R v Coffey
[2012] NSWDC 282
•04 May 2012
District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Coffey [2012] NSWDC 282 Hearing dates: 4 May 2012 Decision date: 04 May 2012 Before: Nicholson SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment. Set a non-parole period of 2 years and a balance of term of one year and 7 months
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Assault - Recklessly cause grievous bodily harm - Domestic violence - Disinhibited assault upon partner continuing when unconscious - Poor record - Sentence of custody -imprisonment Cases Cited: Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1SCR 688 [80]
R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 597
R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740.
Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Cuthbert [1967] 2 NSWR 329,Texts Cited: (Marginal) Gneral Deterrence Does not Work and what it means for Sentencing. Mirko Bagaric and Theodore Alexander (2011) 35 Crim Law 269 Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown
Leo James CoffeyRepresentation: Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Service - The offender
File Number(s): 2011/133231
sentence
This is the sentence of Leo Coffey. Starting in late December 1995 Leo Coffey has been before the Local Court on twenty-three occasions for breach of an AVO or offences of physical violence. On three of those occasions police officers appear to have been his victim. On nineteen occasions it is likely his partner was the victim.
The facts and circumstances are all too familiar. Coffey has a long history of abusing alcohol and cannabis. He drinks and smokes daily, usually until he blacks out.
On 21 April 2011, he and his partner were both drinking heavily. He began to argue with her; he cannot even remember what started it. His predisposition to generalised violence is exacerbated when he is intoxicated. His violence in the early hours of 22 April 2011 was unremitting and brutal. He does not remember assaulting his partner Annette. When aroused by police later that morning, he saw the bedroom walls and floor were blood splattered. He remembers thinking "I hope I haven't done something stupid."
Not only was his conduct stupid, it was seriously criminal. Today he is to be held accountable for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to Annette.
As sentencing judge it falls to me to determine a number of competing tensions as I strive to determine the appropriate sentence for this offence before this Court, committed by this offender, harming this victim in the community of Brewarrina, see Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1SCR 688 [80]. My initial task requires an assessment of the objective criminality of the offence before the Court. I will also need to have regard to matters personal to the offender; that is called subjective matters. The starting point for these assessments requires me to make findings of fact from the evidence before the Court relating to the offence and to the offender. My fact finding task has been circumscribed in that the parties have tendered an agreed set of facts to which I shall shortly return. It is sufficient at this point that I remind the Court a judge is not a party to the agreed set of facts. The tender of agreed facts does not relieve the judge from his fact finding task, it simply limits the material from which facts may be found. To the extent, if it be the case, that the facts as agreed do not reflect the actual events that occurred, it must be remembered that a court can only find facts from the evidence placed before it.
Before any sentence that can be made there are likely to be technical questions relating to general deterrence, discounts, whether special circumstances are to be found, whether the offence attracts a standard non parole period and if so the length of the parole period, and finally of course the ultimate term of imprisonment to be imposed. None of those can be commenced until the primary facts are determined. What weight needs to be given to all of these matters against an imperative that sentencing should have as its primary focus, the protection of the community will also need to be determined, see R v Cuthbert [1967] 2 NSWR 329, R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 597 and R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740.
AGREED FACTS
The victim Annette was aged thirty-eight years at the material time. She was involved in a personal relationship with the offender; he was then forty-six years of age. He lived at Bathurst Street, Brewarrina. She lived both at that house, at his house and at her sister's home in Cato Street, Brewarrina.
On the afternoon of Thursday 21 April 2011 she was at the Bathurst Street residence, as was the offender, John Scott a brother of the victim, Marie Murphy a sister of the offender and Wayne Gordon AKA McHughes. Some alcoholic drinks were taken by the offender, the complainant and other adults. At about 6.30pm all five left the house for a hotel in Brewarrina. Upon arrival at the hotel Coffey began to argue with the complainant. His grief was that she had "slept with" her nephews. Scott stayed at the hotel for a short time and then left alone. After about ten minutes at the hotel the offender and complainant returned to the Bathurst Street house. She was affected by alcohol at that point saying later that she was "pretty drunk".
