R v Sutherland

[2021] VCC 200

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

 Revised

Not Restricted

 Suitable for Publication

CR 20-01440

THE QUEEN

v

BENEDICT SUTHERLAND

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MURPHY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 March 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 March 2021 (Ex-Tempore)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sutherland
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VCC 200

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Plea – Aggravated recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving – Theft of a motor vehicle – Serious victim impact – Lower scale of offending – Lower level of culpability – Significant injuries suffered by the offender – Unlicensed driving – Deferral of sentence at the time of offending – Remorse – Clinical Depression – Substance dependent disorder – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269, distinguished.

SENTENCE – Significant criminal history – Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic considered – Numerous dishonesty priors – Few prior offences for reckless exposure or driving – Significant theft prior – Principle of Totality – Community interest in offender rehabilitation – DPP v Ghanim [2019] VCC 1271 – Nelson v The Queen [2020] VSCA 219, considered – Total Effective Sentence: 17 months imprisonment, 10 month Non-Parole Period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Roper	Ms A. Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Hofman (Solicitor)	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

1Benedict Sutherland, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, maximum penalty, 10 years' imprisonment[1]; one charge of theft of a motor vehicle, maximum penalty, 10 years' imprisonment[2]; three uplifted summary charges of driving unlicenced[3], driving with a prescribed concentration of drugs in your system[4] and failing to appear on bail.[5]

[1] Contrary to s.317AF(1) of the Crimes Act 1958

[2] Contrary to s.74 of the Crimes Act 1958

[3] Contrary to s18(1)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986

[4] Contrary to s49(1)(bb) of the Road Safety Act 1986

[5] Contrary to s30(1) of the Bail Act 1977

2The maximum penalties of all the offences are set out in the prosecution opening, which I incorporate by reference and were set out on the plea.

3The circumstances of the offences were also outlined on the plea, which was read in open court this morning and which I incorporate by reference.

4In brief outline, the police were surveilling an area down in Docklands on 25 April 2020 in the early hours of the morning and they noticed a vehicle, being a Hyundai Santa Fe, bearing registration number plates that they ascertained were not the applicable number plates for the vehicle.  And so thus, two police officer sought in their vehicle to apprehend you.  They saw you go to vehicle and you took off in the vehicle.  They activated their emergency lights to follow you and you then proceeded down along some roads in the Docklands area, which are common ground in the exhibits that were tendered in the case.

5The actual distance of the, shall we describe, pursuit was about 300 metres.  But you went down Caravel Lane and did a right-hand turn into another lane, a left-hand turn into the main thoroughfare down there, Docklands Way, towards the city, then did a U-turn at Doepel Way and then headed back west towards the freeway.  But two other police officers who had taken up position in two vehicles were blocking your path on the left-hand carriage way of Docklands Road.  And so then when you saw them you were travelling fast in that westerly direction along Docklands Way, seeking to avoid the pursuit.  At that point there were about four different police cars in the area.

6You crossed onto the wrong side of Docklands Way and were heading in the wrong direction when the police officers in their vehicle, they had joined the events, Constables Slaney and Bysouth, and they parked their car on the carriage way at the intersection of Docklands Way and St Mangos Lane.  You were travelling at speed towards their vehicle and the driver of the police vehicle, Constable Slaney, attempted to manoeuvre his vehicle into the right-hand lane of Docklands Way to avoid a head on collision but he was unable to avoid you.  You were heading on the wrong side of the road and clipped the rear of his police car.  As a result of that your car flipped on its driver's side and ended up hitting a tree.  There was significant damage to vehicle that you were driving, the Hyundai and to the rear of the police vehicle.

7A number of police attended the scene immediately and you were screaming for help, and police removed you from the vehicle.  You gave your name.  Eventually an ambulance took your to hospital.  Blood tests was taken.  You were found to have traces of methylamphetamine in your blood.

8You were the subject of a record of interview.  Initially in the record of interview you gave a “no comment” record of interview as to how you came across the vehicle.  Eventually you told the police that you had bought it 10 days previously for $500.  You effectively admitted that it was stolen and gave your explanation as to why you drove the way you did because you did not want to lose your car.  You said you just got out of gaol and you did not have much going for you and your intention was to get away and you did not want to crash your car.  You stated that you had not had driver's licence since you were 21, and that gives rise to the unlicenced driving charge.

