Kramarzewski and El Ghoul v The Queen

[2015] NSWDC 400

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Kramarzewski & El Ghoul v R [2015] NSWDC 400

Hearing dates:

17 December 2015

Date of orders:

17 December 2015

Decision date:

17 December 2015

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Neilson DCJ

Decision:

2014/369128

 

Appeal allowed

 

Sentence passed by the Local Court sitting at Burwood on 4 November 2015 set aside

Conviction recorded

 

Offender sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, suspended.

 

2014/369337

 

Appeal allowed

 

Sentence passed by the Local Court sitting at Burwood on 4 November 2015 set aside

Conviction recorded

 Offender sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months, suspended.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeals against severity of sentences of full time imprisonment – Each offender involved in a fraud which deprived a mobile phone provider of nearly one million dollars – Criminality of each offender low – Low moral culpability – Each offender a grandfather, of prior good character, receiving little of no pecuniary advantage – Suspended sentences imposed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Stan Kramarzewski (1st Appellant)
Khaled El Ghoul (2nd Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

Representation:

Mr Leitner (1st Appellant)
Mr A Radojev (2nd Appellant)
Ms Wills (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2014/369128; 2014/369337

Publication restriction:

No

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

Burwood Local Court

Date of Decision:

4 November 2015

Before:

Still LCM

File Number(s):

2014/369128
2014/369337

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Stan Kramarzewski and Khaled El Ghoul appeal from sentences imposed on them by Magistrate Still sitting in the Local Court at Burwood on 4 November 2015. The learned Magistrate sentenced Mr Kramarzewski to imprisonment for 16 months and fixed a non-parole period of 10 months. That sentence was to commence on 4 November 2015, the day on which it was imposed. His Honour sentenced Mr El Ghoul to imprisonment for 18 months and fixed a non-parole period of 12 months. That sentence was due to commence on 4 November 2015 as well, the date on which the sentence was imposed. However, on the day the sentence was imposed each of the offenders filed a notice of appeal against the severity of sentence and was granted bail. Neither of the offenders has served any time in custody.

2. The offences are objectively grave. However, there is a little difference in the facts agreed in each case. The two offenders were courier drivers working for StarTrack Express. That courier company had a contract with Brightstar Logistics to deliver mobile phone devices distributed on behalf of Telstra Corporation Limited. When a customer of Telstra makes an order for a telephone there is no requirement for the customer to make any payment. The customer’s application is assessed on the telephone and, provided the customer passes an initial credit assessment, a mobile telephone apparatus is dispatched to the customer’s nominated address within 48 hours. The customer of Telstra is required to provide some form of personal identification, typically a driver’s licence. The last four digits of the personal identification provided become a code which is printed on the outside of the delivery satchel. When the satchel is delivered to the customer, the customer is required to present the relevant identification and the courier driver must confirm that the code endorsed on the delivery satchel matches the last four digits of the identification provided by the customer who is supposed to be the person who ordered the telephone.

3. When the mobile telephones’ are delivered by StarTrack Express they are dealt with under a procedural system described as “Airlock” that requires the customer of Telstra to hand to the StarTrack Express Courier driver the valid identification and the identification provided must match the name of the customer as placed on the order as well as the unique four digit code. The customer is required to sign the consignment note when the customer receives the product. If no person is present at the time the mobile phone is delivered it is not left at the customer’s address but a card is left with details of the consignment and the mobile phone is left at the nearest post office.

4. The offending behaviour occurred between December 2013 and November 2014. A female, Kim Carpenter, was the principal organiser of a fraud in which the two offenders became involved. She herself was a Telstra customer. In the period in question she made various orders in different names to Telstra for mobile phones. She did this by using one mobile phone handset but different SIM cards. When she placed an order she provided a false name and particulars at an address somewhere in the general south west area of Sydney. The addresses were real but the name of the person given by Carpenter as the customer was not the person living at the address. In accordance with its normal procedure the handsets were dispatched within 48 hours of the order being made. When the mobile phones were dispatched they would be shipped by Brightstar Logistics to StarTrack Express which delivered them to the addresses provided by Carpenter to Telstra. Carpenter would contact one of the two offenders and advise him of the false name and address of the orders she had made. Records of those telephone calls have been identified. The offenders attended work each day and loaded their courier trucks with packages that they were asked to deliver. Those packages often contained mobile phone devices addressed to a bogus customer who in reality was Carpenter.

5. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the facts agreed between the Crown and Mr Kramarzewski are these:

“18. El Ghoul and Kramarzewski, once having started work and begun delivering other packages, will look for the package marked by Telstra and as having the false name and address on the delivery details.”

19. Once a package is located by either accused at the StarTrack Express depot at Greenacre, the item is then delivered to the nominated address and recipient on the consignment note. Carpenter would meet the accused at each address and sign for the package containing the mobile phone. On each occasion false identification was provided by Carpenter. El Ghoul and Kramarzewski would deliver up to ten mobile phones each to Carpenter on any given day meeting her at a different address on each occasion.”

6. Paragraph 18 of the facts agreed between the Crown and Mr El Ghoul is this:

“Once a package is located by either accused at the StarTrack Express depot at Greenacre, the item is then delivered to the nominated address and recipient on the consignment note. Carpenter or other unknown men would meet the accused at each address and sign for the package containing the mobile phone. On each occasion false identification was provided. El Ghoul and Kramarzewski would deliver up to ten mobile phones each to Carpenter on any given day meeting her at a different address on each occasion.”

There is some tension between the last two sentences of those agreed facts. In his oral evidence today Mr El Ghoul told me that there were four men other than Ms Carpenter who accepted delivery of the mobile phone handsets but he was unable to identify any one of those men.

7. The deliveries under this fraudulent scheme can be tabulated by giving the month and the number of devices and the value of the devices. That table is this:

Month	Number of Devices	$
December 2013	6	5,070
January 2014	42	38,511
February 2015	148	138,745
March 2014	142	135,630
April 2014	205	196,583
May 2014	149	238,340
June 2014	63	58,630
July 2014	14	13,440
September 2014	5	4,698
October 2014	3	1,800
November 2014	4	2,500

8. The total loss incurred by Telstra Corporation Limited was $833,947. The total loss to Telstra of the deliveries effected by Kramarzewski was $465,715. The total loss to Telstra as the result of deliveries made by El Ghoul was $313,384.

9. The downturn in deliveries from June 2014 to November 2014 is explained by the fact that Mr Kramarzewski resigned from the employment of StarTrack Express in June 2014 after working for it for some 30 years. Mr El Ghoul continued to participate in the fraud until he was arrested at his place of employment on 16 December 2014.

10. At the present time Mr Kramarzewski is 67 years old, Mr El Ghoul is 51 years old. Each of the offenders stood for sentence in the Local Court as a man of prior good character. Mr Kramarzewski had not committed any criminal offence at any time in the past and the only criminal antecedents of Mr El Ghoul were driving offences which are of no significance whatever.

11. The extent of the fraud is large. The loss suffered by Telstra Corporation Limited is large. The potential amount of money gained by the principal in the fraud, Ms Carpenter, is substantial. The gain she made may well have been less than the total loss incurred by Telstra but it would have been substantial. The telephones which were the subject of fraud have been identified as being found in places such as New York, India, Russia, Kuwait, Argentina, as well as Australia.

12. The real question for the Court’s consideration is: why did these two men of mature age and prior good character become involved in fraud? That really determines the extent of their criminality and therefore the nature of the penalty that ought be imposed.

13. Mr Kramarzewski was born in Germany after his Polish parents fled the Communist advance in Eastern Europe at the end of World War II. Mr Kramarzewski and his parents arrived in Australia when he was two years old, that is, in probably 1950. His father is still living and is 88 years old. He lives one street away from the offender who really cares for his father who is reliant upon him for much in his old age. Mr Kramarzewski concluded his schooling at Ashfield Boys High School in what is now called Year 9, in those days it would have been 3rd Form. Whether he obtained his Intermediate Certificate or not the evidence does not disclose. He commenced a plumbing apprenticeship but lost that because his employer went out of business during a downturn. He then worked in a variety of jobs as a shop assistant, a sales representative for a chemical company, in a cake shop until the company was wound-up, and he then commenced working as a courier driver with a company called Alpha Couriers. He then worked for a discount freight company which changed its name in 2000 to StarTrack Express. As I said earlier, he worked for that company for 30 years prior to his leaving the business in June 2014. He has been married for some 46 years. He has three adult children and seven grandchildren.