After they went inside he maintained his complaint about her nephews. She was fully clothed. He punched her in the face and kicked her. When they were in a bedroom she noted blood coming from her face. He gave her "a good hit to (her) head". She lost consciousness and ultimately woke up in the bedroom "in a pile of blood". About 1am Wayne McHughes, who also lived in the house, heard her call "help me". He got out of bed and went to the door of the room occupied by Coffey and the complainant. McHughes knocked on the door. He said, "Stop hitting her." He heard the offender say, "Yeah I'll stop hitting her." Someone in the room turned on some music. I am satisfied it was not the complainant. McHughes said, "Stop it or you'll get locked up by the coppers." McHughes went back to bed; he did not see the complainant.
Marie Murphy, who was sleeping with McHughes, also heard the complainant call for help. Murphy stated that she and McHughes went to the door of the room containing the offender and complainant four times. Murphy pushed on the bedroom door but was unable to open it. She could see through a slight opening that a mattress was pushed against the door. When the complainant woke she noticed the clothing on the lower part of her body had been removed. She went to the toilet. About 5am it was still dark. The offender's sister, Mayanne Coffey came to the front door of the house. She spoke to the complainant and told her to "Go straight to the police."
I pause here to say how impressed I am at Aboriginal women who know that the remedy for violence to them and to their sisters is intervention by the police. The certainty of detection is the best deterrence for domestic violence.
I continue with the agreed facts. The complainant spoke to Marie Murphy, who noticed that the complainant was injured and told her to go to the hospital. The complainant left the house, walked to the police station. There she pressed the emergency alert to summon a police officer. She sat down to wait. William Trapman walked by the station between 5.30am and 6am. He saw her. She was, to him, obviously significantly injured. She complained that she had been kicked and said, "He jumped all over me." She identified her assailant.
Trapman waited with her until Constable Schofield arrived at the police station, some time after 5.30am. He saw her sitting on the step of the police station. He saw she was suffering a serious laceration to her right temple near the eye. Her right eye was swollen, the right side of her face badly swollen. She was whimpering and crying; an ambulance was summoned. Constable Schofield took three photographs. They have been exhibited before me.
The ambulance officers took her to the hospital where she was examined by Dr Hameed at about 11am. He recorded the complainant suffered the following:
Further photographs were taken at the hospital. They show that the left eye has redness close to the iris and bruising on the upper zygoma from the nose through to the outer aspect of that cheekbone.
At 6.30am police attended the Bathurst Street residence. They went to the bedroom occupied by the offender and complainant. There were bloodstains on two walls of the room and on two mattresses in the room. The offender was present. He "smelt strongly of alcohol and appeared to be intoxicated". There were, what appeared to be blood stains on his hands. He declined, as was his right, to be interviewed.
Dr Dalgetty, a female, made an intimate examination of the complainant later in the afternoon. She recorded the complainant suffering from the following:
Dr Dalgetty opined that the facial laceration would leave permanent scarring. See the attached photograph which I have before me.
Dr R A North, a medical practitioner and formally a general surgeon with more than fifty years post graduation medical experience, was engaged by the prosecution to offer an opinion about the magnitude of the injuries suffered by the complainant. After considering all of the material Dr North opined that:
"Her rib injuries evidence severe trauma having been inflicted. As the victim is thirty-nine years of age and her rib density and strength would still be that of a young person, quite severe force would be required to cause fracture...I consider severe trauma to have been inflicted causing a deep facial laceration and fracture of five ribs. This would require considerable force such as that sustained in a motor vehicle accident."
That is, to spend a night with her boyfriend was as damaging to her as a motor vehicle accident.
The offender has been in custody on this matter only since he was arrested on 21 April 2011. The offender was committed for trial on the present count on 15 August. The case was listed for trial on 12 December 2011, however the offender was arraigned before Acting Judge Lerve on 9 December 2011 when he entered a plea of guilty.
OBJECTIVE CRIMINALITY
From the facts as he finds them to be the sentencing judge is required to assess the objective criminality of the offences, an essential step in assessing the seriousness of the criminal behaviour of the offender. That is done by comparing objectively the criminality exhibited in the case before the Court with criminality of offences of a similar kind, including a notional worse case, bearing in mind the maximum penalty. It is in this way that the objective seriousness of the criminality of this offence can be evaluated. The objective criminality has an important impact upon the overall sentencing outcome.
