R v Mikulic, Ante

[2010] NSWDC 33

CITATION:	R v Mikulic, Ante [2010] NSWDC 33
JUDGMENT DATE:	26 February 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Possess unauthorised firearm: Convicted. Sentence to a minimum term of 8 months to date from the 23rd February 2009 and expiring on the 22nd October 2009. Balance of term of 6 months and 15 days to expire on the 7th May 2010. Supply prohibited drug: Convicted. Sentence to a minimum term of 2 years and 6 months to date from the 23rd October 2009 and expiring on the 22nd April 2012. Balance of term of 2 years, 3 months and 15 days to expire on the 6th August 2014. Pursuant to s.32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, I take into account the following offences on the Form 1: 1.Possess ammunition without holding licence/permit/authority (H37077977/2) 2.Goods in custody (H37077977/4) 3.Possess prescribe restricted substance (H37077977/5) 4.Possess prescribe restricted substance (H37077977/6) 5.Possess prescribe restricted substance (H37077977/7) 6.Possess prescribe restricted substance (H37077977/8) 7.Possess prescribe restricted substance (H37077977/9) 8.Not keep firearm safely (H37077977/10) 9.Deal with property suspected of being stolen of crime (H36613846/1) 10.Possess prohibited drug (H38166107/1) HH found special circumstances. HH ordered the destruction of the drugs. HH ordered the destruction of the firearm and ammunition. HH referred the offender to the compulsory Drug Court for inclusion into the Compulsory Drug Treatment Centre.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentence - Possess Firearm - unlicensed - Berretta Pistol. - Criminal Law - Sentence - Possses Prohibited Drug - heroin - 95gms - agreed facts - suspect motor vehicle searched $8500 and mobile phones found - taken to police station - heroin found - premises searched - further herion, other drugs, firearm, ammunition and police badge found - further heroin found whilst in remand custody.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Firearms Act 1996
CASES CITED:	R v Gladue [1999] 1SCR 688 [80] R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWLR 329 R v Rushby [1977] NSWLR 597 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610
PARTIES:	Regina Ante Mikulic
FILE NUMBER(S):	2009/00161076
COUNSEL:	Defence: M Dennis
SOLICITORS:	Crown: L Burgoyne

JUDGMENT
1. Ante Mikulic acknowledged his guilt before the Local Court on 15 October 2009 for supplying ninety-five grams of heroin and being in possession of a black Barretta pistol when he was not authorised by license so to do. Today he is to be held accountable for his criminal conduct as expressed in these charges, he also asks that a further ten offences be taken into account on a Form 1 when I am sentencing him for supplying the prohibited drug.

2. Two of the offences I am asked to take into account, not keep a firearm safely and possess ammunition without a licence should really have been put on a Form 1 relevant to the firearm offence rather than relevant to the drug offence, but I suppose at the end of the day it will make no difference on this occasion because I will be taking them into account. But they really should have been attached to an offence of a kind similar to the kind that they were reflective of.

3. As sentencing judge it falls to me to resolve a number of competing tensions as I strive to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences before this court committed by this offender, harming this community in the way he does Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1 SCR 688 [80]. My initial task requires an assessment of what is called the objective criminality of the offences before the court. I will also need to have regard to matters personal to him, that is subjective matters. The starting point for these assessments requires me to make findings of fact from the evidence before the court relating to both the offence and to the offender.

4. My fact-finding task has been circumscribed in that the parties have tended what is called an agreed statement of facts to which I shall shortly return. It is sufficient at this point that I remind the court a judge is no party to the agreed set of facts. The tender of an agreed set of facts does not relieve him or her from his fact-finding task. It simply limits the material from which facts maybe found. To the extent if it be the case that the facts as agreed between the parties 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.
5. The offender’s rehabilitation prospects will have to be assessed even if looking through a glass darkly.

6. Before any sentence can be made there are other issues that need to be taken into account relating to deterrence, discounts, whether special circumstances are to be found, parity, Form 1 matters, totality, backup charges brought from the Local Court and ultimately the length of the non parole period and finally of course the ultimate term of imprisonment or other penalty to be imposed. None of those things can be commenced until the primary facts are determined.

