Director of Public Prosecutions v Suarez (a pseudonym)
[2022] VCC 560
•27 April 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| LUIS SUAREZ (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE GUCCIARDO |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 9 March 2022 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 27 April 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Suarez (a pseudonym) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 560 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal law – Sentence upon plea of guilty.
Catchwords: Possess and access child abuse material - Difficult childhood with abuse
of alcohol and inhalants - autism spectrum disorder and antisocial
personality disorder - Early plea of guilty during Covid-19 - Serious
sexual offender – Guarded prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Sex Offenders Registration Act2004.
Cases Cited: Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 17 months imprisonment with a non-parole
period of 11 months. Sex Offender Registration for life.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the DPP | Mr A. Moore | Office Of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Ms O. Thompson | Victorian Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
1Luis SUAREZ[1], you pleaded guilty to one charge of accessing child abuse material and two charges of possessed child abuse material. The circumstances of your offending were summarised in an opening by the prosecution which was exhibited. An outline of these matters is taken from that agreed summary.
[1] A pseudonym.
2You were 20 years old at the time of the offences and are now 21 years of age. You were living alone at the time in Bendigo. In December 2020, a search warrant was executed at your home. You were present during that search. Police seized 10 electronic devices from the home, including computers used, USB drive, memory cards, external hard drives, a tablet laptop and a phone.
3Victoria Police E-Crime analysed the material and that examination revealed that you had accessed child abuse material from the so-called 'dark web' through file-sharing. You had downloaded files on to various devices mentioned above and had viewed them – Charge 1. You had downloaded the files on to your devices – some 6,285 such files depicted child abuse material – Charge 2.
4A table of the number of files on each device seized is contained in the prosecution opening of paragraph 9. In broad terms, there were 4,091 images which included some 41 duplicates and 2,194 videos with 21 duplicates thereof. Included in this material is a story by way of Notes which was held in a password-protected section on your phone. It details sexual interactions between teenage boys between 11 and 12. The narrative – which included descriptions and references to oral and anal sex and masturbation – had been created on 7 December 2017, last modified on 2 October 2020, and was in your possession at the date of the search.
5This was also part of Charge 2. Some three weeks after the search at your home on 23 December 2020, police again searched it, you were present when police seized six further devices. These were again analysed after your arrest on that day, and it was determined that one of them - namely an ASUS laptop computer - contained three images of child abuse material, which had been downloaded on to that device after the first police search. That particular ASUS laptop had, in fact, been purchased by you after the first search. This material was the subject of Charge 3.
6At the time that the material was categorised by police, I note that the applicable categorisation regime involved rating – on a scale of 1 to 4, without further qualitative information. The court was informed by this by the prosecution together with defence after the plea after a query by the court during the plea. It is the stated position of both the prosecution and defence that the sentence of the court proceed on the basis of the descriptions contained the prosecution opening. That is that the majority of the child abuse seized on both occasions involved boys aged between four and 15 years of age.
7Many of these files depicted boys performing acts of solo masturbation. Several video and image files depicted boys between the age of two and five who were being sexual penetrated by adult men or having sexual acts performed on them by adult women or other toddler children.
8Examples were described in paragraph 19 of the prosecution opening in some detail, such as an adult man anally penetrating a boy no older than 1 years of age and an adult woman inserting a boy aged between two to five, inserting his penis in her vagina, as well as multiple videos of images and images of boys between the ages of 5 and 10 performing oral sex on adult males.
9Other videos showed a young girl masturbating with a dildo and later being penetrated by an adult man. In another video, a blindfolded young girl younger than 10 years of age was seen to be passed from one adult woman to another who performed sex acts on her and then to a male who penetrated her orally while the girl is crying.
10This was not the file depicted overt distress – but was more limited in number. There were also files depicted bestiality involving young girls performing sexual acts on dogs and teenage boys penetrating dogs with their penis. Several images purported to depict newborn with semen on their faces – although such images were fewer in number than the categories described in the prosecution opening at paragraph 17 to 19.
