R v Afram

[2021] NSWDC 845

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Afram [2021] NSWDC 845

Hearing dates:

21 June 2021

Decision date:

24 June 2021

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

King SC DCJ

Decision:

1. The offender is convicted of the offence.

2. There being no other appropriate penalty, I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years.

3. Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the Court directs the sentence to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order commencing today.

4. The offender is to report to the OIC at the Fairfield office of CCS by 12 noon on Friday 25 June 2021.

5. The conditions to apply during the term of the order are as follows:

a. You must not commit any offence.

b. The offender is to be placed under the supervision and guidance of the Community Corrective Services for as long as that Service deems necessary or desirable, but not exceeding the term of the order and the offender is to obey all reasonable directions of that Service (including any direction or instructions to undertake examination, assessment, therapy, treatment, counselling or urinalysis) whilst under supervision and guidance.

c. Continue to undergo psychological/psychiatric counselling as may be ordered by Community Corrections.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL – sentence - cause a financial advantage by deception – belated guilty plea – rolled up charge - provision of false weighbridge documents & invoices – illegal dumping of significant tonnes of dangerous, contaminated soil waste (inc asbestos) - seriousness of offence – subjective matters – community better served by non-custodial sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Regina
Afram, Fayed

Representation:

Counsel:
CR: A Terracini ODPP
DEF: G R James AM QC
DEF: D Beaufils

Solicitors:
CR: K McCosker ODPP
DEF: M Abbas Abbas Jacobs Lawyers
DEF: B Ahmed Abbas Jacobs Lawyers

File Number(s):

2018/00254059

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: Fayed Afram appears for sentence in respect of a single offence, being cause a financial advantage by deception, according to s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty provided is ten years’ imprisonment and there is no relevant standard non-parole period.

2. The offender was arrested on 17 August 2018 and was in custody for a period of 14 days. The matter was originally listed for trial to commence on 13 November 2020, and eventually on 16 November 2020 the trial date was vacated. On 4 March 2021, the offender entered a plea of guilty to the one count that I have referred to. That was a very belated plea of guilty, but I will allow 5% for the utility of the plea alone, as provided by the Earlier Appropriate Guilty Plea scheme.

3. The charge was that the offender between 2 September 2016 and 29 September 2017 at Zetland, did by deception, that is by the provision of false weighbridge documents and false invoices, cause a financial disadvantage to Ertech Pty Ltd, namely $4,228,228. The facts have been agreed and are as follows:

1. At the time of the offending, the offender was the sole director of SSADCO contractors.

2. The Green Square development site is a multimillion-dollar development site for residential and commercial properties in the Zetland suburb. In 2016, Ertech were hired by the owners of the site, the City of Sydney Council, to undertake construction of two new roads on the site, namely Geddes Avenue and Paul Street and the widening of Botany Road. The construction project became known as the Geddes Avenue project. The total estimate for waste was 17,000 tonnes of material.

3. During the course of the preparation of the project, it was identified that the site contained asbestos-contaminated soil waste, as well as contamination by other restricted soil waste.

4. Ertech sought tenders for a contract for the collection and disposal of that waste. Amongst the several tenderers received was one from the offender’s company, SSADCO contractors. The offender, on behalf of his company, applied for and won the tender for the project. The offender, representing himself as a director of that company, attended all negotiations and signed the contract on 11 July 2016.

5. Asbestos-contaminated material, as with other such materials, incurs a government levy imposed and enforced by the Environmental Protection Authority, provided that they are disposed of in a relevant government approved facility.

6. The levy at the time was $135.70 per tonne. The levy is collected by the receiving licenced facility and is included in the quoted price for cartage per tonne provided by the offender to Ertech, being $196 for asbestos waste, $366 for restricted soil and $170 for general solid waste.

7. The agreement between Ertech and SSADCO provided inter alia the following requirements to be met:

• Ertech was to receive from SSADCO written notice of the sites to which waste was being disposed.

• The waste must be disposed of at a licensed landfill.

• The offender was to email regular invoices containing the details of the waste removed and the amount owed and supply the tipping dockets from the various facilities used.

