R v Omar Elomar

[2016] NSWDC 319

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Omar Elomar [2016] NSWDC 319
Date of orders:	05 August 2016
Decision date:	05 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Tupman DCJ
Decision:	See orders [61]-[62]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – sentence – pleas of guilty – Commonwealth offences of participating in an agreement with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss of Customs Duty to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service – tobacco and cigarette shipments falsely described as other goods to avoid full duty – “piggybacking” method  – loss of $5,895,851.00 of duty – criticism of Crown’s “Statement of Facts” – not a statement of facts but a lengthy summary of circumstantial evidence – offender with previous convictions for similar offences – issues of parity or relativity – aggregate sentences imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 20(1)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 53A Criminal Code ss 131.1(3), 135.1(3)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Omar Elomar (Offender)
Representation:	Mr C Taylor (Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr S Zaher (Offender)
File Number(s):	2012/222131
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: This is the offender Mr Elomar is before the Court for sentence on two offences of dishonestly causing a loss to the Commonwealth. They are two counts in an indictment dated 26 June 2015. These offences had been committed to this Court for trial. The offender was to initially stand trial jointly with two other offenders, which was due to commence on 4 June 2014.

2. On 6 June 2014 he pleaded guilty to Count 1 in that joint indictment and his application for a separate trial was granted. His trial was listed to commence on 29 June 2015. On that day he pleaded guilty to a second offence namely count 2 in the indictment. The two charges are both contrary to s 135.1(3) of the Criminal Code and each carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

3. Specifically the charges are the following:

1. Count 1. That between about 25 November 2011 and 24 November 2011 at Sydney he participated in an agreement to falsely represent that container number SUDU6605852, contained ceramic tiles, with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss of Customs duty to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

2. Count 2. That between about 20 November and 21 December 2011 at Sydney he participated in an agreement to falsely represent that container, KLFU1815083 contained wet paper towel, with the intention of dishonestly causing the loss of Customs duty to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

4. When sentencing him for these two offences the offender asks that I take into account one additional offence, also being an offence of dishonestly causing the loss to the Commonwealth contrary to the s 131.1 (3) of the Criminal Code. Specifically that is a charge, sequence 19, that between about 30 December 2011 and 7 January 2012 at Sydney he participated in an agreement to falsely represent that container number HDMU2571422 contained glass and aluminium frames, with the intention of dishonestly causing the loss of Customs duty to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

5. The facts of all of the offences are to be gleaned from a document entitled statement of facts. It is a 20‑page document which is not a statement of facts, but rather a summary of evidence relied on by the Crown to prove the offences charged against the offender. Once he pleaded guilty to these charges, this material was no longer required to be tendered on sentence, and yet it was. Even that part of this document which purports to set out what the offender actually did is not in fact a summary or statement of relevant facts which would enable a sentencing judge to assess both what happened and also the role that this particular offender played.

6. The District Court of New South Wales is an extremely busy court, and as at August 2016 it is impossible to obtain a sentence date in the Sydney Registry of this Court before January 2017. This means that many people remain in custody on remand, bail refused, awaiting sentence after they have pleaded. Both the Crown and the defence in my view owe a duty to the Court to make the material tendered to a sentencing judge as straightforward and brief as possible to enable an appropriate sentence to be set as quickly as possible. Requiring the sentencing judge in this matter to read 20 pages of complicated circumstantial evidence which would have been relevant to convict this offender, but which is not necessary for a sentence when he has in fact pleaded guilty, has only added to the delay here.

7. The burden in my view falls on both sides of the bar table. If the Crown either does not or will not prepare a summary document, no more than about three pages, then in my view and in my experience of well-run sentences, it is incumbent on defence to do so and to provide it to the Court.

8. The response to this criticism, made by me many times over a number of years, and by a number of other judges in this Court over many years, is that the material is required so that a sentencing judge can determine the role of the particular offender. That is not so in this matter in my view. Once this offender pleaded guilty, his role was easy to ascertain from an examination of what he did. There is unlikely to have been any real dispute about that, but even if there were, that should not have stopped the Crown from tendering a document which summarises the role from the Crown’s perspective, and if the defence wished to dispute that, then the defence could have had appropriate evidence tendered.