11The police interviewed you and you admitted being the owner of all the devices seized. You were the only person with access to these and their respective passwords. You provided many passwords to police. After making no comment as to the possession of files, you then made admission as to that aspect. You admitted that the reason for this possession was that you were sexually aroused by them. Though you specified that this referred to 10 to
14-year-olds – not infants - and that you had felt this way since you were aged 14.12Your reason for possessing files which depicted very young children was that the files 'came together' bundled, as it were, with other files being downloaded. You said you were a bit disgusted by images of children under seven or six years.
13You told police you discovered websites from which to download material when you were aged about 15 but denied you had done so after the execution of the first warrant. You said you would view downloaded child abuse material a few times a week and that you had written a story in which children engaged in sexual activity, which was stored on your phone. You claim that whilst some videos stored on your devices showed children crying and forced into sexual activities, these videos made you 'go queasy'.
14Accessing child abuse material each carry maximum sentences of 10 years imprisonment. By these maximum penalties, the legislators have indicated the gravity with which the law and the community view such offences. It is the first guidepost which I consider in the sentencing exercise. Possession of and access to child abuse material are an integral part of an abhorrent visual market, which, at its core, has real victims – young children who are subjected to unspeakable and abominable acts for the sexual gratification of those who access and possess such violent material.
15It is abhorrent and repulsive conduct, which even – if it does not involve its production or dissemination – is the end point to usage for this material and forms an essential component of its reason for being.
16The law must deter every aspect related to this material, must appropriately denounce the conduct related to it. Must adequately punish this conduct and send an unequivocal message that such offending is utterly unacceptable.
17It was accepted in the course of the plea that your offending was serious. In assessing the objective gravity of your offending, I take into account the significant number of files depicted child abuse material found on 10 devices, the description of some of the material you possessed is clearly high-end abuse material. Several, which you had accessed and view.
18Most of the devices were password-protected and saved in what were effectively hidden files. Your offending is aggravated in relation to Charge 3 by the contumacious nature of your conduct in possessing child abuse material which you had downloaded after police conducted the first search on
7 December on a laptop you had purchased after that first search.19Even though on that occasion the device contained only three images depicting child abuse material, in my view, this conduct is rendered worse by its timing and is an indication that you remained undeterred even in the face of discovery by police only three weeks earlier – which brings into sharp focus the need for specific deterrence to be prominent in this sentencing disposition.
20When interviewed by police, you denied accessing the material since the first search because you had a realisation that it would 'still be traceable'. I found that answer somewhat disingenuous. However, I note that the indictment only alleges in relation to the charge of access between the dates of 11 July 2018 to 7 December 2020 and not beyond. And that only possession is charged in relation to 23 December 2020, and it is on that basis alone that I sentence you. It is therefore your possession that is aggravated in relation to Charge 3.
21It was submitted during the plea that your offending was not sophisticated by reference to not seeking to profit from circulating the images and videos. However, sophistication is not simply to be defined or primarily determined by the issue of profiteering. It was said that 'the offending was not shared with others'. It was meant by this that you have not shared the images with others.
22However, on the other hand, others had shared it with you upon your intent. You told police of a number of file-sharing sites you used to download. You told police you had begun to download this material when you were 14 and 15, and you Snapchat account was suspended for sending photos of yourself and your genitals to children. You started sending and watching videos regularly of you yourself playing with yourself and got videos back.
23I mention these matters not because they form part of your offending or because they aggravate it. But rather, in recounting your background and circumstances of your involvement with digital technology, which your offending involved, demonstrating the level of sophistication and proficiency which you have related to the offending.
24I take your plea into account, you indicated an intention to plead guilty during the committal mention at the Magistrates' Court. This was the earliest available opportunity and the timing of the plea will reduce your sentence. I accept that you cooperated ultimately with the investigation by providing answers in a long interview in which you made admissions and provided the police with many passwords to the devices involved.
25I accept that the plea is some evidence of remorse. However, given your explanations as to your offending and to those who have assessed your state of mind, I am unable to be satisfied of the fullness of that remorse. Remorse is often a difficult sentiment of which to be fully satisfied without some clear expression or evidence. This lack of satisfaction as to remorse is strengthened by some answers in the interview.