8. The major subcontract agreement included the following conditions:

• “…contractor accepted rates, the sum ascertained by calculating the products of the rates of the corresponding quantities of the schedule of rates identified in annexure G2” (annexure G2 of the major subcontract agreement has the schedule of rates which includes item 1 haulage and disposal of asbestos-contaminated material at $196 per tonne).

• Subcontractor warranties “comply with all the requirements of the subcontract and all legislative requirements.”

• The subcontractor shall comply with the requirements of all Acts and ordinances and/or regulations, bylaws, orders and proclamations made or given under Acts and ordinances (legislative requirements) relevant to the works under the subcontract and shall ensure that the subcontract works comply with all legislative requirements relevant to the works under the subcontract.

• “The subcontractor agrees to assume the risk of…any latent conditions…(iii) contamination including prescribed waste and asbestos…”

• “1.1 classification of material or spoil. The classification of the material or spoil for haulage and disposal or treatment purposes will be determined solely by Ertech whose determination shall be final and binding. The classification will be in accordance with the NSW EPA Waste Classification Guidelines - Part 1: Classification of Waste…1.2 spoil receival sites…prior to transporting waste to the spoil receival that is not a licenced landfill…”

• “Payment of all tolls, fees, levies and all other costs with the management, loading, transportation and receival of all spoil…”

9. Upon the award of the contract, the offender arranged for a series of drivers and vehicles to collect the waste from the site. He nominated to Ertech that he would dispose of the waste at two recycling facilities, which are two of only a small number of licenced facilities that can accept the said material:

• The Elizabeth Drive Management Centre in Elizabeth Drive, Kemps Creek, owned by SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd, or

• Bowral Landfill in Kiama Street, Bowral.

10. From July 2016 until September 2017, approximately 600 truck movements occurred collecting the waste from the Green Square site and carting it away. It was agreed that SSADCO would provide the tipping trucks at the site which were loaded by excavators operated by Ertech.

11. Each trip to the site was recorded by Ertech’s site traffic controllers who would record, among other things, the driver’s name, the company SSADCO, and truck registration on a handwritten truck movement register. Each of the 600 truck movements were directed either by the offender or by employees at his direction, via phone calls, mobile phone text messages, and encrypted WhatsApp mobile app messages.

12. Between 19 July 2016 and 28 August 2017, the offender emailed a number of invoices to Ertech requesting payment in the sum of $4,362,804.24, of which $4,228,288.36 was for the disposal of either asbestos-contaminated waste, restricted soil, or general solid waste. The offender supplied Ertech with fraudulent receipts from the approved waste disposal sites, purporting that the waste was disposed of at those sites on each occasion.

13. Each of the invoices was paid by Ertech into the Commonwealth Bank account of the company SSADCO of the amount invoiced to Ertech by the offender; $2,398,656 constitutes the total EPA waste levy which was not paid to the New South Wales state government. Upon the receipt of the Ertech funds, the offender would immediately move almost the entire value of the money on the same date or the day afterwards. The monies were moved via large internet transfers or the drawing of large business cheques.

14. The monies claimed on the EPA waste levy of $2,398,656 have not been paid to the NSW state government. Whilst Ertech and the City of Sydney did not suffer any financial loss due to the conduct of the offender, they both suffered the risk of such loss.

15. None of the waste was dumped at Elizabeth Drive Management Centre or the Bowral landfill. The majority of the waste was illegally dumped on a privately owned 59-acre semirural property in Cherry Lane, Kulnura, unbeknownst to the landowner who had contracted the offender to build a road on their property. Detectives executed a crime scene warrant at those premises with the assistance of the EPA. Preliminary results suggested that approximately 10 tonnes of that waste was asbestos contaminated.

16. The activities of the offender to facilitate this offending involved the offender engaging in a series of organised and coordinated activities to arrange the collection of the waste material, the unlawful disposal of the waste material, the production of approximately 600 counterfeit waste disposal dockets. The offender solely negotiated and was awarded the contract for the haulage of the disposal and organised in excess of 50 different trucks and all of the associated drivers to cart the tonnes of waste across 600 individual truck movements.

17. The activities of the offender have exposed Ertech Pty Ltd to a significant financial disadvantage and occasioned the breaches of the various contracts, including the EPA levy required, a total amount of $4,228,288.

