R v Mathew John Ridgeway
[2012] NSWDC 53
•01 February 2012
District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mathew John RIDGEWAY [2012] NSWDC 53 Decision date: 01 February 2012 Before: Cogswell SC DCJ Decision: Sentence below revised on 7 February 2012 in R v Mathew John RIDGEWAY [2012] NSWDC 54.
For the offence of aggravated robbery a sentence of 5 ½ years imprisonment. For the offence of kidnapping, a sentence of 6 ½ years imprisonment. Total sentence of 7 ½ years. Single non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - purpose of sentence - deterrence - prevention of vigilantism - relevant factors - gravity of offence - serious offence of kidnapping - prior criminality - extensive criminal record - parity - co-offender no antecedents and diagnosed psychiatric condition - non-parole period - special circumstances - serving sentence in circumstances of isolation - sentencing procedure - sentencing guidelines - similar elements to guideline judgment of Regina v Henry. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, s 86(2)(a), 95(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32
Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 166
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999Cases Cited: Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mathew John RIDGEWAY (Accused)Representation: Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Accused)
File Number(s): DC 2011/85634
SENTENCE
I am sentencing a man who took exception to the behaviour of somebody else in the community. Rather than assisting in lawfully resolving what he saw to be inappropriate behaviour, the man acted to mete out his own form of punishment that he thought was appropriate. The man I am sentencing put the other man through what must have been a terrifying ordeal for some hours.
The man I am sentencing is Mathew John Ridgeway who is now 30 years old. As a result of what he did, he has been charged with 2 crimes.
One I will call aggravated kidnapping which is an offence against s 86(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. Parliament has fixed a maximum of 20 years imprisonment to that crime.
The other is aggravated robbery which is an offence against s 95(1) of the Crimes Act and also carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. (If I referred to aggravated kidnapping, I withdraw that. It is kidnapping - formally known as detaining with intent to obtain an advantage.)
In addition, Mr Ridgeway has asked me to take into account, when I am sentencing him, another crime that he has pleaded guilty to. That is a crime of stealing a motorcar and it was committed the day after, or at about the same time as, the crimes that I am sentencing him for. He and the solicitor for the prosecutor have signed a document asking me to take that into account under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and I will take that into account and I sign the document accordingly.
It is important for a judge, in sentencing a person, to briefly set out what happened to bring about the charges that the judge is sentencing the person for. I referred in my opening remarks to inappropriate behaviour. The man whose behaviour Mr Ridgeway took exception to was called Darren Ridley, a 42 year old married man.
Mr Ridley ran into some teenage girls in the early hours of one morning and over the next few months stayed in contact with them and regularly gave them lifts around Newcastle. He was almost acting as a taxi service, responding to their requests for lifts here there and everywhere.
On one occasion he received a text message from one of the girls to which he responded. It had some sexual connotation to it. The sexual connotation, it seems, was contained in both the text sent by the girl and the text which Mr Ridley responded with.
Mr Ridley assisted in buying some alcohol on the evening of 1 September 2010 for the girls and a boy who was with them. He dropped them off near Hunter Street Mall here in Newcastle that night. The particular girl whom he had exchanged texts with, he called aside and told her that he liked her. She replied, "That's weird" and ran off. The two girls involved were 16, although Mr Ridley says he thought they were 17. They asked him whether he was married and he said he was, including that he had children. Mr Ridley told the girl that he really liked her and she maintained that she found that to be weird. He still offered to give them a lift later on if they needed one.
Indeed, a few hours later at 3.00am on 2 September 2010 he received a phone call asking whether he could collect them from Wickham and then to get one of the other girls from Waratah. When he turned up at Wickham at about 3.00am, Mr Ridgeway was waiting with another man, Mr Mitchell. They all got into the car. Mr Ridgeway sat in the front passenger seat and Mr Mitchell sat in the back. The girls were in the back. As Mr Mitchell got in he showed a screwdriver which he held to Mr Ridley. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence before me that Mr Ridgeway knew that Mr Mitchell was showing Mr Ridley the screwdriver.
