Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation v Briggs
[2016] VCC 1111
•2 August 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-15-02083 and CR-16-01189
| SECRETARY TO THE DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE AND REGULATION and THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| THEO BRIGGS |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 25 July 2016 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 2 August 2016 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation and Anor v Briggs | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 1111 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors | |
| For the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation | Ms J. Butler | Victorian Government Solicitors Office | |
| Ms G. Overend | Office of Public Prosecutions | |
| For the Accused | Ms K. van der Heyden |
HER HONOUR:
1 Theo Briggs, you have pleaded guilty to a number of charges involving breaching an Interim Supervision Order (ISO) and Supervision Order (SO). There were a number of charges prosecuted by the Secretary to the Department of Justice, and also charges prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. You have also sought summary jurisdiction in relation to each of the charges.
2 Both the prosecution, the Crown and the Secretary to the Department of Justice do not oppose summary jurisdiction in respect of this offending, and summary jurisdiction was granted.
3 The maximum penalty for each of the charges before me pursuant to s.160(1) Sentencing Act 1991 is level six imprisonment (five years’ maximum), however, as all these charges are dealt with summarily, there is a jurisdictional limit for each charge of two years’ imprisonment to a maximum total of five years’ imprisonment (for all charges).
4 I turn to the charges to which you have pleaded guilty.
5 I turn firstly to the charges filed by the Secretary to the Department of Justice.
6 Charge 1 involved you, on a single occasion on 18 August 2015, failing to attend a supervision appointment, your attendance being a condition of the varied ISO, the details of that to which I shall later refer.
7 The remaining charges related to conditions of the SO.
8
You have pleaded guilty to Charge 2, involving ten occasions between
21 September 2015 and 27 November 2015, when you failed to attend supervision appointments at Corella Place on each of those dates. This is a ‘rolled-up’ charge.
9 You have also pleaded guilty to Charge 7, another rolled-up charge involving three occasions between 2 November 2015 and 30 November 2015, when you failed to attend counselling appointments with psychologist, Mr Peter Stanislawski. That required your attendance ‘offsite’ from Corella Place, with staff from Corella Place. You said you did not want to attend.
10 Turning to Charge 9. On a single occasion on 14 November 2015, you failed to be present at your allocated unit at Corella Place between the hours of curfew, specifically, you were outside your unit between 10.58pm and 11.03pm on 14 November, that is, for approximately five minutes.
11 Turning to Charge 10. On a single occasion on 7 October 2015, you failed to submit to urinalysis for the detection of drug use, at the direction of the relevant officer, by failing to provide a urine sample to Dorevitch Pathology. This attendance was to be at Dorevitch Pathology ‘offsite’, in other words, away from Corella Place. You attended but failed to provide a sample, saying you had gone to the toilet five minutes before leaving Corella.
12
Turning to Charge 11. On 8 October 2015, the day after Charge 10, you submitted to urinalysis at Dorevitch pathology and the results on
12 October 2015 tested positive for cannabinoids and buprenorphine.
13 Turning to Charge 12. On 21 October 2015 you submitted to urinalysis at Dorevitch Pathology and on 23 October 2015 the sample tested positive for benzodiazepines and buprenorphine.
14
Turning to Charge 13. On 12 October 2015 a search was undertaken of your unit at Corella Place and drugs were seized. You were charged by Victoria Police with possessing and using cannabis, and on 18 December 2015 you were remanded in custody by the Ararat Magistrates’ Court until
15 January 2016.
15 On 15 January 2016, you were convicted at Ararat Magistrates’ Court of possessing and using cannabis, amongst other charges, and sentenced to a total effective sentence of two months’ imprisonment. I stress, as I discussed with your counsel at some length, you are not being sentenced again for possessing and using cannabis, such already having been dealt with, but rather, you are before me for that breach of the SO.
16 Turning to Charge 14. On various dates between 26 and 31 October 2015, you used or accessed the internet without the prior written consent of the Adult Parole Board. Specifically, on 4 November 2015 a search was undertaken of your unit at Corella Place and an internet-capable phone was seized.
