Director of Public Prosecutions v Trento
[2022] VCC 98
•8 February 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-21-01369
| COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| GABRIELE TRENTO |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 February 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 February 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Trento | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 98 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law – Sentencing
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime – dealing with cash and converting it into gold bullion in separate transactions – total value of bullion purchased $164,276.00 – objectively serious offending – youthful offender – undue delay – no prior criminal history – positive prospects of rehabilitation – subsequent significant mental health issues
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code (Cth) sub-s 400.9(1A), 400.9(1), Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) sub-s 16A, 17A, 20(1)(b).
Cases Cited:
Sentence: Imprisonment for a period of 14 months, released forthwith on a recognisance of $1000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the CDPP | Ms C. Caretti | Commonwealth Solicitor of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms L. Ristivojevic | Sarah Tricarico Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Gabriele Trento, you have pleaded guilty to the following two charges:
(a) dealing with money, being less than $100,000, reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime contrary to sub-s400.9(1A) of the Criminal Code (Cth) ('the Code'), the maximum penalty for which is two years' imprisonment and/or 120 penalty units;
(b) dealing with money, being $100,000 or more, reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to sub-s400.9(1) of the Code, the maximum penalty for which is three years' imprisonment and/or 180 penalty units.
2You were born in November 1996 and were 20 years old at the time of this offending. You have no prior criminal record.
Circumstances of the offending
3A prosecution opening was tendered on your plea and represents the agreed basis upon which you are to be sentenced.
Transactions
4On 1 November 2017, you attended a business located in the Melbourne CBD and purchased two 0.5 kilogram gold bullion bars for $54,646 in a single transaction. The tax invoice was signed by you and records your name and address. Consistent with standard practice for purchases of this nature, the business obtained a copy of your Victorian probationary driver's licence and noted that the original was sighted on 1 November 2017 and records your occupation as being 'in construction' and the source of the funds as 'savings'.
5On 3 November 2017, you attended a separate business in the Melbourne CBD and purchased two 1 kilogram gold bullion bars for a total of $109,630. The gold bullion was purchased in two cash transactions, each totalling $54,815. Two separate tax invoices were issued for the transactions by the business. The invoices made out to you were made out to you at your address and recorded your mobile number and Victorian driver's licence number. Both invoices were signed by you. Your licence was copied and the business recorded your occupation as a 'construction operator' and that the funds were sourced from 'savings'. Your fingerprints were subsequently located on both invoices.
Investigation
6On 7 November 2018, the police commenced an investigation into the transactions following a report by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC).
7Arising from this investigation, a search warrant was executed at your home in Tarneit on 12 December 2018. A number of items were seized during the search, including a USB device containing a download of your Apple iPhone, a 2018 Australian Tax Office Assessment Notice and an image of a drivers licence in your name. No gold bullion was recovered from the premises. You accompanied police to your car to retrieve your mobile phone. When you were told by investigators the warrant related to the purchase of gold bullion, you replied, 'I don't have the money for that'.
8Examination of your mobile phone revealed a partial photo of a receipt for $54,646 and photographs of a 1 kilogram gold bullion, four bundles of cash comprising $50 and $100 notes and a document entitled 'Hardship Assistance Acknowledgment' signed and dated by you on 14 December 2017 in respect of a loan for the purchase of a vehicle. Metadata analysis dates the partial photograph of the receipt and the 1 kilogram gold bullion as being taken on 1 and 9 November 2017, respectively.
9Additionally, a note on your mobile phone was created on 30 October 2017 recording various addresses, including the two businesses from which the gold bullion was purchased on 1 and 3 November 2017.
10Analysis of the phone also revealed that between 12 and 30 October 2017 you received five text messages from debt collectors and financial institutions requesting that you contact them or make payment on outstanding debts. A further eight voice messages were left between 13 February 2018 and 30 May 2018 from debt collectors, financial institutions, and the Credit and Investments Ombudsman concerning your financial situation.