14. Mr Kramarzewski was interviewed by Mr Sam Borenstein, a psychologist, on 2 November 2015. He was given this history:

“Mr Kramarzewski initially met Kim Carpenter when he delivered a parcel and she was able to provide proper identification. Mr Kramarzewski subsequently delivered parcels (iPhones) to Kim Carpenter, who ‘gave me a sob story. I thought it was real. She told me she could not pay the rent and that her partner was a gambler, and she had three children to feed’.

Mr Kramarzewski describes himself as ‘a soft touch’. I’ve always been like that’. Mr Kramarzewski agreed with Ms Carpenter to deliver phones to assist her out financially. Mr Kramarzewski states he complied out of concern for Kim Carpenter, who he believed was suffering financially, about to be thrown out onto the streets and not able to feed her three children.

Mr Kramarzewski states his involvement spanned some six months. After a period of time, Mr Kramarzewski was paid moneys by Ms Carpenter, which he accepted. Over the six month period, Mr Kramarzewski states, ‘I felt bad, but I didn’t know how to get out of it. I was worried if I said no to her she would call my employer, so I resigned. Mr Kramarzewski had intended to work up to the age of 70, and resigned prematurely in June 2014.

Mr Kramarzewski’s history confirms he is a person who puts the needs and wants of others before [himself]. Mr Kramarzewski is currently acting as a carer for his father, who is struggling emotionally since the death of Mr Kramarzewski’s mother in 2010.

Mr Kramarzewski is actively involved in supporting his two daughters and son, and seven grandchildren.

Mr Kramarzewski reflects on the behaviour which brings him before the Court. Mr Kramarzewski states over the six month period representing his involvement in the offences, he felt burdened by guilt and uncertainty as to how to extricate himself.

Mr Kramarzewski impressed as genuinely burdened by guilt and remorse with regards [to] the offending behaviour. Mr Kramarzewski is now concerned about the welfare of his father and wife, in the event he is incarcerated. Mr Kramarzewski reflects on his foolishness, and the pattern of putting the needs and wants of others before self.

Mr Kramarzewski’s current diagnosis is that of mild to moderate adjustment disorder with anxiety as he faces the prospect of incarceration”.

15. Nearly everyone who stands for sentence can be expected to be suffering from anxiety, depression and stress following upon the prospect of being sentenced to full-time imprisonment. The existence of an adjustment disorder in such circumstances is to be expected.

16. Mr Kramarzewski has confirmed his contrition and remorse by agreeing to assist the authorities. He has assisted the authorities by nominating the principal organiser of the fraud, formally identifying her and giving the police evidence about matters of which they were unaware which will greatly assist police in prosecuting Kim Carpenter. He has given an undertaking to give oral evidence in court at the trial which she will undergo in 2016 in this Court. The police categorise the assistance given to them as “high”. They also say that the timeliness of the assistance and information given to them by Mr Kramarzewski has been timely and appropriate and indeed one detective sergeant tells me that without the assistance given by Mr Kramarzewski the prosecution of Kim Carpenter may not have been able to be progressed.

17. The offender only received a small amount of money, money really of no significance, from Carpenter. He fell into her trap because he was trying to assist her in a mistaken belief that she was in need. When he realised what was happening he found it difficult to extricate himself and could only get out of it by resigning his job, something which he did not intend to do and which he has regretted. He told Mr Borenstein that he still misses the job that he had done for some 30 years. Whilst the sum in which the offender assisted Carpenter in defrauding the victim Telstra is substantial, nearly a half million dollars, the gain to the offender himself has been paltry and the detriment great. His criminality is low.

18. I have no hesitation accepting, nor does the Crown, in finding that the offender will not reoffend. He has learnt by having his fingers burnt relatively late in his life, which has otherwise been one of a hardworking, honest, family-man in our community. However, the Court must recognise not only personal deterrence, that is, stopping this offender from committing another crime, but also general deterrence, making a statement about criminal behaviour that should deter others from falling into a similar or position, of getting themselves involved in criminal behaviour.