Mr Ridley was told to drive the group around and as they were driving around Mr Ridgeway expressed his grievance to Mr Ridley. He said, "Do you like picking up young girls?". Mr Ridley said, "No". Mr Ridgeway said, "Do you know they're only 15?". Mr Ridley replied, "No, I was told they were 17". Mr Ridgeway said, "Come on mate, they look like bloody 10 year olds".
Mr Ridgeway told Mr Ridley that the girls had contacted him because of the remark he had made earlier on to the girl about liking her and Mr Ridgeway told Mr Ridley that that had "freaked them out". Mr Ridley said that he did not mean to scare them and Mr Ridgeway replied, "You're a paedophile and a rock spider". They continued to talk about the girls and their age, then Mr Ridgeway punched Mr Ridley in the mouth. Mr Ridley, it was clear, had no choice about his own movements at that stage. He was directed to the Waratah train station where they picked up the girl that Mr Ridley had made the remark to. Mr Ridgeway told Mr Ridley that he, Mr Ridgeway, was associated with the Life and Death Motorcycle Club and he was supposed to take Mr Ridley back to their clubhouse. In addition, Mr Ridgeway told Mr Ridley that they were going to stab him.
After they picked up the girl from the Waratah train station, Mr Ridgeway demanded Mr Ridley's phone and it was handed over. Mr Ridgeway then asked Mr Ridley for his wallet. He handed that over as well but kept back his key card.
Mr Ridgeway then took over the driving of the car. They drove to the house of one of the girls. The mother of the girl came out and abused Mr Ridley. Again, Mr Ridgeway punched Mr Ridley in the face. Mr Ridgeway required Mr Ridley to apologise to the girl he had made the remark to, which he did.
They kept on driving. Mr Ridley was blindfolded for a time. The threat to stab him was repeated. The key card which Mr Ridley had removed from his wallet before handing it across to Mr Ridgeway was found by Mr Ridgeway in the compartment in the door of the car. Mr Ridgeway demanded Mr Ridley's PIN number and told him that if he was lying he would stab him. He required to know how much money was in the account. Mr Ridley was put into the back seat, blindfolded by Mr Mitchell and told to lie down. They drove to an ATM where Mr Ridgeway took out $80 in cash. Those transactions were recorded at just after 6.15am.
Still not satisfied, Mr Ridgeway drove the car from Newcastle to bushland at Medowie. Mr Ridgeway took Mr Ridley out of the car and walked him about 100 metres along a bush track. They went further into the bush. He then told Mr Ridley to take his clothes off. He told Mr Ridley he would throw his clothes out along the track as they drove off. He was told not to turn around until they had driven off. Mr Ridley complied. Mr Ridgeway drove off with the clothes.
Mr Ridley started walking back along the bush track. He had no idea where he was. He came upon a woman who was walking her dog. She directed him to a council worker. Mr Ridley found the worker who gave him some overalls and a phone. Mr Ridley phoned his wife and she came to collect him. She collected him at about 9.30am that morning. Mr Ridley's car which Mr Ridgeway had driven off with was later found burnt out at Broadmeadow.
Still not satisfied, Mr Ridgeway turned up at Mr Ridley's house the following morning. Mr Ridgeway had the keys to another car which was owned by Mr Ridley and his wife, a Hyundai. They got into that car and Mr Ridgeway drove off. They drove to Jesmond where Mr Ridley was dropped off and Mr Ridgeway drove off but did not come back.
As a result of that criminal activity by Mr Ridgeway, he was charged with the kidnapping offence and with the robbery because he stole from Mr Ridley the phone, cash, a key card, keys and clothing. The robbery was an aggravated form of robbery because at the time Mr Ridley was being held captive. The theft of the Hyundai the following morning is the charge which I am to take into account under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act when I am sentencing Mr Ridgeway for the two primary crimes.
The offence was committed, as I have said, on 2 September 2010. Mr Ridgeway was formally arrested some months later on 16 March 2011. When he was arrested he was in fact in custody in respect of other matters. He was committed for trial on 6 July 2011. When he was arraigned in the District Court here in Newcastle on 11 August, he pleaded not guilty, so the trial was listed for 7 November last year. However in the meantime, on 20 October 2011, Mr Ridgeway pleaded guilty to the two counts which I am sentencing him for and to the theft of the car which I am asked to take into account.