26At p113 where you told police you studied psychology and that you ‘know what it does to a child'. But that you 'do not want to be sort of responsible for that, like, directly' because 'all these videos and that are already out there so it has already happened'. This is demonstrative of a lack of insight and understanding as to the real impact of the possession and access to child abuse material.
27This admission as to a remorseful plea was accompanied by a submission of your insight into the effect of your offending. I have stated my view as to both these aspects. Although you stated to a psychologist that without anyone viewing the material it would not be made in the first place, in my view this does not demonstrate your insight and your remorse beyond a practical understanding of the causal connection between its production and its access. A point I have already made myself.
28Your plea, however, carried a utilitarian component of value in that it has avoided a criminal trial. It was also made at a time when the prevailing pandemic has severely impacted the delivery of justice outcomes and bringing this matter to finality is another useful aspect. The importance and value of that – particularly when the plea is made in the face of the possibility of incarceration, and at a time when correctional services have been severely impacted by COVID-19 – is clearly to be given palpable and demonstrable weight per Worboyes.
29All aspects of reclusion have been impacted from services to programs, transfers, the use of isolation and quarantine visits and recreation. You have been in presentence detention during this period, so I take the situation as described into account in relation to that period and in assessing an appropriate reduction of the sentence upon your plea.
30I take into account your personal circumstances and complex mental health considerations, which were said to present the court with a difficult sentencing task. You are 21 years of age and you were 20 at the time of the offending. You have a younger brother and two half-siblings from your stepmother's previous marriage. Your parents divorced when you were aged eight and you initially lived with your mother.
31She re-partnered when you were 12 and you suffered physical abuse at the hands of your mother's new partner until your father took custody of you. Your father eventually remarried a woman who had two children of her own. Apart from two months when you lived with your grandparents, you lived with your father until your stepmother took out a family violence intervention order after you threatened to burn down their house.
32When you were living at your grandparents', you committed a number of offences, was remanded, and eventually, you were sentenced to a youth training centre detention. I shall return to these priors in a moment.
33Three very comprehensive psychological reports were tendered to the court, and I need to refer to them in some detail. The first was dated
30 November 2019 by Laura Fleming. This report was prepared in relation to four sets of charges over offending committed between December 2018 to September 2019. I will return to the details of these in a moment.34The second report was from Dr Jones of Forensicare, psychiatric registrar, and Dr David Thomas, consultant psychologist, dated January 2020, produced at the court's request – that is the Magistrates' Court – in relation to the charges I have just mentioned.
35The third is another report of Laura Fleming, a forensic psychologist, dated
1 February 2022, which is an updated an assessment since your release from youth detention in April 2020. I have read and considered the very detailed report and opinions contained therein. They cover some 36 pages in total. I will summarise each report in brief.36Ms Fleming's first report covers your family and personal history and notes that your initial remand was at the MRC where others stood over you for your nicotine patch. You were not physically assaulted but had been threatened. Since arriving at Ravenhall, you were faring better, and you were engaging in the Alcohol and Me Program.
37Ms Fleming described your educational/occupational history. She noted your poor behaviour and your transfer to a special behaviour school after attending a Catholic primary school. At high school, you reported getting into trouble and being labelled a 'bad kid'. You completed Year 12 in 2018. You then began a Bachelor of Paramedicine at the ACU, which you did not complete because you were charged with criminal offences.
38Apart from casual work in hospitality, you became involved with the St John Ambulance and the CFA, both of which you had to leave due to the nature of the charges you faced. You have no history of significant romantic friendships. You reported supportive family relationships and daily contact and frequent visits while in custody.
39Ms Fleming noted you had been prescribed sertraline under the brand name Zoloft since Year 11 – an antidepressant. You'd exhibited behavioural disturbances from a young age that resulted in a childhood diagnosis of ADHD and Asperger's Disorder. This was treated with Ritalin.
40Your mother ceased your use of that medication. Child adolescent mental health referrals were noted due to damaging property, sexually inappropriate behaviour at school, inappropriate social skills, poor impulse control and violence towards other children. You told Ms Fleming you had seen a psychiatrist fortnightly to monthly and the recommencement of Zoloft and ADHD medication had taken place.
