Director of Public Prosecutions v Tran
[2014] VCC 1079
•14 May 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication) |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-13-02440
| DPP |
| v |
| DANG TRAN |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Pullen | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 May 2014 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 May 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v. TRAN | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1079 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr L Exell | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr A Hands | Luat Solicitors |
HER HONOUR:
1 Dang Tran you have pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivate a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity. The maximum penalty applicable to that offence is 25 years imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to one charge of theft of electricity belonging to SP AusNet. The maximum penalty applicable to that offence is 10 years' imprisonment.
2 Your crimes arise out of events which occurred over approximately ten weeks. It is not necessary for me to recount in great detail the facts of the matter as they are on transcript, the matter having been opened in some detail by the learned prosecutor. I proceed to sentence you on the basis of the facts as summarised by the prosecutor (Exhibit A) and as discussed during the course of the plea hearing. It is sufficient for present purposes to simply say the facts in this case in my opinion are most serious.
3 I turn then to a brief summary of your offending. At the time of it you were 41 years of age.
4 Police attended at 31 McClelland Drive, Mill Park, on 29 July 2013 and executed a search warrant pursuant to the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). There was no person present at the property at that time.
5 A total of 82 plants were located in four separate rooms of the house at the address. The plants were examined and found to be Cannabis L.
6 A further 41 immature plants weighing between 239.4 grams were located in the front room of the house (Room 1), 20 immature plants weighing 19.70 kilograms in the dining room (Room 2), 9 immature plants weighing 7.25 kilograms in the bedroom (Room 3) and 12 immature plants weighing 10.30 kilograms in another bedroom (Room 4).
7 The total weight of the 82 cannabis plants was 37.4894 kilograms.
8 A botanist found that the 41 plants in one room had been propagated up to six weeks prior to seizure. The 41 plants located in Rooms 2, 3 and 4 had been growing for approximately eight to ten weeks (post nursery phase) prior to seizure.
9 The plants were growing under lights in plastic pots connected by automated watering systems. Light fixtures, shades, electrical transformers, timers, water pumps, thermometers, charcoal filters and circulating fans were installed in the grow-rooms. The walls of the grow-rooms were lined.
10 A powerboard electrical transformer and three bags of fertiliser were located in the hallway. A timer, pumps, globes and another bag of fertiliser were located in the kitchen. A fan and pH meter were located in the laundry.
11 Other items located included electrical cables, chemicals, air ducts, drying boards and correspondence addressed to you.
12 There was an irregular wiring connection that had been installed which bypassed the electrical mains cable. $8,877.00 would have been charged for electricity had the electricity usage been captured by the meter during the relevant period.
13 You were interviewed by police on 29 July 2013 and at that time said you did not know anything about the cannabis plants at that property. On the following day, 30 July, with the assistance of a Vietnamese interpreter (over the phone) you attended Mill Park Police Station voluntarily and said you had not told the truth the day before and wanted to tell the truth about the property at McClelland Drive. An appointment was made for an interview with you later that week.
14 That interview occurred on 1 August 2013. You told police the plants located were cannabis plants, and that you owned the McClelland Drive property for three years and had been living in the house since 2010. You said you changed your address from McClelland Drive after you started growing cannabis because you were afraid police would come.
15 You said you had been depressed after losing at gambling, and planned to grow plants in the garage, but found the temperature was too cold. You then spent $6,000 purchasing lights, bulbs and seeds to grow plants inside the house, and you also set up equipment to grow plants. You did those things in your spare time after work.
16 You purchased equipment which you installed to bypass the electrical meter and divided the rooms inside the house to control the temperature. There were four growing-rooms you said. You also said you did this on your own.
17 You said you had not thought how to use the plants but knew it was illegal. There were 41 plants in three rooms and 41 small plants you said in a different room. You said you planned to use cuttings to grow more plants. You had connected the electricity to the big light to heat the room, and had installed equipment to control the temperature in the rooms as well as fans. You had shelves which you planned to install in the rooms to ventilate the cannabis. You said you had not yet thought about selling it. You had the plants for about two months and a few days, and said this was the first time you had grown them. You said you had cultivated cannabis to send money home to your family in Vietnam.
18 You were charged, and at a committal mention on 17 December indicated your intention to plead guilty to these two charges. The prosecution accepts, as do I, your plea of guilty was entered at the earliest opportunity.
