Director of Public Prosecutions v Verzantvoort
[2020] VCC 71
•31 January 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-18-01261
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| WAYNE VERZANTVOORT |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE BROOKES | |
WHERE HELD: | Geelong (Trial) & Melbourne (Plea & Sentence) | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 19, 20, 21, 24, 25 & 26 June 2019; 29 August & 20 November 2019 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 31 January 2020 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Verzantvoort | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 71 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE
Catchwords: Aggravated burglar - causing injury intentionally - armed robbery – trespass
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Charles v The Queen [2011] VSCA 399; Younger v The Queen [2017] VSCA 199; Tannous v The Queen [2017] VSCA 91; Flood v The Queen [2016] VSCA 37; DPP v Dalgleish [2017] HCA 41.
Sentence:Total effective sentence of five years’ and nine months’ imprisonment with a NPP of three years’ and six months’ imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr S. Devlin | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr D. Langton | Geelong Lawyers Barristers & Solicitors |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Wayne Verzantvoort, you have been found guilty by a jury of your peers on one charge of aggravated burglary intention to steal and person present, one charge of causing injury intentionally and one charge of armed robbery on the indictment number C1811638 following a trial concluded in June of last year in Geelong. You have also pleaded guilty to one uplifted summary charge of without authority or excuse entering a private place.
The circumstances of offending
2 Following the return of the jury's verdict, the prosecution submitted to the court that the following is a factual basis upon which it should deal with you and your co-offender Jennifer Quinn. Quinn lived with the victim Mr Grant Quarrel and his family in around April or May of 2017 for a couple of months. Quarrel had allowed her to stay with them as she did not have any other place to live.
3 On 22 November 2017 at around 6 pm Quarrel was at his house in Geelong with a friend/workmate Christopher Rowley. His wife and son were out shopping. Quarrel and Rowley were in the lounge room when they heard the front doorbell ring. The wooden front door was locked but the security door was not. Quarrel checked the security monitor in the hallway which is connected to the front doorbell. He saw Quinn standing at the front door. He could not see any other person.
4 Quarrel opened the front door and realised there was a man standing behind her whom he did not know. You were that man and were wearing only cotton boxer briefs. As Quarrel opened the security door Quinn was standing just outside the entrance on the corner of the doormat. You then pushed past Quinn and entered the premises without permission, reaching as far as the lounge room doorway. This conduct constitutes Charge 2 of aggravated burglary with intent to steal and a person present.
5 When inside the house you picked up a hammer. Brandishing the hammer you have demanded that Quarrel give you money and other items of property. When Quarrel said that he did not have any more you hit Quarrel with the hammer three times, connecting with his left forearm and upper arm, causing a small laceration, bruising and swelling. This conduct constitutes Charge 3 of causing injury intentionally.
6 After hitting Quarrel you picked up a pocket knife. Still in the lounge room, Rowley then started to get up from the couch. You yelled at him words to the effect, 'Fucking sit down, I don't know you'. Rowley thereafter remained seated in the lounge room. Again, you demanded money and pried open the filing cabinet located near the front door. Whilst armed, you went down the hall to Quarrel's bedroom and again demanded money. Quarrel gave you two $5 and one $10 notes in a money clip. You then searched Quarrel's bedroom and stole his car keys and the spare keys belonging to his two sons' cars. You also took a set of Quarrel's house and work keys. You then grabbed Quarrel's Quicksilver backpack and started throwing various items into it, including the keys. When you noticed a safe in the bedroom floor you demanded that Quarrel give you the combination to it. When Quarrel refused you threatened to slash his face. Instead, you put the safe into a red suitcase and also took a laminator from the front filing cabinet and checked some more doors in the house. This conduct constitutes Charge 5 armed robbery.
7
As you and Quinn left the house, Quarrel observed you were driving away in what he later described as a pale blue VE Commodore sedan. Following the incident, Quarrel's mobile phone was missing. Shortly after attending Quarrel's premises, after numerous unsuccessful attempts to unlock Quarrel's phone, a photograph of Quinn was taken by security feature on the phone and was
e-mailed to Quarrel. The security photograph was provided to the police.
