Director of Public Prosecutions v Targownik
[2018] VCC 2150
•12 December 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 18-01263
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| TOMAS TARGOWNIK |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LACAVA |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 9 October 2018 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 12 December 2018 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Targownik |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 2150 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: Culpable driving causing death.
Sentence: 9 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years.---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms K. Churchill | |
| For the Accused | Mr Swartz (For Plea) Mr G. Jayasinghe (For Sentence) |
HIS HONOUR:
1Tomas Targownik, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of culpable driving causing death for which the maximum penalty is 20 years' imprisonment. Your offending occurred on the 18th November 2017.
2You have also pleaded guilty to a charge of reckless conduct endangering life for which the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.
3At the time that you pleaded guilty to these charges, you also pleaded guilty to a summary charge, and agreed to having that charge dealt with in this court by me. That is a charge of driving a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed concentration of drugs was present in your blood. As this was your first offence for this charge the maximum penalty is a fine not exceeding 12 penalty units.
4In the charge of culpable driving causing death (charge 2), the culpability was that you drove a motor vehicle negligently, and whilst under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle you were driving. At the time of your offending you were driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of the drug methamphetamine.
5In charge 1, the reckless conduct relied upon to found the charge is that you drove your vehicle at high speeds on the incorrect side of the roadway, and into the path of another car thereby endangering the lives of those persons in that car at the time.
6The circumstances of your offending are contained in a prosecution summary which was admitted into evidence as exhibit A. That document was read in open court by the prosecutor Ms Churchill and your counsel Mr Swartz agreed that it was accurate and forms a proper basis upon which I can proceed to pass sentence upon you.
7Because the summary was read in open court by the prosecutor it is not necessary for me to again set out what is contained in it other than in a very abbreviated way. These sentencing remarks however, must be read in light of what is contained in the prosecution summary the content of which I have taken fully into account.
8On the day of the offending you were at home in Mt Waverley. During the night you consumed the drug methylamphetamine, commonly known as Ice. At around 1.45am you left your home driving your Mazda 6 sedan. You headed west along Waverley Rd.
9You accelerated through the intersection of Waverley Rd and Blackburn Rd. A speed camera at the intersection was activated and clocked your vehicle travelling at the astonishing speed of 216 kph through the intersection. Self-evidently, such a speed is abhorrent. You continued to drive at high speed west along Waverley Rd towards Springvale Rd.
10As you approached the Holmesglen TAFE another driver who was travelling in the opposite direction observed your vehicle approaching, and it moved onto the incorrect side of the roadway. Fearing you would collide with his vehicle head on, he took evasive action by pulling his vehicle off the road over the gutter. Your vehicle was observed to fly past his vehicle, passing it with only a few centimetres separating the cars. The other vehicle was shaken by the velocity of speed of your vehicle as it passed at very high speed. By this conduct you endangered the lives of the passengers in this vehicle even though you did not collide with it. (Charge 1)
11You continued to drive your vehicle at very high speed along Waverley Rd towards Springvale Rd. Approximately 130 metres east of the intersection, your vehicle slammed into the back of a vehicle being driven by the deceased in the same direction that you were travelling but at a slow speed. The estimated speed of your vehicle at impact was 180 kph. You did not apply your brakes. The impact at such a high speed caused the deceased’s vehicle to explode, and it was engulfed in flames, instantly killing the deceased. After initial impact the deceased’s vehicle rotated, and it was propelled forward some 82 metres where it struck a concrete light pole. The engine separated from the vehicle, the vehicle came to rest a further 15 metres along the roadway.