It is important for a judge also to have and refer to information which is personal to an offender whom the judge is sentencing. One of the most important pieces of information is an offender's previous criminal record. Mr Ridgeway has quite an extensive criminal record. He committed his first offence when he was aged 17. Before he turned 18 he committed other offences which were mostly driving offences and other petty crimes. However he committed further crimes once he became an adult the following year. Once again it was a car theft and he served his first time in prison aged 18 when he received a 4 month prison sentence. Since then he has committed more serious offences including robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, a theft and break, enter and steal.
It is obvious, given that he first went to gaol aged 18 and is now 30, that he has spent a significant period of his adult life in prison.
Another factor which is important for a judge to take into account is any sentence imposed upon a co-offender. In this case the co-offender, Mr Mitchell, was sentenced by the Chief Judge, Blanch J, on 19 September 2011. Mr Mitchell was sentenced for four crimes, only one of which was a crime corresponding to the crime which I am sentencing Mr Ridgeway for. The crime that did correspond is the kidnapping and his Honour imposed a fixed term of 4 years imprisonment on Mr Mitchell for that kidnapping, which was the same kidnapping that I am sentencing Mr Ridgeway for. It is important to note that Mr Mitchell had no prior criminal history at all and was also diagnosed with a psychiatric condition which his Honour took into account.
Mr Malcolm, who appeared for Mr Ridgeway, called his client to give evidence. His evidence was consistent with his criminal record showing nothing serious occurring until he was just under 18. He said that he was adopted at the age of about 3 months. Mr Ridgeway himself is aboriginal and he was adopted by a non-aboriginal family and received what he described as a normal upbringing in a great home. Indeed, he said he "had it all" as he was growing up. There were some complications with the adopting procedure because of his ethnic background and the ethnic background of the adopting parents.
He was adopted into a family where he had a sister already in the family who was 13 or 14 years older, who was also adopted. As he grew up he experienced some racism in the local community and moved around with some boys who were in the same situation as he was. When he was 16 he moved out of home and moved in with his sister. He had been to school at Newcastle High School and dropped out in Year 9 because of some trouble which he said he had brought about at the school.
At one stage a doctor had diagnosed him with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and prescribed some strong medication for him. However, in the meantime Mr Ridgeway started drinking a fair amount of alcohol, although he did not get involved very much in drugs at that stage. His relationship with his sister understandably began to change when he engaged in this behaviour and he was testing his limits and as he described it, he "bucked it". It was a question of survival so far as he was concerned. He did a bit of work in security in licensed premises. He also joined the Rebels motorcycle gang, but left 18 months ago and, as he said, his departure from the Rebels was "not well received".
When he committed these crimes that I am sentencing him for, he had been out of custody for a period of time. He had been alcohol and drug free in custody and remained off alcohol and drugs and developed a relationship with Stacey Boyce in about July 2010. That relationship gave him what he described as a whole different outlook. Stacey Boyce had daughters who are presently aged about seven and five and she showed him a side of life which he had not experienced before.
He explained his behaviour towards the unfortunate Mr Ridley as being prompted by feeling disturbed at Mr Ridley being involved in these teenage girls and he, Mr Ridgeway, wanted to put a stop to it.
Since he has been in custody he has had to be segregated very strictly because the custodial centre where he is being held also holds a number of members of the Rebels motorcycle gang, so he finds that he is only able to get out for about 10 minutes a day.
His own biological father he knew and that man stayed in touch with him. He knew him as an uncle - or as visiting him as an uncle - and described him as always working but also "a pisshead". He chose not to find his birth mother.
Cross-examined by Ms Gomez who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ridgeway said that he had met the girls whose interests he was protecting only on that same day. His attention was drawn to them because one of them was crying and they told him that a grown man was following them around. Mr Ridgeway felt that he should do something about it. It was, as he said, all pretty much on the spur of the moment that he did it and he did not think very much about it, but Mr Ridgeway in his own words wanted to "scare the hell out of him" so that he would not chase girls again.