Record of interview
11On 19 December 2018, you participated in a record of interview in which you stated you had been employed as a tow-truck driver for one month, earning $1,200 per week and that you had previously worked in construction for three years, earning approximately $1,500 per week. You agreed your 2018 taxable income was $15,598 as recorded on the 2018 Assessment Notice, but that you could not recall how much money you earned in the 2017/18 financial year. You said you did not recall telling police 'I don't have the money for that' when asked about the gold bullion.
12You responded 'no comment' when questioned about the two gold bullion transactions and in relation to the photos and addresses located on your mobile phone.
Financial circumstances
13By your plea, you accept that it was objectively reasonable to suspect the money dealt with by you in November 2017 was the proceeds of crime based on your financial position at the time as outlined in the prosecution opening.
14Your tax assessment for 2017 was marked 'return not necessary'. Between 2013 and 2016, you recorded a taxable income of between $20,098 and $29,276. In 2018, your tax assessment recorded a taxable income of $15,598. Between 2016 and 2018, your bank account never held more than $900 and often recorded a negative balance.
15
In November 2017, you made a Hardship Application to RACV in relation to your car loan, but due to your failure to make repayments, the car was repossessed in July 2019. As at 1 November 2017, a consumer loan you obtained from St George Bank had an outstanding debt of $26,374.71 with arrears of $1,416. On
30 August 2018, the bank wrote the debt off as 'bad debt'. In November 2017 you also had a credit card debt of $4,848.77.
16Your poor financial circumstances in and around November 2017 are incompatible with any legitimate means to purchase the gold bullion at that time.
Procedural history
17I turn now to the procedural history of this matter. After being interviewed by police on 19 December 2018, it was not until 18 March 2021 that you were served with the charges by way of summons. At the hearing of your plea, the Crown explained this delay exceeding two years was occasioned by the ongoing police investigation. The Crown accepts the delay is significant and was in no way attributable to your conduct.
18The matter resolved to a plea to both charges on the indictment on 24 June 2021 at committal mention, being a plea entered at the earliest available opportunity. I will return to the significance of both the delay and your early plea later in my reasons.
Nature and gravity of the offending
19As an indication of the objective seriousness of the offence of dealing in money exceeding $100,000 reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, in 2010 Parliament increased the maximum penalty for an offence against sub-s400.9(1) of the Code from two to three years' imprisonment. The explanation given for the increase was to reflect the 'serious nature of possessing proceeds of crime worth more than $100,000 and the significant criminal activity that has generated $100,000 or more'[1].
[1]Explanatory Memorandum to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill (No.2) 2009 (Cth).
20The role you played in the conversion of the cash to gold bullion was a critical one. You attended separate businesses on two occasions in order to conduct the transactions. Collectively, the amount of cash converted was considerable, namely $164,276. As the authorities highlight, the regime applicable to these offences under the Code makes it clear that the quantum of money involved is a significant factor in assessing the relative seriousness of the offence.[2] You were aware of the amount of cash in your possession on both occasions and the wrongfulness of your conduct. The offending involved a degree of planning in attending separate businesses, thereby reducing suspicion. The bullion purchased on 3 November 2017 was structured into two separate transactions for the same purpose.
[2]Arora v Cobern [2015] WASC 440 at [92]
21Significantly, your conduct in converting the money to gold bullions was the means by which others could legitimise the money, and hence disguise its origins. This is a serious feature of the offending. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Kim v R:[3]
'The person who launders money is an important cog in the wheel of organised crime and such conduct warrants severe punishment in which general deterrence is to be given significant weight.'
[3]Kim v R: Fang v R [2016] VSCA 238 at [61]
22However, as highlighted in the defence submissions, the offending was neither sophisticated nor sustained. It was limited to two separate dates in early November 2017, and on neither occasion did you make any attempt to disguise your identity to avoid detection. To the contrary, you provided your name and drivers licence details to the owners of both businesses. Nor was this an instance of multiple transactions of smaller amounts over a sustained period to avoid detection. Once the transactions came to the attention of AUSTRAC, you were readily identified.
