Regina v Justin Van Turnhout

[2007] NSWDC 363

CITATION:	Regina v Justin Van Turnhout [2007] NSWDC 363
JUDGMENT DATE:	9 November 2007
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ at 1
DECISION:	Supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis - 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months; Unlawfully supply firearms (3 or more times within 12 months) - 4 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - Sentence - Supply prohibited drug ongoing basis - Unlawfully supply firearms (3 or more times within 12 months) - Objective seriousness - Undercover police operation - Offender addicted to methamphetamine - Sincere remorse - Early guilty plea - High prospects of rehabilitation - Special circumstances
LEGISLATION CITED:	25A Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s25 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s39P Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s51B Firearms Act 1996 s65 Friearms Act 1996
CASES CITED:	Regina v Galway NSWCCA, unreported, 19 August 1998 Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
PARTIES:	Regina Justin Van Turnhout
FILE NUMBER(S):	07/21/3232
COUNSEL:	Mr Hood for the offender
SOLICITORS:	Ms Hocking for the NSW DPP

SENTENCE


1. I am sentencing a young man from a good family, with a good education and with a good job. In his mid twenties, without any previous exposure, he tried a drug. That drug was methylamphetamine. He became immediately addicted. So addicted did he become that the drug took over his life. He started selling assets, which he owned, in order to keep up his habit of taking this particular drug. The habit cost him some thousands of dollars per day. So overwhelmed was he by his need to feed his addiction, that his judgment was completely lost. Hence, when undercover police suspected him and an associate of supplying drugs, he readily provided them, not only with methylamphetamine, but with firearms as well.

2. Hence, he comes before me, having pleaded guilty of two very serious charges. One is of supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis. That is an offence under s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 . It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. The other offence is unlawfully selling firearms three times or more within 12 months. That is an offence under s 51B of the Firearms Act 1996 . It too carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment.

3. In addition, he was charged with two other offences in respect of which he has admitted his guilt and has asked me to take them into account in sentencing him for the drug offence. Those two offences are selling ammunition without seeing a buyer’s licence, contrary to s 65 of the Firearms Act 1996 and supplying a prohibited drug, namely 33 grams of cannabis, contrary to s 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act .

4. The facts may be stated briefly and were the subject of agreement in a document contained in exhibit A. The young man’s name is Justin Van Turnhout. He was born on 14 February 1979. He was in a relationship with Silvana Miletic, at the relevant time. Mr Van Turnhout operated a business named Regal Stock Feeds which was in Camden. Police suspected that drugs were being supplied from that business. They obtained authority to conduct a controlled operation. This operation occurred in December 2006. On 11 December 2006 they made contact with Mr Van Turnhout and he supplied the undercover operative with 3.37 grams of methylamphetamine. He was paid $1,500. After selling that drug, Mr Van Turnhout offered to sell to the undercover operative, a pump action shotgun. The police returned, still undercover, on 13 December 2006. This time the offender supplied the police with 6.47 grams of methylamphetamine. For this he received $3,000. He sold them a shotgun for $1,500. The offender assisted the police in putting the shotgun into the boot of the undercover police operative’s car.

5. The police returned about six days later. This time he sold them 1.51 grams of methylamphetamine for $450 and 26.8 grams of cannabis for $250. On this occasion he sold them a bolt action rifle for $600.

6. On 21 December 2006, police returned again to the premises. This time the offender supplied them with 3.22 grams of methylamphetamine. He was paid $1,500. On this occasion he supplied them with seven shotgun cartridges to be used in the shotgun which he had supplied them with earlier.

7. The next day, 22 December 2006, the undercover operative made contact with the offender for the last time. This time he negotiated the purchase of methylamphetamine as well as 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine and another firearm. He had negotiated those purchases in advance. He bought 3.26 grams of methylamphetamine for $1,500 and 48 tablets, weighing 13 grams of 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine for just over a thousand dollars. He was also supplied with a shortened bolt action firearm for $400.