12After impact your vehicle mounted a grass strip and collided with 4 metal bollards and two parked vehicles parked in a car dealership at the intersection of Waverley Rd and Springvale Rd eventually coming to rest 109 metres from the point of impact. (Charge 2)
13You were trapped in your damaged vehicle and sustained what are described as significant injuries to your arms and legs. You were conveyed by ambulance from the scene to the Alfred Hospital where you remained until the
10th January 2018 when you were discharged and admitted to a private psychiatric facility on a Community Treatment Order under the Mental Health Act 2014. A blood sample taken from you at 4.00am, about two and a half hours after the collision, recorded that you had 0.12 mg/l of methamphetamine, and 0.02 mg/l of amphetamine in your blood. (Summary Charge). You have recovered substantially from your physical injuries.14After the collision you were hospitalised at the Alfred Hospital until the
19th December 2017 when you were transferred to Caulfield Rehabilitation Hospital where you remained until the 10th January 2018. Thereafter, you were transferred to Box Hill Psychiatric Ward at Eastern Health where you remained until the 17th January 2018.15When interviewed you told investigators that you had no recollection of the days leading up to the collision. You said you were not in the right frame of mind leading up to the collision, and you had been taking Ice which you had been using fairly heavily. You told investigators you did not need to take much of the drug for it to have an effect upon you. You said you had been using Ice for a couple of years, and you always thought that you should not do drugs and drive. You also expressed remorse and appropriate empathy for the family of the deceased. Importantly, you did not relate any psychotic thoughts that suggested that at the time the collision you were driving the way you were because you were attempting to flee from perceived danger, or that you were suicidal.
16Much of the time during the hearing of your plea was taken up by submissions by your counsel, that at the time you committed these offences you were suffering from underlying schizophrenia, or other psychotic illness. It was argued on your behalf that if it were the case that you were suffering from underlying schizophrenia, or other psychotic illness, then the sentence that I pass should not be such as to reflect full application of the principle of general deterrence because your moral culpability for the offending should be regarded as having been reduced in those circumstances, leading to a moderated sentence.
17In bad cases of culpable driving, where the moral culpability for the offending is high, the sentence of the court must properly apply the principle of general deterrence. That is, the sentence imposed should send a clear message to those who would seek to offend in this way, that if they do so, and are convicted, the punishment from the court will be appropriate. Also, the sentence imposed must appropriately reflect denunciation.
18I have given the submissions of Mr Swartz a great deal of thought, and I have had the opportunity of examining in detail the many medical reports that were tendered in a folder. I reject Mr Swartz’s submission that in sentencing you I should give you the full benefit of what are known as Verdins principles. In my view, the available evidence does not show that at the time of the offending you were affected by schizophrenia, or other psychotic illness which caused you to drive as you did, and such that I should regard your moral culpability as having been reduced. In my opinion, the evidence shows that at the time of offending you were affected by use of the drug Ice. You made the choice to take that drug which affected the way in which you drove your vehicle. Taking that drug may have exacerbated a pre-existing psychotic state but it is impossible to say to what extent (if any). Because of previous hospitalisations in the months leading to the collision for drug induced psychosis you knew that by taking the drug Ice you were likely to be adversely affected by it.
19I do take into account the fact you continue to suffer from on-going mental illness, and depression, and that because of these factors your time in prison will likely be more difficult than for most other prisoners. I have taken this into account in moderating the head sentence, and in fixing a non-parole period.
20Your driving must be seen as truly shocking. In my judgment, your offending, in the speed and manner in which you drove your vehicle, is to be regarded as of the worst kind. It is nothing short of a miracle that only one life was lost because of the way you drove your car affected by the drug Ice. Others could easily have died, or been injured from your conduct. Had it not been for the fact of your on-going mental health issues, which will likely make the serving of your jail sentence more difficult than for most others, I would have imposed a longer head sentence and non-parole period.
21I turn to the reasons for rejecting the submissions ably made on your behalf by Mr Swartz.
22Before the collision, you were admitted to the Alfred Hospital suffering from paranoid and delusional thoughts on the 20th July 2017. The hospital records reveal you had been taken to the hospital by your father who was concerned about your mental state. You were said to have been acting erratically, and talking nonsense with rambling and elevated speech, and a belief that you were in heaven. You told the clinicians that you had been using methylamphetamine and cannabis on the day prior to presentation, and that you had been using these drugs most weekends for years.
23After a marked improvement you were discharged the next day and no medications were prescribed. A medical registrar who examined you on that day was of the opinion that you then did not have a mental illness and your mental state was said to have been stable. You were diagnosed as having suffered from a drug induced psychosis. A Community Assessment order made under the Mental Health Act 2014 was revoked on that day.