Any assault of the kind I am dealing with here constitutes what is called a trespass against the person, that is an injury committed with violence. All persons have a right to the physical integrity of their person and body. This trespass or wrongdoing was physical violence of a disinhibited and sustained kind. On four occasions during its occurrence McHughes and his partner went to the door of the bedroom where the merciless beating was ongoing. The offender was told to stop. I am satisfied he understood and said he would stop hitting her, but turned the radio up or the music up so that the music would drown out his continued assault upon her.
Annette was drunk. In the bedroom she was hit in the face and became unconscious, whether as a result of a blow or a combination of the blow and the affects of alcohol I am unable to say. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she lost consciousness shortly after calling for help. During her period of unconsciousness the offender must have continued to strike her, although for how long I am unable to say.
I note there are injuries to her ribs, no doubt caused by blows of some kind from the offender. There is evidence before me, agreed evidence, that he kicked her. He could not on one kick have broken all of those ribs there must have been repeated kicking. The complainant must have been unconscious at that time, because she makes no complaint as to how these rib injuries occurred.
The clothing on the lower part of her body was removed and further injuries sustained to her genital area. She has no idea how those injuries occurred. Those injuries must have been not only painful, but deeply humiliating for her after the event, and deeply worrying for her after the event.
I have reviewed the injury tally. It is extensive, by which I mean at many sites over her body. Frequently grievous bodily is confined to one or two sites this is not this case. From head to torso and stomach and the back of the legs, the arms and the vaginal area were all substantially injured.
The level of recklessness was high. That is to say this was not a case where there could have been any possibility the victim was consenting to any of this brutal conduct.
Notwithstanding his level of intoxication he must have turned his mind to the real likelihood that the injuries being occasioned by him as he continuously physically pummelled the complainant, torso and head would, if he continued amount to really serious injuries to her, but even so he persevered with his aggressive and hostile conduct towards her. That constitutes a high level of recklessness.
This violence occurred in a domestic setting in circumstances where she had every right to look to him for care and protection. That situation adds to his criminality. That this offence was against a woman, who, as nature would have it, was less powerful than he, marks this offence as a significant abuse of his physical power over her.
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT
I have received a Victim Impact Statement. The material contained in the Victim Impact Statement is not sworn evidence and has not been subject to cross-examination. To the extent that any opinions may be expressed in it I recognise they are not the opinions of an expert.
The Victim Impact Statement coming as it does from the primary victim may, if I accept it as reliable, provide unsworn evidence as to the facts of the offences and their affect upon her.
The function of statements such as this one is firstly to give victims an opportunity of being heard in the sentencing proceedings by publicly identifying the impact of the trauma visited upon them by the actions of the offender.
Secondly, it enables sentencing proceedings to assist victims as they move towards some closure of grief, resentment and brooding arising from the criminal conduct of an offender.
Thirdly, the Victim Impact Statement contributes to an offender at least hearing first hand and perhaps gaining some insight into the impact his offending conduct has had upon his victim.
Finally, of course, Victim Impact Statements, as they are read by judges in sentencing proceedings remind judges of the impact crimes such as this one have upon the ordinary men and women who are the victims of that crime.
Annette says this:
"Since being assaulted by Leo Coffey I have not been able to sleep properly as every time I close my eyes I see him (I think it might be) poking me.
I have nightmares about it. My head" - I think it might be - "aches regularly. I regularly get headaches which my ribs ache regularly. I regularly get headaches which I have to treat with Panadols. Since then" - that is since the assault - "I drink alcohol a lot more, because that's the only way I can a sleep.
If and when Leo Coffey gets released from gaol I don't want him back in Brewarrina as I am frightened he will come back and get me."
So here is a woman well after the assault living in fear of the offender.
SUBJECTIVE MATTERS - PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BACKGROUND, RELATIONSHIP AND FAMILY
Leo Coffey was born forty-seven years ago in Brewarrina. He was one of nine children, four of whom have now passed. His parents are also deceased.
He is an Aborigine who has lost contact with his tribal identity and apparently regards Brewarrina as his country. Some of his sisters are still resident there.