23The circumstances leading to your offending were outlined by your counsel on your plea. The written submissions filed on your behalf state that you met a male at the Casino in late October 2017 who suggested that you could make some money by using your identification to buy the gold bullion and gave you directions regarding the businesses to attend. It is submitted that your abuse of cocaine had led you into debt at that time, and you agreed to participate in the transactions for a cash payment.
24I do not consider this to be an implausible explanation, as urged by the Crown. There is no other evidence from which I could conclude your involvement went beyond your attendance at the two businesses to conduct the transactions. There is no evidence before me as to the benefit you obtained for your role. Although I accept that you were not the instigator of the arrangement, it is clear your motivation for the offending was a financial one. Your moral culpability for the offending is significant but is also informed by your personal circumstances at the time, to which I now turn.
Personal circumstances
25As stated, you were 20 years of age at the time of the offending. You are now 25 years old. You and your younger sister were raised by your mother after your father left the family when you were three years old. You lived with your paternal grandparents until you were 11, by which time your mother had saved enough money to purchase a home in Hoppers Crossing for herself and her two children. You continued to live with your mother and your older sister until last year when you moved into private rental. Your mother works an accountant with the tax office and your sister is married with a one-year old child, currently expecting her second. You continue to have a strong relationship with your mother and sister, both of whom remain supportive of you.
26When you were 15 years old, you commenced a long-term intimate relationship that lasted nine years, but you are now single.
27
You struggled academically and left school after completing Year 8. You were only 14 years old when you commenced an apprenticeship as an auto-vehicle trimmer. From that age, you have demonstrated a strong work ethic, and until an accident in October 2020, you had been in continuous employment. You completed the apprenticeship after three years, and then worked in construction for several companies, ultimately holding the position of supervisor on work sites. Other than a brief period working in car sales, you continued to work in construction until you were approximately 22 years of age. At that time, you obtained a heavy rigid truck licence and worked as a tow truck driver until the accident in
October 2020 lead to you ceasing work altogether.
28The circumstances of the accident are detailed in the report of Dr Chris Grant, consultant psychiatrist, who assessed you for the purposes of a WorkCover claim on 5 May 2021.[4] On 17 October 2020, at approximately 2 am, whilst driving your tow truck near Yass, New South Wales, a man jumped out onto the road unexpectedly and was struck by the truck driven by you. The male died instantly. A subsequent inquest determined that the cause of his death had been a suicide. Due to the psychological impact of this accident, you have been unable to work since October 2020 and are currently in receipt of weekly WorkCover payments.
[4]Exhibit 2 - Report of Dr Grant dated 5 May 2021.
29The impact of this incident on you is described in a letter written your mother, Genoveffa Trento, dated 27 January 2022, tendered in the plea hearing.[5] In her letter, your mother states the accident left you a 'completely changed man' and that you have been focussing on remaining off drugs and seeking professional help for your mental health and that you are 'working hard to change [your] life for the better'.
[5]Exhibit 4
Mental health and substance abuse
30You have a history of substance abuse but are now abstinent. You began using cocaine at the age of 18 in social settings. Over the next two years or more, you became a regular user and worked to support your addiction. A friend and mentor supported you in your early 20s to obtain your truck licence to assist you in redirecting your life. You then ceased all cocaine use and ended your relationship with negative peers. You enjoyed your employment as a truck and tow truck driver until the accident.
31After the incident in October 2020, you lost 10 kilograms and struggled to sleep. You were assessed by Dr Chris Grant, psychiatrist, in May 2021, who confirmed a diagnosis of a post-traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD') of moderate severity. In his report dated 5 May 2021, Dr Grant states that at the time of his assessment, you had relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse, 'drinking to the point of blackouts and amnestic episodes' and using cocaine and cannabis regularly.
32
On 1 December 2020, you self-referred to Mr Jerry Wang, a psychologist, for ongoing treatment and have engaged in eight weekly sessions since that date.