19 That your plea of guilty and the early stage at which you indicated that intention is relevant in mitigation of your sentence.
20 The community has been spared the need for a trial and witnesses have not been required to come to Court to give evidence.
21 You were quickly apprehended and initially, perhaps understandably, distanced yourself from your offending when first spoken to by police. Significantly however, the following day you voluntarily returned to the police station and said you had not previously told the truth. You then participated in a frank record of interview and admitted your offending.
22 I am satisfied your plea of guilty indicates remorse for your offending.
23 You have not been in custody in relation to these charges prior to your plea hearing.
24 You do not have any prior court appearances. As a person who comes to court without any prior criminal history you come to court as a person of previous good character. It follows from that, of course that you have not previously been in custody, and have reached the age of 42 at time of sentence without any prior court appearances nor anything subsequent.
25 I was told by Mr Hands, who appeared on your behalf at your plea hearing, that over the last ten years you have worked on a mushroom farm and purchased the hydroponic equipment from your wages in addition to meeting your other expenses, including gambling.
26 Mr Hands said that after your relationship with Ms Nguyen ended and she left McClelland Drive, you said you began to smoke more cannabis and gamble heavily, spending about $100 per week, I was told, on cannabis. You decided to grow it to cut your costs and to make money on the side to send to Vietnam.
27 A significant amount of time during the plea hearing was directed to forfeiture of your share of the property at McClelland Drive in which the cannabis was grown, and I shall return to that later.
28 Turning to his other submissions on your plea, Mr Hands confirmed you had been in a relationship between 1998 and 2013 with Ms Nguyen. She had two children, 15 and 11 years of age from a previous relationship. Until January 2013 all of you were living at McClelland Drive.
29 Whilst you were no longer in a relationship with Ms Nguyen, I was told you had a close relationship with her two young children.
30 Ms Nguyen then moved out of the property and into Seabon Street, which was another property owned jointly by Ms Nguyen and yourself. Both you and Ms Nguyen contributed to the mortgages on the two properties.
31 Mr Hands placed before me a report from Mr Patrick Newton, Forensic and Clinical Psychologist, dated 26 April 2014. I turn to a summary of his report.
32 Mr Newton observed it was difficult to assess you, even with the assistance of an interpreter, and I am also (due to your difficulties with understanding) conscious of this, as I discussed with counsel.
33 You were born in South Vietnam and were one of three children. You completed your schooling in Vietnam, attending a local school for approximately nine years. Your schooling was interrupted by the need for you to work to support your family.
34 After you left school you obtained work in a jewellery store and worked as a jeweller's assistant for a brief time. You enjoyed that work. Your main work, however, had been as an agricultural manual labourer.
35 You migrated to Australia in 1996, having been sponsored by a woman with whom you had had a brief relationship in Vietnam, and you remained together until 1998. In Australia you worked primarily as a farm labourer, and at the time of assessment by Mr Newton (and as at your plea hearing) you were working on a mushroom farm as a picker.
36 You said you had been in a relationship with a ‘girlfriend’ (I assume Ms Nguyen) but your relationship had begun to experience problems about three years ago. At about that time you started to gamble to ‘escape problems’. You said that relationship no longer continued and there were no children of it. I was told a little more of the ‘relationship’ by Mr Hands and your ‘ex partner’ attended court in anticipation of giving evidence relevant to ownership of the property at McClelland Drive.
37 Your family remain in Vietnam. One of the reasons for this offending, you said, was to send money back to Vietnam, although other reasons given was your need for money due to your gambling, and your need for cannabis. Until your arrest you were a cannabis user.
38 You described anxiety over the past three years due to the difficulties in your relationship and financial problems because of your low income.
39 In the absence of medical or psychological treatment for your anxiety, you told Mr Newton you turned to cannabis and gambling. You continued to experience anxiety, unsurprisingly focusing around this court hearing. Whilst you had been prescribed anti-depressants and anti-anxiety agents by your general practitioner, you had not taken either at the time you saw Mr Newton.