He was raised in a children's home from the age of three or four, although I note he told Dr Christopher Bench he began in that home when he was seven. He went there with three of his seven sister. He and they were sexually abused. The sexual abuse for him may well be underreported, but he says it was incident confined to genital folding by a seventeen or eighteen year old. The physical abuse on that score seems much more serious. It involved being hit with implements, such as a switch, meaning a thin piece of branch, wire, strap, jug cord, throughout his time in foster care.
Since 1986 Coffey, then aged twenty-one, has had four significant relationships with female Aboriginal partners. I say Aboriginal, because I think they all were. There was no physical violence in the first relationship, but it was a feature of the three others. The first two relationships survived for five years each. The more recent two relationships have been much shorter, two years and another for six months respectively.
He is the father of six children, coming from the first three relationships. Their ages range from twenty-three years to two years.
Anna Robilliard, a clinical psychologist retained by the defence, noted "He did not appear to have any significant emotional attachments or sense of parental responsibility for his children."
It would appear his only source of familiar support upon release may be one or more of his sisters.
EDUCATION, SKILLS, EMPLOYMENT
Coffey attended primary and high school in Brewarrina. He left school in Year 7.
He obtained employment at the Brewarrina Meat Works for a short period. Did some farming work and occasional seasonal work on the cotton paddocks.
However, he has been largely unemployed for most of his adult life. He notes that he has spent a fair portion of his life since 1988 in prison.
Whilst in custody he has done a number of courses, including a current course in Aboriginal Arts.
GENERAL HEALTH
Ms Robilliard described Coffey as "stocky". My sense of him, based only on court appearances, is that he is overweight. He has early signs of diabetes and requires daily monitoring of sugar levels. He has chronic renal impairment, a condition that claimed his mother. It is likely this condition is alcohol related, as was his mother's. There is scarring on his arm or arms from past self-harm. He suffers from hepatitis B.
MENTAL HEALTH
He was first diagnosed with depression in 1993 after the break up with his first partner.
He has engaged in self-harm in the past and it would seem in the present. There has been at least one past attempt at suicide by hanging. His current practice of self-harm is head butting against a wall.
Testing by Anna Robilliard indicated severe depression.
Importantly, it is Dr Bench's opinion, also retained by the defence, that his current medication regime for depression is sub-therapeutic. Dr Bench urged his anti-depression medication dosages be reviewed. Dr Bench opined he met the diagnosis of schizophrenia and has done so for the past five or six years.
Regrettably in the community he is not medication compliant, but he does find it easier to comply in custody.
Dr Bench said he also meets the diagnosis of polysubstance abuse.
I shall review his drug and alcohol history shortly.
Although not a mental health issue, testing by Ms Robilliard achieved an IQ score of seventy-eight putting Coffey in the below average range with a percentile rank of seven.
As to his personality profile Ms Robilliard observed:
"...[Coffey]...appears to have a well entrenched and generalised violent disposition... [his] violent interpersonal behaviour is exacerbated when he is intoxicated and this has been a long time and well entrenched feature of his behaviour."
In respect of the interaction of these last two features, together with gross alcohol consumption, she makes a general observation from research and studies, suggesting
"That low IQ mitigates against effective problem solving and increases the likelihood of consequent interpersonal misunderstanding making these individuals more vulnerable to the negative consequences of alcohol. While IQ cannot be altered controlling the use of alcohol maximises the individual's cognitive capacity for rational thinking and behavioural control."
Dr Bench reported the offender denies experiencing any psychotic symptoms around the time of his offending. Dr Bench opined
"No direct conclusions can be drawn as to any links between his mental health and offending behaviours."
Dr Bench did note, however, that:
"As a consequence of intoxication Coffey's judgment would be grossly impaired, he would have lacked all impulse control - or ability to reason as to the seriousness and consequence of his actions."
It will be seen that as a consequence of the guilty plea and my view of the level of recklessness, earlier stated, I have rejected the doctor's opinion that the offender "lacked all ability to reason as to the seriousness and consequence of his actions." I accept, as does the charge, he may have some level of impairment to his capacity to reason.
DRUGS, ALCOHOL AND OTHER FORMS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND OTHER HEALTH ISSUES
Coffey reported a significant gambling problem of longstanding. He will put up to $300 through the poker machines in a day. He is usually able to maintain his rent but falls behind on other bills. The $300 a figure must be measured against his income stream of less than $400 weekly.