8
On 27 November 2017 Detective Senior Constable Tom Ryan and
Constable Sheera attended at 333 Torquay Road, Mt Duneed. Senior Constable Ryan identified himself and the other police members and their reasons for being on the property. One of the occupants unlocked the garage door where Constable Ryan observed a blue VE Holden Commodore sedan. This sedan was registered to you, having been purchased on 17 November 2017. The police found you and Quinn inside the premises along with another male. VicRoads owned the premises. You and Quinn had been living there without the knowledge and/or permission of VicRoads. This constitutes the summary charge of without authority or excuse entering a private place, uplift to Charge 5.
9 You were both arrested and then searched. The police found a small amount of methylamphetamine on Quinn's person. During the search of 333 Torquay Road, Senior Constable Ryan seized multiple sets of keys. These keys were later identified to be those stolen from Mr Quarrel's residence.
Assessment of the gravity of the offending
10 These are objectively seriously offenses with reference to the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament being 25 years imprisonment for aggravated burglary, 10 years for causing injury intentionally and 25 years imprisonment for armed robbery. The summary offence of trespass prescribes significantly lower maximum penalties of 25 penalty units or up to six months' imprisonment.
11 It was submitted by your counsel that you entered the victim's property with the intention to steal as opposed to intending to assault the victim. Further, the offending with respect to Charges 3 and 5 was largely spontaneous and therefore there was little premeditation with respect to the discrete elements of these offences. As to the injuries Mr Quarrel sustained in relation to Charge 3, it was submitted that they were comparatively of a minor nature and required no medical attention at the time. It was, however, rightly conceded by your counsel that it is disclosed in his victim impact statement that he does continue to experience a level of ongoing pain in his elbow joint and has other considerable consequences.
12 As to the seriousness of Charge 2, it was submitted that this is a less serious example of aggravated burglary. Further, when looking at the criteria used for assessing the particular seriousness of an instance of aggravated burglary, enunciated in the case of DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314 it could be postulated that: (1) your intent upon entry was to steal rather than commit an offences against the person; (2) your means of entry was 'pushing past' the co-accused and entering via an already open door rather than 'forcing' entry; (3) you were not carrying the weapon; (4) although in company, the verdict with respect of Quinn necessarily meant she was not complicit to any of your offending beyond one charge of theft (5); the offending took place at 6 pm whilst the two occupants were both awake and active; and (6) there is no evidence that the occupants were particularly frightened of you.
13 For these reasons it was submitted that three offences were comparatively 'low range' in terms of seriousness. In respect of the summary charge, your counsel and counsel for Quinn submitted that you were effectively squatting at the property and that the house was, at the time, the property of VicRoads and destined to be demolished. Further, at the time this was not a residence and no other people were living there apart from the three of you located there by police. Accordingly, this scenario constitutes the objective gravity of the offending in that effectively, you were living there because you had nowhere else to go.
Victim impact statement
14 Exhibit A tendered on the plea was the victim impact statement of Mr Grant Quarrel. In it he states that he used to consider himself and happy-go-lucky and tolerant person. He now does not trust people and finds things get to him more quickly. This is not who he was. The event has affected his relationships and he now thinks his wife and children view him as an irritable person who becomes angry more easily. This has added extra pressure and strain on his relationships. He believes that there has been a social impact, as he now struggles to go out and be with people. He believes that these charges contributed to his employment coming to an end and he suffers from anxiety at times, feeling like he cannot breathe. He believes that this offending has affected all areas of his life and details the financial impact and expenses he has incurred. What is clear from his victim impact statement is that this man is still suffering from your offending in a multitude of ways.
Criminal record
15 It was considered by your counsel that your record contains some very serious, and in some cases, very relevant prior convictions. Further, this offending occurred about four months after you were released from prison on parole in respect of a sentence for armed robbery imposed by Judge Mullaly of this court. Similar submissions were made to the court by the prosecution. It is a significant criminal history containing numerous dishonesty offences, eight terms of imprisonment and prior convictions for aggravated burglary.