18. The nature of his activities involved the illegal dumping of significant tonnes of dangerous waste. The volume of this waste is significant, and the location of all of this waste is still not ascertained.

19. After Ertech became aware from the City of Sydney of the anomalies in the documents, Ertech reported the matter to the police on 10 May 2018.

20. At about 7pm on Friday 17 August 2018, the offender was arrested and conveyed to Redfern Police Station where his solicitor attended. Upon the advice of his solicitor, he declined to be interviewed, as was his right. The offender was then charged with the matters before the court.

21. In August 2018, police executed four search warrants at a number of locations, including the home of the offender’s office manager, the home of the offender in James Street, Guildford, the business premises in Gurner Avenue, Kemps Creek and another business premises in Cooper Street, Smithfield. During those searches, police seized a number of items including SSADCO’s business records. I note in the charges that the offender caused a financial disadvantage to Ertech Pty Ltd in the amount of $4,228,228.

4. Paragraph 13 of the facts indicates that the amount paid by Ertech relevant to the total EPA waste levy was $2,398,656. Paragraph 14 of the agreed facts indicates that that amount was not paid to the NSW state government, in the circumstances where none of the material was in fact disposed of at the approved site, and accordingly was unknown to the disposal site and the government authorities. Paragraph 14 of the facts states whilst Ertech and the City of Sydney Council did not suffer any financial loss due to the conduct of the offender, they both suffered the risk of such loss.

5. I must sentence the offender on the basis of the charge that has been laid on the agreed facts that have been provided to the court. I note however that in my view the real victims of the offence were the New South Wales community, as the NSW Environment Protection Authority did not receive the funds which would have then been applied to appropriate purposes on behalf of the community.

6. In addition, in my view, a major victim of the offence, at least to the extent that 10 tonnes of the waste was asbestos-contaminated and is part of what was illegally dumped on the private property in Cherry Lane, Kulnura, unbeknownst to the landowners. The dumping of contaminated waste on a private rural property must inevitably mean that the value of the property has been significantly diminished, or alternatively that the owner of the property is likely to be put to great expense to remove the contaminated material at some time in the future.

7. The offender demonstrated a significant disregard to the contractual obligations, as well as a significant disregard for the environment and the harm that he caused to at least the owner of the private property. As there is no standard non-parole period, it is not relevant to refer to the matter in terms of objective seriousness in relation to any range, including a midrange. In my view however, the offending is a serious example of such an offence.

SUBJECTIVE MATTERS

8. Before the Court in relation to subjective matters is the following material: a Sentence Assessment Report under the hand of Hayley Sorensen of 16 June 2021; Exhibit A1 containing a letter of apology from the offender, dated 18 June 2021; a letter from one of his daughters Josie Afram, undated, a reference from Habib Habib dated 1 June 2021; a reference from Liana Kahwhai, undated and unsigned; a letter from Mr Luisito Legarte, dated 12 June 2021; a reference from Mr Richard Sinah, being the offender’s local pharmacist, undated; a letter from St Rafqa Maronite Catholic Church, dated 15 June 2021, under the hand of Father Kozhaya Sarkis; a letter from Dr Aboud, dated 16 June 2021; a discharge summary from the Children’s Hospital at Westmead in relation to the offender’s daughter, Janet Afram, admitted on 5 May 2021 to the orthopaedic ward for surgery, and a final report in relation to her discharge, as well as a medical attendance certificate indicating that she was an inpatient from 5 May 2021 until discharge on 12 May 2021; a pre‑surgery therapy assessment report in relation to the offender’s daughter from the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, outlining what surgery was to be performed and the likely requirements for rehabilitation and how long it might take, under the hand of Sarah Carmen, occupational therapist, and Holly Streeting, physiotherapist; a letter from Dr Elias Nehme in relation to the offender (referred to as ‘Mr Faid Fram’), a psychological report from Mr Awit, psychologist, and a letter from Mr Nicolas Israel, a director of Environmental Risk Assessors Pty Ltd, dated 8 June 2021.

9. In addition, there is some further material which I will simply refer to as Exhibit 3, relevant to s 23 of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Subjective matters are drawn from that material, the offender not having given evidence on sentence.