24Again before the collision, on the 2nd of October 2017 you were again taken to the Alfred Hospital by ambulance on an Assessment Order under the Mental Health Act 2014. Again the notes of the hospital indicate that your father was concerned for your mental state and suicidal ideation. You reported to the hospital a long history of depression and anxiety symptoms over several years and methamphetamine use two days prior to admission. You were discharged two days later on the 4th October 2017, and the assessment order was again revoked. You were diagnosed as having suffered a drug induced psychosis and given information about Turning Point Drug and Alcohol services.
25Therefore, in the months before the collision you had twice been admitted to hospital suffering from a drug induced psychosis. You well knew the effects upon you of imbibing Ice well before this collision occurred, nevertheless you continued to use the drug.
26After the collision, and after you were physically injured, on the
12th December 2017 you were again admitted to the Alfred Hospital on a Community Treatment Order. At that time the hospital records record:“Tomas has a history of amphetamine and cannabis use since his university years. He reports more regular methamphetamine use, at least on a weekly basis, over the past 7-8 months. He reports past dexamphetamine use, supplied by a friend.”
27On admission it was recorded that you had been prescribed Olanzapine, Temazepam and Diazepam. Doctors recorded you were then suffering from significant disturbance of thought, mood, perception and memory. The notes reveal the medical opinion then was you required immediate and on-going treatment with antipsychotic medication in a hospital setting, and rehabilitation for your physical injuries. You were diagnosed a month after the collision as then suffering from a psychotic episode but the reason for this was said to be unclear. It was unknown whether the psychotic episode was precipitated by substance use, or whether there could be another emerging psychotic illness.
28Dr Angela Sungalia is a forensic physician at the Victorian Institute of Forensic medicine. She has provided a report to the Major Collision Investigation Unit. She referred to the fact that methamphetamine was found to be in you after the collision at a level which is low compared to the recreational levels seen in current times. However, she said it would have had a stimulant effect upon you. She added that at the time of the collision you would not have been able to maintain proper control of the vehicle you were driving.
29Inter alia, she opined:
“It is likely Mr Targownik was disturbed, paranoid and had perceptual disturbances in the immediate period before the crash. His use of methamphetamine on the day of the crash and/or in the immediate preceding period is likely to have exacerbated any psychotic symptoms already present and caused increased levels of paranoia, perceptual disturbance and alienation of reality. His driving behaviour indicates disregard, or unawareness of the risks associated with driving at high speed. This behaviour may have been driven in part by the stimulation caused by methamphetamine and in part by paranoia, fear and alienation of reality.”
30Dr Jagoda Vasic is a psychiatrist who has treated you at Eastern Health after your discharge from Upton House Psychiatric Unit. Referring to the psychotic symptoms you were noted to be suffering from when admitted to the Alfred Hospital after the collision, he was of the opinion these were very possibly methamphetamine related which had resolved fully by the time you were transferred to Upton House on the 10th January 2018.
31You were examined for medico-legal purposes by Dr Lester Walton for the first time on the 13th March 2018. He provided his first report dated 26th April 2018. You told him you have no memory of the collision. You also told him of your physical injuries suffered in the collision, and the fact you continue to suffer on-going pain affecting your feet and you have restricted movement in your right hand.
32Dr Walton took a mental history from you dating back to 2003. As a university student you suffered from anxiety and depression. You had been prescribed Zoloft which is thought to have caused you to suffer from an epileptic fit and was ceased. You told Dr Walton you elected to thereafter medicate yourself with benzodiazepines, cannabis and amphetamines. You moved onto using methamphetamine. You told Dr Walton that from around 2015 you found yourself under work stress, and you used amphetamine with increasing frequency.
33Dr Walton noted that you had been hospitalised twice suffering from a drug induced psychosis on the 20th July and 3rd October 2017. He noted you had been referred to a psychiatrist Dr Jones at Delmont Consulting Suites but the appointment was made after the collision occurred and you did not get to see this psychiatrist before you offended. Dr Walton said, inter alia:
“Thus it was the situation in early November 2017 that Mr Targownik was not receiving any psychotropic medication but he was using methamphetamine by way of smoking on a regular basis, typically 1 to 2 “points” on weekend days and around 1 “point’ per day during the working week if he was not working. He also continued to smoke cannabis on a regular basis, although in relatively modest amounts of around 1 gram a week.”