I was assisted by both Ms Gomez and Mr Malcolm in their submissions. Mr Malcolm argued that I should take into account, or think carefully about, when I should commence the sentence. The sentence on one view could be commenced on 16 March - from 16 March last year when Mr Ridgeway was arrested - but Mr Malcolm pointed out that his client could have been charged as early as 22 December 2010 when the police had received evidence of positive photographic identification of Mr Ridgeway. In addition he came before the Local Court on another matter on 17 January 2011 when he was sentenced for another matter.
I have decided to commence the sentence from 17 January 2011. Mr Ridgeway was after all serving custody before then, related to another matter. I could date the sentence much later than that, but I have decided to accept as reasonable Mr Malcolm's submission and I will commence the sentence from 17 January 2011.
I have to be careful, Mr Malcolm said, that the aggravating factor in the robbery was the fact that it was committed whilst Mr Ridley was being held captive and I have to be careful not to double count.
Mr Malcolm referred to s21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and acknowledged that his client had a record of previous convictions, but submitted that this was a particular kind of offence given the motivation that drove it. He acknowledged that there was some degree of planning, but that it was on the spur of the moment with a very limited degree of planning that both crimes were committed. He referred to the sentence imposed upon the co-offender, but acknowledged the two factors which I have mentioned about the co-offender having no criminal record and having a mental health issue.
I accept all of those submissions which I have referred to so far.
Mr Malcolm frankly acknowledged that he could not point to any evidence of remorse as s 21A(3)(i) requires, but asked me to take into account the fact that his client had pleaded guilty.
His upbringing was solid and reliable but, as Mr Malcolm said, it was not by his own biological family. Mr Malcolm realistically acknowledged that the plea of guilty was not entered at the earliest available opportunity, but was between the call over and the trial date and after legal advice. The trial might have lasted some time and Mr Malcolm urged me to provide his client with a discount for pleading guilty of 15 per cent.
Mr Malcolm pointed out that in the sentence the normal ratio of 75 per cent between a non-parole period and the total sentence could be adjusted downwards because of the circumstances in which his client was serving his sentence being fairly isolated.
Ms Gomez acknowledged that aspect, which I have just referred to. She submitted that Mr Ridgeway's prospects of rehabilitation must be guarded.
Mr Malcolm, I should have mentioned earlier, suggested that his client may have changed his ways and Ms Boyce had obviously had stabilising influence on his life. As he said, if he had not had the conversation with the girls, he would not be in the position where he is now.
But, as Ms Gomez pointed out, the offences which Mr Ridgeway committed were serious and the kidnapping was a long, drawn out incident which must have been very frightening for Mr Ridley. Ms Gomez fairly acknowledged that a discount of 10 to 15 per cent was not inappropriate. She emphasised the importance of stopping others from robbing other people and specifically the importance of stopping what might be described as vigilante behaviour, which is the kind of behaviour that Mr Ridgeway engaged in in this case. It is important that people do not, as she said, dish out their own retribution.
There were two aggravating factors which Ms Gomez referred to. There was obviously the threatened use of violence and the threatened use of a weapon. In a sense they were both the same aggravating feature and was brought about by Mr Ridgeway threatening to stab Mr Ridley.
Ms Gomez reminded me of what the Court of Criminal Appeal had said about the offence of armed robbery in the guideline judgment in Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346. Most of the common elements taken into account by the Court of Criminal Appeal in that case were present in this, except that Mr Ridley was not in the kind of vulnerable position described in that case, like a shopkeeper or a taxi driver. Nor was Mr Ridley a young offender with no or little criminal history. He was aged 29 at the time and had a significant criminal history. Ms Gomez pointed out the significance of the factors I have already referred to so far as the sentencing of the co-offender was concerned.
In turning to the sentences which I propose to impose, the kidnapping was the more serious offence. As I said, in a vigilante fashion, Mr Ridgeway decided to take the law into his own hands and to effectively become judge, jury and executioner in respect of what he regarded as Mr Ridley's inappropriate behaviour.