9. Equally the Court has heard criticism from the defence over many years that attempts by them to summarise the facts, in a way which is actually helpful to a sentencing judge, are thwarted by the Crown. This may or may not be accurate, but even if it is so, that does not prevent the defence nonetheless from preparing a fair and proper summary of the facts and tendering it to the Court. Provided it is an accurate and fair summary, it is extremely unlikely that any sentencing judge would reject it. Sentences would be determined more quickly. People like this offender, Mr Elomar, would know their fate earlier and offenders waiting in custody, bail refused, without access to programs, would be sentenced more quickly. This request has been made by judges of this Court for many years. It seems to fall on deaf ears, but it is incumbent on the legal profession to start taking notice and to start fulfilling their role as officers of the Court, which ultimately can only be of benefit to their clients whether they be prosecuting authorities or offenders.

10. With that in mind however, and doing the best I can from these so called facts, and I acknowledge substantially assisted by the judgment of Judge Bozic in relation to the co-offender, I accept that there was in place at the relevant time a joint taskforce between the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales Police, Australian Customs and Border Protection, the New South Wales Crime Commission and the Australian Crime Commission targeting serious and organised criminal activity involved in the international sea cargo terminal in New South Wales, specifically focusing on criminal activity involving goods under the control of Customs.

11. This task force identified a criminal syndicate involving the large scale receipt of tobacco, cigarettes and counterfeit cigarettes through Port Botany in Sydney. The offender, Omar Elomar was part of this syndicate. During the relevant period the offender was the proprietor of K and O Freight, which was registered with the Customs integrated cargo system, which is the portal through which industry can check the status of imported containers. This system has been in place since January 2009. The offender was a freight forwarder who was also registered on this same system as an air cargo reporter, an exporter, an exporter agent, an importer and a sea cargo reporter.

12. During the period covered by all of the counts relevant to this sentence, the offender used a methodology known as piggybacking to commit the offences. Piggy backing is able to occur because Customs uses a profiling method whereby they identify importers with a good record of frequent importations of containers, properly documented, and where the appropriate Customs duty is paid on the properly and lawfully declared content of the containers. As a result these identified importers are assigned a lower risk by Customs and are less likely to have their importations stopped and examined.

13. Importers must lodge full import declarations to Customs and the piggybacking method involves those like this offender falsely and dishonestly attributing the details of one of these companies identified as low risk by Customs to disguise the true nature of the importer and the goods imported, thus avoiding the payment of appropriate Customs duty. All of these three offences, the two substantive offences, and the schedule offence, involve containers of either cigarettes or loose tobacco imported into Australia by companies not in fact given or entitled to these low risk profiles by Customs, but which were disguised as being importations by one of these legitimate companies, positively profiled by Customs and disguised as being goods which they were not, and on which much lower duties would have been payable, as opposed to the very significant duties which were payable on the importation of cigarettes and tobacco.

14. The offender on my finding played a significant role in the commission of these offences. The relevant specific facts for all counts are these, dealing first with count 2, because it is chronologically the first. This involves a container allegedly imported by Pakplast, container KLFU1815083, which left Singapore on 30 November 2011 and arrived in Australia on 15 December 2011. The records for it show that the consignee was Pakplast Pty Limited, a company in Smithfield, New South Wales, and the consignment was wet paper towel. The documents purporting to indicate this were not legitimate. The consignment was in fact stopped by Customs and examined on 19 November 2011, and found to contain approximately 2,899 kilograms of loose leaf tobacco with an estimate $1,249,295 of Australian duty evaded with the subsequent loss to the Commonwealth of that amount. The cargo was seized by Customs.

15. To facilitate this offence the offender had many telephone conversations with the co-offender, Mr Masri, to discuss the impending importation. They used coded language in these calls in an effort to conceal the true nature of them. He prepared necessary importation documentation in the name of Pakplast containers, dishonestly purporting that they were importing a shipment of wet paper towels. This company had no knowledge of the importation. Hewas able to do that because of his knowledge, as a freight forwarder, that this company was less likely to be expected by Customs because they had been positively profiled by Customs. He used false names and identities as contact persons for these businesses to respond to the inquiries which would be made to enable the import duties to be paid so that the shipment could clear Customs. There were two others involved with him, one of them was the co‑accused Masri. The other was a person not apparently charged because it would appear he withdrew from the agreement once he realised that there was dishonesty and illegitimacy involved.

