on the depositions. There was a subsequent admission, through her counsel, that Ms Stewart had been consuming ice or amphetamines that night. Ms Stewart, at approximately 6.22am on that night, after rounding a bend east of the collision scene in Wendouree Parade, Wendouree, drove in a westerly direction fully onto the wrong lane. She proceeded approximately seven-and-a-half metres upon what was a straight, divided and well-lit section of Wendouree Parade. She then collided head on with Mr Ashby, who was riding his bicycle in an easterly direction. From the reconstructed plan, exhibit D, it would appear that Mr Ashby was on the eastern portion of the roadway. In Mr Ashby's statement, he has no memory of the accident, see page 40 of the depositions.
8Ms Stewart made a “no comment” record of interview. In the plea, while she has pleaded guilty to both charges, and through her counsel, specifically admits having been aware she was a party to the collision before fleeing, there are, in fact, no further specifics as to causation. As I have said, there appears to be no other explanation but the fact of her consumption of ice during that night prior to the happening of this accident.
9The dangerousness of her driving is demonstrated as follows:
·Firstly, by driving a car while affected by drugs, which was admitted by her counsel in this plea.
·Secondly, being fully on the wrong side of the road at the point of collision at a proximate point of 215 Wendouree Parade.
·Thirdly, by failing to keep a proper lookout.
·Fourthly, for failing to see the approaching bike. Exhibit F, which is the CCTV footage, albeit limited, provides both a confronting and dramatic demonstration of what happened on that morning. Mr Ashby approaches the collision scene with his headlight lighting the roadway, and the light on his helmet clearly visible.
·Fifthly, there is no evidence that Ms Stewart’s lights were not operating. She was last seen, before the accident, in Mount Pleasant with her lights on, see page 44 of the depositions. A person who saw that car in Wendouree Parade, before the accident, that is Angela Guy (page 53 of the depositions), and then, after the accident, Mr Miles (page 56 of the depositions), does not suggest the lights were off. Indeed the CCTV footage, exhibit F, demonstrates her lights were on, see paragraph 10, exhibit A, of the Opening.
10Whatever the precise cause, the consequences of this criminality were horrific. I refer in this instance to paragraph 29 of exhibit A, and the police statement of
Dr Vu, at page 41 of the depositions, reporting treatment in the Emergency Department of the Royal Melbourne Hospital of Mr Ashby, Mr Ashby having been transferred by helicopter from the Ballarat Base Hospital.11The diagnoses for this 36-year-old man as a result of what is described in the medical records of “multi trauma” were as follows:
·Bilateral pneumothoraces.
·Small right haemothorax.
·Right rib, four to twelve fractures.
·Right comminuted scapular fracture.
·T7 vertebral body fracture.
·T11 spinous process fracture.
·L4 spinous process fracture.
·Right iliac fracture.
·Right acetabular fracture.
·Right superior pubic rami fracture.
·Right renal vascular pedicle injury with devascularisation of the kidney.
·Large right retroperitoneal haematoma.
·Right adrenal contusion.
·Small liver contusion.
·Right open tibia fibular fracture with knee lipohaemarthrosis.
·Left metacarpal, 2 to 5 fractures.
·Left metacarpophalangeal, 2 to 4 dislocations and subluxations, which were open.
·Multiple lacerations to bilateral tibia, left hand, toes, face and left forearm.
·Urethral injury.
12Further diagnoses during the course of treatment, and his admission, included malnutrition, plural effusion, hospital acquired pneumonia and delirium.
13I will not detail all of the treatment, suffice to say there were ten major procedures or operations conducted upon Mr Ashby by plastic, orthopaedic, urological and vascular surgeons. The patient was discharged to inpatient rehabilitation at the Epworth Hospital on the 29th day of April 2016, a little over a month after the accident. He was re-admitted subsequently for further elective K-wire repair of his chronic volar dislocation of the left third metacarpophalangeal joint. The following was the medical opinion; it is an understatement, to say the least:
“The nature and extent of Mr Ashby’s injuries would be consistent with a significant blunt trauma, such as having been struck by a motor vehicle while a pushbike rider.”
14That opinion has to be seen in context of the range of injuries that hospitals have to treat.
15Of course there is another side to understanding the physical and mental devastation caused to Mr Ashby, his family and friends that is provided by the victim impact statements, that this Court has heard and read.