9The collision with the police gives rise to the main charge of, aggravated reckless endangerment of an emergency worker.  The aggravation was that you were driving a stolen car and the police officers indicated that they thought they might have died or been seriously injured if they had not taken the evasive action that they did.

10So the summary charges are unlicenced driving and the driving with drugs in your blood.  And then in addition to that, on 11 March you had entered into bail at the Magistrates' Court because you were on a sentence deferral and so you committed an indictable offence on bail.  So that is the third summary charge.

Victim Impact Statements

11Assessing the seriousness of the offence first requires me to consider the fact that there was a victim impact statement from one of the police officers involved.  He was a young police officer, in the sense that it occurred in his first year of policing.  He sets that out in his statement.  He says it had an emotional impact on him and it is of concern that it increases the worry that his family faces each time he goes to work, that he might face a serious event like this.  He worries how the incident could play a part in contributing to accumulated PTSD that occurs in police officers who are subject to stressful events time after time in their career and it finally catches up with them.  So you have started the first event for this young police officer and it has obviously had a significant impact on him.

12It must have also had an impact on the other driver of the police vehicle, being involved in a collision with a speeding car, which was your car, when they are trying to avoid the collision.  Although there is no victim impact statement for the other driver.  But the express impact in the first victim and the implicit impact on the other victim are matters that I must take into account.

Assessing the seriousness of the offence. 

13In assessing the seriousness of the offence one must look at the purpose of this offence, which was put into the Crimes Act 1958 relatively recently, in 2017.[6]  It is there to protect emergency workers of all kinds, police, ambulance, et cetera, in the course of their duties.  It is an unfortunate occurrence that police officers when attempting to apprehend suspects are exposed to danger when the suspects, particularly those driving vehicles, seek to flee. Parliament has enacted this particular legislation, this particular offence of aggravated reckless conduct, endangering an emergency worker, where one of the aggravating factors is a person driving a stolen vehicle.  It is implicit that it was promoted by the fact that on many occasions police are intercepting stolen vehicles and they are exposed to danger when the person driving the vehicle seeks to - knowing they are stolen a vehicle seeks to avoid apprehension by speeding off, and this is what happened in your particular case.

[6]Inserted by Crimes Legislation Amendment (Protection of Emergency Workers and Others) Act 2017.

14In seeking to submit that this offending was on the lower end of the scale for this type of offending your counsel emphasised that the offending here was spontaneous and occurred in a panicked reaction to the attempted police intercept.  He further emphasised that the offending occurred when you were attempting to evade the barrier that the police had established.  Namely there were two police cars that were on one side of the carriage way of Docklands Way and then the other police car that you hit was on the other side.  So you were attempting to avoid, in a sense, the barricade established by the police cars when you attempted to do that but the two cars collided and that makes it distinguishable from some of these cases where there is a deliberate attempt to drive at a police officer or at a police vehicle.  That distinguishes your case and puts it in the lower level of culpability.

15Another matter that is mentioned by your counsel that I take into account, that it was 3 o'clock in the morning or 3.30 in the morning in April of last year when of course the state was in lockdown so that the roads and streets of Docklands  they are usually pretty deserted but they were even more deserted at that time of the day.  So members of the public were not exposed to danger, which often happens in these types of cases involving police pursuits when they seek to intercept motorists.  So that is a contextual factor relevant to the characterisation of the offence.

16Another matter put on the plea by your counsel was that in fact you suffered injuries in the collision, fractured ribs, sternum and injury to your thoracic spine and that has caused you significant pain.  You were taken to hospital.  It is not clear how long you were in hospital but you then had pain and that is evidenced in the continuing pain when you were in prison and that is evidenced in the health extracts from Justice Health that have been put in evidence before the Court.

Culpability in relation to the theft of the motor vehicle.

17It is not put by the police that you stole the motor vehicle but it is pretty clear that you knew that it was a stolen vehicle.  So I do not see how that alters your culpability very much.  You were driving a vehicle clearly that was not your own and so you were driving a stolen vehicle which creates the circumstances of aggravation that Parliament has aimed at in this specific offence.