16. The offender made false statements in paperwork and arranged for the payments of costs associated with the importation process, and himself attended shipping companies to lodge the necessary paperwork. He intended to take possession of the container after it was released by Customs.

17. This is a brief summary gleaned from the 20 pages, assisted by the written submissions made on behalf of the Crown, of the tasks he undertook which constitute his role in relation to this offence, and as will become clear for the other offences as well.

18. In relation to this Pakplast container, which is count 2, he undertook this role over a period of about a month between November and December 2011. It appears to me that it is also apparent from the intercepted calls that he played a more organisational and significant role than did Masri.

19. Count 1 involves a container in the name of Alpha Tiles. It was container SUDU6605852 which arrived in Sydney on 19 December 2011. The offender used the same piggybacking method, again acting with the co-offender Masri, to make it appear that this container had been imported by Alpha Tiles and Ceramics Pty Limited which was also a legitimate company positively profiled by Customs. He dishonestly created paperwork purporting that in fact it was a container of tiles and ceramics. Alpha Tiles and Ceramics knew nothing about this importation and was not in fact connected with it.

20. The container was seized by Customs on 23 December 2011 and found to contain approximately 8.8 million sticks of Golden Kings brand cigarettes on which an estimated $3,033,360 would have been levied by way of duty, which was thus evaded, giving rise to a subsequent loss to the Commonwealth. This cargo was also seized by Customs.

21. Without going through the details again, I accept from the facts that the offender used the same methodology which I referred to in relation to the Pakplast container, including the use of fictitious entities as contacts, creating false commercial invoice packing lists and packing declarations to provide to Customs through an agent, so that the necessary importation declaration could be lodged on which duty would be levied.

22. There would appear to have been little if any difference between the way in which he committed this offence and the way in which he committed the earlier offence relating to the Pakplast container.

23. The offence to be taken into account on the schedule involved a container in the name of Alternative Glass. The offender asks that when sentencing for the two substantive offences I take into account this offence, which is sequence 19, on a schedule. It is an offence of an identical type, but committed during the period 30 December 2011 to 17 January 2012.

24. Container HDMU2571422 arrived in Sydney on 11 January 2012 from Singapore. It did not contain, as the relevant documentation purported, glass and aluminium frames, but in fact contained 3,680,000 Supermatch brand cigarettes and 1,000,000 Asia Cup brand cigarettes, on which an estimated duty of $1,613,196 was payable, which was evaded, with a subsequent loss to the Commonwealth. This shipment was also forfeited to the Commonwealth.

25. For this offence too, over the relevant period, the offender acted in exactly the same way as for the earlier two offences, using the piggyback method, purporting that the container was, in fact, from a legitimate company and contained glass and aluminium frames. Again he used fictitious entities as contacts. He organised for another to pay the import freight charges on the dishonestly described contents. He made false statements in an attempt to secure the release of the container and intended to take possession of it after release, together with the co-offender Masri and others.

26. So it seems to me that that is a summary of the three offences, a summary of the offender’s role and more than sufficient to enable an assessment of the objective criminality to be made.

27. Altogether these three containers contained 2,899 kilograms of loose leaf tobacco and 13,480,000 cigarettes, on which a total of approximately $5,895,851 ought to have been paid to the Commonwealth by way of duty, but which was evaded, because of the offender’s participation in the agreement in each case to purport that they were legitimate importations of goods other than what they were, imported by legitimate companies, using the piggybacking method.

28. In July 2012 search warrants were executed at various places and on 17 July 2012 the offender was arrested at his home. He engaged in a record of interview, but made no comment in relation to the charges. Police located a mobile phone at his premises which indicated a connection to his commission of the offences. They also located some documents connecting him to the unlawfully obtained documents relevant to the Pakplast importation in his home. He used these unlawfully obtained documents to create the other false documents necessary to commit count 1.