40 You said you had gambled since adolescence, but that had increased three years ago in the context of your relationship problems, regularly spending more than you could afford. You said you accrued debts to friends and associates as a result. The principal motivation for your offending was, you said, to obtain money to repay gambling debts. I note also your other explanations at various times for this offending, to which I have previously referred. Whilst you had made some effort to attend Gamblers Help (two sessions) you said you had not attended thereafter because of your work demands. You continued to gamble regularly, but said it was now under control. You told Mr Newton you no longer attended Gamblers Anonymous. In Mr Newton's opinion, you gave equivocal responses regarding the status of your gambling accounts.
41 You described to Mr Newton episodic use of cannabis from 2010 until your arrest, to relieve your anxiety. You were unclear, however in your conference with Mr Newton, how much you would smoke and how frequently. Part of the reason for growing cannabis you said was to ensure a regular supply of the drug for you. Whilst you stated you had been abstinent from cannabis use since your arrest, there were no urine drug screens provided to Mr Newton to verify that.
42 You expressed remorse for your offending to Mr Newton.
43 Turning to your mental status of assessment results, in the opinion of Mr Newton the most prominent aspect of your mental state at the time he assessed you was your anxiety regarding the prospect that your assets would be subject to confiscation, and also the prospect of incarceration. I can understand your anxiety. You had few coping strategies said Mr Newton, to manage your anxiety. I note, as did Mr Newton, that you have been prescribed medication, however had not taken it. Two prescriptions (as I understood for cholesterol and anxiety) were before me, but it remained unclear whether you were actually taking that medication. In the opinion of Mr Newton, your symptoms warranted the diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety.
44 Regarding your cannabis use, your inability to be specific about your usage made it difficult for Mr Newton to be clear about the severity of your cannabis related problems, although you likely met the criteria for Cannabis Use Disorder of at least ‘moderate severity’.
45 Your pattern of gambling on your self-report, met the diagnostic criteria for Gambling Disorder. Unfortunately you have continued gambling.
46 Turning to your gambling and this offending, Mr Hands was not relying upon your gambling in mitigation of sentence (R v Grossi[1]), rather as part of the background to your offending.
[1] (2008) 23 VR 500
47 In the opinion of Mr Newton you should participate in medical and/or psychological treatment to address your anxiety. In his opinion you had limitations in your ability to manage stress, with a tendency to resort to dysfunctional behaviour such as cannabis use and gambling. Mr Newton noted to date you had received very little intervention to address those issues and recommended drug education and counselling, problem-gambling counselling, and treatment for anxiety.
48 Mr Hands submitted that the report of Mr Newton enlivened principles 5 and/or 6 of the Tsiaris[2] principles as restated in R v Verdins & Ors[3]. The transcript will reveal our discussion regarding this.
[2] [1996] 1 VR 398
[3] (2007) 16 VR 269
49 In my opinion none of the six principles in Verdins were enlivened by the report of Mr Newton as discussed at the initial plea hearing, and as I say the transcript will reveal that discussion. However, as I stated during the course of your initial plea hearing, I accept your anxiety will likely increase in custody, as you have not been in custody previously and have limited English, which is likely to make your assimilation into the prison system difficult, stressful and likely to increase your anxiety. I have mitigated your sentence accordingly, albeit not applying Verdins principles.
50 Mr Hands sought an opportunity for clarification from Mr Newton and thus this hearing was adjourned to today, being 14 May 2014. At that stage Mr Hands further addressed me urging applicability of principles 5 and/or 6 and he read into transcript correspondence recently received by him from Mr Newton.
51 In essence Mr Newton did not make any further comment regarding the applicability or otherwise of the Verdins principles, leaving it to me to determine.
52 Based on the material provided today there is nothing before me to warrant changing the opinion that I had expressed at the initial plea hearing in relation to Verdins.
53 I was told by Mr Hands you had recently begun to attend at Banyule Community Health with Daniella Boxall. A brief report from her dated 1 May 2014 (Exhibit 2) confirmed you attended for two sessions to commence to address your gambling addiction on 4 February and 27 February 2014, and again on 1 May 2014, the day before your initial plea hearing. Mr Hands said you had not attended between 27 February and 1 May as there had not been an interpreter available. It is clear that any counselling and education for your gambling is at a very early stage.
54 I also note you have not in the past undertaken any education or counselling for your drug use, even when you became aware it escalated significantly at the time of the break-up of your relationship with Ms Nguyen.