34Dr Walton went on to give an opinion in his first report as follows:
“Mr Targownik was again observed to be psychotic in the aftermath of the motor vehicle collision which has resulted in his charges. He exhibited magical thinking, pressured speech, though disorder and paranoid delusions. It's not at all obvious to me why this state of psychosis may have prompted Mr Targownik to engage in driving a motor vehicle at excessive speed with his ignoring the road rules. I remain in the dark as to what precisely he may have been thinking and experiencing leading up to the incident, as he has suffered from a dense period of amnesia surrounding it Paranoid persons engaging in flight from perceived danger is certainly not an uncommon phenomenon but I could not assert that was occurring.
"Furthermore, it may simply be that Mr Targownik remained under the direct intoxicating effect of methamphetamine which could well have contributed to his exercising quite poor social judgment. While it would seem that Mr Targownik very likely was in the grips of a psychotic disturbance at the time of the incident and given the level of mental disturbance he exhibited shortly after it, as observed by others, it is highly probable that he would have been unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure as to the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the collision.
"However, he does not have a formal defence of mental impairment available to him because the mental disturbance was drug induced and that would not be recognised as a qualifying disease in the mind, legally. Despite that, it is clear that Mr Targownik was in a psychologically disorganised frame of mind and it is probable that that made a direct contribution to the offending. It is unfortunate that Mr Targownik did have a pending appointment with a potential treating psychiatrist which had been effected prior to the incident but he was not scheduled to meet with the psychiatrist until a few days after the incident. Thus he was not prescribed the antipsychotic medication he required. That being promptly introduced after the incident at the Alfred Hospital
"It was Mr Targownik's continued use of methamphetamine which was the main driver of the psychosis at the time of the incident. Fortunately, he has now been established on a proper treatment, both antipsychotic and mood stabilising medications, with benefit. But, more importantly, he has now desisted with the drug abuse. All of this augers well prognostically. Perhaps a self-inflicted condition such as drug induced psychosis might be seen as both an aggravating and a mitigating factor in relation to disposition. As indicated above, the drug induced psychotic condition very likely have at least some relevance to the dangerous driving which occurred. Mr Targownik is no longer afflicted by psychotic symptoms but there is residual mood disturbance and therefore it remains the case that that not especially unusually ongoing anxiety and depression will make incarceration more onerous.
"Mr Targownik's knowledge of what constituted his offending in and of itself has acted as a powerful disincentive towards drug abuse and from a clinical perspective, great weight would not need to be placed on specific deterrent aspects of sentencing. Alternatively, I imagine that general deterrence may well loom large as well as denunciation. And
Mr Targownik is not suffering from the type of psychiatric condition currently which would usually attract amelioration of those considerations.”
35After the opinion of Dr Sungalia was made available in the hand up brief, |
Dr Walton was again asked to see you which he did and he provided a second report dated 2nd October 2018. In that report Dr Walton gave this opinion, inter alia, as follows:"This case has become somewhat of a clinical conundrum in that there is now evidence pointing in the direction that Mr Targownik may actually be suffering from schizophrenia. However, the picture is far from straightforward. What is unequivocal is that Mr Targownik was in the grips of a psychotic reaction around the time of the offending, that being observed by others at the time. What gives some weight to a diagnosis of schizophrenia as opposed to drug induced psychosis simpliciter is that if he has been illicit-drug free as he asserts, and he is convinced that his drug urine analysis support that proposition, which is not entirely correct, then he has experienced a recurrence of what may be psychotic symptoms in the absence of further drug taking.
"Sometimes that can occur in the aftermath of a previous drug induced episode and the person does not go on to suffer from chronic schizophrenia but a spontaneous relapse into psychosis does amount to fairly strong evidence that a psychotic illness does actually exist. When interviewed by me, Mr Targownik gave a description of quite florid psychiatric symptoms and there was some inconsistency between that and the observable behaviour at the time. However, weighing up the entire situation as best I can describe it, a diagnosis of schizophrenia cannot be definitively excluded. Presuming that the diagnosis of schizophrenia is that of schizophrenia likely exacerbated by drug abuse, it is impossible to state when that illness may have first emerged, although again the proposition that it may have been present at the time of offending cannot be excluded.