29. He was in custody bail refused from between 17 July 2012 and 15 August 2012 when he was released to bail, that is 30 days. He also spent nine days in custody in April 2015, for what I understand to be unrelated offences. In determining a commencement date for any sentence that might be imposed I would backdate the sentence to 39 days before today, taking it back to 27 June 2016. I am conscious that in doing so nine of those days apparently relate to some other matter, not the offences before me. I do so in any event and if, in the future, there might be any subsequent sentence handed down in the Local Court or elsewhere, the sentencing magistrate or judge could take into account the fact that I have, when setting the appropriate commencement date for this sentence, take into account every day that this offender has spent in custody since being charged for this offence. Any subsequent sentencing judge or magistrate could then determine the commencement date of any future sentence, taking into account issues of totality.

30. There are matters to be noted in relation to these sentences. The first is that this offender is not being sentenced for the importation of these goods and is not charged with that offence. This sentence must proceed on the basis of the offence with which he has, in fact, been charged, which is for causing a loss to the Commonwealth dishonestly. It was by the use of the piggybacking method, it is complicated and there is considerable planning involved. The maximum penalty for the offences, however, is 5 years. It is in my view, however, a very serious example of such an offence, very much towards the top of the range of offences capable of being charged under this section.

31. The reason for that finding is the following: the methodology being used is complex; there is considerable planning involved in the commission of the offences; each of them is committed over a period of about a month; overall the offending is for about 47 days; the amount of duty evaded is extremely large which is a potential loss to the Commonwealth of a significant amount. This offender played a very significant role in the commission of these offences and, in fact, a pivotal role in the commission of these offences. He used the identities of three legitimate companies. He undermined a system which attempts to streamline importation. He committed these offences for financial gain, albeit it might be that he intended to pay off a drug debt with that money, but nonetheless he committed the offence for financial gain.

32. Overall it is a serious example of offences capable of being charged under this section. It is, however, I note an offence capable of being dealt with in the Local Court where the jurisdictional limit for each offence would be two years. It is not, however, an offence appropriately dealt in that Court, because of the large sums involved and for other reasons. In my view, only a term of imprisonment would be sufficient to recognise the seriousness of this offending. That would also be necessary to send a strong message of general deterrence in relation to these offences.

33. General deterrence is very important in sentencing for offences such of this. The cost of investigating offences such as these is high. The duty evaded was huge and if these goods had been legitimately brought into Australia there would have arguably been a benefit to the community by the payment of these legitimate duties.

4. Further, the profiling used by Customs means that the clearance of imported goods can be done more speedily than if every single container imported had to be stopped and inspected. Offences such as this, which take advantage of these sorts of systems, mean that these systems designed to speed up the process are less likely to be used, which ultimately slows down legitimate business.

5. These are pleas of guilty and it is, therefore, appropriate to recognise the extent to which they indicate a willingness to facilitate the interests of justice. They were not entered early. As I have said, the plea to count 2 was entered on 4 June at a callover once the matter had been committed for trial and on the first day of the trial, which was meant to be a joint trial involving this offender and two others. He pleaded guilty to count 2 and was successful in his application for a trial alone for the remaining offence. The plea to the remaining count was not entered until 29 June 2015, which was to be the first day of the trial of the offender alone. Both indicate some willingness to facilitate the interests of justice, because the evidence to prove his guilt was complicated, and so he has ensured a conviction for these offences.

6. However, the Crown case, albeit a complicated circumstantial case, was nonetheless strong against him, depending on a large number of intercepted calls and including the finding of documents in his possession linked to the offending. They are facts to take into account in determining his willingness to assist the interests of justice, but do not, in my view, significantly minimise the appropriate sentences here.

7. The offender has a criminal record, which to some extent raises some issues in relation to his prospects of rehabilitation, but subject to other material to which I will refer soon.

8. In September 2012 there are convictions for offences for similar type. Two offences are for representing the he was an authorised Customs broker, and two convictions for offences of intentionally altering or interfering with goods the subject of Customs control. Clearly enough he committed these offences also in his capacity as a freight forwarder. He was sentenced to, in my view, an unreasonably high fine for two of those offences in an amount of $802,000 in the Local Court, and more probably than not, the issues surrounding the extremely high quantum of that fine had some connection with his subsequent offending, together with his drug use at the time.