16Exhibit G1 was that of Mr Ashby. It was read to the Court. It comprised 12 pages and took Mr Ashby 49 minutes to read. Rarely does a Court get such a detailed picture of the results of a crime. Indeed, as was remarked by Mr Dunn, such was also his opinion, even given his extensive experience. These crimes resulted in chronic pain and ongoing disability which remains today. The description from Mr Ashby in particular, is summarised as to when he was in hospital (at page 11) as being in a “bubble of trauma and injury”.
17I found the statement moving, stoic, pragmatic and realistic. While Mr Ashby was close to death on a number of occasions, he has realistically acknowledged the joys of being alive to enjoy his life and family. Albeit accepting the reality that his life has been dramatically altered, he is not without rancour for, as he said at page 7, “It was totally unfair” as his injuries were brought about “totally by the actions of another” to which he made no contribution whatsoever, apart from pursuing his exercise regime that morning.
18Exhibit G2 is the victim impact statement of Mr Ashby’s wife, Karen, and that encompassed some seven pages. She spoke of, to use her words, “the nightmare of uncertainty” she endured while her husband was in hospital, and the catastrophic nature of the changes wrought to her family. Again, there is some rancour expressed as to the manner of the offending and the consequences wrought to her husband’s lifestyle. I accept her assessment that had her husband not been so fit, he would have died. She also refers to the financial impact of this accident upon the family, much of which can never be compensated for. She also spoke, in emotional terms, of the day-to-day effects of the brain injury upon her husband and its impact upon the man that she knew before that accident.
19As to the balance of the fourteen statements, exhibit G3-16, I have re-read each of them. They are encompassed, as I have remarked, in the statement made by Mr Fred Reus, Mr Ashby's father-in-law, which was exhibit G9. At page 1 of his statement, he said this:
“Our nightmare started with a phone call at 6.30 am on Good Friday 2016 and has haunted us every day and night since.”
20May I repeat my thanks to Mr Ashby’s family for the manner in which they have behaved during this plea.
21This is clearly a most serious example of this offence, and I assess the objective culpability at the level of between mid-range to high.
22Coming then to the second charge, the maximum penalty for this offence is ten years’ imprisonment. The circumstances of aggravation of this offence are as follows:
(i)Mr Ashby was left on the road in the dark at 6.22am, at a severe risk of death and/or being further severely injured by another vehicle.
(ii)Ms Stewart’s flight from the scene, while potentially explicable as panic, was thereafter exacerbated by the steps she took to hide and conceal her role and that of her car. The car was hidden, the bonnet was dismantled and the car was covered with a tarpaulin. Thereafter, she told a false story to the persons who assisted her. She fled to Melbourne after being advised by her friends to go to the police. Finally, she was arrested in Melbourne on 31 March 2015, some six days after the accident.
23Returning to the victim left at the scene and the actual risks he was in, he was apparently on his back and shortly developed severe breathing issues.
As I say, it was dark and he was precariously located on the road, on the eastbound portion, but partially on the eastbound cycle lane as well.
From reading the depositions, and the statement of Mr Ashby, it is clear that but for the actions of Carol Brown, Angela Guy and Craig Miles, Mr Ashby may have died at the scene. I would like to publicly commend those three people; that is, Carol Brown, Angela Guy and Craig Miles, on behalf of the community for their actions on that morning. Such actions, of course, are in grave contrast to the actions taken by Ms Stewart, and but for those actions of those three people, Ms Stewart may today have been facing more serious charges involving the death of Mr Ashby.24The Learned Prosecutor, in order to assist the Court in assessing culpability, took me to a number of related authorities. I refer in particular to the case of Wassef v R [2011] VSCA 30. At [26], the Court of Appeal noted the increase in the maximum penalty for this offence brought in by Parliament in June 2005 from the then existing two years, to ten years. The Court of Appeal noted the Second Reading Speech, where the relevant Minister said this:
“The Victorian community has been rightfully concerned about recent cases where drivers have left the scene of an accident in which a person has been killed or seriously injured without rendering assistance. Failing to stop in these circumstances is a despicable and cowardly act. The Bracks government has listened to community concerns about this very serious issue, and as a result the penalties for drivers involved in an accident in which a person is killed or seriously injured who fail to stop and render assistance will be substantially increased.
The maximum penalty of ten years’ jail …
… will help to ensure that a person who suspects that he or she may be charged with one or other of these offences [of dangerous driving or culpable driving for example] will no longer have an incentive to escape from the scene.”