17 On 7 and 17 November 2015, Corrections Victoria staff audited the phone and produced an Audit Report dated 17 November 2015. The report indicated the internet was accessed on your phone on a number of occasions: You accessed on three occasions on 31 October 2015, accessed the Facebook chat function three times on 29 October 2015 with Rebecca Jones, and on 26 October 2015 downloaded apps Facebook messenger and Messenger, and on your phone’s default date you downloaded a YouTube app (which was then deleted).
18 On 5 November 2015, during supervision you reported to Senior Case Manager (SCM) Turley you had been using the phone to access Facebook through another person’s profile. You were aware you were not to access the internet.
19 Turning to Charge 17. On 16 November 2015, you submitted to urinalysis at Dorevitch Pathology and on 18 November 2015, that sample tested positive for buprenorphine.
20 Turning to Charge 22. On 4 April 2016, you failed to attend a counselling appointment with Mr Stanislawski, again offsite from Corella Place. You refused to attend.
21 Charge 23 involved on 13 April 2016, failing to attend for supervision with SCM Turley at Corella Place. When requested to attend, you said you were in the shower and would attend later, however, you did not attend, stating that you were unwell.
22 Turning to Charge 24. On 27 April 2016, you submitted to urinalysis at Dorevitch Pathology and on 29 April 2016, that sample tested positive for buprenorphine.
23 Turning to Charge 25. On 2 May 2016, you failed to submit to urinalysis by refusing to attend Dorevitch Pathology. You told a team leader at Corella Place you would “be dirty for bupe”.
24 Charge 26. On 5 May 2016, you failed to attend a supervision appointment with SCM Turley, at Corella Place.
25 Turning to Charge 27. On 5 May 2016, for a period of approximately fourteen minutes you were not present at your allocated unit at Corella Place, and as such, breached your curfew. You were seen at around 11.00pm by a team leader about 20 metres away from your unit and were directed to return to it. You said you had been talking to other residents about issues you had with your housemate at Corella Place.
26 Turning to Charge 28. On 5 May 2016, you submitted to urinalysis at Dorevitch Pathology and on 10 May 2016 your sample tested positive for benzodiazepines and buprenorphine.
27
In relation to those charges filed by the Secretary, one day of pre-sentence detention relevant to s.18(4) Sentencing Act 1991 was applicable. You had appeared at Ararat Magistrates’ Court, as I have previously said, on
15 January 2016 and received a two-month aggregate sentence. You were released from that sentence on 15 February 2016, serving one extra day beyond that required for that sentence. I shall return to further pre-sentence detention later in these sentencing remarks.
28 You are currently in custody on remand for your offending which involved charges prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I now turn to those charges for which you are also to be sentenced by me, that is, those filed by the Director.
29 You have also agreed to me hearing these three charges summarily and pleaded guilty to each of them.
30 Charge 1 relates to you between 15 March 2016 and 1 April 2016, using or accessing the internet without the prior consent of the Adult Parole Board, and as such failed to comply with a condition of the SO.
31 You have also pleaded guilty to Charge 2, that on 4 July 2016 you were outside your allocated unit at Corella Place during curfew without being in the company of a person approved by Corrections Victoria.
32 You have also pleaded guilty to Charge 7, which involved you failing to comply with electronic monitoring.
33 I turn to a little more detail of your offending relevant to those three charges. At approximately 1.05am on 4 July 2016 a ‘strap opened’ alert was received by Corella Place staff with respect to your electronic monitoring devices. Specialist case workers attended your unit at Corella Place and found a chair wedged up against the door of the unit, which had to be forced open. You were not present in the unit.
34 You had collected a small amount of belongings, removed your electronic monitoring devices and exited Corella Place unaccompanied and without informing staff.
35 The electronic monitoring devices were located in the back yard of your unit.
36 By leaving Corella Place without being in the company of a person approved by Corrections Victoria and failing to be present at your unit between your curfew hours, you breached Conditions 6.2 and 6.3 of your SO (Charge 2).