Aggravating features in this case

18Turning to aggravating factors in this case, as far as characterising the offender.  You were an unlicenced driver.  You had been unlicenced for nine years.  You indicated to the police since you were aged 21.  Another significant aggravating factor was that you were on a deferred sentence adjournment at the time, you were on bail because a Magistrate was dealing with a number of other historic matters that had not been wrapped up due to COVID or delays in the Magistrates' Court system.  He put you on CISP, the bail program. You had been before the Magistrates' Court literally six weeks before, entered bail and then five or six weeks later you are committing this offence while knowing you are on bail.  That is an aggravating feature.  So there are features that put it in a lower category offending but then there is personal features that increase your culpability for it.

19You were on methylamphetamine at the time.  It is not put as an aggravating feature and the prosecution properly does not submit that it went to affect your driving.  But still, you should not be on the roads when you do not have a licence and when you have got drugs in your system.

Matters in Mitigation

20I turn now to matters personal to you, which are fully set out in the submission by your counsel, which he articulated in the course of his submission and they are also set out in the report of Mr McKinnon and I incorporate them by reference.

21You were brought up in the South Gippsland area, completed high school at the Wonthaggi High School.  You had a close relationship with your parents and had two younger half siblings and an older sister.

22When you were aged 19, when you finished your secondary school, you moved to Geelong to live with your maternal grandmother.  But she returned to Gippsland but you stayed in Geelong and sought to establish your life down there. You worked in Geelong for a period of about three years as a security guard.

23But when you hit age 21 you were the subject of a number of personal traumatic events which have affected your path and really are still ringing at this very moment.  Your mother passed away due to terminal cancer.  You found that your father in fact was not your natural father but was your stepfather and then your family home in Inverloch was sold.  As a result of that you suffered grief and estrangement from your family.  Your brother passed away in a motor accident in 2011 and your maternal grandmother passed away the same time.

24And yet, despite all these matters, by 2013 when you were aged 27 you had completed three years of a chef's apprenticeship and had been working in at least one high class restaurant in Melbourne.  But following the passing of your grandmother your life went downhill and that is when you started using drugs.  So it was at that time that essentially your previously good employment record fell away, you had no family support, not significant romantic relationships and you were experiencing periods of homelessness and transience.  It is therefore not surprising that effectively you told the police in the record of interview that you were of no fixed abode.  You were probably living in that car that was not yours.

25I turn now to other matters in mitigation.  First, I am required to take into account your plea of guilty.  The learned prosecution, Mr Roper, accepted that this was a plea entered at an early stage.  It obviated the need for a committal and the calling of witnesses.  You have facilitated the course of justice and I give you credit for it.

26You also cooperated with the police, after initially making a no comment in parts of the record of interview, you then provided a number of admissions in the record of interview.  While those admissions, had they not been made, the police would have still been able to charge you with all the offending but it made it easier for them and I give you credit for that, and you did clarify your involvement with the vehicle and thus assisted the police in allowing them to speedily prosecute the case against you.

27Further, I am satisfied that your plea is evidence of remorse.  This is reflected in the early plea and also in the comments that you made to Mr McKinnon.

28Your counsel relied on a report from Mr McKinnon, a forensic psychologist.  In the report he found that at the time of the offending you were suffering from clinical depression and substance dependent disorder.  He found that while the drug dependence did not impact on the offending, your depression may have contributed to it by degrading your ability to reason and make sound judgements. Effectively, he said you have had long term unaddressed depression.  As I noted in the discussion with your counsel, in the course of the plea you in the various community corrections order you had been put on, you have been sent for mental health assessment.  But as your counsel put that you had the opportunity but did not take it up, and now you are in a position where you are in custody.

29So Mr McKinnon was of the view that you suffer long term depression and then you used drugs as a form of self-medication.  Your counsel at one stage sought for me to reduce your moral culpability due to Verdins considerations.  I am not prepared to do that.[7]

[7]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269

30As Mr Roper indicated, it was just - his analysis is more general, it does not really reach the requirements of the recent case of - I think it is called - Brown, to have a mental condition to be used to reduce moral culpability.  But I do take it into account in a general way.  It is also relevant to the burden of imprisonment and it is relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation.