There were aspects to the kidnapping which, to my mind, should be referred to. It seems as though the episode lasted for about three or four hours. There were threats by Mr Ridgeway, at least on three occasions during that time, to stab Mr Ridley. There was a threat to take him back to a motor cycle gang's headquarters. Mr Ridley was blindfolded. He was taken out to the bush along a track. He was humiliated by having his clothes removed. It was, to my mind, a serious offence of kidnapping. It had the aggravating features which I have already referred to.
The robbery is one which, to my mind, falls a little bit above the range which the Court of Criminal Appeal has indicated is appropriate for the offence of armed robbery which it has referred to.
I would regard an appropriate initial sentence for the kidnapping offence as 8 years imprisonment. Because Mr Ridgeway has pleaded guilty, I propose to discount that 8 years imprisonment by slightly under 15 per cent and to reduce the sentence of 8 years for kidnapping to one of 6 ½ years.
I regard an appropriate sentence for the robbery in company as one of 5 ½ years. I have already taken into account that that is a sentence which is a little above the guideline and I also take into account that the guideline itself was decided before the guideline concerning a recommended 25 per cent for the earliest available plea. I have taken those factors into account.
I propose to allow for special circumstances in adjusting slightly what the normal non-parole period would be in respect of the sentence which I am about to impose.
All right Mr Ridgeway, I am going to sentence you now, if you would stand up.
For the offence of robbery in company, I sentence you to 5 ½ years imprisonment. That will commence on 17 January 2011 and expire on 16 July 2016.
For the offence of kidnapping, I sentence you to 6 ½ years imprisonment. That will commence one year later on 17 January 2012 and that will expire on 16 July 2018.
The total sentence is 7 ½ years, commencing 17 January 2011 and expiring 16 July 2018. I fix one single non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months, commencing 17 January 2011 and expiring on 16 April 2017. The balance of the sentence is 1 year and 3 months commencing 17 April 2017 and expiring on 16 July 2018. The earliest date on which it seems that you will be eligible for release is 16 April 2017 and your release will depend upon the Parole Authority.
HIS HONOUR: Now have a seat Mr Ridgeway. First the figures.
MALCOLM: Yes your Honour, two matters, just a matter of factual correctness.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, please.
MALCOLM: As at paragraph 5 of the facts referred to specifically, the girls were under 16.
HIS HONOUR: Oh thank you. Did I say they were 16?
MALCOLM: Yes your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you, I note that.
I correct the remarks I made that the girls were in fact under 16, thank you.
MALCOLM: And secondly, your Honour not formally indicated taking the Form 1 offence into account.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you, no, you are quite right about that. I referred to it and at the time that I signed it and in fixing the sentence which I did for the kidnapping.
I have taken into account the offence of stealing the motor car, which is the subject of the form under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
HIS HONOUR: Thanks Mr Malcolm. Now any factual or legal matters Mr-
OUTRAM: Only this your Honour. Your Honour found special circumstances.
HIS HONOUR: I did.
OUTRAM: I take it the reason was his harsh conditions.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I accepted Mr Malcolm's submission that he is doing the time harder, so to speak, because of the isolation.
OUTRAM: Thank you your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
OUTRAM: And the 166 certificate.
HIS HONOUR: Thanks, we will come to that. Now the figures, I think they are right, but.
MALCOLM: I would respectfully disagree your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MALCOLM: In relation to the kidnap offence, your Honour fixed a total sentence of 6 ½ years. Commencement date was expressed to be 17 January 2012.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MALCOLM: And the expiry date would appear to be incorrect.
HIS HONOUR: 16 July 2018 was the expiry date. Commence 17 January 2012 expired 16 July 2018.
MALCOLM: I'm sorry, I had that as July - January.
HIS HONOUR: 17 January 2012 expired 16 July 2018.
MALCOLM: Thank you your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Anything else? No. Any other factual or legal matters apart from the certificate? Mr Outram?
OUTRAM: I'll just confirm this if I might your Honour?
HIS HONOUR: Yes, go ahead.
OUTRAM: The non-parole in respect of count 1 is 6 years 3 months with a 1 year 3 month balance of term.
