The Queen v Derby
[2021] VCC 386
•31 March 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-20-01468
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| KEVIN DERBY |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE HANNEBERY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23 March 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 31 March 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | The Queen v Derby | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 386 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: using a carriage service to procure a person believed to be under 16 years of age - possess or control child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service - using a carriage service to access child abuse material - possess drug of dependence - gross breach of that trust - your plea of guilty is consistent with you having genuine remorse for your actions.
Legislation Cited: Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004; Criminal Code (Cth); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited: Moore v R [2018] NSWCCA 26; Rampley v R [2010] NSWCCA;
293; FULLER v R [2010] NSWCCA 192
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment. I order that you serve a period of 2 years and 6 months before you are eligible for parole.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr M. Keks | Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms B. Franjic | Armstrong Legal |
HIS HONOUR:
1Kevin Derby, you have pleaded guilty to:
(a)
one charge of using a carriage service to procure a person believed to be under 16 years of age, contrary to subsection 474.26(1) of the
Criminal Code(Cth);
(b)
one charge of possess or control child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service, contrary to subsection 474.22A(1) of the
Criminal Code(Cth);
(c) one charge of using a carriage service to access child abuse material, contrary to subsection 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth); and
(d) one charge of possess drug of dependence, namely amphetamine, contrary to s.73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
2The maximum penalties for those offences are as follows:
(a) Charge 1, imprisonment for 15 years;
(b) Charge 2, imprisonment for 15 years;
(c) Charge 3, imprisonment for 15 years;
(d) Charge 4, a penalty of 400 penalty units or five years' imprisonment or both.
3I also note that pursuant to s.16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) you admit your guilt in respect of the offence of using a carriage service to access child pornography material contrary to s.474.19(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). Pursuant to s.16BA, you consent to having that further offence taken into account by the court when imposing a sentence in respect of Charge 3.
Summary of offending
4The circumstances of your offending were set out in the amended prosecution opening for plea filed 15 March 2021[1]. I will briefly summarise the matters contained in that opening that were not the subject of challenge on the plea.
[1]Exhibit P2.
5The events giving rise to the charges occurred in the early months of 2020. At this time you were 34 years old. You were a friend of Douglas Merchant[2] and his wife Melissa Merchant[3]. The complainant in this matter is their daughter Amelia Merchant[4]. During the period of offending she was 13 years old.
[2] A pseudonym.
[3] A pseudonym.
[4] A pseudonym.
6The offending relates to your communication with Amelia Merchant that occurred through a variety of online applications, specifically Facebook messenger, Snapchat, and Instagram. This communication commenced in January 2020, prior to the commencement date of the charged conduct. In its initial phases, you were messaging the complainant frequently but on general topics such as ice cream and mental health.
7Between January and February 2020, however, the nature of this communication changed. You commenced sending the complainant videos which captured images of you masturbating that be seen in various reflective surfaces. The complainant told you specifically on more than one occasion to 'Check your reflections'. You apologised but continued to send similar content. You commenced to send the complainant photographs of yourself in see-through lingerie with your penis visible.
8These actions are not alleged as part of the charged conduct. They do, however, provide some context that is relevant to determining the intention behind the charged actions that followed.
9The period of offending covered by Charge 1 commences on 7 February 2020 and goes to 22 April 2020. At its core this charge alleges that over that period you engaged in a series of actions intended to procure the complainant who you knew to be 13 years old, to engage in sexual activity. The precise nature of the sexual activity with the complainant you sought to procure is identified as you performing an act of masturbation whilst she watched live through an Internet connection.
10The procure charge encompasses a significant number of separate actions that together were pursued by you with the intent of engaging in this kind of sexual activity with the complainant.
11The first of these actions was on 7 February 2020. In the course of a live Instagram video chat with the complainant, she told you that she was uncomfortable with the content of material that you had sent her and ask that you stop contacting her. You complied with this before reinitiating contact two weeks later via Facebook messenger.
12Upon the resumption of contact, you sent the complainant explicit content in the form of photographs of yourself in lingerie. You told the complainant on multiple occasions that it was okay for her to look at them and that neither of you had to tell anyone.
13The frequency of your contact with the complainant was such that she was receiving communications both at school and at night. Multiple messages were being sent at a time without her responding. You started asking her, 'Are you ignoring me?'
14On 6 April 2020 you sent the complainant multiple images of depicting you from the waist down in different lingerie, either lying on your bed or in full body reflections while you stood.
15On 7 April 2020 the complainant reported the matter to her mother who then told the police. After this time the complainant's parents were monitoring all contact you attempted to make with the complainant. They were able to provide the police with recordings and screenshots. Melissa Merchant was able to observe you masturbating in a live Instagram video. A video of this was then sent by you to the account of the complainant.