Matters personal to you
16
You are one of three children to your parents with an older brother and a younger sister. Your parents separated when you were 12 years old and your father has re-partnered a couple of times since. You are close with your mother whom you have described as having early dementia and you do worry that she will die before you are released from prison. You have no contact with your brother and limited contact with your sister. You have one child who is aged
24 years, his mother having died in 2005 from a heroin overdose. You have a good relationship with him and are close.
17 From the age of 12 you grew up in Geelong. Prior to that you had been living all over Melbourne as your father was a sales manager who had to manage each new store that opened in a particular chain. You estimate that, as a result, you had attended 10-15 different primary schools and that this undermined your academic progress and precluded you from developing relationships. You had trouble at school with poor attention and focus, found it impossible to sit still and would describe your behaviour as poor. You did suffer from undiagnosed ADHD.
18 Your parents separated when you were 12 and you were deeply affected by it and believed that you were to blame. In response to this, you transformed from what you regarded as naughtiness to anger and aggression, becoming violent towards teachers and other students. You attended Corio Technical School for years 7 and 8 and then were sent to St Augustine School for six months but were exited early after reporting that you were allegedly sexually assaulted by one of the Brothers. Additionally, you have reported that you were 'touched up' by an older cousin and a local paedophile was grooming you.
19 Moving into your father's home after St Augustine's, you enjoyed a period of relative stability for about three years and worked in refrigerator repairs. You were, however, introduced to drug use at your place of employment and used it as a balm for your emotional distress. Since moving back to Geelong at age 21 you had a number of short-term casual positions. The longest that you held employment was at a labour hire agency. You have been unable to work since you were in a serious motorbike accident and have been on a disability support pension since. However, you do believe that you are capable of part-time work and believe that you function best when in employment and a stable relationship.
Psychological reports
20 Two psychological reports were tendered on the plea, being a psychological report of Ms Carla Lechner, clinic psychologist dated 7 August 2019 (Exhibit 2) and neuropsychological report of Dr Robert Bourke dated 17 October 2019 (Exhibit 4). Ms Lechner's report contains a detailed history of your background as outlined above, however, there are several additional areas that should be noted. Ms Lechner writes that you often think of suicide but have not made an attempt on your life for some time. You reported that between the ages of 12 and 14 you attempted suicide about five to six times, most often by overdose. You also have a long history of self-harm, stating that cutting or burning yourself 'eases the pain'.
21 You have a history of significant head injury. This includes the aforementioned motorbike accident when you were not wearing a helmet. After the accident you have noted a change in your cognition thereafter. Further, you have suffered other blows to the head throughout your life. As noted, you have experienced trauma in your life and have also witnessed acts of violence through your association with a drug sub-culture. Ms Lechner notes that you are easily triggered to a high level of emotional arousal that is responded to with anger and aggression. However, she does note that in optimal condition and with prompts, you are able to engage in reflective and consequential thinking. This does not come easy to you though, as you are impulsive in nature and run with the first thing that comes to mind.
22 Both Dr Bourke and Ms Lechner provide extensive histories of your drug and alcohol abuse. Briefly, you report beginning to use intravenous heroin and speed at the age of 14 years. Heroin has been problematic for all your life, with your habit being up to $2000 per day and a thousand dollars for speed. You recently switches to ice when you were last released from prison and were using up to a gram a day. Whilst in custody, you are receiving methadone and generally on buprenorphine program whilst in the community and are less likely to use heroin when on this program.
23 In your late teens and early 20s you spoked cannabis but gave it up at 29 and now rarely use it. You have abused benzodiazepines, used ecstasy, LSD and GHB, the latter recently on a daily basis. In respect of alcohol, you no longer drink but did drink heavily earlier in your life until sometime in your early 20s. Currently you're also taking anti-depressants.
24 Ms Lechner opines that you present with opioid and stimulant use disorder in remission in a controlled environment, major depressive disorder, adult ADHD and borderline personality disorder arising from a background of complex developmental trauma. Following your motorbike accident in 2001 and the death of your former partner in 2005, you have fallen into period of deep depression resulting in increased drug use and self-harm. You did impress as being capable of reflective and consequential thinking.