HIS HONOUR: There is a single non-parole period of both, so in fact the--
OUTRAM: The first one is a 5 ½ year--
HIS HONOUR: Fixed term, so to speak, yes.
MALCOLM: That's all I wanted to confirm your Honour, is a fixed term.
HIS HONOUR: All right, now the certificate Mr Outram.
OUTRAM: Yes your Honour, perhaps if we deal with it this way. I understand that my friend would like or ask that sequence eight on that certificate be remitted back to the Local Court to be dealt with in that jurisdiction. I would anticipate a mention date in four weeks time would be appropriate.
HIS HONOUR: At some stage give me a date.
OUTRAM: I will.
HIS HONOUR: What about charge 3, 4, 6 and 7.
OUTRAM: The 29th of this month would be appropriate your Honour for number 8.
HIS HONOUR: Sure, now is it a leap year?
MALCOLM: It is.
HIS HONOUR: 29 February. Okay, and what about 3, 4, 6 and 7. What do you want me to do with those?
OUTRAM: I understand that there will be pleas of guilty entered in respect of each of those your Honour.
MALCOLM: That's correct your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
OUTRAM: And in relation to each of those matters, it would be my submission that a sentence for each that is wholly subsumed within the non-parole period in respect of count 2 would be appropriate for each your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: That is the--
OUTRAM: No your Honour, that is the s 95.
HIS HONOUR: Oh the robbery, yes, I sentenced him on the robbery first, yes.
OUTRAM: It expires within the - I would have thought your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I do not really know anything about these, or do I?
OUTRAM: Well they arise out of the - the dishonestly obtain financial advantage--
HIS HONOUR: I see. I see.
OUTRAM: They arise out of the circumstances your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I could give him a 1 month sentence for each of them.
OUTRAM: I wouldn't argue against that your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: What do you say Mr Malcolm?
OUTRAM: There would be some disqualifications in respect of--
HIS HONOUR: Well let us just do one thing at a time.
OUTRAM: Okay.
In respect of the matters referred to on the certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and the related matters referred to on that certificate, in respect of charges 3, 4, 6 and 7, I sentence Mr Ridgeway to 1 month imprisonment for each of the offences. They are to be concurrent and all to commence on 17 January 2011 so that they all have expired - yes? And in respect of charge number 8, police pursuit, I remit that to the Local Court at Newcastle for mention on 29 February 2012.
MALCOLM: And would your Honour make an order under s 77 that he appear by audio visual link?
HIS HONOUR: On that day?
MALCOLM: By audio visual link on that day.
Under s 77 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 I direct the Commissioner for Corrective Services to produce Mr Ridgeway by audio visual link at the Local Court at Newcastle on 29 February 2012, yes.
HIS HONOUR: Now disqualifications, are they anything that I - are they automatic or?
OUTRAM: Perhaps if your Honour - if your Honour were to impose the automatic disqualification for each--
HIS HONOUR: I do not have to impose those, do I? They are statutory.
MALCOLM: They are. But you still have to--
OUTRAM: Well if your Honour makes the order they are. That's so your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I only interfere if you want them altered.
OUTRAM: I don't want them altered your Honour, it's an automatic minimum of two years.
HIS HONOUR: Without saying anything.
OUTRAM: Without saying anything, with this caveat your Honour, they accumulate on any existing disqualification.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
OUTRAM: Would your Honour make it abundantly clear that the two disqualifications - the two automatic disqualifications ought be concurrent with each other?
HIS HONOUR: That is for the drive whilst disqualified.
OUTRAM: Yes, it's sequences 6 and 7 your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
In so far as a statute provides for an automatic period of disqualification for charges 6 and 7 on the s 166 certificate, I direct that those periods are to run concurrently.
HIS HONOUR: Anything else? I do not think so.
OUTRAM: That covers it.
HIS HONOUR: The certificate itself I will ask my Associate to mark for identification 2, I think, and - no 3, the draft indictment was 2. She will mark that for identification 3 and that plus exhibit A, will go on the court file. So Mr Ridgeway your first date that you will be eligible for release is 16 April 2017. All right. Yes Mr Ridgeway can be taken down.
**********
Decision last updated: 01 May 2012
0
1
4