7. What weight needs to be given to all of these matters against an imperative that all sentencing should have as its primary focus the protection of the community, will also need to be determined, see R v Cuthbert [1967] 2 NSWLR 329, R v Rushby [1977] NSWLR 597 and R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740.

The Facts

8. The parties have agreed that these facts adequately cover the criminality engaged in by the accused.

9. On Monday 23 February 2009 at about 10.40 am police were patrolling Wellington Street, Waterloo in an unmarked vehicle. They observed a BMW four wheel drive turning right from Pitt Street and travelling west along Wellington Street in Waterloo. That vehicle was being driven by the offender. With him was another male, one John Godden, in the front passenger seat. Godden was known to police for supplying drugs and was on bail, indeed, for a drug supply offence. Consequently police decided to follow the vehicle as it went about its way along Wellington Street, then George Street and Raglan Street, turning right into Pitt Street and back into Wellington Street and pulling up outside 245 Pitt Street, Waterloo. Police approached the driver’s side of the vehicle and immediately noticed that the offender and Godden presented as being agitated and nervous.

10. Godden was asked to produce identification - there is an irony in that, because police apparently knew who he was, but there you go - at which time he picked up a black shoulder bag from his feet and removed his wallet from inside the bag.

11. Of course, as the bag was open police then observed a large plastic bag containing a brown powder inside it. They decided to search that bag and located an ounce of heroin inside. When asked about the powder in the vehicle Godden said, “It’s for personal use, I’m a mad junkie.” He was charged in relation to his possession of those drugs.

12. Police then searched the accused and his vehicle. They located a brown coloured envelope in the footwell behind the front passenger’s seat. It was sealed but appeared to contain a large amount of cash. He was cautioned and asked about the contents and said it was money from his personal training business.

13. Police located three Nokia mobile phones, all in working order. The offender and Godden were transported to the Redfern Police Station in separate vehicles. What police noticed was that while the two men were in custody the mobile phones, which had been seized, commenced and continued to ring. The cash police found was counted and amounted to eight and a half thousand Australian dollars.

14. At 12.26pm, a little over two and a half hours later, the offender was in Holding Dock 3 of the Redfern Police Station. He asked to use the toilet. He was escorted to a holding cell within the charge room area so that he could use the toilet. The female constable, who had taken him, remained out of sight while he entered and used the toilet. When he was finished, he was placed back into Holding Dock 3 where he remained until his release at 4.47pm. At that point he was only charged with deal with proceeds of crime; that is on the Form 1 and it related to the eight and a half thousand dollars cash. Upon release he remained inside the foyer area of the police station awaiting the arrival of investigating police.

15. Station staff conducted a check of the cell toilet sink and there located two plastic bags containing what was later analysed and found to be 35.6 grams of heroin, one bag containing roughly an ounce and the other containing 7.4 grams of heroin. The offender was approached in the foyer area of the Redfern Police Station, again arrested, cautioned in relation to the two plastic bags. The CCTV footage of the offender entering that cell toilet was made available. He was seen to enter the cell; approach the toilet. While standing there, he was seen to look towards the doorway several times before reaching into his pants. He then reached towards the sink with the same hand that he had earlier used to reach into his pants and then he turned around and walked out of the cell.

16. He, as was his right, nominated a solicitor who was contacted. When given an opportunity to participate in an interview he declined. He was charged with supply prohibited drug, the basis being that the drug in his possession was deemed to be for the purpose of supply. He was remanded in custody.

17. He was found later to be in possession of a set of keys which had attached one security tag, a number of keys including a car key belonging to the car he had originally been found in when arrested. Those items were seized.

18. The following day police obtained a search warrant for premises at Peninsular Drive, Breakfast Point. At about 11.20 that morning police executed a search warrant there, gained entry into the unit using a set of keys and security tag. The warrant was executed in his absence as he had been remanded in custody. In the premises 59.4 grams of heroin were located in four separate quantities, 27.9 grams and 23.7 grams in plastic bags inside a tissue box in the bathroom and 5.1 grams and 2.7 grams in plastic bags in a cupboard above a range hood in the kitchen.

