R v Garaicoa

[2015] NSWDC 404

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Garaicoa [2015] NSWDC 404
Hearing dates:	29 October, 5 November & 4 December 2015
Date of orders:	04 December 2015
Decision date:	04 December 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	1. The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years, 6 months to commence on 11 November 2014 and expiring on 10 May 2019 with a non-parole period of 2 years, 6 months. 2. For the s166 matter of possess a prohibited weapon, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 months to commence on 11 November 2014 and expiring on 10 August 2015.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sentence - particular offences – firearms offences – acquire prohibited firearm without a dealer’s licence – offering to supply firearm to an unauthorised person – ongoing supply of a prohibited drug for reward – sale of ice or methylamphetamine – offender acted as conduit for drugs and money – assessment of objective seriousness - finding that firearms offences were at the lower end of the range of objective seriousness – degree of accumulation between firearms offences and drug supply offences; CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – Form 1 matters – drug supply offences – sale of ice or methylamphetamine; CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – powerful subjective circumstances – offender aged 24 – mother committed suicide when offender aged 3 – offender left home aged 13 – victim of domestic violence – offender had first child when she was 15 years old – financially destitute – addicted to ice from 14 or 15 years old – engaged in full time study in prison – desire to attend residential rehabilitation – insufficient time in prison to release on parole immediately - finding of special circumstances - other factors – criminal record - early plea – s166 matter of possess prohibited weapon - aggregate sentence of 4 years and 6 months imposed with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Stephanie Nicole Garaicoa (Offender)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr I Davidson (for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)) Mr A Zhou (for Offender)
File Number(s):	2014/333122
Publication restriction:	A pseudonym has been adopted for the name of the offender’s child

Judgment

1. I am sentencing Stephanie Garaicoa who has committed a series of very serious crimes. I should first list the crimes which she committed and then say something more about the circumstances of the crimes.

2. The three crimes that she has pleaded guilty to and of which I formally convict her are these. First, she acquired a prohibited firearm without a dealer’s licence. That is an offence against s 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). Parliament regards it as very serious and has fixed a maximum of 14 years imprisonment to that crime. The second offence that she is convicted of is offering to supply a firearm to an unauthorised person. That is also an offence against the Firearms Act, this time against s 51(1)(a). Parliament has fixed a maximum of five years imprisonment to that offence. The third offence is called ongoing supply of a prohibited drug for reward. That is an offence against s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). Parliament regards that as so serious that it has fixed a maximum of 20 years imprisonment to the crime.

3. Ms Garaicoa has asked me to take into account some other offences when I am sentencing her for the drug offence. She has asked me to take into account three separate drug supply offences. These are all offences against the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and when I am sentencing her for the ongoing supply offence I will take into account the three individual supply offences as she has asked me to. I have signed a certificate to that effect under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

4. I should now say something more about the three crimes that she has been convicted of and the additional offences that I am taking into account. The first crime of acquiring a prohibited firearm without a licence arose in circumstances where she received an SMS message in July 2014 sending her an image of what appeared to be a black handgun and offering to swap the black handgun for some drugs. Ms Garaicoa then contacted someone else to enquire about whether he wanted a firearm. That person questioned whether the firearm was a fake and asked whether it can be loaded and Ms Garaicoa told him that it could be loaded with pellets or ball bearings. The police have inspected the photograph and police experts have inspected the photograph and concluded that it is either a prohibited pistol or it may even be an imitation firearm. This offence of attempting to acquire or acquiring the prohibited firearm without a licence was committed, as I said, in July 2014.

5. The following month - in August - she received a text message asking whether she still had “that pellet gun”. She replied that she did and she and the other person agreed on a price of $250 to sell it, after some negotiation. She was offering to sell this firearm contrary to the Firearms Act and that was the second offence.