25 As to this offending, you viewed the victim as a 'drug dealer' who had supplied your girlfriend Quinn with drugs intravenously and felt angry about this alleged behaviour. You reported that you were high on ice at the time with Ms Lechner opining that this no doubt adversely impacted on your decision making ability and capacity for impulse inhibition. Of some concern is your acknowledgement of your risk of institutionalisation and your comment that you found gaol 'easy'. However, it was noted that you were highly motivated to change your ways in the context of your current relationship and that you would like to get married to Ms Quinn, viewing this relationship as your salvation.
26 The report of Dr Bourke briefly outlines your highly disrupted childhood, noting your undiagnosed and untreated ADHD, history of developmental trauma and history of problematic polysubstance use. Discussion of your accident in 2001 resulting in coma and ongoing epilepsy led into his findings on examination of neuropsychological assessment of you exhibiting a range of cognitive impairments. Dr Bourke opines that there is clear evidence of an acquired brain injury which is likely multifactorial in origin. The causes are likely due to your early substance abuse occurring in sensitive stages of brain development, your ongoing polysubstance abuse and the likely further deleterious impact on your already compromised cognitive abilities and vulnerable brain caused by your accident in 2001.
27 Dr Bourke opined, 'Wayne's acquired brain injury is permanent and would've been present at the time of his offending. His ABI and resultant cognitive impairment will be one factor amongst many impacting on his offending behaviour. His cognitive difficulties will limit his ability to plan, reason, exercise appropriate judgment, think abstractly, recall information and events, and fully reflect on the likely consequences of his behaviours.' Furthermore, he considers you are less likely to fully understand the wrongfulness of your action, to think clearly, to make calm and reasoned decisions. The acute impact of substance use is likely to amplify your underlying cognitive deficits. Accordingly, there is a constellation of circumstances, conditions and impairments forming your personal circumstances which must weigh in the court's consideration of imposing the most appropriate sentence.
Sentencing principles
28 In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of different factors. I must give effect to the principles of deterrence, both general and specific. I must deter other people from behaving like you. I must deter you from repeating such behaviour and impose a just punishment in all the circumstances. I must express the community's denunciation of your conduct and promote your rehabilitation. I must also have regard to current sentencing practices for offences of this kind that you have committed and I must balance your personal circumstances.
Plea of guilty and remorse
29 The issue of remorse was not explore by either counsel on the plea. There is nothing before the court to give any indication of remorse for your offending against Mr Quarrel. The nearest sentiment that is before the court on the materials is you stating to Ms Lechner that you are annoyed to find yourself back in gaol. I note that the absence of any remorse on your part is not an aggravating factor, however, nor can any remorse be objectively seen to exist that could be seen as a matter in mitigation. You have elected to run the gauntlet in running a trial to verdict and have failed. As such, you are not eligible for any discounts or reductions in your sentence had you pleaded guilty at an earlier stage to Charges 2, 3 and 5. However, the court does take into account your plea of guilty with respect to the summary offence and you will of course also receive credit for its objective utilitarian benefit through the saving of time and resources and the correlating remorse and insight with respect to a single offence and your subjective willingness to facilitate the course of justice in that respect.
Prospects of rehabilitation
30 Your counsel submitted to the court that you are still salvageable and that your prospects of rehabilitation could not be said to have been completely extinguished, though perhaps they must always remain guarded. This is in light of your substantial body of prior convictions.
31 It was further submitted your relationship with Ms Quinn serves as motivation and constitutes a real incentive that you have never experienced before. Additionally, the court should now consider the fact that you have been diagnosed as having sustained and acquired brain injury and is now armed with a level of understanding as to how you should be managed now and more importantly in the community.
Parity
32 The court has taken into account the principles of parity as it relates to the summary offence of trespass that you and Quinn were charged with in relation to your squatting at the property situated in Mt Duneed. Ms Quinn received from this court on 2 September 2019 the disposition of a conviction and discharge and the court is cognisant of this fact in its determination of the appropriate sentence to impose for this offence.
General deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and community protection
33 All of the offences for which the jury found you guilty must rightly have general deterrence and community protection as prominent considerations in the court's instinctive synthesis. This is clearly abhorrent offending by you and offending of the type that this court deals with too often and the community too often is forced to endure. There can be few things more corrosive to the sense of security to a home owner and their family than the occurrence of an aggravated burglary. As provided in his victim impact statement, Mr Quarrel has suffered a loss in his sense of security out in the wider world and in his home. For a man who provided a roof over Ms Quinn's head when she was without one, it is poor compensation for such an act. The invasion of another person's home is one of society's evils and the community expects that the police and the courts will protect it from it.
34 The court must deter others from engaging in this behaviour through the imposition of condo and punishment and send a message that those who commit such offences will face a term of imprisonment. Most relevant is the need for specific deterrence in this matter. You are a man with a significant relevant criminal history. It is clear that you are yet to take the message to heart that you cannot behave in such a way nor can you solve any personal animus that you may have by confrontation and aggression.
Verdins
35
The most contested point on the plea was the applicability of Verdins principles and whether the defence had discharged its onus on the balance of probabilities. The prosecution's contention was that as outlined above, that you were both drug offended at the time of your offending and had disclosed to
Ms Lechner that you viewed the victim as a drug dealer to whom you were going to teach a lesson. On that basis, it was submitted that the court should not be satisfied that the defendant had established the facts on the balance of probabilities and that the requisite causal link could not be reached on the evidence before the court to the requisite standard of proof.
36 The defence submitted that the disorders suffered by you, particularly the ABI, amount to a 'mental disorder or abnormality or an impairment of mental function' as to enliven Verdins principles. The court was directed to the case of Charles v The Queen [2011] VSCA 399 at paragraph 162 as to the principles that may be discerned from authorities when dealing with the establishments of a link between a mental condition and the offending conduct. It was submitted that the onus had been discharged on the balance of probabilities. Cogent evidence had been provided in the form of Dr Bourke's expert report and his diagnosis of an ABI being present at the time of this offending. Further, he opined that the resultant cognitive impairment would be one factor amongst many impacting on your offending behaviour and that such cognitive difficulties would limit your ability to plan, reason, exercise appropriate judgment and fully reflect on the likely consequences of your behaviour and less likely to fully understand the wrongfulness of your actions, to think clearly and to make calm and reasoned decisions.
37 The court finds that your ABI and its resulting impairments of your cognitive functioning was present and was a cause of your offending on the balance of probabilities and that limbs 1 and 2 are applicable. Correspondingly I find there should be some reduction in your moral culpability and that your condition will have some bearing on the sentence that is imposed. Limb 3 does also have some application, though the court finds that the need for general deterrence in this case should be moderated to a limited extent and is not extinguished.
Disposition, just punishment and current sentencing practices
38 It was submitted by your counsel that the court should impose a combination sentence, having regard to all of the circumstances outlined above for what otherwise your offending, in conjunction with your prior history, would call for a stern sentence. Further it was submitted that the court in line with the decision of Younger v The Queen [2017] VSCA 199 would be able to impose a combination sentence which could include up to 12 months' imprisonment to be served from the date of sentence followed by a CCO with onerous conditions. It was further submitted, such a sentence would be preferable to a head sentence with a non-parole period. Such a sentence, it was conceded, would be a merciful sentence but not completely outside the appropriate range.
39
In response the prosecution submitted that the offences of which you were found guilty, together with your antecedence, are so serious that it would not be appropriate to oppose a combination sentence. Especially, it was stated, in light of this offending occurring shortly after the end of the sentence of
Judge Mullaly. It was the prosecution's position that the appropriate sentence in this matter would be a head sentence with a non-parole period.