25In regard to drivers who act in an inhumane way, the Court of Appeal said:
“Drivers who, in breach of their duty, depart the scene of an accident in circumstances where it is likely to be inferred that they did so to avoid the consequences of unlawful conduct, cannot expect that the Courts will give weight to exculpatory explanations for why they have done so which are proffered after the event. They must expect the imposition of substantial terms of imprisonment.”
26To give Ms Stewart her due, she has not come to this Court, nor did she offer any such explanation. She has, indeed, experienced remorse and disbelief as to her actions, and through her counsel, advised the Court that she accepts that she was aware of the accident and of hitting Mr Ashby and decamped to avoid the consequences of same.
27There is a further matter to take into account in regard of this offence and that concerns her prior offences. At the time she committed this offence she was serving a suspended sentence imposed on 18 June 2015, by the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, for a number of driving offences. In particular, following an accident, leaving the scene of the accident and failing to give appropriate information insofar as property damage was concerned and failing to exchange a name and address. While not as serious as the indictable offence she faces here, clearly, they are relevant priors.
28This also is a most serious example of this particular crime. On the second charge, I assess the culpability as being at the higher end of the range of mid to serious.
29As to both assessments, see Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447 at 452.
30In referring the prior offences of Ms Stewart, I also note that in June 2015, she had two convictions for careless driving, in February 2014, she had a conviction for fail an oral drug test and in December 2012, she had a traffic infringement notice for exceed .05 while on her probationary license.
31As to the authorities, I note the Prosecutor also supplied the Court with the cases of Tokay v R [2014] VSCA 172, Tang v R [2013] VSCA 31, Sarikaya v R [2015] VSCA 236, Duy Thai Nguyen v R [2014] VSCA 53, Stephens v R [2016] VSCA 121 and Miller v R [2012] VSCA 265. As observed in Hasan v R (2010) 31 VR 28, [44]-[49] by the Court of Appeal, such cases inform the Court in its deliberations. However, in the end it is the totality of the circumstance in this particular case which must be addressed in this sentence, the role of such cases is therefore limited.
32Mr Dunn accepted that those authorities provided to the Court were appropriate. Clearly, general deterrence, specific deterrence and punishment must be weighed heavily in consideration of the sentence, as does consideration of the maximum penalties imposed.
33A Judge, of course, must always be careful not to be overwhelmed in sentencing, by the degree of injury suffered by Mr Ashby, or the genuine public disquiet expressed in the City of Ballarat over these crimes. However, the Parliament, also requires the Courts, not only to take account of the matters that I have detailed, but to take into account the subjective factors relevant to Ms Stewart. In particular her age, her lack of any indictable priors, despite her driving record that I have referred to. Certainly, she has never committed crimes of this dimension. That is, the crimes she has committed were traffic, albeit relevant. Given her age, also as put by Mr Dunn, the factor of rehabilitation is a matter of importance, as are all the factors enumerated by the Parliament in s5 and s6 of the Sentencing Act 1991.
34I come now to the plea conducted by Mr Dunn which, if I may say so, was realistic. Albeit the pleas of guilty, he acknowledged that there was no alternative in the circumstance but for an immediate prison sentence for
Ms Stewart. Mr Dunn stressed the following matters.35Firstly, her plea of guilty. He asked me to accept, and I do, that such is indicative of her remorse. I do so, albeit understanding her initial flight, as I have detailed. He stressed that her plea of guilty was of assistance to the justice system and the victims. There has been no need for them to be subject to the rigours of a trial. Suffice, I suppose, to be subject to the rigours of this plea, but at any rate that is a positive.
36Justice has also been effected in quite a short timeframe. That is, this matter has been finalised approximately twelve months from the time that it happened.
37I have referred to the assistance provided at the plea when
Mr Dunn, on behalf of Ms Stewart, firstly, accepted that Ms Stewart had been consuming ice in the evening before driving that morning; secondly, that when she left the scene, she was aware the accident had occurred and had taken flight to avoid the consequences.38In this light, a letter of apology was apparently drafted by Ms Stewart in October of last year, and has now been given to the victim, exhibit 5, as was the letter tendered to the Court and read by myself, exhibit 6. The thoughts expressed therein I find to be genuine and reflect an acceptance of her guilt.