55 Regarding your rehabilitation prospects, unless you address issues such as your anxiety/stress, gambling and cannabis use, I have concerns about you re-offending in the future in a like manner. I note Mr Newton's opinion at paragraphs 37-38 of his report. I also note your lack of prior court appearances, which provides some comfort regarding further offending.
56 I can only urge that whilst you are in custody you undertake any courses offered to you, and further, that you seek out courses to assist you to avoid re-offending.
57 You also gave evidence before me relevant to s5(2A)(a) and (b) Sentencing Act 1991. You confirmed you had been working as a mushroom picker for ten years, paid by the hour with some bonuses. Some of your payslips were in the material provided to me as were other documents relevant to McClelland Drive (Exhibit 3). I heard evidence in relation to your acquisition of that property. Following discussion with counsel, both agreed the appropriate way for me to approach the issue of forfeiture regarding your share of the property at McClelland Drive was on the following basis:
(i) The property at McClelland Drive was purchased by both you and Ms Nguyen in 2010.
(ii) The mortgage in relation to the property was in both yours and Ms Nguyen's names.
(iii) The cannabis cultivation in 31 McClelland Drive commenced in April/May 2013.
(iv) The current equity in the home is $100,000 or very close to it. I work on the basis of the $100,000.
(v) You agreed to forfeiture of your share of the equity in the home.
(vi) Both counsel submitted you were therefore entitled to a benefit of $50,000, or if you like 50/50 split of that equity, and I agree.
58 To otherwise conclude regarding the ‘split’, in my opinion, would involve speculation. I am satisfied by either documentation produced, your evidence and/or the concession by the prosecution in relation to the equity in that property, that you have discharged the onus in establishing the property was lawfully acquired by you, and that as a result of your agreement your share in the property be forfeited, that is your agreement to it being forfeited, you have lost $50,000. Pursuant to s5(2A) Sentencing Act I have taken that into account in further mitigation of the sentence I would otherwise have imposed.
59 I was referred to R v McLeod[4], in which the court stated,
[4] [2007] VSCA 183
"A clear distinction is here drawn between forfeiture of the proceeds of crime which must be disregarded and other forfeiture of property. Where forfeiture “constitutes a punishment and not simply the deprivation of profits of crime, a sentencing judge can take that punishment into account in the determination of an appropriate sentence in the circumstances.” A failure to do so may constitute sentencing error.” [para 21]
and further:
"In R v Lee; R v Nguyen, for example, the offender’s house had been used for the purposes of trafficking and hence was “tainted property”, liable to automatic forfeiture. The sentencing judge accepted a Crown submission that he was entitled to disregard the prospect that the offender would almost certainly lose his property, because no adequate submissions or material had been placed before him. On appeal, however, the Crown argued that the sentencing judge ought to have had regard to the likely forfeiture of the offender's property, citing R v Do and DPP v Phillips in support of that conclusion. This Court agreed. The sentencing discretion was reopened to take account of the offender's loss of his interest in the house, as this would result in a substantial additional punishment. [para 22]
and further:
"Recent decisions of this Court have held that the fact that property of an offender is at risk of forfeiture should be taken in to account in determining sentence, as a forfeiture could constitute a substantial additional punishment: see R v Le; Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Phillips; and R v Do. In each case, there was sufficient evidence before the sentencing court to enable an assessment to be made of the likely effect of the forfeiture order upon the offender." [para 25]
I interpose and add I am able to make such an assessment in your case.
And further:
"An offender who relies on forfeiture (whether it has occurred or is anticipated) as a mitigating circumstance will ordinarily bear the onus of establishing that it should be so regarded. Where lawfully acquired property has been used in the commission of the crime and is “tainted” property, the punitive element in its forfeiture must be sufficiently identified for the sentencing judge. How much of it was lawfully acquired, the offender's interest in the property and the extent to which it was used to facilitate the commission of the crime may all require proof". [para 29]
And further:
"The sentencing judge is not required to speculate as to whether, or to what extent, the property in question was lawfully acquired or, alternatively, represented profit which the offender derived from his activities. It is for the offender to present “credible material” identifying the source of the property, so as to permit the sentencing judge to form a positive conclusion that at least some substantial portion of the property has been lawfully acquired. Likewise, where an offender seeks to rely in mitigation upon the loss of “benefits in excess of profits derived from the commission of the offence”, the offender must produce evidence to enable a positive determination to be made on the balance of probabilities." [para 30]
60 In Kapkidis v The Queen[5], the Court stated:
"The applicant accepts he bears the onus of establishing that the property, the subject of automatic forfeiture was lawfully acquired, a necessary pre-condition to the application of s5(2A)(ab), citing with approval R v McLeod.” [para 46]