10. The offender is now some 51 years of age. He was born in Lebanon and moved to Australia in 1995. He is the eldest of seven siblings. His father passed away in 2017 from cancer. The offender was present in Lebanon during the course of the civil war that commenced in 1975, at a time when he was approximately 15. That war pitted Christians and Muslims against each other, he being a Christian. It later led to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and like many Lebanese citizens at the time, he witnessed many atrocities, shooting and bombings, et cetera. His neighbourhood was bombed in 1985 and his family was forced to move, and they became displaced.

11. The army is said to have not been particularly much protection to anyone, because it was composed of both Muslim and Christian members who were internally at war with themselves. Both food and water were scarce at various times during the war. The offender managed to continue until approximately Year 12 of equivalent study in Lebanon and is said to have completed the first year of a law degree before being forced to stop studying in 1989 due to political unrest. Both his father and his uncle were involved in the training of soldiers at various times, and the offender was part of the army from 1988 when he was 18 for a period of two years before fleeing.

12. He was unfortunately gaoled on several occasions during the period of Syrian influence in Lebanon, and claims that on those occasions he was beaten and tortured. He eventually fled Lebanon in 1990. His first employment was essentially within the Lebanese Christian force, and for about three months before he fled in 1990, he was working as a card dealer in a Lebanese casino. After fleeing, he worked with a boat touring company for one and a half years, but when he returned to Lebanon, he was arrested and then left Lebanon and went to the Ukraine where he again worked as a card dealer for one and a half years. He was in Ukraine from 1993, but in 1994 he returned to Lebanon and was gaoled again.

13. In 1995 he left Lebanon and came to Australia where he initially worked with a car driving hire service for eight months, and then as a salesman in the city for four months before becoming a taxi driver, which he continued for some four years. In about 2001, he commenced a trucking haulage business, and he was involved in that from 2001 until 2018. The business involved excavation, demolition and haulage. From 2011 to 2021 he has been the registered carer for his daughter who suffers from cerebral palsy. He married in 1996; the marriage ended some 13 years later in 2009. There were four children from the union, now aged 23, 21, his 17-year-old daughter that suffers from cerebral palsy, and a younger daughter of 12 years of age.

14. He apparently declared bankruptcy in 2001, said to be due to an accidental fire, and is said to have suffered a loss of some $1 million because of a project builder declaring bankruptcy in 2007. There was a legal battle between 2011 and 2016 in relation to the children between him and his wife, which of course ran up legal costs, and then he was subsequently sued by his lawyer on the basis that he had not paid the lawyer for the costs involved, although he claims that in fact he had.

15. His daughter Janet is a quadriplegic with cerebral palsy. She also has been diagnosed with Hyper-IgD Syndrome which is a disease that causes random fluctuations in body temperature and rashes, that can last between 48 to 72 hours. As a result of her cerebral palsy and her Hyper-IgD Syndrome, she requires full-time care and assistance, which has been provided by the offender since 2011, the children having at one stage been removed from their mother’s care by the authorities and placed in his care.

16. Ms Liana Kahwhai has for the past three years provided the care when the offender is not able to attend. She attends the home for between 20 and 40 hours per week, depending on need. Janet apparently has a severe attachment to her father, which results in her going into states of anger and anxiety when her father is not present, and he appears to be the only person that can settle her down. At least up until the time of her recent surgery, she has required a wheelchair to move around, and of course post-surgery at least for some time. The material before me is uncertain as to whether she still requires the wheelchair on an ongoing basis.

17. It is evident from the material before me that the offender’s daughter, considering her disabilities, has had a significant impact on the offender’s life and has required a high degree of attention and assistance from him over the years. All of the references speak highly of him in relation to his care for his children, and particularly his daughter Janet.

8. I don't know that much can really be obtained from the reference of Mr Sinah, who appears to only know the offender in his capacity as his local pharmacist. That is, he deals with the offender on a professional basis, of course for many years, but not on a social or business basis otherwise. The offender is apparently well known to the Maronite Catholic Church and attends there on a regular basis, as well as also attending spiritual and social events held by the church, no doubt together with his children. Dr Aboud testifies to the offender as carrying out the responsibility of taking care of his daughter and his other children, and otherwise refers to him as a genuine, honest, respectful gentleman who has always shown up for all appointments on time.