39The second matter referred to by Mr Dunn was to ask the Court to appreciate Ms Stewart’s lifestyle at the time. The prior offences that I have detailed and the report of Dr Crewdson as to her drug taking history, as set out in exhibit 3, page 14, and the chronology, exhibit 1, and his conclusion as a doctor, demonstrate that, as Mr Dunn said, “Here was an accident waiting to happen”. The unfortunate thing, of course, was that Mr Ashby, unfortunately, was the victim.
40The third matter Mr Dunn stressed was Ms Stewart’s attempts at rehabilitation. As I said, in these circumstances, and accepting her imminent gaoling, if understanding of what she had done and of the lifestyle that led her to that, does not lead her to change her life, then nothing will. However, Dr Crewdson says, in his report at page 23, that the enormity of the situation has, indeed, provided motivation for her to change in the months that he has worked with her and he is aware of her increasing level of maturity and effective social re-organisation. He concludes, “She has a solid basis for the future”.
41In this regard I point out that apparently she has seen Dr Crewdson on 34 occasions over the eight-month period. However, of course, the Court is aware, and it has to be acknowledged that albeit she has been drug free for ten months, one realistically understands that such is only the start of her rehabilitation. Further, the steps she has taken since being an inpatient were confirmed by the drug screens, exhibit 7.
42The Court also had the letter from Peter Harvey who was a director of the organisation where she was treated, Refocus, exhibit 4. Ms Stewart was treated for a substance use disorder, was an inpatient for five months, subject to lawful direction and urine sampling while so located. While he is a supporter, Mr Harvey notes the reality of her struggle, and considers that she has put down a firm basis, especially by the way she has continued her ongoing, outpatient attendance and with her attendance with Narcotics Anonymous.
43Mr Daly also gave oral evidence to the Court. He is the manager of Refocus. He confirmed, in this opinion, Ms Stewart's excellent response to the program and her high motivation to change. He noted that since having her bail varied to live with her sister, Jessica, her consistent progress, and he further noted her ongoing urine samples, having being released from the inpatient program.
44Ms Stewart’s sister, Jessica, gave evidence to the Court. Such evidence was impressive. She is an intensive care nurse. She confirmed the family history given to me, and the ignorance of the family, in particular herself, of the state her sister was in with drugs. The facts of which the family, and herself, were not aware until the start of 2016, shortly before Ms Stewart moved to Queensland. As I have said, since being bailed, Ms Stewart has lived with her sister.
45Jessica gave sworn evidence to the effect that Ms Stewart has maintained the changes in her life. That she has regulated her life. That she has demonstrated true remorse and is effecting rehabilitation. That she consistently indicates that she cannot believe that she had been involved in such serious criminality. Jessica finally said to the Court that “you can’t compare the two persons”. That is the person that she was aware of at the beginning of 2016 and the person now, who has tried to effect rehabilitation.
46As I have indicated, Ms Stewart has strong family support, as evidenced by the presence of her mother, father and siblings at this Court. They, of course, could not have been aware of the reaction in this City to the crimes of their daughter and sister.
47Mr Dunn stressed that since Ms Stewart obtained release from the inpatient treatment, and indeed since being granted bail, there has been no further offending and she has abided by all conditions of her bail.
48The fourth matter that Mr Dunn stressed was the relative young age of
Ms Stewart. As I said, she is now 24. She was 23 at the date of the accident. Mr Dunn submitted, as a matter of law, the Court must give significant weight to Mr Stewart’s rehabilitation, and I accept that. He stressed the strong support of her family. Mr Dunn submitted, on the evidence before the Court, that I should accept that Ms Stewart has demonstrated real contrition for her crimes and the injuries that she wrought to Mr Ashby.49Coming then to disposition. Both counsel were as one, that the only sentence applicable is immediate gaol for Ms Stewart. Mr Dunn, having said to the Court that, given the seriousness of these crimes, there is “a price to be paid”. I note, albeit that there was a reference in the written submission given to the Court prepared by Mr Dunn, exhibit 1 at paragraph 7.5, that the Court should consider a community correction order, such was not pursued at the plea. Mr Dunn submitted that the Court can support the genuine rehabilitation by his client by a shorter than usual period of parole.
50The balancing of the various factors in this matter has been, I might say, exquisite. In particular in having to take into account the current sentencing practice as identified in the cases that I have been referred to and, of course, the principle of totality.