37 Further, by removing the electronic devices you breached Condition 6.13 of the SO (Charge 7).
38 At approximately 10.40am that same day you were seen by a farmer on his rural property near Beaufort.
39 You asked the farmer for a sandwich and the farmer took you to his home and gave you food. You told the farmer you were travelling from Mildura, and that your car had broken down. You had walked across country from Horsham and said you were cold as you had slept outside overnight. You said you were looking for the highway. The farmer offered to drive you to Beaufort.
40 The farmer dropped you off at Beaufort train station, then contacted his wife, who advised the farmer to contact police, which he did.
41 At approximately 12.15pm that same day, you were found by police in Beaufort. You denied your identity and said your name was Ian Clarke, that you were from Robinvale and had been driving with your girlfriend, who dumped you at Beaufort after an argument.
42 Police confirmed your identity and you were taken to Ararat Police Station for interview, where you made a no comment interview. It was, of course, your right to answer their questions in that way.
43 You were subsequently found to have also used Facebook accounts in the names of "Briggy Briggs", “Briggay Briggs” and “Lesley Clarke” to contact your ex-partner between 15 March and 1 April 2016. By accessing the internet without the written prior consent of the Adult Parole Board, you breached Condition 7.1 of your Supervision Order (Charge 1).
44 At the time of this offending you were on bail in relation to charges of recklessly cause injury and unlawful assault, which I was told related to an alleged incident at Corella Place, yet to be dealt with at the Magistrates’ Court on 25 October 2016, and I note are not relevant to the sentence I impose on the charges that are before me.
45 As a result of this incident on 4 July, you were charged with a number of offences, including breaching your SO. On 5 July you appeared before the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court and the breach of the SO charges were transferred to this Court, and are now before me for sentence.
46
The original summary Charges 3, 4 and 5 were not transferred to this Court and as I understand, are listed in Ballarat Magistrates’ Court for hearing on
25 October 2016, in addition to your other outstanding matters (recklessly cause injury and assault). You are currently on remand in relation to both those sets of charges, that is, those being dealt with by me and those to be dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court in October 2016. Charge 7 was filed on 14 July 2016.
47 Regarding the three offences filed by the Director, I discussed with Ms Sedgwick, whether your absconding from Corella Place and actions thereafter would be categorised as ‘preparatory’ to the commission of other offences. On the information given to me regarding the circumstances of that absconding, I accept the breaching offences were not preparatory to further relevant offending.
48 You have therefore also served a total of 21 days in custody by way of pre-sentence detention for these three offences, being 4 July 2016 to 24 July 2016 and together with the one day to which I have previously referred, was a total of 22 days pre-sentence detention up to and including 24 July 2016.
49 I turn to a brief chronology relevant to your breaching offences.
50 On 25 February 2015, his Honour Judge Chettle, imposed an ISO for a period of four months, to commence on 1 March 2015.
51 On 16 June 2015 his Honour ordered the ISO be extended.
52 On 13 August 2015, before his Honour Judge Maidment, you were convicted of three charges of breaching the ISO by using prohibited drugs, obtaining prohibited drugs unlawfully, and by accessing the internet. In that regard, I note the summary provided relevant to the offending (Exhibit C).
53 In brief, drug testing revealed amphetamine and methylamphetamine. You had also obtained methylamphetamine unlawfully (Exhibit C, see paragraphs 15 and 16). You also accessed a number of violent pornographic websites and websites as described in Exhibit C (paragraphs 19-20), and you were also convicted of possessing a drug of dependence and fined.
54 For those breaching offences you were sentenced to an aggregate of 133 days’ imprisonment (time served) and his Honour also ordered the conditions of the ISO be varied. Charge 1 before me breached the varied ISO.
55 On 3 September 2015, her Honour Judge Hannan ordered you be subject to a Supervision Order for a period of three years, commencing 3 September 2015. A number of conditions were attached to that order and you were advised of those conditions in the formal induction process. Before me were Her Honour’s reasons for ordering the Supervision Order (Exhibit D), which I have read and I discussed with counsel.
56 The rest of the breaching charges before me occurred whilst you were on the SO. You have pleaded guilty to each of these breaches before me and you are entitled to have that fact taken into account in your favour, and I do so. By your pleas, the community has been spared the time and cost of a trial, and witnesses have not been required to give evidence upon your trial.