9. As to his daughter Janet’s recent admission to the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, it was for an operation which included a bilateral anterior hip release, a bilateral semitendinosus transfer, a bilateral Grice subtalar arthrodesis and talonavicular fusion, plus right strayers and iliac crest bone graft. Her main issue postoperatively was said to be pain and spasms. The operation occurred on 5 May 2021 and she was discharged, requiring in particular medications for pain, including oxycodone and oxycodone-naloxone, particularly where less effective painkillers would not work. She was also discharged with Zimmer splints on both legs and a requirement of course to keep the dressings dry, and she was encouraged to have sponge baths.

10. In lay language, she had left and right hip muscle releases, left and right semitendinosus transfers, left and right hamstring releases, left and right foot corrections, as well as a pelvic bone graft. At the time, she was attending the Park High School in Year 12. She was expected to be non-weightbearing for some six weeks after the surgery, to require short leg plasters for some eight to nine weeks after the surgery, as well as the Zimmer splints and a hip abduction wedge while in bed.

11. The prognosis was that she would not be able to stand or walk for six weeks until she had been cleared by X-ray and the wires were removed but was also expected to require more support initially when she returned to weightbearing. It was estimated that she would be able to continue to use her wheelchair and to return to school some two to three weeks after surgery was a possibility, but that she would need to have ongoing physiotherapy, and to attend a number of appointments with the surgeon at two weeks, six weeks, three months, six months and 12 months.

12. The report of Dr Nehme in relation to the offender indicates that he has ischemic heart disease, hypertension, anxiety and gastroesophageal reflux with mild left ventricular impairment said to be likely as secondary to alcohol intake. He had an angiogram in July 2019, and it is difficult to tell from the doctor’s report, but it appears that he may have previously had a stent implanted. He is on a number of unexceptional medications. Mr Awit opines that the offender suffers from a generalised anxiety disorder and a major depressive disorder. Mr Awit also states that the offender has expressed shame and remorse for his actions, although he does not state how that was expressed.

13. The offender gave an explanation as to his offending conduct, repeated by Mr Awit, but as I have previously referred to, the offender did not actually give evidence on sentence. Self-serving statements contained in reports from psychologists, psychiatrists and/or friends must always be treated circumspectly. I have no difficulty at all with the outline in general of the offender’s past history, however.

14. The Sentence Assessment Report refers to him as having four prior convictions which appears to be at least somewhat in error. He has four prior convictions, three of those being in relation to contravening prohibitions or restrictions of an AVO, although on one occasion he was before the Court in respect of two counts, it appears. In addition, there is one further offence which is described in the Sentence Assessment Report in my view in error as being similar in nature to the current offence, that being an offence of obtaining money by deception of more than $15,000 (attempted) in respect of which he received a s 10 bond of 12 months in June 2001 at the Parramatta Local Court. Clearly, it was a matter of a very minor nature and there is no indication that he was ever in breach of the bond, so it has expired in effect. I will simply say in relation to his past criminal history that there are no matters of significance which could have an adverse impact on the sentence in relation to this matter.

15. The Sentence Assessment Report also includes the following. “Mr Afram acknowledged that he knew his actions were wrong but despite this he continued to offend as he was motivated by financial gain.” As I understand it from the other material, this was “financial gain” in order to cope with debts and his ordinary costs of living. He is also said to have “…provided conflicting statements during the preparation of the report”, at one time claiming he was “taking the fall for others”, and on other occasions stating, “Sometimes you need the money, so you just do what you have to.” I do not find those two statements to be in particular conflict with each other, as apparently the report writer appears to do.

16. It also contains the following comment, “Mr Afram denied the illegal dumping of waste at Pitt Street, but admitted to dumping waste without permission to Burroways, stating he did it to retrieve money owed totalling $80,000.” Nothing has been put before me as to any explanation of the dumping of any waste in Pitt Street or dumping waste without the permission of Burroways. I will ignore that statement, as there is nothing relevant to it that has been placed before me.