51Ms Stewart, as you would now have heard, I have considered all the material and the submissions made to me. It gives the Court no joy to send a young woman of the age of 24 years to gaol. However, as your counsel conceded, and the circumstance demonstrate, there is no alternative. Would you stand please?
52You will be convicted of all charges.
53For the offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury to Christian Ashby on 25 March 2016, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of three-and-a-half (3½) years.
54Secondly, for the offence of failing to stop after an accident, a period of imprisonment of four (4) years.
55I order that the sentence on Charge 2 be the base sentence, that is four years, and that two years of the sentence imposed for Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon that base sentence. That therefore makes a total effective sentence for you to serve of six (6) years. I order that you be eligible for parole after the service of four (4) years’ gaol.
56As to the summary offences:
57On Charge 5, I sentence you to a period of four (4) months’ imprisonment.
58On Charge 6, which was a penalty unit matter, I impose a fine of $1000 which effectively connotes to 7 penalty units. Given the penalties imposed on you, I will give you a stay of five years to pay that fine.
59I note that you have already served 43 days by way of pre-sentence detention which I declare to be part of this sentence and that a notation be entered in the records of this Court of such declaration.
60Ms Stewart, Parliament requires me to state to you what sentence you would have received had you not pleaded guilty. Such is somewhat artificial, as it relates to only one of the multifarious factors that the Court has had to take into account in your sentence. However, doing as best I can, had you not pleaded guilty, the sentence you would have faced would not have been six years with a minimum of four, but eight years with a minimum of five years and four months. Hence you can see demonstrated in real terms, the benefit of your plea of guilty.
61I am also required by Parliament to impose sanctions upon your capacity to drive. Pursuant to s89(3) of the Sentencing Act, in regard to the first charge, you will be disqualified from obtaining a license for a period of eighteen (18) months. However, under the Road Safety Act, pursuant to s61(6) of that Act, you will be disqualified for the period described by that section, that is by Parliament not by this Court, for a period of four (4) years from becoming licensed.
62In lay terms, therefore, so that you understand after all of those sentencing remarks, you have been sentenced to a total maximum penalty, for all of these crimes, of six years for which you must serve a minimum period of four years before you are eligible for parole. Just take a seat. Is there anything counsel want me to clarify about any of these matters?
63Mr BALLARD: Your Honour, the only matter that I’d raise is that my understanding was the pre-sentence detention was at 43 days.
64HIS HONOUR: Forty-three was it? I am sorry.
65Mr BALLARD: Thank you, Your Honour, that’s all.
66HIS HONOUR: An extra - what it was ‑ ‑ ‑
67Mr BALLARD: I understand the prosecution ‑ ‑ ‑
68Mr SENIA: It wasn’t 42, we agree it’s 43, Your Honour.
69HIS HONOUR: It was 42 at the plea. It would be more than 43, would it not?
70Mr SENIA: No, because the accused was bailed.
71HIS HONOUR: Of course, of course, 43 at the plea.
72Mr SENIA: Yes, Your Honour.
73HIS HONOUR: Yes.
74Mr BALLARD: That’s the only matter.
75HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
76Mr SENIA: Your Honour, just one issue that perhaps I’d seek to clarify, that’s in relation to the disqualification period on Charge 2. If we look at section ‑ ‑ ‑
77HIS HONOUR: Section 61(6) isn’t it?
78Mr SENIA: Yes it is, 61(6)(b), Your Honour, in the case of a subsequent offence, the minimum period is eight years.
79HIS HONOUR: But it’s not a subsequent offence of this matter.
80Mr SENIA: But if one looks at sub-s.(7) it appears that the ‑ ‑ ‑
81HIS HONOUR: Just wait, (indistinct) up. Yes it appears to be that’s what Parliament intended. I just missed that, I must say.
82Mr SENIA: Yes. So the prior, Your Honour, is the leaving the scene of an accident on 18 June 2015.
83HIS HONOUR: Yes, see albeit there’s a – one’s an indictable offence and one’s not.
84Mr SENIA: Yes.
85HIS HONOUR: Yes, so it appears to be the clear reading. So I do apologise. The loss of license, as recorded by Parliament is in fact eight years and not four years.
86Mr SENIA: Thank you, Your Honour.
87HIS HONOUR: Yes. No other matters?
88Mr BALLARD: No, Your Honour.
89Mr SENIA: No, Your Honour.
90HIS HONOUR: Yes, the prisoner can be taken away. Yes, Mr Tipstaff.
- - -
0
9
0