19. Also located during that search was a Barretta pistol, loaded with eight rounds of ammunition, one of which was in the chamber. These, by which I understand to mean the pistol and its ammunition, were located wrapped up in a sock in a hallway cupboard. Eighty-nine rounds of ammunition were also found in a pouch in the same cupboard. The offender did not hold any licence for the Barretta pistol; nor did he have any licence to have the ammunition and the firearm was not stored in a safe as it should have been. Those matters appear as charges on the Form 1.

20. They located a New South Wales Police badge and a number of vials and tablets consisting of anabolic steroids and other prescribed restricted substances, which are referred to in the Form 1. They found numerous documentation in the premises, which demonstrated that those premises belonged to the offender, at least that he was a resident there, I understand it was a leased premises.

21. On 16 March 2009 police contacted his legal representatives to ascertain whether he wanted to be interviewed. He declined. He was then charged with drugs, firearms, ammunition and offences arising out of items located at his residential premises. The total amount of drugs found in his possession and at his residence was ninety-five grams of heroin.

22. While he was in custody on 3 July 2009, early afternoon he had just completed a visit with his girlfriend. Following that visit he was given a routine strip search for contraband. During that search a small white coloured, balloon type container was located beneath a removable inner-sole in his right shoe. The searching officer made what one might think would be the obvious allegation, “Your visitor brought this to you.” He replied, “No I had it in my shoe before I started the visit.” The significant aspect of that was he did have a drug in his possession, however it got there. He said that it was “Gear, heroin”. That was weighed and found to be 1.2 grams. It was sealed for forensic purposes and placed into a drug safe. He was questioned and again he admitted the contents of the bag were heroin. He agreed with the facts as I have just outlined them and said it was for his own personal use and was charged with the matter.

23. That appears to be a recitation of the agreed facts.

Objective Criminality
24. From the facts as he finds them to be a sentencing judge is required to assess the objective criminality of the offences as 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 two offences before me with criminality of offences of a similar kind. It is in this way that the objective seriousness of the criminality of these offences can be evaluated. The objective criminality has the most important impact upon the overall sentencing.

25. Looking firstly at the supply prohibited drug offence, the starting point to assess its criminality is to understand that courts and legislature have made it clear that drug supplying is an unacceptable criminal activity. It is not difficult to understand why it would be a criminal activity, contrary to the impression many offenders have or entertain initially, it is not a social but rather an antisocial behaviour. The courts have long recognised that in assessing the objective seriousness of drug offences it is necessary to have regard to the drugs potential for harm.

26. Harm to others when inflicted by someone else is antisocial. Drug dealing is harmful to the community by its direct impact upon those who purchase drugs and its indirect impact upon the community at large. Drug dealing is an attack upon public health. For some, if not most, drugs such as that which I am concerned with here, heroin, can be addictive. Some are also destructive, causing or contributing to mental health problems such as aggression, paranoia. Supplying drugs can lead to, create or sustain drug addicts.

27. Drug addicts are human beings whose capacity to function and to feel normal is smothered to a greater or a lesser extent by the addiction and other affects of drugs and that is the real essence of the criminal harm done by suppliers of drugs. That is, that in a greater or a lesser way they are contributing to the disenabling of other human beings who also deal in drugs. It is in that sense that drug dealing undermines public health.

28. But as I said, also associated with drug addiction are other forms of crime such as armed robbery, break enter and steal and the like committed by those who are hanging out for drugs and in need of the money necessary to purchase them. That is, loss of property to innocent earners, usually arising from the earners’ own productive efforts in the community. Associated with those robberies and break and enters are trauma, emotional and psychological damage to victims caused by violence and intrusion into their homes. If one follows the spending of money on drugs by addicts without corresponding productivity by drug dealers it amounts to a monumental transference of wealth usually from the already poor without any corresponding economic gain for the community.

29. At every level then drug dealing is corrosive in our society because of its effect upon individuals and society as a whole. The irony is that Mikulic claimed to be in the “personal training business”, by which I understand him to mean involved in the physical training of clients who were seeking a better level of physical fitness, that is a better level of health.

30. Ninety-five grams of heroin leaves open only the conclusion that he is supplying to those who are willing to on-supply to others. The quantity he has been caught with is well above both the trafficable and the indictable benchmarks. It is more than one third of the way towards a commercial quantity if my memory is correct. He was caught in custody with 1.2 grams, which no doubt was for his personal use. The ninety-five grams, even without cutting or diluting would have made about 7 dozen one gram lots. I find he is a mid-level dealer, dealing for financial gain, who also is a user.