57 I also take into account in your favour you intimated early your intention to plead guilty to these charges.
58 Whilst I am prepared to accept that your pleas of guilty indicate remorse for your offending, I am concerned about whether your pleas of guilty indicate true remorse, given I accept that you were fully aware of the conditions and made conscious decisions to not attend the various appointments relevant to the various charges to which I have referred.
59 Of concern also is your relevant prior offending for failing to comply with the ISO dealt with by his Honour Judge Maidment. Yet again, you have failed to comply with conditions, this time on a large number of occasions whilst the ISO and SO were in place.
60 I was also provided with details of your index offending and other prior criminal offending referred to in the sentence of his Honour Judge Gucciardo dated 13 December 2012. His Honour’s sentencing remarks contain a brief summary of your history of offending, including your prior offending for rape. I discussed with your counsel the disturbing details of those appearances, in particular, the offending for which you were sentenced in February 2010.
61 Mr Bhattacharya provided a written chronology and outline of submissions (Exhibit 1) and addressed those during the course of your plea hearing. He referred to your background of Aboriginal origin and that you are 24 years of age at the time of sentence.
62 Mr Bhattacharya referred to you having a very difficult early childhood, removed from the care of your parents by Child Protection when 4 years of age, living the majority of your childhood in the care of your grandparents.
63 You had been diagnosed with an intellectual disability and had been receiving the appropriate assistance from about the age of 12.
64 Reference was also made to you having previously been diagnosed with various mental illnesses, including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Adjustment Disorder and Drug-Induced Psychosis. You had previously attempted to commit suicide on at least two occasions. Your history also involved regular poly-substance abuse from the age of about 15.
65 I discussed with Mr Bhattacharya, his Honour Judge Gucciardo’s reasons for sentence on 13 December 2012, in which his Honour concluded:
“In my view your aboriginality does not mitigate punishment, or explain or throw light of a particular nature on your circumstances, and I do not see how it plays any part in the sentencing disposition. In my view your background is neither significantly deprived nor privileged.”
66 Your counsel did not attempt to argue the contrary to his Honour’s conclusions, and I note that there was no further material placed before me.
67 I do, however, accept you have a level of reduced mental functioning and have intellectual deficits. Whilst I do not consider any of the principles in R v Verdins & Ors[1] are enlivened when sentencing you for the breaching offences before me, these are however, relevant considerations and I accept will make your time in custody more onerous than for a prisoner absent those difficulties. I have taken that into account when determining your appropriate sentence.
[1] (2007) 16 VR 269
68 Turning to your offending, Mr Bhattacharya submitted that approximately half your breaches were inadvertent, where you had either forgotten to attend supervision or stayed out late on the curfew. I however, discussed with him that you were well aware of your obligations to see Mr Stanislawski, and to attend for drug counselling offsite from Corella Place, and yet you repeatedly refused to attend. Further, as became apparent from your counsel, in late 2015 you had discussions with those representing you, who then advised you against your continued failure to attend or otherwise comply with the SO, and that such would place you at risk of being breached and sentenced. That discussion did not prevent you from continued non-compliance with the SO.
69 Your counsel conceded a number of your offences involved breaching conditions that were designed to reduce your risk of re-offending, such as counselling with a psychologist. That is so and causes me concern regarding your rehabilitation prospects.
70 Mr Bhattacharya submitted you did not appreciate the seriousness of the breaches of the Order. I do not agree.
71 In my opinion, you were also well aware of your need to comply with the SO as you had previously breached the ISO and been sentenced to imprisonment of 133 days. You had also been inducted into the SO and yet shortly thereafter, just days after that you commenced breaching SO conditions.
72 I also discussed with your counsel not only the concerning and repeated breaches relevant to the charges of the Secretary, but also your recent and very concerning absconding from Corella Place and removal of electronic monitoring devices.
73 Mr Bhattacharya submitted the majority of your breaching offences did not adversely impact upon the community but were confined to your behaviour at Corella Place. While there may be some merit in that argument, of great concern to me however, was your removal of the electronic monitoring devices (an internal Corella Place monitoring device and a GPS monitoring device), and absconding from Corella Place. This is particularly concerning and relevant to the need to protect the community.