[5] [2013] VSCA 35
61 As I say I proceed on the basis of loss of $50,000 to you.
62 Mr Hands relied upon your lack of prior court appearances/convictions, that there was nothing subsequent alleged, and that you had consented to the compensation order being made in relation to the electricity, the subject of charge 2. Also that you had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. Further, he submitted there was loss to you of your share in the equity of 31 McClelland Drive. Mr Hands referred again to your likely anxiety in custody.
63 Mr Hands submitted you could be appropriately sentenced for this offending to a community corrections order or alternatively a community corrections order together with the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of up to three months.
64 Mr Exell, on behalf of the prosecution, was a little unclear as to whether any of the principles in Verdins applied, although seemed to acknowledge your likely increased anxiety would be a relevant sentencing consideration as part of the general as opposed to Verdins sentencing principles. Ultimately this is a matter I must determine, as has been observed by Mr Newton, an expert in this area.
65 In relation to today's hearing Mr Exell did not make any further submissions in this regard.
66 Mr Exell at the initial plea hearing referred to the high maximum penalty applicable for your offending being 25 years referable to charge 1, and referred me to relevant sentencing statistics. As I discussed with counsel, whilst such information has its place, statistics alone do not tell me anything specific about the offending involved or of matters personal to each offender. Comparing cases factually also has its limitations as facts vary enormously case to case as do matters personal to offenders.
67 What is of assistance are statements of principles relevant to sentencing for this type of offending and current sentencing practices.
68 Turning to your offending, Mr Exell submitted you invested a significant amount of money in the crop ($6,000) and that you were the principal offender. He submitted you intended that this proceed on an ongoing basis, as you said you had plans to grow more from cuttings. I stress however you are being sentenced for the dates alleged on the indictment and that alone.
69 Further, he submitted in relation to charge 2 there should be some cumulation upon charge 1, relying on the decision of R v Spirakos[6], (see the more recent decision of Nguyen v The Queen[7]).
[6] Court of Appeal, Victoria, 15/4/1998
[7] (2013) VSCA 63
70 As well as matters personal to you, including your prospects of rehabilitation, I must also take into account general deterrence which is of importance in a case such as this.
71 The courts have referred to general deterrence when sentencing for cultivating a commercial crop of cannabis.
72 In R v Clohesy[8], which involved charges of cultivating a commercial quantity of Cannabis L, and theft of electricity, Buchanan JA: stated:
[8] [2000] VSCA 206
“The possession of a commercial quantity of cannabis is a serious offence. Its gravity is reflected in the maximum penalty that Parliament has assigned to it. As the full court said in R v Pastras:
“Those who have experienced in the administration of the criminal justice system know that the prolonged use of marijuana can cause great harm, particularly to psychologically vulnerable individuals."
His Honour further stated:
"Leniency is not to be shown to a person who deals in marijuana on the basis that the drug is harmless. The legislation is predicated upon it being harmful. The principle of general deterrence is of special importance in relation to the crime of possession of a commercial quantity of a narcotic drug. Generally the offence requires the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence, which would usually only be avoided by exceptional countervailing factors." [para 8]
In the present case I do not consider that the factors pointing towards leniency were sufficient to neutralise the offence itself. The absence of prior convictions is of limited relevance to such an offence, and the co-operation of the appellant with the police must be considered in the light of the incriminating circumstances in which the appellant was apprehended." [para 9]
73 In Hung Truong Nguyen v The Queen[9], this referred to the offence of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, in which President Maxwell stated:
[9] [2010] VSCA 217
"As has been regularly pointed out in sentencing decisions, this is an offence for which parliament has se the highest fixed maximum in the criminal calendar: 25 years' imprisonment. As Court of Appeal Justice Buchanan noted in DPP v Duong, 'the maximum of 25 years shows unambiguously how seriously the community, through the Parliament, views this conduct.