9. In April 2014 he was convicted and sentenced on 21 offences of general dishonesty causing a risk of loss to the Commonwealth. Those offences had apparently occurred early between October 2008 and September 2009. He received terms of imprisonment in the District Court which were suspended pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. All of these offences involved his acting dishonestly when dealing with Customs over a number of years. That is exactly what he was doing when committing the offences before me.

10. None of the current offences however, appear to have been committed whilst he was subject to any of these other sentences. It may be that he was on a form of conditional liberty at the time he committed them, however, it is likely that he was subject to bail at the time he committed the offences, having apparently been charged with the offence of drive disqualified on 5 October 2011. That sentence, in fact, was sentenced on 4 April 2012, which was a s 12 suspended sentence of 12 months. The evidence, however, does not allow me to determine whether or not he was on bail at that time, but even if he were, it was in any event for a very different sort of offence which ought not operate as a significant circumstance of aggravation.

11. He has a New South Wales criminal history, including offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, drug possession and obstructing a Commonwealth official. But from 2010 his criminal history seems to involve motor vehicle offences, albeit relatively serious ones, including five suspended driver, disqualified driver and the like. As I have said, the latter of these gave rise to a suspended sentence for 12 months from April 2012.

12. His criminal record does not entitle him to any leniency. I accept that in the absence of any other evidence, his ongoing dishonesty over a long period when dealing with Customs, would require a specific deterrence in this sentence.

13. Turning to the subjective circumstances surrounding him I accept He is now 33. He has been supervised by Community Corrections several times in relation to offences. Initially that was for a Community Service Order involving a motor vehicle offence. His response was, according to Community Corrections, borderline.

14. Following that he was given a s 9 good behaviour bond for drive suspended and the response was favourable, to the extent that supervision was terminated early.

15. The other bonds I have already mentioned. The Commonwealth suspended sentences were also subject to supervision, but that too was terminated early, because of his favourable response to supervision.

16. He is Australian from a Lebanese background. He is single with no children. He is one of eight children and has been raised in a supportive and close family. He continues to have a positive relationship with his siblings and extended family. Following his father’s relatively recent death, approximately two years ago, he returned to live with his mother.

17. He is fairly well educated, having a higher school certificate, and after that did a Diploma of International Trade, and from then on worked predominantly in the import/export business as the owner of an international freight forwarding company for nine years.

18. He will be able to work in due course in the community. He has not been able to and will not be able to work in that field again because of these offences, but I accept that he is bright and smart enough to be able to obtain employment in due course. He continues to have the ongoing support of his family, which is good for his prospects of rehabilitation.

19. I accept that he committed these offences for financial gain, but in the context of a drug addiction at the time. He started to use cocaine recreationally, but this increased when he started to make a good income from his business. At that stage in about 2010 he and his then girlfriend were spending about $1500 a week on cocaine. I accept more probably than not he amassed a debt of about $17,000 to his cocaine supplier at the time he started to commit these offences and that he saw this as a way to pay off that debt. Just how that was to occur is not the subject of any evidence and not anything that I can determine in any way. It is unlikely, in my view, that this was the only amount that he was likely to make out of his commission of these offences. The amount of organisation, the amount of duty evaded, the amount likely to be made by others down the track on the sale of these illegally imported cigarettes in the retail market indicate that this was a large scale operation likely to provide a significant amount of money to all of those involved. Having said that I accept that he was one of what was probably a significant number of people involved in this whole syndicate, ranging from those who imported it, those like him who facilitated the dishonest attribution of the cigarettes to legitimate companies as goods other than what they were, to those who would ultimately take possession of them, to those who would distribute them to retailers in Sydney and those retailers. The co-offender, Mr Masri, was a tobacconist, and no doubt along that chain somewhere. There is no evidence from which I could determine, however, what he was to gain or how much was to be made in total by this particular syndicate for these three importations, but I accept it was likely to be large and he was likely to make a considerable sum out of it.

20. Since being arrested, and after four weeks in custody and his release on bail, I accept that he has turned his life around. He had, in fact, stopped using drugs for some time and he has not used drugs now for some considerable period of time.

21. Since being released and following the death of his father, he became his mother’s night time carer. His sister provides that care during the day and he does at night. She is ill, and particularly since the death of her husband has a morbid fear of being alone.