6. The drug offence of ongoing supply arose in these circumstances. Stephanie Garaicoa was under surveillance. Her phones were being monitored. Police were interested in her activities supplying methamphetamine, commonly known as ice. Police sent in undercover operatives and on 2 September 2014 in Homebush West she provided 14 grams of ice and received $3,800. When the police later analysed it, it was 78% pure. Just over a week later police picked up phone calls again and went again to Homebush West. Again she supplied 14 grams, this time in exchange for $4,000. On this occasion the purity was around 80%. Just under a week later she again went to Homebush West. She was monitored supplying 28 grams of ice, this time in exchange for $8,000. Again the purity was analysed to be 80%. Those three separate supplies, 2 September, 10 September and 16 September 2014 together made up a sequence of supplies which resulted in the offence of an ongoing supply.

7. As I said, there were three other specific supply offences which are taken into account. One occurred on 22 October 2014 when she again received $8,000 in exchange for 28 grams of ice at Homebush West. On 11 November 2014 she exchanged 14 grams of ice for $4,000 and a third offence occurred back in August 2014 when on a search of her premises police found 22 grams of methamphetamine. In addition she was found to have a Taser where she lived and was charged with possessing a prohibited weapon. That charge is on a certificate.

8. Stephanie Garaicoa has a criminal record. She is still only 24, although about to turn 25 later this month. Her criminal record includes driving offences and goods in custody offences and possession of a knife in a public place on one occasion. Up until now she has been dealt with by fines and good behaviour bonds.

9. Stephanie Garaicoa was arrested for the crimes I am sentencing her for on 11 November 2014 and she has been in custody ever since. When I impose the sentence shortly, it will date from 11 November 2014.

10. In addition, Stephanie Garaicoa pleaded guilty at what Mr I Davidson (who appears for the Director of Public Prosecutions) agrees was the earliest available opportunity. He acknowledges that she is entitled to a discount of 25% from her sentences because of that early plea. In due course I will discount her sentences accordingly.

11. Mr A Zhou appeared for Stephanie Garaicoa when the case first came on before me on 29 October this year here in Sydney. He called his client to give evidence. Her mother had died when she was only three; she apparently took an overdose of some sort and was poisoned. She ran away from home when she was 13 and by 15 gave birth to her son whose name is Silver and her son stayed with his father’s mother and father.

12. Stephanie Garaicoa’s personal circumstances and background are set out in some other reports. Ms Garaicoa confirmed in evidence that she received a Centrelink benefit but her father, whom she was living with, arranged for her to sign an authority for him to receive it. He managed her account and her allowance was paid into his account. In the meantime she was financially destitute. She acknowledged the drug deliveries. She was, she said, rewarded by two or $300 or $500 for each transaction or she was given a supply of ice. Needless to say, she was an ice addict starting when she was 14 or 15 years old.

13. Stephanie Garaicoa said that she has changed since her arrest and is now wanting to grow out of this drug habit and is motivated to deal with it. Mr Zhou asked how she felt about committing these offences. Her answer was much more extensive and insightful than answers normally given by offenders to that question. She said she felt bad for the offences and volunteered that drugs usually end up in somebody else who is innocent and who does not deserve to be taking the drugs. She acknowledged that it could have been someone that she cared about. The person taking the drugs could also be a mother like she is. She did not want anyone to be forced to live like she did and felt “really bad about what I did” and was coming to terms with it.

14. Mr Davidson cross examined Ms Garaicoa about her drug deals. She acknowledged that she made arrangements for the supply. He asked her about what she meant by being in the middle of these drug transactions. She explained that she was the owner of neither the drugs nor the money. She spoke to the purchasers and met them. She could not remember much detail about these transactions because she was drug addicted or intoxicated at the time. Most of the time she got the drugs from the same person in order to on-sell them.

15. She never owned the firearm. She could not afford to buy it. Again, she was the person in the middle of the transaction. She was interested because of the swap of something negotiable for drugs. She acknowledged to Mr Davidson that she was the first point of contact and that she indeed followed up the contact and responded to someone else to supply it to.