However the gambling problem pales against his alcohol and drug abuse issues. He started drinking at the age of sixteen. He told Dr Bench he consumed approximately one carton of beer daily which would be supplemented by wine and spirits. In another portion of his interview he told Dr Bench he drank three to four cartons of beer daily and smoked three to four sticks of cannabis daily. One of those might be incorrect, but on either view his drinking is substantial. On the day of the offence he claimed to have drunk in the vicinity of three to four casks of wine (nine to twelve litres). He told Ms Robilliard that he drank and smoked every day until he blacks out. By any measure then, his drinking is a major problem.
Coffey reports being a heavy abuser of cannabis. He told Ms Robilliard he had never attended rehabilitation. However he told Dr Bench he had engaged in two rehabilitation programs, both in Brewarrina, which may well be the Orana Haven I think. Be that as it may, both professionals recommend further rehabilitation.
CHARACTER AND CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS
I have noted Ms Robilliard's observation as to Coffey's predisposition to violent behaviour. The most striking emerging from his criminal antecedents is the preponderance of offences of the physical violence I mentioned at the outset, among which I have included breaches of AVOs.
This offence shows a greater intensity of violence and injury than any other before it. This offence is the third occasion the offender has been dealt at first instance by the District Court. In 2000 he was before this Court for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In 2005 for a detain with intent offence. This offender has been sentenced to custodial terms for his violent conduct on eight prior occasions. There have been a further four occasions where he has received terms of suspended imprisonment.
REHABILITATION PROSPECTS
There are a number of factors suggesting rehabilitation will be difficult to extremely difficult to achieve in this case, namely:
I note Coffey's chances may be improved if he were to commit to the Violent Offenders Therapeutic Program based at the Parklea Correctional Centre, and then on release, to the Probation and Parole twenty week Domestic Abuse Program.
Further, his chances of rehabilitation would improve if, as a condition of his parole, he was required to attend Roy Thorne Rehabilitation Centre, or some other culturally sensitive centre, for a period of six months or so to address drug and alcohol issues and ensure a gradual transition into community living.
Yet further rehabilitation may be achieved should his alcohol and drug consumption be closely monitored upon his release into the community by random testing with appropriate parole sanctions in the event of illicit drug use.
Finally he should be subject to mental health reviews during the parole period to ensure cooperation with community based mental health teams and medication compliance in respect of anti-psychotic and anti-depression medication requirements.
CONTRITION AND GUILTY PLEA
The guilty plea was entered on 9 December 2011, that is, three days before the trial was set down, I think it was on a Friday. Thus the complainant was not required for court, although she, no doubt, was on notice until the plea was entered. Nor was any jury required for this trial and it was possible by the availability of phone recording for potential jurors to inform themselves whether their attendance was or was not required. In those circumstances there was utilitarian value in the plea.
The offender's contrition was addressed by Ms Robilliard in these terms. The offender:
"maintained he felt sorry for injuring Anita...his paucity of emotional language made it difficult for him to express his feelings other than to state he felt 'no good'. He also said he felt 'down for doing this'."
It was Ms Robilliard's opinion that the offender "appeared appropriately remorseful, although his emphasis was on the consequences for himself rather than the victim".
A discount for the utilitarian value of the plea and the offender's contrition, such that it is, shall be one of 17.5 per cent.
CUSTODY
As earlier stated, Coffey was arrested on the day following the offence. He has been bail refused since 22 April. His sentence will be backdated to that time.
I have noted elsewhere the courses done by him whilst in custody, suggesting cooperation with authorities and seeking to use his time in custody usefully through self-improvement.
DETERRENCE
Domestic violence is rampant within the Aboriginal communities. At first flush such a fact may suggest general deterrence would be effective and useful. In principle (D) in Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58, Wood J recognised:
"an absence of any real body of evidence demonstrating that the imposition of imprisonment provides any effective deterrent in either discouraging abuse of alcohol by members of the Aboriginal society, or their resort to violence when heavily affected by it."
There is now a body of research seriously challenging the effectiveness of general deterrence in the broader criminal community. See (Marginal) General Deterrence Does not Work and what it means for Sentencing, Mirko Bagaric and Theodore Alexander (2011) 35 Crim Law 269 and authorities there-in cited.