19. The learned Magistrate started with a head sentence of 20 months imprisonment. He allowed 10% for a plea of guilty and a further 10% for the offender’s assistance to the police, and thereby reduced 20 months to 16 months and then sentenced the offender to imprisonment for 16 months and fixed a ten month non-parole period. I accept that a 20 month head sentence is an appropriate indicative sentence. However, I would allow a 20% discount for the utilitarian value of the offender’s plea of guilty.

20. The first appearance before the Local Court was on 14 January 2015. There were six further appearances at that Court. However, by 3 June the Local Court noted that there were negotiations and eventually on 26 August 2015 the offender entered a plea of guilty which led to his being sentenced by Magistrate Still on 4 November 2015. Whilst it is not a plea at the earliest possible opportunity it is still a plea of guilty at a very early stage in proceedings. The matter had not been set down for a committal hearing. It is sometimes difficult to understand what is meant by endorsements on Local Court coversheets but it appears that no actual date for a committal hearing was set because no time estimate was ever provided for the length of the committal hearing. Accordingly, I accept that there was a plea before any committal hearing date was set which led to the offender standing for sentence in the Local Court on 4 November. I would accordingly allow a discount of 20% for a relatively early plea of guilty.

21. The learned Magistrate assessed Mr Kramarzewski’s assistance at 10%, 5% for the past and 5% for the future. With the utmost respect to the learned Magistrate, I believe that that is a gross underestimate of the value of the offender’s assistance. I would allow a 20% discount for the offender’s assistance, allowing 10% for the past and 10% for the offender’s undertaking to give evidence in this Court against Kim Carpenter. Accordingly, a total discount of 40% ought to have been allowed and therefore the head sentence should be reduced to 12 months.

22. The Crown has conceded that whilst a custodial sentence is called for it does not maintain the position that the custodial sentence must be a full time custodial sentence. Bearing in mind the relatively low criminality and the effect that this has had on the offender to-date, bearing in mind his true remorse and contrition and bearing in mind his age and antecedents, and his commitments, looking after his family, I believe that his is an appropriate case in which to suspend the sentence pursuant to s 12.

23. I turn now to Mr El Ghoul appeal. The reasons for Mr El Ghoul’s being involved in this fraud are very different. In one respect it is difficult to accept the plausibility of the excuse offered by Mr El Ghoul for his becoming involved but there must have been cultural factors here at play and other factors have not been the subject of any challenge by the Crown.

24. Like Mr Kramarzewski, Mr El Ghoul was examined by Mr Borenstein on 29 October 2015. Mr El Ghoul gave Mr Borenstein a history of two events happening on one day in late 2012, approximately one year prior to his becoming involved in the fraud now in question. The relevant history of Mr Borenstein is this:

“Whilst employed as a courier driver, Mr El Ghoul states he was subject to traumatic incidents, but could not nominate the date, “I remember it was a Thursday”. Mr El Ghoul states he was delivering a parcel and had difficulty finding the exact address. He recalls going into a medical practice, which did not correspond with the exact delivery address. Mr El Ghoul could only deliver items the person who could provide suitable identification, and if the parcel could not be delivered, Mr El Ghoul would take the parcel to the nearest post office. Mr El Ghoul says he returned to his van, intending to take that parcel to the post office when a man in his mid-20s caught Mr El Ghoul’s attention to take delivery of the parcel. Mr El Ghoul says he asked for suitable identification, “he gave me the right name, but the address was wrong”. Mr El Ghoul asked for identification, “he said he lost his glasses. I said I could not give him the parcel without ID”. Mr El Ghoul says the man insisted, “He said it was his. He started getting a bit aggressive”. Mr El Ghoul identified the man in his mid to late 20s, standing approximately 172 centimetres, and weighing somewhere between 70 and 75 kilograms, “he had a bag across his shoulders. He put his hand into it, I thought to get an ID”.

At this point in the interview Mr El Ghoul became both emotional and tearful when he referred to the young man taking a gun out of the bag:

“He put it to my heart, heart. He said that the parcel was his. I froze. I could not see anything. I remember having hold of my scanner, I was shaking. I went blank. I’m not easily scared. I’ve never been so frightened”. Mr El Ghoul volunteered he avoids thinking about that day, “every time I do, I start crying”.”