Mr Wang's report dated 21 December 2021 confirms that you relapsed into heavy cocaine use 'as a form of 'self-medication' in early 2021 but that by December 2021 you had been abstinent for four months. In his report, Mr Wang states you continue to ruminate about the accident on a daily basis, experience heightened symptoms of anxiety, especially when driving or traveling as a passenger.
Mr Wang has diagnosed you with post-traumatic stress disorder, a major depressive disorder, and a stimulant use disorder which is in early remission.
33Mr Wang opines that your anxiety and depression are also reactive to your current legal circumstances and that these pose 'significant barriers' to you seeking additional support. This too, Mr Wang states, is compounded by your social isolation and lack of meaningful activities, which may be alleviated by the resolution of the criminal processes with you then 'more amenable to treatment and recovery'.
Sentencing considerations
34As the charges to which you have pleaded are Commonwealth offences, I am required to take into account a number of matters pursuant to s16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Section 16A(1) requires that, in determining the sentence to be passed for a federal offence, the court must impose a sentence of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. Section 16A(2) sets out the factors I must take into account which, relevant to this case, include:
· the nature and circumstances of the offence;
· the degree to which the offender has shown contrition for the offence;
· the degree to which the offender cooperated with law enforcement agencies;
· the fact the offender has pleaded guilty to the offence;
· the deterrent effect that any sentence may have on the offender or other persons;
· the need to ensure the offender is adequately punished;
· the character, antecedents, age, means and physical and mental condition of the offender; and finally
· the prospects of rehabilitation of the offender.
35In written submissions that were expanded upon in the course of the plea, both counsel helpfully highlighted a number of matters in s16A(2) that they submit should be given weight in sentencing you.
36First and foremost is your early plea of guilty to the charges. Your plea has saved the court and the community the cost and expense associated with a trial. Your plea therefore has utilitarian value, a benefit that carries greater weight at this time in circumstances where there are significant delays and a backlog of cases in the Courts in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.[6] By your plea, you facilitated the course of justice and acknowledged responsibility for your offending.
[6]Chenhall v R [2021] VSCA 175
37You did cooperate with authorities to a degree. On your arrest, you provided police with your mobile phone and a passcode to the phone. The police were readily able to download the items located on the phone during the search. You had made no earlier attempt to delete or encrypt these items or to dispense with the phone. You made partial admissions as to your financial position during your record of interview. At the plea hearing, the Crown did not persist with its written submission that you failed to cooperate by exercising your right to silence in relation to the offending. This is clearly correct. You are entitled to some benefit for your co-operation with police investigators.
38I turn next to the issue of delay. It is now over four years since this offending in November 2017. There was an initial delay exceeding two years after your interview with police and being charged in March 2021. As stated, you indicated an intention to plead guilty to the charges at committal mention on 24 June 2021, but due to court delays associated with the pandemic, your plea was not listed before me until 1 February 2022. This is a significant delay in the conduct of these proceedings for which you bear no responsibility.
39Undue delay in circumstances such as these is relevant to sentence in two ways. First, I accept that having these serious criminal charges hanging over your head, not knowing what may happen, has been a source of stress and anxiety for you. The delay has, in effect, been a source of additional punishment. Secondly, a period of delay may serve to demonstrate progress towards rehabilitation.
40I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be positive. As stated, you have no prior convictions. Clearly, your history of cocaine addiction from the age of 18 posed a risk to your future prospects. However, by the age of between 21 and 22, you had turned your life around, obtaining your heavy rigid truck licence and securing full-time employment in that industry. That remained the position until the tragic accident in October 2020.
41Following the accident, you suffered a relapse, and as Dr Grant outlines, you began 'self-medicating' by abusing alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis. This led to your only court appearance in October 2021 where you were fined $1000, without conviction, for possession of cannabis and a drug of dependence. However, by December 2021, your psychologist, Mr Wang, assessed that your substance abuse disorder was in remission and that you had been abstinent from drug use since September 2021. Notably, you have no other subsequent or pending matters, despite being faced with significant mental health issues following the accident in October 2020.