74 I do, however, accept that your use of the internet in the charges before me was of a different type to that dealt with by his Honour Judge Maidment, the charges before his Honour involving very concerning images described in that prosecution opening (Exhibit C paragraphs 19 and 20).
75 Your instructions were that the use of the internet on the occasions before me was an attempt by you to contact your ex-girlfriend. You were, however, aware you were not to have such contact through the internet.
76 I also am conscious that in relation to the offending before his Honour Judge Maidment, your urinalysis results involved positive results for both amphetamine and methylamphetamine. In the charges before me the positive results related to benzodiazepines, buprenorphine and cannabinoids.
77 You instructed the reason for your absconding was an effort by you to visit your family. Ms Flynn assisted in that regard and I was advised that in approximately April 2016, plans were underway at Corella Place to attempt to organise visits for you to your family in Bendigo. It was your alleged behaviour (the reckless cause injury yet to be determined in October), that meant that contact was not able to occur.
78 Mr Bhattacharya referred to your plea of guilty to these charges and the relevance of your pleas to sentencing. As I have said, your pleas of guilty to the charges are a relevant sentencing consideration and in mitigation of your sentence.
79 Your counsel conceded an immediate term of imprisonment was appropriate for your offending and conceded that the offences before the court were serious, although drew a distinction in gravity between the charges filed by the Secretary and those by the Director.
80 Your counsel conceded there was a need for general deterrence and specific deterrence when sentencing you.
81
Ms Flynn, on behalf of the Secretary, referred to your concerning drug use revealed in your breaching offences. Ms Flynn also referred to the report of Dr Reeves and her conclusion relevant to the supervision order that you required appropriate treatment/counselling to reduce your risk of re-offending, yet failed on occasions to attend supervision and failed to attend a psychologist,
Mr Stanislawski.
82 There was also the need for general and specific deterrence, the latter being relevant to your prior breach of the ISO and your almost immediate further breaching after being placed on the SO.
83 Ms Flynn submitted an important sentencing consideration was the need to protect the community.
84 It was essential, she submitted, for the scheme involving Supervision Orders to operate effectively and breaches of them were serious.
85 Ms Sedgwick, who appeared on behalf of the Director, referred to the seriousness of your absconding, the removing of the electronic monitoring devices and the need to protect the community.
86 Ms Sedgwick also raised concerns about your prospects of rehabilitation given your repeated breaching of the Order, including your earlier breaching of the ISO.
87 She also referred to the need for specific and general deterrence.
88 When sentencing you I must, of course, take into account your rehabilitation prospects as I find them to be, which I have at best guarded optimism, given your repeated breaches of the ISO and SO. I am also concerned by the arguable escalation of your breaching of conditions of the SO relevant to the charges filed by the Director.
89 There is the need for general deterrence when sentencing you.
90 In my opinion, there is the need for specific deterrence, given your previous breaches of the ISO. You need to understand the consequences of not doing what the authorities tell you when subject to an ISO and SO. It is also important that others on Interim Supervision Orders and Supervision Orders understand the importance of abiding by the conditions attached to their orders. The efficacy of the whole system depends on orders being properly imposed and adequately maintained.
91 I accept, as I have said, there is no suggestion your breaches before me were preparatory to the commission of further offending. I remain, however, concerned regarding your behaviour when you absconded from Corella Place.
92 In all the circumstances, I consider a term of imprisonment to be the only appropriate disposition.
93 I note when sentencing on Charges 2 and 7 filed by the Secretary, they are rolled-up charges, and when sentencing, the applicable principles are stated in R v Jones[2], with approval in PDA v R[3].
[2] [2004] VSCA 68
[3] [2010] VSCA 94
94 I am also conscious when sentencing you of the principle of totality.
95 I sentence you as follows.
96 Turning to the charges of the Secretary, specifically Charge 1, Charge 2, Charge 7, Charge 9, Charge 10, Charge 11, Charge 12, Charge 13, Charge 14, Charge 17, Charge 22, Charge 23, Charge 24, Charge 25, Charge 26, Charge 27 and Charge 28, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate of 8 months’ imprisonment.