16. In re-examination Ms Garaicoa explained that she was doing courses in custody including computers, coffee making, literacy and numeracy. She enjoys the work and is a full-time student. She is progressing and no longer needs medication. She wants to give rehabilitation a go and will do a drug and alcohol course in prison. Indeed she has been applying but needs to be sentenced to have any course confirmed. She is receiving support from the father of Silver and Silver’s grandmother who is in court today and I think might have been in court on a previous occasion.

17. There was a pre-sentence report which became exhibit B. It sets out some of Stephanie Garaicoa’s personal circumstances. She stopped going to school when she was 14 and, as I said, gave birth to Silver when she was 15. After her mother died, her father remarried. She spent a couple of years in the Philippines with her stepmother and her father. She began to have problems with her stepmother and left home. Her stepmother left the country and she told the Community Corrections officer that “her father became physically abusive towards her and that she again felt that she needed to remove herself from the home”. She was effectively homeless for a time.

18. Her report notes that Stephanie Garaicoa has been a full-time student while in custody and educational staff said that she has completed modules in fitness, numeracy and job seeking skills as well as computers and a TAFE hospitality course. The report said that the educational staff “confirmed that the offender’s application to learning has ‘earned’ her a full-time student role, which is restricted to ‘a select few’ due to there being only ten full-time positions available to be allocated to 300 inmates resident in the centre”. The centre is Dillwynia Correctional Centre. This is indeed impressive.

19. Stephanie Garaicoa does not have any particular alcohol problem but was introduced by a previous partner to methylamphetamine and other drugs. She started using heroin as well. She confirmed that to the Community Corrections Officer about her father taking over her Centrelink payments and that remained the case “even after she left home, and which pressured her into finding alternative means of funding her living expenses and drug habit.” She admitted her guilt but could not remember the details because of the mixture of drugs she had been taking. Her motivation was to support her own drug habit. She confirmed the Community Corrections Officer her appreciation of the risks of drug taking and the harm. She was assessed as a medium-high risk of re-offending with a list of what are described as ‘criminogenic needs’. It was thought that she would comply with community supervision because of her good record in custody. The author thought that she may require to undertake and complete a long-term residential drug and alcohol program. In custody she has the opportunity to undertake either the Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program called ‘IDATP’ - a custody based program of six to nine months - or EQUIP which is an addictions program after which an offender can apply for admission to a transitional centre. The author thought that she would benefit from a period of supervision.

20. When the case was last before me in October I adjourned it to today to receive an up to date report about the courses available to her. Despite Mr Zhou’s efforts a report has not been forthcoming. My associate was able to contact somebody in the Correctional Services this afternoon and I have read onto the record the contents of exhibit C which is a memorandum I asked her to prepare summarising the conversation which she had.

21. Mr Zhou obtained a detailed psychological report form a psychologist who is also a social worker named Phil Gorrell. He, too, took the history which I have recounted about her past and her difficulties. There is also a history of domestic violence between her and the father of Silver, and her relationship with her own father who is described as “an abusive alcoholic who had her sign something that allowed him to collect her social security payments”. She came to associate with the wrong people because she was destitute.

22. Mr Gorrell noted that academically when she was in the Philippines “she did particularly well” and has continued with her education in custody. She was diagnosed by a GP as suffering from anxiety which is hardly surprising. He noted the drug history as well. He asked her about the weapons. The Taser was, she said, for her own protection and the weapon which was being negotiated was described by her as a BB gun “being an air gun which shoots pellets”. That is consistent with her description at the time.

23. Mr Gorrell administered some tests to assess the level of any depression and anxiety and found in fact that Ms Garaicoa “is suffering neither depression nor anxiety” but he thought that she has a psychological state known as “learned helplessness”. He thought that her upbringing was “most unusual and is significantly most disturbing” and that she has “no one who supports her and no one offering her help”. He noted that that was the situation for much of her life. Having received very questionable parenting she has had to move away from situations of abuse a number of times. He noted that her life was aimed purely at survival. He agreed that she would require residential drug rehabilitation but added that what she really needs is “re parenting”. She needs an intensive and comprehensive rehabilitation program and unless she receives it she “will only return to the life that she previously knew, and trouble will commence again”. He recommended a particular facility being Dooralong Transformation Centre. He thought that there were limitations on the services provided in custody because there was no guaranteed place and their follow up may not be as intensive.