42These matters, combined, support my conclusion that you do have good prospects of rehabilitation, provided you continue in treatment for your mental health issues and remain drug free. The need for the sentence to operate as a specific deterrent carries less weight in your case, with the paramount sentencing considerations being those of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation.
43Your age at the time of the offending is also a highly relevant sentencing consideration. As a 20 year old, you fall to be sentenced as a youthful offender. The authorities recognise that youth is relevant to sentencing in a number of ways.[7] First, youthful offenders are generally more immature and prone to impulsive decision making. Secondly, the importance of rehabilitation assumes greater significance for young offenders, as rehabilitation benefits the community as well as the offender. The rehabilitation of young offenders is usually far more important than general deterrence. Thirdly, the benchmark for offending warranting adult imprisonment is higher for young offenders, particularly first time offenders.
[7]R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235, R v Azzopardi (2011) 35 VR 43.
44Although this was undoubtedly serious offending, your youth at the time reduces the need for the sentence to operate as a general deterrent. As the prosecution conceded, the lack of sophistication in your offending spoke of a degree of naivety at the time. Your youth operates to mitigate the sentence to be imposed. Nonetheless, I accept general deterrence continues to have a role to play in your sentence. Others must be deterred from the temptation to participate in money laundering activities which facilitate other profit-driven crime.
45
Also relevant to the sentence I impose is the significant toll the accident in
October 2020 has taken on your mental health. Although it is accepted by your counsel that the principles set out in the authority of Verdins do not apply to reduce your moral culpability for your offending, your current diagnosis of a post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder described by Mr Wang as severe, is relevant to my sentencing discretion.
46Importantly, you proactively self-referred for counselling with Mr Wang following the accident and have demonstrated an ability to engage with psychological treatment, having undertaken eight sessions of counselling since December 2020. To an extent, the anxiety and depression you suffer is also reactive to your current legal circumstances, unassisted by the delay associated with this matter. I accept the assessment of Mr Wang that, once resolved, the proceedings will remove a 'significant barrier' to you seeking additional supportive services, including assistance to re-engage in employment and other productive activities, leading to his conclusion that your prognosis is 'optimistic'.[8] This will, of course, depend upon you continuing to access professional assistance for your mental health issues.
[8]Exhibit 3, at page 5.
47Whilst accepting the limitations on the utility of comparable cases, the prosecution referred me to a number of appeal decisions and sentences of Australian courts which I have taken into account.[9] However, it is notable that none of the accused in these matters was sentenced as a youthful offender, other than in the matter of Dong, and other cases involved greater sums or more elaborate deception and sophisticated offending, including the creation of false names, bank accounts and cross-border activity.
[9]Almanda v R [2015] NSWCCA 19; Arora v Cobern [2015] WASC 440 ; Arsiotis v R [2015] NSWCCA 275; Assafiri v R [2007] NSWCCA 159; Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 (‘Cahyadi’); R v Choi; Periera [2017] SASCFC 54; R v Jiao [2015] NSWCCA 95; Linggo v R [2017] NSWCCA 67; Singh v The Queen [2016] VSCA 163; Dong v DPP (Cth) [2016] VSCA 51.
48In Dong v DPP, the offender was 22 years old at the time of the offending and 25 at the time of sentence. She was sentenced as a youthful first offender. Cash in the sum of $25,000 was found in her handbag. She had transferred $54,000 to China and had access to $161,000 in unexplained wealth. A package containing 263.5 grams in methamphetamine was sent to the address occupied by her and her boyfriend. In that case, the appellant was sentenced following trial and was also being sentenced for offences arising from her involvement in 'the business of drug trafficking'. On appeal, the appellant's circumstances had changed due to her pregnancy increasing the burden of her imprisonment and she was sentenced to five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years, with six months imposed for the s400.9(1A) offence.
49In Cahyadi v The Queen, the offender pleaded guilty to a single offence under s400.9, involving possession of $152,000 when the maximum penalty was two years' imprisonment. Investigators found false drivers licences and false bank accounts that had been used on nine occasions to send $89,100 to accounts in Indonesia. The appellant also had a criminal history for dishonesty offences and had travelled to Australia, after being deported, under false names. He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on the s400.9(1) offence.