31Significantly, Mr McKinnon opines that you do not have an inherently antisocial or criminal disposition and he is of the opinion that you have significant potential to reform if you can address the drug dependency disorder that he identifies you have and also address the issue of the depression.

32Your counsel referred to a number of other matters in mitigation which I have considered and taken into account.  A particular matter raised is that you have suffered and injury, you suffered injuries in the accident and that amounts to extra curial punishment, to which I take into account.  Indeed, it would have made your imprisonment more burdensome if you are suffering pain and limited movement.  There is also less choice in relation to medical treatment than if you were out in the community.  So that makes imprisonment more burdensome. 

33Added to that the significant periods that you have been in lockdown since you have been in custody for nearly 300 odd days.  Lockdowns, lack of home visits, lack of personal visits and also general fear of COVID, and restricted programs for people who are on remand and indeed, programs in general because of the COVID.  So they are all factors that makes, the period of remand that you have been on, more burdensome than it would have been had you been sentenced, say, two years ago or had you been on remand even two years ago.  So I take all those matters into account in your favour.

Criminal History

34I want to now turn to your criminal history.  It is relevant both in considering your culpability for the offending and assessing your prospects of rehabilitation.

35As emphasised by your counsel on the plea, your criminal record does not - you were born in 1986 and your criminal record does not commence until an entry on 15 May 2012, when you would have been 22.  And that you were giving a non-conviction disposition for damaging property and resisting police.

36Then your next entry is in 2014, when you would have been 26.  That is when your record of dishonesty offences commences and you have since that time a number of prior convictions. Commencing in 2014, shop theft, dealing with property proceeds, contravening bail conditions, dishonest disposal of goods, committing indictable offence on bail, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and burglary.  That is in 2014.

37Now that first serious matter before the Magistrates' Court, you were given a community corrections order but you breached that order and you were dealt with a couple of years later in March 2016 when the breach was found proven and you were placed on another community corrections order.  Then on the same date you were dealt with for a number of other dishonesty offences on 23 March in the Warrnambool Magistrates' Court.  You must have moved down to Warrnambool.  For possessing cannabis, possessing methylamphetamine, committing indictable offences on bail, theft, false name, criminal damage, stolen goods, theft from a shop and obtaining property, and trafficking methylamphetamine, again, in 23 March 2016.

38Now that was the first time you got a sentence of imprisonment, you got 114 days as an aggregate sentence.  And then to follow with a community corrections order and the time served was declared.

39So then from that time on you have had a number of further appearances before the Court.  So in Sunshine on 8 February, theft of a motor vehicle, going equipped to steal, possession of cannabis, possess methylamphetamine and breach of the community corrections order, and a forfeiture order at that point.

40And then on 16 February 2017, you were dealt with again for a number of offences in the Sunshine Magistrates' Court, dishonesty offences, and that is when you received a sentence of 120 days and a community corrections order to commence on 22 March 2017.

41So you have breached one order, you then reoffend, you have got a sentence of imprisonment and another order.  You are back before the court six months later on 8 August 2017 on two counts of theft.  Theft of a motor vehicle, theft from a motor vehicle, attempted theft from a motor vehicle and you were given a 60 day sentence.  At that point you had breached the earlier community corrections order and it was cancelled and you got 44 days aggregate sentence for that.  So you breached the community corrections order and you have resentenced for the original offending.

42So your criminal record shows that when you are given an opportunity, you breach it.  You are given another opportunity, you breach that.  So your final entry, and I have left some of them out, was on 8 March.  When on charges of entering a building with intent to steal, theft from a shop, theft, attempt to obtain property, dishonest retention of stolen goods, theft of a motor vehicle - sorry, stop there.  You got four months' imprisonment.  Then earlier on 3 July 2018 you had been sentenced to 12 months for theft of a motor vehicle and unlicenced driving.  So again, that is another sentence of imprisonment.