97 Turning to the charges of the Director, I sentence you on Charges 1, 2 and 7 to an aggregate of 6 months’ imprisonment.
98 I direct that 3 months of the sentence imposed on the charges of the Secretary be served cumulatively upon the sentence I have imposed on the charges of the Director.
99 That results in a total effective sentence of 9 months. I do not intend to set a non-parole period. So you do the whole 9 months.
100 Pursuant to s.18(4) Sentencing Act 1991, I declare you have spent 30 days as pre-sentence detention (up to and including yesterday, which was 1 August 2016) for these breaching offences and I direct that be entered into the records of the Court. So that is the 22 I referred to earlier, plus the time you have spent between the plea hearing and today.
101 Pursuant to s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty to these charges and if you had been found guilty of them, I would have sentenced you to a total term of 20 months' imprisonment on both sets of charges, that is together, and directed a non-parole period of 14 months. So that is if you pleaded not guilty, all right?
102 Do you want a bit of help with those numbers? Because it is a bit tricky where I keep swinging from Secretary to Director, do you follow that? So the three charges that were the Director's charges, I have sentenced an aggregate of six months, and all the other Secretary charges is an aggregate of eight months. And it is three months of that eight months on the Secretary's that is on top of, cumulative upon those of the Director, if that makes sense. So that is how you get the nine months, no non-parole period.
103 Now, do you want help with any of that? Is there anything you want me to - - -
104 MS BUTLER: Your Honour, I would with your permission like to address one issue?
105 HER HONOUR: Yes.
106 MS BUTLER: On Charge 10, and Your Honour indicated that was a fail to submit for urinalysis.
107 HER HONOUR: Hold on a minute, well did I? Yes.
108 MS BUTLER: Your Honour, and I do recall Ms Flynn at the time - - -
109 HER HONOUR: That is all right, have I got it - what, did I get it wrong?
110 MS BUTLER: No, Your Honour indicated that a refusal to attend. In fact the witness for that matter, Mr Dobell - the accused did attend Dorevitch but was unable to provide a sample, and he informed the witness that he had gone to the toilet five minutes before leaving Corella. And I just wanted to clarify that, because it is actually Charge - excuse me Your Honour, it is actually Charge 25, it is the refusal to even attend.
111 HER HONOUR: All right, so Charge 10 should have been - where I have said - well he failed to submit, I have got here - - -
112 MS BUTLER: It is just the particulars of the charge, if you like.
113 HER HONOUR: "He refused to attend", "You attended" - - -
114 MS BUTLER: But failed to provide a urine sample.
115 HER HONOUR: - - - "but failed to provide a sample".
116 MS BUTLER: And he indicated to the witness that he had gone to the toilet five minutes before leaving Corella.
117 HER HONOUR: "Saying he had gone to the toilet five minutes before leaving Corella", is that right?
118 MS BUTLER: Yes, and then 25, Your Honour, correctly, if I may use that word - - -
119 HER HONOUR: No, that is all right.
120 MS BUTLER: - - - to summarise that, he actually refused to attend Dorevitch - - -
121 HER HONOUR: On that occasion?
122 MS BUTLER: Yes, for Charge 25.
123 HER HONOUR: No, that is good.
124 MS BUTLER: I just wanted to ensure that Your Honour had the correct understanding of the facts.
125 HER HONOUR: No, that is all right. Well that does not make - as far as I am concerned, that is not going to make any difference, and it would not make any difference to the sentence. I have still referred to his failing to submit to urinalysis, but the circumstances of the failure is the difference. So now, having heard that, is there anything anyone wants clarification on before Mr Briggs heads out the door? No? All clear?
126 COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honour.
127 HER HONOUR: Excellent, all right then. All right Mr Briggs, so nine months you have got, and I have counted 30 days comes off. So you have got - what is that, about eight to go, give or take a day or something. All right? Yes, thank you. Yes all right, thank you, you can leave yes, I will just stay here while I sign the orders. Yes, you can leave, you are waiting on those?
128 MS BUTLER: Sorry, I just wanted the record of orders, thank you Your Honour, if it is available.
129 HER HONOUR: Yes, that is fine. Yes, all right, thank you.
- - -
0