24. Ms Garaicoa herself wrote out as exhibit 2 a letter to the Court confirming a lot of what I have referred to but added that she has a little brother who has just turned 18. His name is Nathan and he now lives in America. In gaol she is anxious for her son, her father and her brother. She said that the medication in prison has helped her stabilise her emotions.

25. I have had the benefit of helpful written submissions prepared by Mr Zhou. They became MFI 4. He set out a number of relevant factors including there being special circumstances for adjusting the normal relationship between a full sentence and the non-parole period component. Usually the non-parole period is 75% of the full sentence but he argued that it can be less than that in this case because of Ms Garaicoa’s age and what he described as her good prospects of rehabilitation and the fact that this is her first time in custody. I think her prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable rather than good, I am hoping that they are good but judges learn to be realistic in assessing these prospects. She is making all the right steps and hopefully will proceed in the way.

26. Mr Zhou started by arguing that I should release his client so that she could undertake the residential drug rehabilitation program referred to by the psychologist. Mr Davidson opposed that. Mr Davidson must be right. The offences which Ms Garaicoa has committed are simply too serious for her to be released before serving some significant period in custody. She has after all committed firearms offences including one that carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment and an ongoing drug supply offence carrying a maximum of 20 years imprisonment and three separate drug supply offences that I have to take into account. She must spend more time in gaol; otherwise the sentence would be far too lenient.

27. Mr Zhou argued that some of the sentences can be partially or fully concurrent because of the single episode of offending involved in the firearms offences. There is some force in that but, on the other hand, the negotiations were some time apart. They did not occur all on the same day so far as the two offences were concerned. She really engaged in the drug trade, Mr Zhou argued, in order to support her own habit and was not profiting from it in a sense of making surplus money but was making money on the side so that she could buy her own drugs.

28. Mr Davidson on the other hand emphasised that the three supply offences which made up the one offence of ongoing supply resulted in her passing on more than 50 grams of high grade methamphetamines over a short period of time. In addition, I have to take into account, as I have already said, the three additional supply offences. Indeed, those three additional supply offences amounted to just short of 120 grams. That in turn is just short of half the commercial quantity. He agreed that the firearms offences were low range offences but nevertheless objectively serious in each case.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Davidson.

DAVIDSON: I am loathe to interrupt at this stage, your Honour. Just in relation to your Honour’s last remark about the total quantity of the drug involved in the Form 1 offences.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

DAVIDSON: Your Honour made reference to it being almost ‘120 grams’. Your Honour, that’s the total of all the drugs supplied. The three Form 1 offences are, just doing the maths now, your Honour, I have 63.2--

HIS HONOUR: Yes, it must be just over 60.

DAVIDSON: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Thanks, Mr Davidson.

29. Mr Davidson has just corrected me. The 120 grams of drugs represents the total amount of drug supplied by Ms Garaicoa. That comprised about 55 grams of the ongoing supplies and 60 or so grams of the individual supplies. He emphasised her independent role in the drug negotiations and acknowledged the case for special circumstances to vary the normal ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period but he emphasised again the necessity for a prison sentence which involved full-time custody. He emphasised that the two firearms offences cannot be completed concurrently because they were quite separate and committed sometime apart. I think he is right about that.

29. I have to now take all this into account and work out what an appropriate sentence is for these crimes. Looking at the offence of acquiring a prohibited firearm - carrying a maximum of 14 years imprisonment - it is on the lower side of seriousness and I would regard an appropriate sentence for that offence as being three years and six months imprisonment.

30. So far as the offering to supply a firearm to an unauthorised person - carrying a maximum of five years imprisonment - again it is on the lower side of seriousness and I would regard an appropriate sentence as being one year and six months or 18 months imprisonment.