8. The offender told the police undercover operative that he had shortened the barrel of the firearm and the stock, using an angle grinder. The undercover operative left with the drugs and the firearm. Later that day, Mr Van Turnhout was arrested and found to be in possession of some of the money which had been paid to him over the previous week or so for the purchases made by the undercover police. The firearms were examined by a police expert. All were test fired and were in working order. One was a 12 gauge shotgun which was a prohibited firearm. One was a 22 size rifle, which was a firearm and the third was a shortened rifle, which was a shortened firearm. Those terms, ‘prohibited firearm, firearm and shortened firearm’ are terms used in the Firearms Act.

9. Mr Hood, who appeared for Mr Van Turnhout, called his client to give evidence when the matter first came before me on 26 October 2007. The first matter, which is the subject of evidence, was a previous conviction which the offender has for a common assault and an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which was recorded in the Camden Local Court on 28 June 2002. He explained that he had been intoxicated at the time and had fallen out with a man who was going out with his niece. He regarded the man as not having done the right thing by his niece and so the two men fell out and violence ensued. Mr Van Turnhout’s protective attitude towards his niece is confirmed by her. Her name is Alexis Baker and she too is called as a witness in these proceedings. I will return to the significance of that criminal record in due course.

10. Mr Van Turnhout, after his secondary education, went to work in the stock industry. He worked in Nowra for three years and then in Narellan for some six years. He was obviously well regarded. He was so well regarded that he decided to set up his own business in the Southern Highlands. He acquired a business called Regal Stock for paying some $150,000 for the goodwill and a further amount for the stock.

11. He said he commenced using drugs at the age of 26. He immediately used ice and the addiction, as I have said, immediately became out of hand. At the height of his drug use he was spending some two or three thousand dollars a day. He said his own judgment was completely subverted to his need to purchase drugs to support his habit. Hence, when the police approached him as undercover agents, he saw what he described as an opportunity for a meal ticket. They were offering a very good price for the drugs which he was able to supply. He, himself, was acquiring his own drugs from Cabramatta.

12. He said that he understood that by supplying the drugs that they would be on-sold by the person to whom he was selling them. In fact, of course, that was not the case because the person to whom he was selling them was a police officer. Mr Van Turnhout said he had no idea of the severity of what he was doing. Two of the firearms which he sold were his. As I said at the beginning of these remarks, his habit was such that he selling almost all his assets to feed his habit. Hence, he got to the stage of selling the firearms in order to increase his remuneration and hence, the funds needed to buy the drug.

13. The third firearm however, came from an outside source. It came from a friend of his named Adam Robertson. As he said, he sold all he had left of any value in his possession.

14. When he was arrested he went into custody and has been in custody since 22 December 2006. He has withdrawn from his addiction to this particular drug. It was a very difficult process. In fact he has been offered drugs in gaol but has refused them.

15. Over the last 11 months of his custody he has put on some 20 kilograms, which he had shed because of his addiction. He undertook a relapse prevention course but was not able to continue it because he was moved within the system. He has indicated that he is prepared to provide a urine sample every day to demonstrate the fact that he is no longer using drugs. He has become employed during custody as a sweeper and hopes to gain employment in the laundry at Silverwater.

16. He says that he is really learnt his lesson. He has let a lot of people down, including his family and friends and that there is no chance of his re-offending. He acknowledged in cross-examination, that he was very keen to reunite with his partner at the time, despite the fact that it was she who introduced him to these drugs. She too, was an ice user. They have kept in touch during their shared time in custody by the internal mail. I will return to this aspect in due course.

17. Briefly, two other witnesses were called. Mr Van Turnhout’s niece confirmed that he was a very protective uncle. Her personal circumstances were such that she needed to move out of home in 2002. She moved in with the offender for some six months. They got on like a brother and sister. She has stayed in touch with him and visited him a number of times. She herself, has seen a dramatic change in his appearance and behaviour over the last 11 months in custody. She says that he is now back to his old self. She says that he is very remorseful and is looking to the future and that his thinking is, as she described, more straight. She acknowledges that his rehabilitation may be influenced by the people around him.