22. I accept that there will be considerable hardship to his family from his incarceration and I accept that he is playing a positive role in the care of his mother. The hardship to his family is not in my view however of sufficiently exceptional circumstances that would allow a reduction in the sentence from that which is otherwise necessary. I will take that into account, however, in determining an appropriate release date with a view to his being available in the community as soon as possible to resume that role.

23. I accept that he is genuinely remorseful and contrite for having committed this offences. That has been expressed by him to the psychologist who provided a report. I also accept the opinion of Probation and Parole that he is a low risk of re-offending and is unlikely to benefit from a period of supervision.

24. One of the most significant aspects relevant to the appropriate sentence here is the issue of parity or relativity. The co-offender, Masri, was sentenced by Judge Bozic on 17 October 2014 after trial. Therefore, he pleaded not guilty. However, he was only charged in relation to one of the offences which is before me for this offender and in fact it was the schedule offence involving the Alternatives Glass container. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 16 months with a recognizance release order of 10 months. His role, on my reading of Judge Bozic’s sentence, and in any event on my own finding from the material here, was less than that of the offender before me. Furthermore, the offender before me faces two substantive charges and the matter on which Mr Masri was sentenced is a schedule offence to be taken into account. The duty evaded by him in total is something like four times the duty the subject matter of the charge faced by Mr Masri. This offender before me has a longer criminal history than that of Mr Masri and, significantly, involving offences of dishonesty involving the Commonwealth and Customs.

25. Whilst parity does not apply as such because the Masri’s sentence is not a substantive offence for this offender but rather a schedule offence, those facts need only be stated for it to be made clear that on the proper application of any relativity, the sentences for the offender before me must be longer than that for Mr Masri. He did plead guilty and that is a matter to be taken into account when looking at relativity, but it is a relatively limited impact given the timing of those pleas. The subjective case for Mr Masri would seem to be of relatively equal position to that of this offender and perhaps even more so given apparently that he was a father of six children who required him in the community as soon as possible.

26. I have concluded that the sentences here for these offences are best dealt with by the imposition of aggregate sentences pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999. There are two offences but they are in my view part of the one overall criminal activity. Each of them however has a scheduled offence to be taken into account and given that it is an offence of exactly the same nature with over a million dollars itself in duty evaded, it must be taken into account in a meaningful way.

27. With all of those matters taken into account, I have concluded that the overall sentence on an aggregate basis for each of these offences should be 2 years and 6 months. I will be setting a recognizance order of 18 months. There is no statutory length of sentence for a recognizance release order for a Commonwealth office. I set that date to take into account the need for the offender to be released as soon as possible into the community given his demonstrated rehabilitation and the need to be free to care for his mother. However, it seems to me that anything less than an 18 month period of time in custody would not reflect appropriate relativity with the co-offender Masri and would be properly perceived by him as unfair.

28. I must indicate that it seems unnecessary and would be preferable if the offender before me did not have to go back into custody. I do not have any choice, however. The appropriate sentence would not allow any alternatives and even if this were a sentence of two years or less, it would not be appropriate for this sentence to be served by way of an ICO given the issues of relativity.

29. All those involved in the criminal justice system know that in circumstances where there is demonstrated rehabilitation, that is likely to be undermined by a return to fulltime custody, but I have no alternative in these circumstances. Perhaps his early release to bail was one of the factors that ought to have been considered at the time. Four weeks in custody was never going to be enough to cover the criminality involved in the commission of these offences.

30. I indicate the indicative sentence for each of these substantive offences would be two years overall.

31. For those reasons I make the following formal orders. The offender is convicted for sequences 17 and 18. For each of them an aggregate sentence for each of 2 years and 6months with an aggregate recognizance release order of 18 months. The sentences will commence on 27 June 2016. So it will be an aggregate overall sentence of two years and six months for each commencing on 27 June 2016 and expiring on 26 December 2018. An aggregate recognizance release order of 18 months for each, 27 June 2016 expiring 26 December 2017. The recognizance formally in the sum of $500, conditions to be of good behaviour to come up for sentence at any time if called on for any breach committed during the term of the bond. I do not propose to set any further conditions of the recognizance release. I indicate I have taken into account sequence 19 as a schedule offence when sentencing for both

32. To the extent that it is necessary, put indicative sentence for each two years.

**********

Decision last updated: 25 November 2016