"I appreciate that Mr Targownik is not seeking to change his guilty plea and run a defence of mental impairment but the situation now is indicative that he has at least possibly - he is at least possibly suffering from a disease of the mind. That said, I carefully questioned him about the content of his altered thinking and perceptions and there was nothing which arose as a convincing nexus between the symptoms and his frenetic driving. For example, he did not describe fleeing from imaginary danger, there was no bizarre purpose to the actual driving and precisely at the time he was not suicidal. Therefore I remain to be convinced that it could be clearly stated that his then state of psychosis did actually deprive him of the capacity to distinguish right from wrong, specifically in relation to the offending.
"Thus it is my view that he does not have a defence of mental impairment available to him. As far as I am aware, a drug induced psychosis simpliciter is not automatically excluded from Verdins' considerations, although I imagine that more weight might be given to a mental illness which was not self-induced. Clearly it was Mr Targownik's psychotic state at the time of the offending which provides a comprehensive explanation of his impaired driving capacity. The relatively low levels of amphetamine probably did not have great relevance in terms of a direct response to the drug as opposed to the methamphetamine exacerbating psychotic symptoms."
36Mr Bernard Healey a psychologist treated you on a number of occasions post-accident, and he provided two reports and gave evidence on your behalf. He noted that you appear to have made a sound recovery from the physical injuries sustained by you in the collision. He thought your psychotic state at the time of the offending appeared to have been drug induced but appeared in a background of considerable emotional disturbance, isolation and depression over many years, so that the stimulant Ice which you had resorted to for temporary relief, may well have exacerbated your mental state.
37From all of this evidence it cannot be said that at the time of offending you were suffering from underlying schizophrenia, or other psychotic illness which caused you to offend as you did. In my opinion, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is to the effect that you offended as you did because you were affected by a drug induced psychosis, that is, induced by your use of the drug Ice in the days immediately before the collision. In those circumstances I regard your moral culpability for this offending as high. The charge of culpable driving that you have pleaded guilty to is put on the basis that you drove your vehicle negligently, and whilst under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.
38I admitted into evidence victim impact statements from the wife and son of the deceased. (Exhibits B & C) What comes through from all of the statements is that the life of a decent hard working man who was devoted to his family has been lost impacting the lives of his widow and child in so many ways. The deceased’s partner has had her life turned virtually upside down by your actions in causing this collision. His son has lost his father at a very important stage of his young life. Each of the victims has suffered a profound sense of needless loss all at your hands. In sentencing you I must have had regard to the impact which your offending has had on the deceased’s family and relatives.
39You were arrested and charged on the 30th January 2018. A filing hearing was held that day and you were released on bail. There followed two further committal mentions in April and May of this year and the charges resolved into a plea with a straight hand up brief being filed on the 18th June 2018. You have been in custody since the day I commenced to hear the plea on the
9th October 2018.40You have pleaded guilty to the charges, and that is to your credit. By your pleas of guilty you have saved the time and cost of a trial and you have saved the victims or their families from having to give evidence reliving these events. By your pleas of guilty you have admitted responsibility for your crimes, and you have facilitated the administration of justice. Because you have pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity you are entitled to a reduction in sentence, and this will be reflected in the sentence that I will shortly pass.
41You have no prior convictions. Up until the time of the occurrence of these offences you had led an unblemished life. Mr Swartz filed with the court two written outlines of submissions both of which I marked as exhibits on the plea which proceeded over two days. I refer to some of the matters expanded upon at length in the submissions.
42You were born on the 9th June 1984 and you are now 34 years of age. There is a history of mental illness in your mother’s side of the family. Your mother has apparently long suffered from anxiety. You attended primary and secondary schooling in St Kilda and you were a high achiever academically achieving a TER Score of 96.3. At a Tertiary level you have taken out degrees in Engineering and Applied Science with First Class Honours and Distinction. I was told and accept that from a young age you suffered from Compulsive Obsessive Disorder.
43In around 2003 whilst at university you sought medical help for issues with anxiety and depression. A prescription of Zoloft which I earlier referred to was shown to have caused an epileptic fit and other side effects which is said to have caused you to lose confidence in doctors. You then decided to use other illicit substances.
44When you completed university studies in 2008 you found employment at a company Glass Expansion which you held until around 2014. References given to you at that time from Expansion Glass speak highly of you as a person and a worker and a person of intelligence who contributed to the company.