18. The last witness was named Peter Bartolo. He is a personal friend. As it happens Mr Bartolo has worked in the Juvenile Justice System for some 20 years. He is also very prominent in the equine industry. Mr Van Turnhout became part of his extended family. Mr Bartolo himself is married with two children. Mr Bartolo said that Mr Van Turnhout came to dinner regularly. He regarded him as one of his own children. He described him as a very loyal friend. Very trustworthy and a man of integrity. On the other hand he was too ready to please. He has visited him in custody and has observed his remorse. Mr Bartolo said that there is no likelihood of repetition of this behaviour, based upon his own, that is Mr Bartolo’s experience.

19. Asked about the relationship with his former partner, he said that if he resumed the relationship the question would depend upon the rehabilitation process undertaken. It is a long process and the impact of the relationship may depend upon the level of Mr Van Turnhout’s participation in that rehabilitation process. He will stay in touch with Mr Van Turnhout and supports him.

20. Pre-sentence report was obtained and tendered. Mr Van Turnhout comes, as I said, from a supportive family. Family issues include the fact that his father has been diagnosed with cancer and his mother sustained a very serious injury in 1993 resulting in a brain injury.

21. He has had stepchildren, namely children of his mother, from a former marriage, have had mental health and drug issues. Mr Van Turnhout confirmed a strong relationship with his own father.

22. The report confirms that Mr Van Turnhout first tried drugs about 12 months before his arrest. It confirms the impact of the drug addiction upon his judgment. The report notes that Mr Van Turnhout appeared to be ashamed of his actions. Mr Van Turnhout’s father is presently managing the business which Mr Van Turnhout commenced. The report concludes that Mr Van Turnhout has shown good insight into his offending and addiction and appears to have taken responsibility for his actions. It points out that Mr Van Turnhout’s father said that his son will need to regain his trust and that he will not support his son if he were to rekindle his relationship with the co-offender.

23. In addition, there is a report from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr Bruce Westmore, which I have read. Dr Westmore diagnosed a substance abuse as well as alcohol abuse in remission and adjustment disorder type depression in remission.

24. Briefly, I make an observation about the alcohol abuse in remission. As I said the only previous offences committed by Mr Van Turnhout were when he was intoxicated on an occasion some years ago. Mr Van Turnhout said that since that incident he has not taken alcohol and I accept that evidence.

25. As Dr Westmore said, Mr Van Turnhout functioned in the high range until he became addicted to this particular drug. He too, confirms his remorse. Dr Westmore said that his longer-term prognosis, both from a psychiatric and forensic perspective was quite good, but will be significantly enhanced if he can maintain sobriety from drugs and alcohol. He thought a drug rehabilitation program would be of great assistance upon his release.

26. I have read medical reports which have been tendered, which indicate that both of Mr Van Turnhout’s parents suffer the conditions which I have referred to. I have read the character references which are part of exhibit 1 and which all demonstrate that he is a highly regarded young man who is, was until these offences, regarded as trustworthy and sincere and industrious, as well as being conscientious. A number of them express their surprise at these offences having been committed.

27. I turn to asses the objective seriousness of these offences. This is a very important aspect of sentencing for a Judge. It is important for a Judge not to be overwhelmed by the subjective features of a case and to commence consideration of any sentencing exercise with a sense of the real seriousness of the offending behaviour. These are the factors which I take into account. Each of the offences carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. In other words Parliament has seen fit to fix very high penalties on each of these offences. I take into account, as I said, in sentencing, or I will take into account in sentencing in respect of the drug offence, the matters on the Form 1.

28. The minimum number of supplies for the offence of ongoing supply is three. Mr Van Turnhout committed six. I regard that as increasing the seriousness of that particular offence. But I also take into account, as Mr Hood submitted, that the context was the supply by him to undercover operatives who were themselves initiating the requests for drugs. That is to be contrasted with an ongoing supply of, on six occasions where the offender was himself or herself, initiating the supplies perhaps to a series of different people. I regard the drug supplied, namely ice, or the principal drug supplied, namely ice, as a drug in the middle of the range of dangerousness.

29. I take into account the following matters so far as the firearms offences were concerned. One was shortened, whether by Mr Van Turnhout or not I am not sure, but the fact that one was shortened, clearly means objectively that it has the capacity to be used in unlawful circumstances.