43So looking at your prior criminal record, it indicates you have a significant number of prior convictions for dishonesty offences, thefts of motor vehicles, as well as a number of drug related prior convictions.  You have been sentenced to a number of terms of imprisonment and community corrections order that you have breached.

44In addition to that, as indicated in your plea submission you have got outstanding matters before a magistrate on a sentence deferral. I do not consider those but you are not out of the woods yet.

45But in considering the criminal record before me, it is noteworthy that it does not include any offences of violence and there is only one prior conviction for unlicenced driving and this is relevant in considering the seriousness and the culpability for this particular offence, the main offence, of reckless endangerment of an emergency service officer.  It can be seen as containing elements of a driving offence and a reckless exposure offence.  But you do not have antecedents in any of those categories, so that is relevant to characterising your culpability for the offence.  So in that sense the offence is somewhat out of character because you do not have a big driving record.

46Similarly, however, you do have a significant record of theft of motor vehicles and dishonesty offences. So in that sense the theft offence is well and truly within character.  Driving or committing an offence when you are in a stolen car is not out of character because you have got these priors for theft of motor vehicles.

47Now assessing your prospects of rehabilitation is difficult.  It is clear from your background that up until you turned about 27 you had a good employment history and this will bode you well in the future.  It is also clear that since that time, you are now 35, you have been involved in drug use and thus, your prospects of successfully rehabilitating yourself requires that your drug use be addressed.

48Your counsel was that candid in that he indicated you had been offered opportunities for psychological treatment in the past but had not taken them up.  Mr McKinnon was of the view that you genuinely want to rehabilitate yourself but he says you require significant supports, like accommodation, psychological supports upon your release from prison to achieve that.

49Given your age and the linkage between your offending and drug use and your late entry into the criminal justice system, with appropriate psychological support, housing and drug rehabilitation and employment, I would regard your prospects of rehabilitation as reasonable.

Purposes of sentencing. 

50In sentencing you I am required to balance the need for general deterrence, specific deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation, retribution, reintegration into the community.

51In sentencing for this offence in particular, considerations of general deterrence are very important.  Attempts to flee police intercepts are all too frequent and this offence is frequently committed as police seek to apprehend offenders driving stolen vehicles.  A signal must be sent to the community that this type of conduct will not be tolerated and will bring significant sentences.  Parliament has recognised this by making this a category two offence, with a mandatory sentence of imprisonment to be imposed.[8]

[8] Pursuant to Sentencing Act 1991, s3(1).

52In your case, considerations of specific deterrence carry less salience given you lack of a significant driving record as I have indicated.  On the other hand, your prior record of dishonesty offences, particularly including thefts of a motor vehicle, make specific deterrence carry some importance here.

53Rehabilitation is always an important consideration, notwithstanding that you have been sentenced to a number of terms of imprisonment in the past.  As I have indicated, I regard your prospects of rehabilitation if you are able to address your drug addiction problems.

54In sentencing submissions I was referred to a number of cases for the purpose of providing comparable sentences.  As properly indicated by the learned Crown prosecutor, each case turns upon its facts, with differences as to the nature of the particular event giving rise to danger to the police officers or emergency service workers and the antecedents of the relevant offender.  As I commented in the course of the plea, the range of offences in the cases that were referred to by the prosecutor range from a community corrections order to three years' imprisonment, which was considered by the Court of Appeal as well within range in the case of Nelson.[9]

[9]Nelson v The Queen [2020] VSCA 219 (‘Nelson’)

55The learned Crown prosecutor accepted that the case of DPP v Ghanim[10] was probably the closes in terms of the nature of the conduct involved.  But your counsel submitted that the offender in that case had a very significant prior driving history.  So he sought to put that the Ghanim case, did not really - this called for a lesser sentence.

[10] [2019] VCC 1271

56In sentencing you I must have regard to considerations of totality.  As a category two offence, as I discussed with the prosecutor there is a presumption of cumulation in relation to multiple charges.  This is subject to the court ordering otherwise.  In this case the prosecution accepted that there was a degree of overlap between the aggravated offence of recklessly placing emergency worker in danger and the charge of theft of a motor vehicle, in that that was the feature of aggravation.  It was conceded by the prosecutor that there should be some concurrency.