50In Singh v The Queen, the accused was 35 years old with no prior criminal history. He was sentenced, on appeal, to 10 months' imprisonment to be released on a recognizance release order after six months, where he had received a closed suitcase containing $500,100 in cash from a person unknown to him and having viewed the cash for seven minutes.
51In Arora v Cobern, the appellant, aged 42 years, received cash totalling $170,000 on behalf of people in India. Over two weeks, he deposited the cash in $10,000 lots in various banks and then transferred those lots to India. He had no prior criminal history. The appellant was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment to be released on a recognizance release order after five months for the offence contrary to s400.9(1) of the Code.
52I have had regard to the authorities to which I was referred as illustrative of the possible range of sentences available. However, the cases also highlight the limitations on the use of comparable cases as every case differs. The range of sentences that have been imposed in the past do not fix the boundaries of future sentences.[10]
[10]The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550
53This was inherently serious offending. The total quantum converted to gold bullion was significant. Pursuant to s17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I am satisfied that no sentence other than a term of imprisonment is appropriate. Your counsel also conceded that a term of imprisonment is warranted. The prosecution submits that the gravity of your offending warrants a period of actual custody followed by a recognisance release order (RRO).
54This is not an easy sentencing exercise. The quantum of cash converted as part of a money laundering exercise was considerable. However, having regard to the significant matters in mitigation to which I have referred, namely your youth, delay, your plea and the heightened utility of that plea at this time, the absence of any prior criminal history, your diagnosed mental health issues following the accident, and your positive prospects of rehabilitation, I am of the view that the relevant sentencing considerations can be met by a sentence that will allow you to remain in the community and continue your rehabilitation.
55As stated by Maxwell P in The Queen v Merrett[11], in referring to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia in Duncan v The Queen:
'[W]here, prior to sentence, there has been a lengthy process of rehabilitation and the evidence does not indicate a need to protect society from the applicant, the punitive and deterrent aspects of the sentencing process should not be allowed to prevail as to possibly destroy the results of that rehabilitation.'
[11]The Queen v Merrett (2007) 14 VR 392 at [35].
56These observations are particularly apposite in the case of a youthful offender who has transitioned from 20 to the age of 25 and demonstrated sound prospects of rehabilitation over those intervening years.
Sentence
57Mr Trento, can you please stand.
58On Charge 1 - dealing in money, being less than $100,000 reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime - you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
59On Charge 2 - dealing in money being greater than $100,000 reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime - you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
60It is appropriate that there be a degree of cumulation for Charge 1. I order that two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 2. This gives a total effective sentence of 14 months' imprisonment, having regard to the sentencing principle of totality and the fact the separate offences were otherwise committed in the same way and within a few days of each other.
61Pursuant to s20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I direct that you be released forthwith upon giving a recognisance in the amount of $1,000 and to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. If you breach the conditions of this order, you may be brought back before the court to be dealt with for that breach, which could include being ordered to serve the imprisonment component of the order and you may forfeit the $1,000.
62Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991[12], I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed upon you would have been a term of imprisonment of 18 months, with eight months to serve followed by a recognizance release order of two years.
[12]Applicable by reason of ss 68 and 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
63Have a seat, Mr Trento. You will shortly be provided with the order to sign.
64MS RISTIVOJEVIC: If I may approach Mr Trento to - I think he might be a bit confused.
65HER HONOUR: Certainly. I will stand down while my associates complete the order. Do counsel have any questions or seek clarification about the sentence?
66MS RISTIVOJEVIC: No.
67HER HONOUR: No, thank you. I will stand down and you may approach.
68(At a later stage).
69HER HONOUR: Thank you. Have both counsel had an opportunity to review the order? Yes, thank you. If that could be signed by Mr Trento? Thank you.
70Copies of that order will be provided to counsel. If there are no other matters?
71MS RISTIVOJEVIC: No, Your Honour.
72HER HONOUR: Thank you.
- - -
0
16
0