30. Another factor relating to the supply of firearms is the fact that Mr Van Turnhout offered to supply the first shotgun. Another factor is that one of the weapons was sourced from outside. Another factor is that he supplied as well, the ammunition, although I do not give this added severity because of the fact that I am taking into account in sentencing him, the offence of selling ammunition without a buyer’s licence. Nevertheless, I accept the submission of Ms Hocking who appears for the prosecution, that the firearms were, as she said, ready to go. They were all tested and in good working order, or at least in working order.

31. The offence was planned and organised. So far as the supply of drugs were concerned, they were supplied no fewer than six times. So far as the supply of firearms were concerned, they were supplied on three occasions. On the one hand the offences themselves suggest, by repetition, a degree of organisation, so that I do not take into account as an additional factor, planning and organising which is consistent with that normal necessity for organisation to supply more than once. On the other hand, Mr Van Turnhout, as he said, obviously had discovered a meal ticket for generating income to support his drug habit and to this extent the sales of drugs and firearms which he made to the undercover operatives had a financial purpose.

32. Although the offences were not impulsive, they were driven by his addiction. The addiction is relevant, as was said by the then Chief Judge at Common Law, Wood J, in R v Henry ( 1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at 398.

”To the state of mind or capacity of the offender to exercise judgment”.


This was not an enterprise coolly calculated by a sober and detached person. This was an enterprise driven by a desperate man very seriously addicted. It is relevant to make those observations because the addiction clearly clouded his judgment. It resulted in him being, in my view, completely reckless. He had no idea how serious his offending was. The fact that he had no idea is not a mitigating factor, but it puts into context the objective seriousness of his behaviour.

33. I turn now to his subjective features. He has, as I said, a criminal record but it is not for similar offences and to my mind has been satisfactorily explained. I do not regard it as depriving Mr Van Turnhout of any leniency that I would otherwise extend him. He has a good personal and work history. I accept Mr Hood’s submission that his prospects of rehabilitation are high. I had entertained some reservation about his prospects of rehabilitation because of his stated intention to resume his relationship with his partner, who was a co-offender at the time.

34. It is not for me at all to criticise him for wanting to do that. That is a choice which is completely personal to him. But it is relevant for me, so far as I am assessing his prospects of rehabilitation. But in reaching the conclusion that I did, I take into account the following matters. He has remained off drugs in prison, although he need not have done so. He has undertaken a course, although that was frustrated by an internal move. He has indicated a preparedness to provide urine sampling when he is out of prison.

35. I put some weight on Mr Bartolo’s assessment, because of the nature of his employment experience, that his rehabilitation will depend upon the extent of his participation. His participation so far is very positive.

36. I also accept Mr Hood’s submission that a conclusion that his prospects of rehabilitation are guarded, based upon a resumption of the relationship with his co-offender, is too speculative. As Mr Hood said, the relationship may dissolve. His co-offender will leave prison before he does. She will be restricted or prevented in visiting him whilst she is on parole. It may well be that the parole authority, in releasing Mr Van Turnhout to parole, imposes limitations on his contact with her. Hence, I discount that factor of his future relationship with his co-offender and based upon the other evidence, regard his prospects of rehabilitation as high. He has shown genuine remorse. His own evidence suggests much, as does the evidence of Ms Baker and observations made in the pre-sentence report and the psychiatric report.

37. He was highly regarded before this offence. He was regarded as a loyal family member. He was trusted. In particular, Mr Bartolo has no hesitation in saying that he trusted him and still would, with his own children. I qualify, to some extent, the impact of his good character. There is authority for the proposition that in offences involving dealing in substantial quantities of prohibited drugs, previous good character are at much reduced significance. See R v Galway unreported NSW CCA 19 August 1998. I do not regard Mr Van Turnhout’s previous good character as of much reduced significance because I regard that policy or principle enunciated by the Court of Criminal Appeal as applying more to drug suppliers who are couriers. Hence, I still regard Mr Van Turnhout’s good character as having some significant weight.

38. I regard him as unlikely to re-offend. That obviously involves some degree of speculation, but once again I am encouraged by the evidence of Mr Bartolo and I accept the submission of Mr Hood in this regard.