31. The bases for finding him as a user are a reference letter and some reports from drug and alcohol. The reference letter is from Kristin Teece containing hearsay evidence that at the time of the offence “he had been actively using and had ‘unleashed the beast’”. Frankly that evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusive nexus between his drug use and his criminal conduct. There is evidence of him refusing a urine sample on 9 September 2009 and failing a prescribed urine test on 26 July 2007 and failing another one in July 2009 and then finally of being in possession on 3 July 2009 in prison, in circumstances I have already referred to. I am satisfied he was using drugs at the time he was caught dealing in them. But the value of the quantity in his possession would far outstrip his own drug costs. It is also likely the $8,500 found in his possession was from a recent sale or sales.

32. The case law makes clear that those dealing in quantities of drugs held in possession for on-supply for financial reward to other dealers who in turn will on-supply must go to gaol for a substantial period. The so called co-offender who was in possession of twenty-eight grams, about a third the quantity this offender was holding, was sentenced to three years custody by Judge Madgwick.

Objective Criminality of Possession of Barretta
33. In assessing the objective criminality of this offence the useful starting point is to have regard to the principle objectives of the Firearms Act 1996. Section 3 of that Act confirms that possession of a firearm is a privilege, conditional upon an overriding need to ensure public safety. The other objective is to improve public safety by imposing strict control upon the possession and use of firearms.

34. The potential harm to the community that can arise from firearms being made available unlawfully to an unregistered possessor is so obvious that it needs no stating. It is an act of immense social irresponsibility. Firearm laws are enacted by Parliament to guarantee public safety through the close monitoring of weapons and through ensuring that only fit and proper persons have access to these lethal items.

35. At first blush the evidence appears silent as to the purpose of the accused’s possession of the firearm. But once it is linked to an offender who in turn is linked to a drug abuse, drug supply and physical fitness, the possession of a weapon stored in the hallway of a unit for speedy access, becomes sinister. I cannot determine the offender’s precise purpose for having the weapon, I am satisfied it was not an innocent one and that becomes important as I assess the possession against the possible potential of harm to others.

36. One of the submissions put by counsel for the offender was that possession without more does not constitute use of a firearm. Of course if he had used the firearm the charge would be different and so would the maximum penalty. But the submission raises the obvious issue, what more needed to be done by this offender to use the weapon, the agreed facts establish the weapon was loaded with eight rounds with one of them in the chamber. It was ready to fire, it only needed to be taken out of the sock and clasped. All up there were ninety-seven rounds of ammunition available.

37. The weapon was in the possession of a drug dealer (as said) and a drug supplier. The significance of it being in the possession of a drug user is that as a group such people are prone to mood swings, including swings to aggression and paranoia. The significance of the weapon being in the hands of a drug supplier is that as a group drug suppliers encounter more occasions that appear to call for violence than the normal population does.

38. It goes without saying the weapon was one easily concealed on the person and capable of discharging in quick succession eight rounds without reloading. All up, the potential for danger and harm to others from this offender’s possession of this weapon was high.

39. To add to that, the offender’s record demonstrates, if the possession of the weapon itself had not already done so, that he is a risk taker. His driving offences, car thefts, his dealing with stolen property all point to a willingness to take risks.