41In early 2019, you had a two-week psychiatric inpatient stay at Pinelodge Clinic Dandenong – as you had tried repetitively to self-inject saline and withdrawn blood. Collateral material indicated that treatment improved your social skills. Ms Fleming noted overuse of alcohol and frequent use of inhalants – particularly nitrous oxide. You began drinking when in Year 11.
42At the time of her mental state examination on that occasion, you did not experience formal thought disorders, but she stated that your insight and judgement were impaired. At that time, you were experiencing mild symptoms of stress, moderate symptoms of depression and extreme severe symptoms of anxiety. You were at very high risk of harm from alcohol use. She diagnosed moderate alcohol use disorder, autism spectrum disorder and antisocial personality disorder traits to have been present at the time of the 2018-19 offending and remained present.
43Ms Fleming pointed to Asperger's as being no longer existing as its own disorder – now known as autism spectrum disorder. She was unable to confirm or refute the ADHD disorder. She noted you had shown a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of rights of others since an early age and met criteria for a diagnosis of conduct disorder - failing to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours, patters of irresponsibility and reckless disregard for the safety of others.
44This comment should be seen in the context of the charges which you faced and which were dealt with on 23 January 2020. Ms Fleming conducted a risk assessment at that time and found you were at moderate risk of recidivism, and found that factors which could provide protective factors there were not fully optimised as they were present during all your offending in question.
45Her opinion included your poor social skills, no peers, no close friendships, offending for exhilaration and to support self-worth. She noted that you were likely to follow a behaviour of interest to yourself with limited regard to the experience of others. She noted your vulnerability in a correctional setting.
46The second report which was also made available to the Magistrates' Court of Bendigo was by Drs Thomas and Jones of Forensicare. The writers noted in your personal history your difficulties in early childhood, when at the age of three, you were reported to have set fire in the family home.
47School behaviour – experienced significant difficulties were noted. Age seven assessments by paediatrics and psychology teams described your behaviour as disruptive, abusive and violent with empathy deficits, poor impulse control, inter alia. They noted isolation and avoidant conduct, struggling with intimate friendships. They noted your admissions to theft from employers and your bullying at work. They also noted psychiatric interventions by pharmacological treatment and admission, as well as suicide attempts and self-harm.
48They noted your abuse of alcohol and inhalants. The latter of which you admitted stealing from medical or dental facilities. They noted the nature of the charges you then faced in your admission to Pinelodge, I have mentioned.
49Having conducted a mental state examination, they expressed their opinion as a history of disrupted and disordered attachment; repetitive and persistent aggressive and antisocial behaviour; manipulation and bullying; intimidation and threats of violence; property damage; theft; cruelty to animals; and
fire-setting.50These behaviours persisted in childhood and into adulthood. These behaviours satisfied criteria for a formal diagnosis of conduct disorder. They noted marked disregard for the feelings and safety of others. Disregard for social norms, rules and obligations, impulsivity, a tendency to minimise and refrain from accepting responsibility for your offences and a limited ability to learn from adverse consequences of your behaviours.
51Apart from needing to further evaluate pyromania, they were satisfied of alcohol dependence syndrome. In the writer's opinion, these factors suggested the absence of core features of autism. In their opinion, there was insufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of autism. They recommended that you be referred to the problem behaviour program run by Forensicare.
52You were released from youth detention in April 2020. You were sentenced in the Magistrates' Court on 23 January 2020 for a series of offences, as well as other offences, which appear under the date 5 December 2019. Before returning to the third report of Ms Fleming, being her second report, I will briefly mention the offences dealt with in January 2020.
53I do so not because I am in any way aggravating the current offences or punishing you for those earlier matters again. They go, rather, to an assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation and the need for special and specific deterrence. The charges you faced in January 2020 were related to obtaining prescriptions and drugs through false representations by attending at a GP's rooms dressed in a St John's uniform, requiring medications for Queensland bushfire victims. You used some of the medications yourself.
54Other charges related to a number of instances of arson and the use of flares fired into someone's home and accelerant poured over cars and set alight in Kyneton where you were living at your grandparents' house. Other offences related to breaking into the Balnarring CFA stealing tools, to enter a dental practice and two chemists and stealing gas cylinders from a hospital for personal use.