39. Mr Van Turnhout has pleaded guilty to both of the offences at the first available opportunity and the impact of that plea on the criminal justice system in not requiring a jury trial or witnesses to attend court, warrants me reducing by 25% for each offence, the penalties which I would otherwise impose and I propose to so reduce Mr Van Turnhout’s sentences.

40. I should say finally, that Mr Van Turnhout’s co-offender, Ms Miletic was sentenced by Sides DCJ QC, on 3 October 2007. She had pleaded guilty to three offences, two of drug supply and a third of selling an unregistered firearm. The drug supply offences carried maximum penalties of 15 years and the firearm offence carried a maximum penalty of 10 years. Hence, the offences of which Ms Miletic was convicted were less serious than the offences of which Mr Van Turnhout is convicted.

41. His Honour sentenced the co-offender on one of the supplies to a period of 18 months imprisonment with a 12 month non-parole period and on the firearms offence to a period of 18 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months.

42. In respect of one of the drug supply offences, he imposed no sentence pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 . His Honour accumulated the sentences so that the total sentence was 30 months with a non-parole period of 18 months. Ms Miletic had no previous convictions for relevant offences, but two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

43. Before embarking on an indication of how I reached the final sentence, I propose to indicate what the final sentence is. I propose to fix a non-parole period from 22 December 2006, an overall non-parole period of two years and nine months so that the first opportunity that Mr Van Turnhout will have to be considered for release will be 21 September 2009. The overall sentence will be five and a half years, so that the balance of the term is some 33 months, that is two years and nine months.

44. This is how I reach those sentences. I regard the drug offence as a little below the middle of the range of objective seriousness. I regard the firearms offence as a little below the middle of the range of objective seriousness. So far as the firearms offence is concerned, I would, before taking into account Mr Van Turnhout’s plea of guilty, regard a commencing sentence of some eight years, as appropriate. So far as the drug offence is concerned, I need to take into account the Form 1 offences. So I would regard an overall sentence of nine years, before taking into account the plea of guilty, as appropriate. However, because Mr Van Turnhout has pleased guilty to each of these charges, I would reduce the firearms offence to six years, as a maximum penalty and I would reduce the drug offence to six and three quarter years as a maximum penalty.

45. Having said that, I then turn to the subjective factors which I have not yet taken into account, but which I have listed. They include his good character, the prospects of rehabilitation, his genuine remorse and the unlikelihood of his re-offending. Taking those matters into account I regard an appropriate head sentence for the firearms offence, as four and a half years and I regard an appropriate head sentence for the drug offence as five years. I have herd both Mr Hood and Ms Hocking on the question of accumulation. I propose to accumulate the two sentences to some extent. In this regard I accept Ms Hocking’s submission that the two offences have different ramifications within the community and affect different parts of the community. However, I also take into account that the transactions all occurred over the same period of time and many of them on the same occasion. Hence, I propose to partially accumulate the two sentences by one year.

46. What I propose to do and will do formally in a moment, is in respect of the drugs offence, to sentence Mr Van Turnhout to a maximum of five years from 22 December 2006 to 21 December 2011. And to sentence him for the firearms offence to a maximum of four years and six months from 22 December 2007 to 21 June 2012. There will be a non-parole period for the drug offence of two years and nine months from 22 December 2006 to 21 September 2009, which will be the first occasion upon which Mr Van Turnhout will be eligible to be considered for release. For the firearms offence there will be a non-parole period of one year and nine months from 22 December 2007 to 21 September 2007.

47. In fixing the non-parole period for the drug offence, I have taken into account Dr Westmore’s recommendation that drug and alcohol counselling will be very desirable for Mr Van Turnhout. I have also taken into account that this is his first time in prison. I regard his prospects of rehabilitation as very high and hence, I propose to adjust the balance between the non-parole period and the full period, head period of the sentence, by reducing the non-parole period. Instead of three quarters, the proportion will be half.

48. So far as the firearms offence is concerned, I take into account those matters, together with the fact that the firearms offence is party subsumed in the drug offence.

49. Now stand up Mr Van Turnhout. I will formally sentence you. I should add that I regard those matters as special circumstances.