I omit the next two paragraphs of the history. The history then continues thus:

“Mr El Ghoul states, “It happened again. I went to another address and knocked on the door. They were not the right customers. Then I saw this car, a WRX. It was a big man this time, maybe 95 kilograms”. Mr El Ghoul states he asked for ID. “He went back to the car and pulled out [a] machete. I hopped in my van and took off”. Mr El Ghoul says he dropped the parcel at a post office. Mr El Ghoul states he did not report either of the matters to the police, “I followed the protocol. I reported it to the manager.”

25. The sworn evidence of the offender is that he reported the incident to a superior, Mr Fury, on the telephone. Mr Fury’s name was given in the proceedings in the Local Court. It is clear that Mr Fury has not been interviewed on behalf of the offender. However, the offender was not challenged in what he said in this regard today by the Crown and the inference to be drawn is that Mr Fury has not been interviewed on behalf of the Crown either. However, I am in a position where I must accept what the offender said in this regard in the light of there being no contradiction from Mr Fury when the Crown has been on notice since the proceedings in the Local Court about his involvement in this case.

26. Furthermore, the offender put before the Local Court, and there is before this Court, an affidavit of Mr Vishal Nayyer sworn on 31 October 2015 in which he deposes to the incident involving the offender and the young male who threatened him with a gun. The only further detail offered by Mr Nayyer is that the male with the gun was of “middle eastern appearance” and heavily tattooed. There is no evidence to rebut what the offender and Mr Nayyer say about this incident and what Mr El Ghoul says about the subsequent incident about with machete. Whilst the detail is inconsistent the thrust of what the offender said and what Mr Nayyer swore in his affidavit is that Mr Fury was advised as to what happened but did not call the offender into the business depot and compile an incident report which appeared to be the normal practice or procedure. The offender himself did not report it to the police. He appears to have believed that that was the responsibility of his employer.

27. According to Mr Borenstein the offender developed a post-traumatic stress disorder following upon those threats to his life. He became vigilant and wary, fearing a recurrence. He became withdrawn and socially isolated. He noticed sleep disturbances and occasional nightmares. Mr El Ghoul swears on oath that it was in such circumstances that he became involved in Ms Carpenter’s fraud. Not only had the offender not told the authorities about these threats to him in late 2012 but he did not tell his family about those threats. He did not tell his wife because she herself was suffering from anxiety and depression for which she was being treated by with psychotropic medication and she had in fact been under psychiatric care and had been at one stage suicidal. Accepting that to be true, it is understandable that he would not tell the members of his family about the threat that he perceived to himself in late 2012.

28. The way in which Mr El Ghoul became involved in Ms Carpenter’s fraud is alluded to in this fashion in the history taken by Mr Borenstein:

“Mr El Ghoul continued to be vigilant and wary. He feared recurrence of being threatened. Mr El Ghoul says he felt threatened, “They called my phone, they told me my wife drives a landcruiser, and she drives my son to school. I didn’t want to tell my wife or scare anyone’. Over time Mr El Ghoul says he handed items over without demanding identification. ‘I was frightened. I did not question the ID as much. I needed to work to support my family’.

Mr El Ghoul says that for a year he complied with the demands of Ms Carpenter and her four male friends because he feared for himself and the members of his family. That fear appeared to me to be implausible. However, the offender grew up in Tripoli in southern Lebanon which for many years has been a grossly dysfunctional area of the world. He spent the first 13 years of his life in Tripoli. He left to come to Australia essentially as a refugee from the Lebanese civil war. Whilst Mr El Ghoul was not directly affected by the war he could hear bombing and gunshots from far away. Members of his extended family came to Australia as well. In this country the offender, as I mentioned earlier, has not been involved in any crime that is at all relevant to the current proceedings and has worked consistently and well, and has done much to support his wife and extended family.

29. In his ‘Opinion’ Mr Borenstein ventured what is not really an opinion but a relevant piece of history. It is this:

“Mr El Ghoul says he did not know the persons who [sic] he delivered parcels to. He admits following being traumatised he was less inclined to be insistent on asking for IDs, fearing recurrence of threats and possible injury to himself and his family. Mr El Ghoul says he was subject to veiled threats from persons, who said they knew what car his wife was driving, and also knew where Mr El Ghoul and his family lived.”

The offender swore on oath that he received no money whatever for his being involved in the fraud and received no other benefit. His evidence was that all he himself received was the disadvantage of living in fear and ultimately losing his job with StarTrack Express. He has since found employment as a long haul truck driver.