45For various reasons you apparently found working at this company difficult. You are said to have suffered from on-going despair and depression resorting to self-medication. You left Glass Expansion and went to work with your father for a year before returning to Glass Expansion. You came into contact with old school friends and it was then apparently that you were introduced to using amphetamine and methamphetamine around 2017. Soon after you lost your job at Glass Expansion.
46You apparently recognised the vice of methamphetamine use and you tried to stop using the drug. A heated dispute with your mother is said to have triggered your methamphetamine use over the weekend preceding this collision.
47I accept that you have struggled to come to grips with the fact that by your actions a human life has been lost. I accept that you are remorseful for your actions. I also accept that this offending aside you have been a person of good character.
48I received into evidence as exhibit 2 a letter written by you to the victims of your crimes in which you express appropriate sympathy and apologise. It is an appropriate expression of remorse and I treat it as such.
49I also received a number of references about you from friends and relatives and work colleagues. All speak highly of you as a person of intelligence and also as a person who is caring of others and of the fact you have expressed remorse for your offending. A number of those references speak of your troubles with depression over a number of years. In passing sentence I have taken the content of these references fully into account. I have also concluded from this evidence that you continue to enjoy the support of your family, relatives and friends of long standing. I think your prospects for rehabilitation are good. I doubt you will re-offend in this way.
50The sentence I impose upon you for this offending must reflect fully application of the principle of general deterrence and it must properly denounce your offending which is of a high level for this kind of offending. In all the circumstances, it was not suggested that I should sentence you other than to a term of imprisonment.
51On charge 1 reckless conduct endangering life you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.
52On charge 2 culpable driving causing death you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years.
53On the summary charge you are convicted and discharged.
54I direct that 1 year of the sentence imposed on charge 1 cumulate upon the sentence imposed on charge 2 making a total effective sentence of 9 years imprisonment.
55Pursuant to s 89 of the Sentencing Act 1991 any licence that you may hold to drive a motor vehicle is cancelled, and you are disqualified from obtaining a licence for a period of ten (10) years from 18th November 2017.
56For the purposes of s 89C of the said Act I find that the offence committed by you in charge 2 was committed whilst you were under the influence of a drug, methamphetamine which contributed to the offence.
57I direct you serve a minimum term of 6 years imprisonment before being eligible for release on parole.
58I declare there has been 64 days pre-sentence detention, and direct that 64 days be reckoned as having been already served under the sentences passed this day, and be entered into the records of the court, and deducted administratively.
59I declare that had it not been for your pleas of guilty to the charges I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 12 years' imprisonment and I would have fixed a non-parole period of 9 years.
60I have been asked to make a forensic sample order which was not opposed and for the reasons stated in the order I have signed it. This means that whilst in custody a police officer may approach you for the purposes of obtaining a forensic sample from you in the form of a swab from your mouth and may use reasonable force to do so should you not consent.
61Are there any questions arising out of that, Ms Churchill?
62MS CHURCHILL: Just the matter, Your Honour. My notes indicate, consistent with my instructor that the offender was remanded on the second plea date, on 18 October, not the earlier plea date on the 9th.
63HIS HONOUR: I see. That must mean I've miscalculated the ‑ ‑ ‑
64MS CHURCHILL: Yes, I had 55 days, Your Honour. On 9 October, my notes indicate ‑ ‑ ‑
65HIS HONOUR: Actually, now, yes, that's right.
66MS CHURCHILL: Yes, I think Your Honour extended bail on that occasion.
67HIS HONOUR: Yes.
68MS CHURCHILL: And then was remanded in custody on 18 October, which calculates at 55 days pre-sentence detention.
69HIS HONOUR: Yes, well I'll - I will alter my sentencing remarks to make that correction. Do you agree with that Mr Jayasinghe?
70MR JAYASINGHE: Yes, Your Honour.
71HIS HONOUR: The pre-sentence detention is 55 days.
72MS CHURCHILL: As Your Honour pleases.
73HIS HONOUR: Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Ms Churchill.
74MS CHURCHILL: Thank you, Your Honour.
75HIS HONOUR: Yes, would you remove Mr Targownik please? Adjourn the court till 10.30.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
0
0