40. The prosecution has chosen to charge the offender pursuant to s 7A rather than s 7(1) of the Firearms Act. That exercise of discretion by the prosecution favoured the accused in that the maximum penalty under 7A is five years against the more serious offence of 7(1) which carries fourteen years. Even so, given the nature of the weapon and the circumstances of its possession I am satisfied if this offence stood alone, it would still require a term of imprisonment.
Subjective Matters
Family Dynamics
41. Ante Mikulic is thirty-five years old, a separated man, who grew up in Smithfield the youngest of three siblings. His other two siblings are sisters, two and four years older than he. His father worked as a bricklayer, his mother as a factory process worker. They are honest, hardworking, law-abiding citizens so far as one knows. He has one child from a former relationship. His current partner has a child who he regards as his own. He can still claim the support of his family and partner.
Education, Skills and Employment
42. His schooling was done in the area in which he grew up. He left in year 10, became an apprenticed panel-beater, enrolled in TAFE but did not complete his apprenticeship. He did work with his father bricklaying, he also has experience as a kitchen cabinet maker. His work and probably sporting history was interrupted by drug use. He had skills as a soccer player whilst at school. He claims at the time of his arrest to have been a personal trainer. His possession of steroids and Tamoxifen suggest an interest in body sculpture or dealing with those interested in body building.
General Health
43. There is nothing before me that suggests any physical health problems that would impede his path to rehabilitation, indeed he presents as a fit thirty-five year old male.
Mental Health
44. The Court has not been favoured with any mental health or personality profile of the offender. His reliance upon drug abuse remains unexplained, as matters presently stand I simply have no insight into emotional/personality or mental health issues that may account for his criminal conduct or explain his behaviour.
Drugs and Alcohol Abuse
45. His criminal antecedents show a fourteen year history of crime association with drugs. His sister Cathy noticed he was using drugs when he was twenty. It would appear back then his drug of choice was heroin. She noticed mood changes at that time. There is the hearsay evidence I earlier referred to of his apparent returning to drug abuse. Frankly evidence coming from an acquaintance in the form it appears is entirely unsatisfactory. It lacks any detailed drug abuse history, analysis of drug abuse patterns or drugs of choice, history of treatment, if any, and links to causes of abuse. Somewhere I saw a reference to a number of attempts at rehabilitation and to association with Narcotics Anonymous; but no detail.

46. There appears to be ongoing drug use whilst in custody. I note his participation in the drug rehabilitation custody is said to lack dedication and frankly may be hypocritical, in that it would appear he was accessing drugs whilst gaining brownie points for attending to rehab. This morning was tendered a certificate of completion of twelve sessions of a program known as Getting Smart, a program which on the one hand has some success with others. Its history with this offender, only time will tell. There were twelve sessions, self management and recovery training. Even so it appears to me to be precious little good use of appropriate custody time.

Character and Antecedents
47. Little has emerged of Mikulic’s character, he appears to be one supported by his family and partner. Clearly they must see some good things in him. He has taken responsibility for his second child. At the time of his arrest he was with another drug supplier, he is a drug user and does not appear to be using his custodial time, subject to the Getting Smart program, to advance himself. There has been no expression of contrition for either offence or anything suggesting any insight into his offending conduct.

48. His first dealing with criminal justice system related to serious driving offences in ‘93. In ‘94 he was again before the court for serious driving offences and on that occasion also for goods in custody, possessing prohibited drugs and taking a conveyance without the consent of its owner. In ‘97 he was before the courts for drive while disqualified and possessing heroin. In ‘98 he was before the courts again for goods in custody, resist police, drug offending, possessing housebreaking implements, larceny, steal from dwelling and I think enter enclosed land.

49. There was a six year break. He returned to Fairfield Local Court in May 2004 for larceny charges. There was a further five year break in 2009 for dealing with suspected proceeds of crime. From his custodial record it would appear he served two prior sentences of custody, one in 1998 of about four months and five months in late 95/96. All of his offending to date has been dealt with in the Local Court. This by far is the most serious offending he has been involved in.
Custody
50. On the matters before me he has been in continuous custody since his arrest on 23 February last year. His plea of guilty was entered before the Local Court, I intend to give him a twenty per cent discount for the early plea.
Rehabilitation Prospects
51. Frankly his rehabilitation prospects appear poor. On the one hand he has family support, which is important; he also has work skills in kitchen cabinet and bricklaying. He appears to have good physical health and significantly there were two periods of substantial length where he did not reoffend in his recent past.

52. But there are a substantial number of negative indicators, a substantial history of unemployment, a long entrenched history of drug abuse, absence of contrition, absence of insight into his offending conduct and why it is antisocial conduct, relatively poor use of time in custody, no evidence of any post release plans and he appears to have reached a peak in terms of seriousness of his criminal offending in most recent times.
Setting the Sentences
53. Both offences call for a component of deterrence, both general and personal. The maximum penalty for the supplying of the drugs is fifteen years. The maximum penalty for the possession of firearms is five years. The offences are of different types involving different aspects of criminality. Partly cumulative sentence is called for in accordance with Pearce’s case (R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610).