17. As to his financial position at the time, he said that he had incurred a significant financial loss on the previous job and was owed over $1.4 million from business transactions and court proceedings, the $1.4 million being a debt outstanding. As to insight into impact of offending, the report states Mr Afram was able to display insight into the impact his offending behaviour has had on his family, however, was not able to identify any impact experienced by the victims. That is consistent with the way that this matter was presented to the Court on his behalf by Mr James QC. That is, that it was essentially a victimless crime, a submission with which I do not agree and reject.

18. The offender was assessed as being a medium to low risk of reoffending. I accept that as an appropriate assessment. It is tragic that a man who has suffered as much as the offender has in his life, particularly before departing from Lebanon, and who has otherwise led an almost completely blemish-free life elected, for financial reasons, to commit a significant offence as he has on this occasion over a significant period of time. For a period of approximately a year he coordinated the criminal offending and organised the participation at his direction of many others to his benefit.

19. The single offence actually represents a rolled-up charge specified as causing a financial disadvantage to Ertech. The Crown sentence summary sheet and the Crown’s submissions are somewhat inconsistent, in that the Crown sentence summary refers to him as entering a plea of guilty on 4 March 2021 to a single count of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception. An aggravating feature, in my view, is that it was part of a planned or organised criminal activity. While there is no reference in the submissions made on the offender’s behalf or in the Crown’s submissions to whether it is submitted that the s 5 threshold has been passed, it is evident in relation to each of the submissions that that is implied. I accept that the s 5 threshold has been passed.

20. It is unfortunate that the offender did not enter a plea of guilty at a much earlier time when a discount for the utility of the plea could have been considerably larger than the 5% that I have referred to. However, he also has the benefit of what I have previously referred to as matters relating to s 23. In my view, those matters are significant, and I am required to indicate a percentage discount in that respect. The Crown’s submission in the absence of any submission on behalf of the offender was that a range of 20 to 30% would be appropriate. I accept that that is an appropriate range, and I accept that 30% should be provided to the offender for the s 23 matters.

21. There is no necessity in relation to what is before me in that regard of any future assistance. I attribute the 30% to past assistance in its entirety. It is of course to be hoped that the offender will continue to provide, if he is in a position to do so, future assistance. But in the absence of any clear indication that any future assistance is either required or at least highly likely, it is impossible to determine a discount for future assistance. But as I have said, I will provide 30% entirely for past assistance.

22. I also take into account that he is well regarded by all of those who have provided references, even though some of the references are on a relatively limited basis; that is, as to their knowledge of the offender. I acknowledge that he is seen as a genuine and caring individual who has taken on the full responsibility for all of his children, and in particular for his daughter Janet, in circumstances which must be difficult on a daily ongoing basis. I accept that his daughter is well served by his daily assistance to her, and that that is a significant matter to take into account in relation to the sentence to be imposed.

23. I have taken into account the purposes of sentence as provided in s 3A of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act, and of course both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances as referred to. I do not see specific deterrence as being particularly relevant to this offender in the circumstances and the material that is before me. However, general deterrence must always remain a significant matter in relation to matters such as this.

24. I have taken into account all of those matters, as well as the fact that the offender has already spent some 14 days in custody, in determining the length of any sentence. In particular, due to the combined discount of 35%, the fact of his previous 14 days in custody, the low risk of reoffending, what I perceive particularly in light of the material relevant to s 23, his genuine remorse and contrition, that although the s 5 threshold has been passed, a sentence of two years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

25. In those circumstances, the matter falls within the range that it can be dealt with by way of an Intensive Correction Order, and in my view the community would be better served by the offender not serving time in custody, which would also allow him to continue with his family obligations. Accordingly, the two years’ imprisonment is to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order.

26. The conditions of that order are that he is to attend the registry to complete the paperwork immediately after we finish in court. He is to be of good behaviour during the period of the Intensive Correction Order. He is to report to the Fairfield Community Corrections office by midday on Wednesday next week. He is to be supervised by Community Corrections for the term of that order, and to obey all reasonable directions specified by Community Corrections.

Madam Crown, is there any other order that ought to be made in that regard?

37. I will make an additional order that he engage in such psychological or psychiatric treatment as may be ordered by Community Corrections.

If he does need something, that might result in them finding a way so that he does not have to pay for it.

**********

Decision last updated: 07 August 2023