31. The ongoing supply of drugs offence, including the three separate supply offences which I must take into account, attract a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. They were serious crimes. I had in mind that it should be quite a significant sentence but I note from MFI 2 - the statistics for sentencing for this offence produced by the New South Wales Judicial Commission - that just under 70% of sentences for that offence are of three years or less. The database reflects almost 250 individual sentences. I am a little surprised by that. I, myself, in light of that would regard an appropriate sentence as one of three years and six months; that is 42 months imprisonment.

32. What I have to do now that I have indicated what those individual sentences is to discount them because Ms Garaicoa pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity to the three crimes. That means she is entitled to have the sentences discounted by 25%. The first offence will be discounted from three years and six months down to two years and six months. I am rounding off the calculations. The second offence will be discounted from one year and six months to one year and one month. The third offence will be discounted from three years and six months to two years and six months.

33. I do agree with Mr Davidson that there needs to be some accumulation or overlap for the sentences I impose for the two firearms offences. If I was to simply impose the two years and six months and the one year and one month it would be a sentence of three years and seven months imprisonment. I think an appropriate overlap is a sentence of three years imprisonment. Then, of course, I have to add the sentence of two years and six months for the drug supply offence. I will let that overlap to some extent so that an overall appropriate sentence for all of the crimes will be four years and six months.

34. I now have to fix a non-parole period. Normally a non-parole period for a prison sentence of four years and six months is 75% of that. So it would be three years and four months. However I am going to reduce that 75% because of the special circumstances referred to by Mr Zhou and acknowledged by Mr Davidson. In particular I take into account Ms Garaicoa’s relatively young age. I am going to fix a non-parole period of two years and six months.

HIS HONOUR:    I am now going to sentence you.

36. I will fix one aggregate sentence instead of three individual sentences.   I sentence you to four years and six months. It commenced on 11 November 2014 and the overall sentence will expire on 10 May 2019. The non-parole period is two years and six months, that also commenced on 11 November 2014, that will expire on 10 May 2017.

HIS HONOUR:    Just have a seat there, Ms Garaicoa. Mr Davidson and Mr Zhou, first the mathematics. Would you please, just carefully, don’t rush, check the maths and make sure that I have the dates - they coincide with the sentences that I have indicated, please?

DAVIDSON: Yes, I accept they do your Honour. Yes.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Mr Zhou?

ZHOU: Yes, there is no issue your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Sorry.

ZHOU: The dates are correct, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: The dates are correct. Okay. I don’t fix parole because the sentence is over three years but I need to just repeat the explanation.

37. The formal order which I make is that under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of four years and six months to commence 11 November 2014 and to expire on 10 May 2019. I fix a non-parole period of two years and six months to commence 11 November 2014 and to expire on 10 May 2017. The sentences that would have been imposed for each offence are the sentences that I indicated during my remarks on sentence.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Garaicoa the overall sentence you’ve got is four and a half years and that will finally expire on 10 May 2019. The non-parole period, instead of being three years and four months, I’ve brought that down to two years and six months. You’ve done over a year of that already, so you’ve got about 18 months to go and that will expire on 10 May 2017. 10 May 2017 is the first day on which you will be eligible for parole. Whether you get parole or not and what conditions depends on the Parole Authority. Do you understand that?

OFFENDER: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Okay. Is there anything else that I need, any orders, Mr Davidson?

DAVIDSON: Yes, your Honour. A couple of matters, your Honour. There’s the remaining matter on the 166 certificate which is the sequence 9, it’s a summary offence, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Of?

DAVIDSON: Although it can be dealt with on indictment, your Honour, the maximum summary penalty is two years imprisonment. Your Honour, the Crown would accept a considerable degree of totality is appropriate in a circumstance like this. Although, your Honour, I then would submit that it is in itself a serious offence as articulated in Cao which was referred to during submissions earlier, in my respectful submission a period of imprisonment is required but the Crown would accept a significant measure of totality is appropriate in these circumstances.