54. The issue of parity with his co-offender does not apply in this case. The co-offender was in possession of an ounce of heroin. I am dealing with possession of more than 95 ounces (as said, read grams) if my maths is correct. Further I am dealing with a firearm offence. The other offender was older and had only been in prison once before. On the other hand his offending on that occasion was in breach of a bond, that does not apply in this case.
Special Circumstances
55. I intend to find special circumstances. My reasons for so doing are the cumulative sentence, this will be the longest sentence undertaken by the offender to date. Personal deterrence is best achieved by having a longer parole period because there is more at risk by reoffending, and finally rehabilitation, if it is to be achieved, is more likely to be achieved in the community than in the high pressure, stressed, artificial environment that is prison. The Form 1 offences will drive upward the sentence for the drug offence.

56. Would you stand up please Mr Mikulic.

57. Ante Mikulic you are convicted that you between 11.20 and 1.49pm on 24 February 2009 at Breakfast Point did possess a firearm, namely a black Barretta pistol, not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit. For that offence I would, but for your plea of guilty, have sentenced you to eighteen months imprisonment. I have discounted that by twenty per cent which makes, rounded out three and a half months, which leaves an overall sentence of fourteen and a half months. I sentence you to a minimum term of eight months to commence from 23 February 2009 and to expire on 22 October 2009 and your balance of term for that offence is six months and fifteen days.

58. In respect of the other matter, supplying a prohibited drug you are convicted that you between 5.04pm on 23 February 2009 and 1.49pm 24 February 2009 at Sydney did supply a prohibited drug namely heroin with a total weight of ninety-five grams. In respect of that offence, but for your plea of guilty I would have set a sentence of six years imprisonment. I have discounted that by twenty percent which takes 1.2 years off it, which gives an overall sentence for that offence of 4.8 years. When I turn that into months it becomes four years, nine months and fifteen days. I sentence you to a minimum term of two years and six months to commence on 23 October 2009 and to expire on 22 April 2012 if my maths is correct. I set a balance of term of two years and three months and fifteen days which would mean that the whole of your sentence would expire on 9 August 2014.

59. So the overall sentence that you have been sentenced to is two years and six months, plus eight months, which makes it three years and two months. You will be first eligible for release on 22 April 2012. Have a seat.

60. What I have to tell you is this that normally I can order somebody to be released to parole if I sentence them for a sentence of less than three years. This sentence of yours is four years eight months. I cannot order your release to parole, only the Parole Board can release you. That means you will have to impress them with your rehabilitation. If you do not impress them, even though your first eligible date will be 22 April 2012, if you don’t impress them and you don’t get released, you stay in gaol for another year before you can apply again. So it is important that you get your act together, if you possibly can, and make yourself ready for release on 22 April 2012.

There are some 166 matters are they to be withdrawn?

LOVE: If your Honour could just note that they have all been taken into consideration and dealt with as Form 1 matters.

HIS HONOUR: Yes two things I should note, I think I did just towards the end of the last remarks before I began the sentence. I have taken into account the Form 1 in sentencing for the supply of heroin and I note that the Form 1 matters are all the 166 matters currently before me,

HIS HONOUR: I make an order for the destruction of the drugs. What about the firearm?

LOVE: Yes if your Honour could order that that be forfeited for destruction.

HIS HONOUR: All right I order the destruction of the Barretta pistol and the ammunition.

HIS HONOUR: Compulsory drug program? Does he want me to do that?

O’BRIEN: Yes please your Honour. Yes he’s eligible in the time.

61. I refer the offender and the offender’s case to the Registrar of the Drug Court for consideration of his entry into the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre at Parklea. As best I can tell he complies with the requirements of having a past history of drug offences and drug abuse and the matters presently before me relating to drug use and drug abuse.

You should hear from them hopefully within the fortnight. I require a copy of the remarks on sentence for that purpose.

OFFENDER: Thank you your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: The last date should be amended according to my associate who has access to a computer to 6 August 2014, rather than 8 August. That last date gentlemen should be 6 August not 9 August I’m told. The very last one. His sentence expires, overall sentence expires on 6 August 2014. He may be returned to custody.