30. The only contrition and remorse that the offender expressed was in the witness box today and that was quite accidental. I suspect that he is more contrite and remorseful about the position in which he finds himself and has put his family, rather than being contrite about the damage done to Telstra. Be that as it may, accepting as I must, because he was not challenged in that regard, the offender’s involvement gained him no benefit whatever. He puts himself forward as an unintended and unwilling participant in the fraud whose only motivation was fear. That being so, this offender’s conduct is also of no great moral culpability. When it was put to the offender that he could have reported the fear that he is operating under to his employer or to the authorities, he maintained that he would not do so because of that very fear. He did not consider changing his telephone number because it had been his for a long time and was known to all his extended family both within Australia and overseas. There are ways of overcoming that, but the offender is not to be punished for his foolishness or cowardice, but for his criminality.

31. Again, the learned Magistrate commenced with a head sentence of 20 months which he discounted by 10% for the utilitarian value for the offender’s plea of guilty. Just as I did in Mr Kramarzewski’s case, that should be increased to 20% because the plea whilst not at the earliest available opportunity, was clearly at an early opportunity. Mr El Ghoul’s case ran in the same way as did Mr Kramarzewski, that reduces the head sentence from 18 months to 16 months.

32. Again, the issue here is, how should that be served: should it be served by a full-time custodial sentence or ought it be suspended as was Mr Kramarzewski’s? The offender is younger than Mr Kramarzewski, 51 years of age. While Mr Kramarzewski’s criminality is low, if Mr El Ghoul has told the truth, which I have to accept because otherwise I would be acting cynically, rejecting evidence which was really not challenged, so is Mr El Ghoul’s.

33. Mr El Ghoul is the father of five. He has two children living at home with him, two sons aged 18 and eight, and he is still clearly living with his wife. He has three daughters aged 25, 23 and 20, all of whom are married and he currently has six grandchildren. Again, he is well respected in his local community.

34. I accept, as does the Crown, that there is little prospect of the offender’s reoffending and therefore the corollary is accurate, that the chances of rehabilitation are good. At least the offender is now being treated for his PTSD, although such treatment was only commenced after he was arrested by the police. Again, if one were cynical, one might believe that the treatment was only necessary because of the offenders’ getting into trouble with the law but that is not the effect of his evidence which, as I said, has not been controverted. In the circumstances, I believe it appropriate to suspend this offender’s sentence as well.

35. For those reasons I set aside the sentences passed in the Local Court at Burwood on 4 November 2015.

36. Stan Kramarzewski, I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. Under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I order that execution of the sentence be suspended. I direct that you be released from custody on condition that you enter into a good behaviour bond for a term of 12 months commencing today. Conditions of the bond are as follows:

1. you are to appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the term of the bond;

2. you are to be of good behaviour;

3. you are to reside at 31 Eddie Street, Panania; or

4. you are to advise the Registrar of the Court by prepaid registered post of any change of residential address during the term of the bond.

37. Khaled El Ghoul, I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of one year and four months. Under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I order that execution of the sentence be suspended. I direct that you be released from custody on condition that you enter into a good behaviour bond for a term of one year and four months commencing today. Conditions of the bond are as follows:

1. you are to appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the term of the bond;

2. you are to be of good behaviour;

3. you are to reside at 2 Robertson Street, Merrylands, New South Wales, 2160; or

4. you are to advise the Registrar of the Court by prepaid registered post of any change of residential address during the term of the bond.

38. Mr Kramarzewski and Mr El Ghoul, I am required to advise you what a suspended sentence means. To be of good behaviour means you have to obey the law. If you do anything other than something trivial then you will be called back before the Court and be sentenced to imprisonment full-time. All that would be left for me to do is to fix the non-parole period. For your Mr Kramarzewski, it means you might go to gaol for eight months, and for you Mr El Ghoul you would go to gaol for at least 12 months, so you know what is hanging over your head for the period of the bond that you will enter into today. Do you understand, gentlemen?

39. Any other orders sought?

40. WILLS: No, thank you, your Honour.

41. RADOJEV: No, thank you, your Honour.

42. LEITNER: No, thank you, your Honour.

**********

Decision last updated: 15 July 2016