55Other charges related to breaking into four separate chemists. When you exited the building, you assaulted a person who had witnessed your offending. You were sentenced to 12 months detention in a youth training centre. These offences were committed between December 2018, July, August, September 2019. Investigation and charges were laid by December 2020. These matters were promptly dealt with in January 2020. And seemingly, did not affect your conduct in December 2020, having experienced youth training detention.
56Ms Fleming's third report is dated 1 February 2022. I note that during 2020 and 2021, there are a number of admissions to the Bendigo Hospital, which were outlined in medical records tendered to the court. The first was in October 2020, followed by March 2021, three in July 2021, two in August – including admissions to the acute mental health unit of the Bendigo Hospital – and finally, in September and October 2021, some weeks after the committal resolved into a plea for these matters.
57These involved a polypharmacy overdose, deliberate self-injection of insulin, driving into a concrete wall after drinking too much, and alleged assault upon you by a man with a knife in your backyard. It is notable, in my view, that
Ms Fleming, for some reasons, was not provided with the Forensicare report of Drs Jones and Thomas. She was provided with a number of collateral documents which she lists at paragraph 18 of her report.58Having noted your release from youth detention in April 2020, you told her you had been supported by Anglicare with transitional youth housing for about a year and then moved into a friend's house while they were imprisoned.
59Although you remained in contact with your parents and grandparents, you struggled to connect with anyone socially. Ms Fleming wrote that alcohol use and low mood created crisis presentations to hospitals which I noted above. Later – at paragraph 54 – she writes that you told her that you attended hospital on multiple occasions as attention-seeking behaviour when depressed and described engaging in deliberate self-harm, which led to an involuntary psychotic admission in early August 2021.
60Since her last assessment, Ms Fleming noted you had commenced a
Bachelor of Applied Technology course online but bail conditions related to computer access had put that on hold. You had obtained some casual work in the hospitality industry and completed a Certificate in Gambling and Service of Alcohol.61You saw a psychiatrist initially at Headspace and then one in the community. You still took Zoloft. You would engage with Forensicare problem behaviour program on a voluntary basis, being general counselling. You relapsed into alcohol use upon your release, and you were referred to alcohol counselling.
62As to the index offences with which I am dealing, you describe how you access the pictures and videos. You used them to masturbate and ejaculate. You knew the images were inappropriate but would inevitably return to chat sites in conformity with your 'malformed sexual attractiveness'.
63You reiterated your rationalisation for this offending and professed a wish to stop this behaviour. You told Ms Fleming that the images found upon the second search were due to auto sync download. She found no evidence of formal thought disorder or cognitive behaviour. She noted severe depression and anxiety and moderate stress.
64As to clinical disorders, she diagnosed moderate alcohol use disorder, ADHD, a paedophilic disorder, moderate major depressive disorder, antisocial personality traits, and unspecified level autism spectrum disorder. In this last context, I again note that Ms Fleming did not have the Forensicare report, which reached a different conclusion in relation to the autism spectrum disorder.
65She herself noted that this material would have been beneficial to her opinion. Provision of that report may have assisted the court as well. However, I am prepared to accept and rely on her diagnosis. Ms Fleming conducted risk assessments. The first is not a test empirically validated for use with
non-contact offenders – the SVR-20.66Under this assessment, she found you to be of low-moderate risk. But such risks were elevated on the basis of evidence of your paedophilic tendencies and need for mental health support. In this context, you also noted your isolation and long-term perception of social inadequacy causing relevant reliance on alcohol.
67The second assessment used a tool designed to predict sexual recidivism for men convicted of child pornography offences – the CPORT, Version 2. She acknowledged the difficulty of assessing sexual deviation as a difficult concept. She wrote that the risk over a 5-year period was 11 per cent for child pornography recidivism and 14 per cent for sexual recidivism.
68Ms Fleming, in stating her psychological opinion, summarises at paragraphs 107 to 114 the factors which make up your complex profile and complications thereof. She opines that you were under heightened distress contributing to the offence conduct, whereby, you used sexual gratification as a coping reaction.
69Ms Fleming writes that imprisonment would likely weigh more heavily on you as being vulnerable to others and the unlikelihood of mental health treatment. She writes that you may benefit from placement in residential rehab for supported supervision. I take these reports into account – particularly Ms Fleming's last.