Justice Wood appears to observe that principle (D) that notwithstanding the absence of such evidence:
"A belief cannot be allowed to go about that serious violence by drunken persons within the Aboriginal community will be treated by the courts as occurrences of little moment."
Those comments made in respect of the ineffectiveness of general deterrence may equally apply to the question of changing or forming such a belief. Even so I think a sentence of full time incarceration, as will happen in this case, ensures that this offender and others would not come to a view that domestic violence when drunk is "an occurrence of little moment".
SETTING THE SENTENCE
The maximum penalty for this offence is ten years. It has a standard non-parole period of four years for an offence falling in the mid range of seriousness. Bearing in mind the objective criminality as I have described it and the subjective circumstances as I have found them to be, but for the plea of guilty I would have set an overall sentence of four and a half years imprisonment. That is to be discounted by 17.5 per cent which amounts on my calculations to nine and a half months. The effect of that discount then is to reduce the penalty I would have imposed from one of four and a half years to one of three years, seven and one half months.
This is a case in which special circumstances should be found. My finding is predicated upon my recommendations to the Parole Board set out under the heading of Rehabilitation Prospects, and in particular, one suggesting at least six months in full time rehabilitation and twenty weeks of the Probation and Parole Domestic Abuse program.
Leo James Coffey, you are convicted that you on or about 21 April 2011 at Brewarrina in the State of New South Wales did recklessly cause grievous bodily harm to Anita, whose last name is known to you. For that offence you are sentenced to a non-parole period of two years to date from 22 April 2011 and to expire on 21 April next year. The balance of term will be one year seven months, which on my calculation will expire on 6 December 2014.
Mr Coffey, can I tell you this, that in the normal course of events, if I set a sentence of three years or less I can order your release to parole. When I set a sentence, as I have here, that is more than three years, namely three years and seven months, even though I have fixed a non-parole period of two years, I cannot order you released to parole. You must satisfy the Parole Board that you are eligible for parole. Do you understand me so far?
OFFENDER: Sort of, sir.
HIS HONOUR: Right. Your earliest release date is on 21 April next year. Do you understand that much?
OFFENDER: Yeah.
HIS HONOUR: All right. I cannot release you, you have to persuade the State Parole authority to release you. Do you know who they are?
OFFENDER: Yeah.
HIS HONOUR: All right. So they will be the people who will make a decision to release you. There are two things they are interested in Mr Coffey. The first is, will you be a danger to yourself? What will inform their decision as to whether you will be a danger to yourself, in your case, is the likelihood of resuming alcohol consumption, or the likelihood of resuming drug consumption. Right?
OFFENDER: Yeah.
HIS HONOUR: The second that they are concerned about is, will you be a danger to somebody else? What is likely to inform their decision about that is the likelihood of you resuming alcohol, the likelihood of you resuming drugs, and whether you have done anything while you were in custody to address domestic violence abuse. Your best bet to persuade them that you should be eligible for release - that is, that you would not be a danger to someone such as your partner - is to do the domestic violence programs that I have made reference to in my remarks on sentence.
OFFENDER: Yeah.
HIS HONOUR: To do something about drugs and alcohol and attending drugs and alcohol programs while you are in custody. All right?
OFFENDER: Yeah.
HIS HONOUR: I just tell you that if they do not release you on the first time you go before them you will have to wait another twelve months, another year, before they will review your case. So it is important that you get yourself ready to persuade them that you are eligible for release and to get yourself ready by 21 April next year. Okay?
OFFENDER: Yeah, I feel certain.
HIS HONOUR: No doubt your solicitor might talk to you later when I am finished.
Is there any other matter Madam Crown?
BARNES: No your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Styles?
STYLES: No your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: That completes the sentencing and you may return to custody. Any other matter?
BARNES: Your Honour I was asked to provide two clean copies of the defence reports.
HIS HONOUR: In what matter?
BARNES: In this matter.
STYLES: In the matter of Coffey. I don't know the reason, but--
HIS HONOUR: I can tell you the reason. The reason was I used the ones I had as working copies and then when I finished using them, because I was reading them I began to mark them, forgetting that they were marked as exhibits.
STYLES: Of course your Honour, those are the copies, there's no objection to those going with the Court papers.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you, I've got them from both sources, but that's all right.
**********
Decision last updated: 15 April 2013
0
0