40 This was the position of the plea and reaffirmed in the written submission provided to the court on 30 January 2020.
41 These written submissions did however concede that it was in the court's power to impose a combination sentence where a prisoner has served a significant time in custody. The case of Tannous v The Queen [2017] VSCA 91 was submitted to be an example of such a case, though, one of limited assistance due to the appellant having a limited criminal history consisting of summary offences. Searches undertaken by the prosecution were unable to yield a comparative case where an accused with a significant history and committing serious offences of the same nature soon after they had completed a very lengthy gaol sentence and receiving a combination sentence. The closest comparative case was submitted to be the case of Flood v The Queen [2016] VSCA 37. However it was submitted that the Court of Appeal in that matter excluded the Verdins considerations and the facts relates to the charge of intentionally cause injury were considerably more significant in that matter.
42 It was again submitted in the written submissions that the sentence and sentencing remarks of Judge Mullaly dated 11 March 2011 are of relevance given that the current offending before the court is for a violent offence and took place soon after he had finished serving the is previous sentence. Though it is not binding it is of some assistance to the court and it was rightly conceded that His Honour was not presented with any evidence of you having an ABI at the time.
43 Defence counsel, in response to the written submissions of the prosecution, supplied the court with a response. They were unable to locate any further comparable authorities. Defence did supply the court with the sentencing snapshots in respect of the features of armed robbery and aggravated burglary for the years 2012-2017. It was submitted that a combination sentence was in range and it is during that period nine percent of those charged for aggravated burglary offences and 12 per cent of those charged with armed robbery offences received combination sentences. These snapshots are of course of limited assistance as they do not provide information relating to the antecedence of those who received such sentences. These cases do serve as some reference to the objective gravity and seriousness of your offending and whilst the court has taken the cases provided into account in determining the appropriate sentence and has been informed by them, I am not bound by them in exercising my sentencing discretion and view current sentencing practices as only one of the factors I must consider as provided in the case of DPP v Dalgleish [2017] HCA 41.
44 Having considered all of the materials tendered on the plea and the above cases, the court must, in all the circumstances, impose a just sentence as part of its instinctive synthesis.
Sentence
45 Mr Verzantvoort, could you please stand. On Charge 2 of aggravated burglary you are convicted and sentenced to four years and six months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence. On Charge 3 of causing injury intentionally you are convicted and sentenced to nine months in prison with three months to be served cumulatively on Charge 2. On Charge 5 of armed robbery you are convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment with 12 months to be served cumulatively on Charge 2. On the uplifted summary offence of trespass summary charge 5 you are convicted and discharged. This makes a total effective sentence of five years and nine months' imprisonment and I direct that you serve a non-parole period of three years six months before being eligible for parole.
46
I declare that 795 days, not including today, have already been served as a
pre-sentence detention. Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but your plea of guilty with respect to the uplifted summary offence, I would have imposed a fine of $500 with conviction.
47 The prosecution have also made application for a disposal order and I believe that this is by consent and I propose to make the order sought as to the item set out in the schedule.
HIS HONOUR: Is there anything further, counsel? You may be seated,
Mr Verzantvoort.
MR DEVLIN: Nothing further, Your Honour.
MR LANGTON: No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. You may remove the - - -
MR DEVLIN: Sorry. Can I just – just a minute. In relation to 6AAA, Your Honour covered that, didn't you?
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MR DEVLIN: I just didn't – was it 6AAA?
HIS HONOUR: 6AAA with respect to the plea of guilty with respect to the uplifted summary offence.
MR DEVLIN: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I would've imposed a fine of $500 with a conviction but for the plea. There was only one plea of guilty.
MR DEVLIN: Yes, Your Honour. I'm just – because Your Honour has to declare a – no, you don't. There's nothing further, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you. You may remove the prisoner, thank you. I'll just hand down the final law. Just let me know if there's any problems.
MR DEVLIN: I think on Charge 3 – I believe Your Honour said Charge 3 nine months?
HIS HONOUR: Nine months' imprisonment with three months to be served cumulatively.
MR DEVLIN: Your Honour, there's a typo here.
HIS HONOUR: I see, yes. You are correct, not the document.
MR LANGTON: It's going to be corrected I think, Your Honour, yes.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Any other typo?
MR DEVLIN: Not that I can see, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, that's fine. Yes, it looks fine to me. All right.
MR DEVLIN: Done.
HIS HONOUR: I thank counsel for their assistance in this matter.
- - -
0
7
0