HIS HONOUR: They are supply offences, is that right?

DAVIDSON: No.

HIS HONOUR: No, no they’re not?

DAVIDSON: It’s possess a prohibited weapon which is the Taser.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Prohibited drug. Possess prohibited weapon.

DAVIDSON: Yes, that’s the offence, your Honour, sequence 9.

HIS HONOUR: They’re the two?

DAVIDSON: Yes. Sequence 9. Yes. Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Two offences on--

DAVIDSON: No, just one, your Honour. Just one.

HIS HONOUR: Which one?

DAVIDSON: Sequence 9.

HIS HONOUR: What’s it called though, what’s the offence on, what you call sequence 9, what is it?

DAVIDSON: Yes, your Honour, excuse me, I’ll just take your Honour to that.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, tell me what it is?

DAVIDSON: Your Honour, it’s an offence under s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998.

HIS HONOUR: Possessing or using a prohibited weapon without a permit?

DAVIDSON: Yes. That’s so, yes.

HIS HONOUR: My associate thinks that there are, there’s a backup offence - yes. And there’s unaccounted for three supplies, one possess a prohibited drug and one possess a prohibited weapon.

DAVIDSON: Yes, your Honour, the only matter the Crown is seeking a plea to is sequence 9 which is the Taser offence and my friend has indicated there will be a plea of guilty.

HIS HONOUR: That’s the prohibited weapon?

DAVIDSON: Yes, that’s so. Yes.

HIS HONOUR: And the others you are agreeing can be dismissed?

DAVIDSON: That’s so, your Honour, I have directions to seek that to occur, yes.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

38. All of the related or backup offences are dismissed under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 with the exception of the offence of possessing or using a prohibited weapon without a permit. That is an offence against s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW).

HIS HONOUR: Is that right?

DAVIDSON: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: What’s the maximum, Mr Davidson?

DAVIDSON: When dealt with summarily, your Honour, it’s two years imprisonment which is the--

HIS HONOUR: But on indictment?

DAVIDSON: Five years, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And I am dealing with it on indictment, aren’t I?

DAVIDSON: No, your Honour, summarily. Yes. And that’s why it’s on the 166 certificate which gives your Honour summary jurisdiction.

39. I fix a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 November 2014 and it will expire on 10 August 2015.

HIS HONOUR: So that sentence has expired. The Taser. I have given you nine months for that. It started last year and finished in August. That make sense, you understand that’s finished?

OFFENDER: Yes. Does March 10 still exist even though you sentenced me already for - to August last year.

HIS HONOUR: Does what still exist?

OFFENDER: Does those other dates that you gave me exist?

HIS HONOUR: They’re still there. Yes. Yes. The main dates you’ve got to remember are the main dated 10 May 17, that’s when you’re eligible for parole. 10 May 17, you’ve got about another 18 months to go and your sentence will finally finish on 10 May 19, so you’re two years on parole once you’re given parole you’re on it straightaway.

40. Mr Davidson and Mr Zhou, anything else?

ZHOU: Nothing further from the defence.

HIS HONOUR: No. Mr Davidson.

HIS HONOUR: I just want you to be able to - you understand Ms Garaicoa what the sentence is. I’ve said it several times. Hopefully that will mean that you’ll have some certainty now and they will be able to process you. That report, the helpful report from the psychologist will help. The sentence had to be as high as it was because of the serious offending you got yourself involved in. We just can’t have that sort of thing going on in the community. In fact I sentenced somebody this morning who got hold of a makeshift firearm and did all sorts of damage. So it’s over to you now. It sounds as though you’re doing pretty well in custody with your courses and your education. That’s really good. I am hoping that you will continue with that and that now you will get signed up for that rehab course. And just keep your head down and you are doing well, so keep up the good work. Do you understand that?

OFFENDER: Yes. Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Good luck. Anything else?

ZHOU: Nothing, your Honour.

DAVIDSON: No. Nothing, your Honour.

**********

Decision last updated: 04 August 2016