And it is of course irrelevant which drug is being cultivated. So much was made clear by the decision of this court in Pidotto. Since that 2006 decision the sentencing regime has remained unchanged. There has been no move to establish a scheme under which the sentencing court is expected to decide whether one drug is more harmful than another. As the court said in Pidotto, this is a quantity-based sentencing regime. Although quantity will not bear an arithmetical relationship to sentence, the quantity involved is a very significant matter in sentencing for these offences.
This Court has referred regularly in the last 12 months to the obligation of sentencing judges to have regard to the maximum sentence fixed by Parliament. As the court said in DPP v CPD:
The discretion which a sentencing judge has in dealing with a particular offender is a vital part of the administration of criminal justice. But sentencing judges must not disregard the will of Parliament as expressed in the fixing of the maximum penalty." [paras 18-20]
And further:
“In Duong, Buchanan JA said,
Generally this offence requires substantial punishment. The increasing number of hydroponic crops of cannabis detected in the last few years is material …
That was said in 2006. In The Queen v Mason, his Honour said:
General deterrence is an important consideration in sentencing for the offence of cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis.
The link between increasing prevalence and general deterrence is self-evident." [para 21]
74 In R v Esposito[10], referring to general deterrence, the Court said:
"[ ]with drug offences of the kind with which we are here concerned, general deterrence must remain at the forefront of sentencing considerations, and thus, like other offenders who choose to engage in a criminal cultivation of commercial quantities of narcotic plants for profit, the appellant must serve a sentence which is adequate to deter would be transgressors."
[10] [2009] VSCA 277
75 There is an element of specific deterrence required when sentencing you, in that whilst I note you do not have any prior court appearances, your offending before me did occur over a significant period of time, approximately ten weeks.
76 I must also consider the need to protect the members of the community from you and bear in mind the likelihood of your re-offending.
77 I am called upon by the Sentencing Act to manifest the community's denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment.
78 In my opinion, to impose either disposition urged by Mr Hands would not adequately or appropriately address all sentencing considerations including the circumstances of your offending and all matters personal to you including all matters in mitigation of sentence.
79 When sentencing you I take into account principles of totality and proportionality.
80 On Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment.
81 On Charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
82 Charge 1 is the base sentence and I direct that 5 months of Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence on Charge 1.
83 That results in a total effective sentence of 3 years and 1 month imprisonment and I direct that you serve a period of 18 months before you are eligible for parole.
84 I have, in imposing a non parole period of 18 months ordered a shorter non parole period to reflect in particular your likely increased anxiety in custody and that this will be your first time in custody with limited English.
85 Pursuant to s6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 had you been found guilty of these two charges following jury verdict I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 5 years with a non parole period of 3 years and 6 months.
86 Pursuant to s18(4) Sentencing Act 1991 I declare you have spent 12 days in custody, up to and including yesterday 13 May by way of pre-sentence detention and I direct that that be entered in to the records of the court.
87 The prosecution made application for a disposal order in relation to cannabis and the equipment used in its cultivation. This was not opposed by counsel on your behalf. I make the order in the terms sought.
88 The prosecution also made an application for an order for a forensic sample pursuant to s464ZF(2) Crimes Act 1958. This was consented to by you. I make the order on the basis of the seriousness of your offending, that will be for a saliva sample and I must advise you the authorities may use reasonable force in order to obtain that sample.
89 The prosecution also sought an order for compensation in the sum of $8,877.06 for the theft of electricity. This application was not opposed by counsel on your behalf and I make the order accordingly.
90 HER HONOUR: I don't think there are any other orders. Is that right? Anything further?
91 MR HANDS: There are no issues. We haven't re-canvassed in relation to his custody and we've provided - the court's provided him in relation to his medication, that's been provided already.
92 HER HONOUR: Yes I know that. Now Mr Prison Officer, last time I gave prescriptions to head off with Mr Tran. I assume that happened. Do you know?
93 PRISON OFFICER: Yes it would have gone down to the MAP assistants.
94 HER HONOUR: Madam Interpreter, can you just ask has he been getting any medication?
95 INTERPRETER: Yes Your Honour.
96 HER HONOUR: Good.
97 MR HANDS: All covered Your Honour.
98 HER HONOUR: All right thank you very much for that Mr Prison Officer. Thanks you can remove Mr Tran now.
- - -
0
6
0