70I accept that your mental condition will make the conditions of reclusion more burdensome. However, apart from the instance of being stood over for nicotine patches, there is little evidence that you have not adequately adopted to the rigors of imprisonment either during your current remand or in youth detention, which I accept is qualitatively different from adult imprisonment.
71I accept that upon youth parole, you accessed programs to assist you and that is to your credit. I consider your youth to be a critical factor in this sentencing task. Although you will soon be 22 years old, you were a youthful offender at the time of the offending.
72In my view, I should regard your rehabilitation as having some significant weight in my determination as to an appropriate sentence, and it remains an important mitigating factor of substance. However, general deterrence and denunciation as well as, in your case, specific deterrence must gain greater emphasis as the seriousness of the offending increases.
73The principles of rehabilitated prospects must give way, to some extent, to some other sentencing principles. The matters raised in the psychological reports reduce your moral culpability to an extent that moderates the sentence and its measure of full punishment. The prosecution, for its part, properly acknowledge the role of your youth and that limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins are enlivened by your psychological circumstances. However, it is admitted that this was high-level offending involving disturbing material.
74The prosecution submitted that the community protection must play out a primary role in the sentence discretion. It is submitted that a community correction order or combination sentence is not adequate or sufficient, that it required a head sentence and non-parole period.
75Prosecution pointed out in passing to some pending matters in relation to arson which are unresolved, I do not consider that I should attach any weight to these in relation to this sentence.
76The sentence is further complicated by the provisions and application of the serious sex offender provisions. Should a term of imprisonment be imposed in relation to Charges 1 and 2, you would fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on Charge 3. In so sentencing, I would have to have regard to community protection, as the principal purpose for which sentence is imposed pursuant to s6D of the Sentencing Act.
77I will not impose a disproportionate sentence, nor was it sought by the prosecution. But I am conscious of the provisions as to accumulation in s6E and s16.1A(c).
78I have given anxious consideration as to the appropriateness of a combination sentence in your case – a disposition the defence admitted could meet the principles to be addressed here. It highlighted the supervision available and rehabilitative aspects of targeted community-based interventions.
79Having asked myself whether such a disposition can meet adequately and proportionately the relevant sentencing principles, I have concluded that such a disposition does not so meet these requirements. I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as guarded, and that community protection and specific deterrence are factors which must be given substantial weight.
80I will ameliorate the sentence because of your reduced moral culpability, youthfulness and plea, as well as the personal and psychological circumstances which beset you. I am of the view that I can have confidence that a period of parole will be able to manage appropriate interventions for your
post-reclusion life.81I note for the records of the court that as to Charge 3, I sentence you as a serious sexual offender and note that you have spent 161 days of pre-sentence detention and will have that number entered into the court's records. In my view, some minimal accumulation should be imposed to recognise the discrete nature of the offending, although related to the same material in relation to Charges 1 and 2, and some minimal accumulation in relation to Charge 3.
82On accessing child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to
12 months imprisonment. On possession of child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment – that base sentence. On Charge 3 – possession of child abuse material – you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. I order that two months on Charge 1 and one month on Charge 3 be accumulative on Charge 2, making a total effective sentence of 17 months. I order a non-parole period of 11 months.83As the sexual offences involved children, you will be subject to the mandatory registration provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. The three charges are class 2 offences and therefore, your reporting obligations will be applicable for life under s34.1C(3). I have signed forfeiture orders, but for your plea, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 24 months with a non-parole period of 17 months.
84HIS HONOUR: Now, there was some question, as I understood it, in relation to the pre-sentence detention number being 161. Is there any way of clarifying that or having some certainty of that?
85MR MOORE: I think that's agreed, Your Honour. That is agreed – that.
86MS THOMPSON: That is agreed.
87HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.
88MR MOORE: Yes.
89HIS HONOUR: Is there any difficulty with the sentence calculation?
90MR MOORE: No – that's fine.
91MS THOMPSON: No, Your Honour.
92HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Thank you both. I have a trial continuing at 10.30 – I'll simply stand down.
- - -
0