57In the case here, in considering the overall sentence, your prior convictions for failing for bail type of offences are significant.  You have a number of prior convictions for that.  So I regard that as somewhat serious and I certainly propose a cumulation in relation to that.

58I have considered all the matters put by your counsel on the plea and I have exhibited both submissions.  I have accepted that you are subject to some remorse, I have given you credit for your plea of guilty.  I have taken into account the extra burden of COVID on a term of imprisonment and particularly on remand.  I have taken into account the injury that you suffered.  I have taken into account the need to send a signal that your driving was totally unacceptable in those circumstances and it has had an impact on that police, on at least one police officer.

59So weighing all those factors and taking into account the comparable cases that have been referred to, I am going to sentence you as follows.  I will not require you to stand because I will lose your vision.

60On Charge 1, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 months.  On Charge 2, on the charge of theft of a vehicle, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months.

61On the summary charge of unlicenced driving, you are convicted and fined $400.  On the summary Charge 12, of failing to answer bail, you are sentenced to one month imprisonment.  On the summary Charge 13 of driving with a prescribed drug in your blood, you are convicted and fined $400.

62I order that two months of the sentence of theft of the motor vehicle be served cumulatively on the sentence of Charge 1 and the whole of the failing to appear on bail sentence be served cumulatively on the Charge 2, which makes a total effective sentence of seventeen months' imprisonment.

63I direct that you serve a minimum term of 10 months' imprisonment before being eligible for parole.

64On the charge of reckless endangerment, all the licences you hold are cancelled and your disqualified for a period of 24 months.

65On the charge of theft of the motor vehicle, all licences you hold are cancelled and you are disqualified for six months, and that is a concurrent disqualification.

66Mr Roper was the unlicenced driving mandatory cancellation as well or disqualification or not?

67MR ROPER:  I don't believe see, Your Honour.

68HIS HONOUR:  All right.  I declare ‑ ‑ ‑

69MR ROPER:  But there was a mandatory penalty on the drug driving.

70HIS HONOUR:  Sorry, I forgot that, yes.  On the drug driving, yes.  Sorry, on the drug driving your licence is cancelled and your disqualified - that was six months, wasn't it?

71MR ROPER:  It was six months, Your Honour, yes.

72HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  So that is six months again, that is a concurrent sentence.  So the effective disqualification period is 24 months, which is also a factor in sentencing as part of the overall sentence.

73Pursuant to s.6AAA I declare that had you not pleaded guilty, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of two years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 months.

74I declare you have served 310 days PSD.

75Are there any other matters that I have not addressed, Mr Roper?

76MR ROPER:  Not that I know of, Your Honour, I think you have covered it all.

77HIS HONOUR:  All right.

78MR ROPER:  Yes.

79HIS HONOUR:  From your point of view, Mr Hofman?

80MR HOFMAN:  No, Your Honour.

81HIS HONOUR:  Mr Sutherland, you have heard my sentence remarks. I am giving this opportunity given the way I assess your entry into the criminal justice system late in the piece.  But the driving on that occasion was completely unacceptable.  You were driving a stolen car.  The police are entitled to go about their business and when they put the red lights on or the blue lights on, you have got to stop.  And Parliament has said that people who do this sort of offending have got to go to gaol.

82So I have imposed this sentence on you and you are disqualified from driving and when you do get released from prison you have got to get yourself a licence, and then address this background of depression you have got.  When you get out go to a doctor, get yourself a mental health plan, get some cognitive behavioural therapy. I have assessed you as having good prospects.  You have done three years of a chef's course and you have had employment, you can get back into it.  You are an abled bodied man, 35, you have got a lot of life left in you and it is time to put the criminal justice system behind you and put the drugs behind you.

83So I hope you can do that and I do not want to see you again.  And remember, if you commit an offence while you are on bail you are in trouble again and you have got a lot of bail offences in your prior record.  So that will carry a bigger and bigger sentence each time.

84With that I want to thank you, Mr Hofman, for your comprehensive submissions and also thank Mr Roper for his comprehensive submissions and assistance on the plea, and adjourn the court sine die.

‑ ‑ ‑