50. Mr Van Turnhout, in respect of the offence of supplying drugs on an ongoing basis, I set a non-parole period for your sentence of two years and nine months, to commence on 22 December 2006 and to expire on 21 September 2009. The balance of the term will be two years and nine months from 22 December 2006 to 21 September 2009. The balance of the term exceeds one third of the non-parole period because of the special circumstances which I have found.

51. In respect of the firearms offence I set a non-parole period for the sentence of one year and nine months from 22 December 2007 to 21 September 2009. The balance of the term will be two years and nine months from 22 September 2009 and 21 June 2012. Once again, the balance of the term exceeds one third of the non-parole period because of the special circumstances which I have found.

52. The sentence, so far as the supply of drugs, is taken to have commenced on 22 December 2006 in accordance with s 47 of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999. The earliest day upon which it appears that you will become entitled to release is 21 September 2009. Have a seat Mr Van Turnhout. I just want to now check first with Mr Hood and Ms Hocking and also my Associate, as to whether I have the figures right.

53. I might have misread something. For the supply drugs, the balance of the term is two years and three months from - did I make an error?

HOCKING: I thought you said two years and nine months.
HIS HONOUR: I did apparently. My Associate tells me I did.
HOCKING: Yes.

54. For the supply of drugs the balance of the term is two years and three months from 22 September ’09 to 21 December 2011.

HIS HONOUR: Does that sound right?
HOCKING: Thank you your Honour, yes, that was my concern.
HIS HONOUR: So I have got the figures right? We think?
HOCKING: The dates are all right, yes your Honour.

55. And I have, as I said, taken into account in sentencing Mr Van Turnhout for the drug supply offence, the matters on Form 1.


HIS HONOUR: Now you wanted to make some submissions to me about the money. Now are there any other formal orders which I should make Ms Hocking, or apart form the money?

HOCKING: I’m not sure if there has been an order that the drugs be destroyed.
HIS HONOUR: I will make an order. Just remind me of the section.
HOCKING: I’m not aware of the section off the top of my head, sorry your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: We will do that in a moment. Any other formal orders I need to make? No? Now what is the situation with the money?
HOOD: Well could I say this your Honour, I’ve not been able to turn up a section that would give your Honour specific power here at Parramatta. What I’d ask - I’d ask your Honour simply to abandon that as it were, and I’ll withdraw it and that probably will dispose of the matter your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I think so
HOOD: What I’ve put is on the record and as I understand it, these proceedings can be utilised in any application that’s made by the appropriate officer, who I understand can be the DPP or the police, should they wish to make an application in the future. Up to this date no application has been made by them.
HIS HONOUR: All right, so there’s no application before me for any order.
HOOD: Yes, I’ll withdraw that.
HIS HONOUR: That’s fine. Thanks Mr Hood. All right, now is there anything else that I need to attend to?
HOOD: No your Honour.
HOCKING: No your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: No, just checking something. Oh, the drug destruction, yes.
HOOD: I know your Honour certainly has the power to order that. I don’t have mine with me.

56. Pursuant to s 39P of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 , I order that any drugs which are not yet destroyed be destroyed and I will adjourn until 3.15.

HOOD: Would your Honour just pardon me one moment?
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
HOOD: The only matter I was thinking about your Honour was whether or not the Crown wanted a formal order to have the firearms destroyed.
HOCKING: I’ve got no instructions from the police in relation to that. If they want that order made I’m sure that they can come back to the Local Court and make that application for them to be destroyed. As yet they haven’t requested.
HIS HONOUR: That sounds right. My Associate is looking it up right now as we speak. So I’ll adjourn until 2.15 and if need be I’ll make the order later on and the offender, Mr Hood, I don’t think you or your client needs to be present. You don’t oppose such an order if it is sought?
HOOD: No, not at all. If it can be attended to at a later time your Honour, if there’s such an application or if the application--
HIS HONOUR: Not opposed?
HOOD: Yes, not opposed.
HIS HONOUR: Once again thank you both for your assistance. I’ve appreciated it and I’ll now adjourn until 3.15.


oOo