16Melissa Merchant responded to various messages you sent on 7 April 2020, whilst purporting to be the complainant.
17On April 8, 9, and 10 2020 you continued to attempt to contact the complainant, sending her messages some of which contained images of yourself wearing lingerie and videos of yourself masturbating. These included a 'live' video of you masturbating.
18On the weekend of 11 and 12 April 2020 you deleted your Facebook account and Instagram account, before reactivating both and sending friend requests to Melissa Merchant and Douglas Merchant.
19
On 17 April 2020 you made contact with the complainant's account via Instagram. This communication included a close-up photograph of your erect penis being held by your left hand, a photo of yourself waist down wearing
see-through lingerie, and multiple unanswered video chat invitations.
20
After these video chat requests went unanswered, you sent a message stating
'I really really really really really want you to watch me', followed by 'Please?' and a video showing you masturbating. You continued to attempt to video chat through Instagram. You sent to further photographs of yourself wearing lingerie that bore the text 'Will someone plz watch', followed by another video of you masturbating, the image emblazoned with text stating, 'Somebody watch me cum?'
21You sent various other messages pleading with the recipient, who you believed to be the 13-year-old complainant, to watch you masturbate. Other communication with accounts you believed to be that of the complainant included sexually explicit language.
22On 20 April 2020 you made 10 further attempts to video call the complainant and sent further images of you masturbating.
23On 21 April 2020 you made 3 further attempts to video call the complainant.
24In the early afternoon of 22 April 2020 you sent a further video to the complainant. That video depicted yourself masturbating whilst your penis was pulled out to the side of a pair of red women's underwear. You followed that by sending a photograph of your bed with text asking, 'Watch me cum please?', plus a further video of you masturbating in the red underwear.
25At 7 pm that same day you sent a close-up photograph of your penis, held with your right hand, with text stating, 'I could do with a bit of help'. Another photo of you in lingerie with your penis visible followed.
26You were arrested on 22 April 2020. A subsequent examination of your mobile phone resulted in the discovery of 2340 files including still images and videos that was classified as child exploitation material. This is the subject of Charge 2.
27Further investigation revealed that five of those files were accessed using Instagram between 10:43 pm on 21 April 2020 and 8:19 am on 22 April 2020. The accessing of this material constitutes Charge 3.
28Charge 4 relates to 12 grams of amphetamine discovered in two locations after your arrest, namely a box located in your wardrobe and the pocket of the shorts you were wearing.
29The circumstances of the further offence, to be taken into account in sentencing for Charge 3, are that between 20 November 2018 and 26 December 2018 you accessed what you admit to be less than 20 files constituting child abuse material using the application Tumblr.
Effect on the victims
30Victim Impact Statements were read to the court by Douglas Merchant, Melissa Merchant, and Amelia Merchant. Pursuant to s.16A(2)(ea) of the Crimes Act I must take into account the harm suffered as a result of the offence. The victim impact statements set out very clearly the significant impact that your offending has had and continues to have on Amelia Merchant and her parents. It is difficult to do those statements justice via very brief sentencing remarks, but it is plain that your actions have affected them deeply, to the point that they have moved their lives away from the location of the offending. Whilst I must not allow the effects upon a victim to swamp the sentencing process, it is a relevant matter to consider in determining an appropriate sentence in this case.
Personal circumstances
31You are now 35 years old. You were born in Whangarei, New Zealand. You are the third born of four siblings. I am instructed that your childhood was not a happy one, for reasons including your mothers emotionally abusive behaviour, three sexual assaults perpetrated on you by your sister, and social and academic struggles at school. You left home at age 15. Your parents subsequently separated when you were 19 years old. You have had no relationship with your mother or your sisters since that separation, though you remain close to your father. You moved to Australia shortly after your parents' separation.
32Your formal education ended at Year 10 level. Since then you have worked a variety of jobs including as a farm worker and labourer. You are currently employed as a truck driver, and as mentioned it is through this occupation that you came to know the complainant and her family.
33You commenced the use of amphetamine at the age of 24. I am advised that at the time of the offending you were using on a daily basis, and that you were under the influence of amphetamine at the time you engaged in the conduct constituting Charge 1.
34You have long suffered from poor mental health, though it was only five years ago that you were first diagnosed with depression and prescribed an antidepressant. I am instructed that in recent times you have been profoundly impacted by the cancer diagnosis of a close friend. I am told your friend's health deteriorated significantly after Christmas of 2019, and he died on 9 April 2020. Whilst neither your drug use, your mental health, nor your friend's illness and subsequent death have been put before the court as in any way excusing your offending, these matters are relied on as providing some context for your personal circumstances at the time.
35Since your arrest your mental health has further deteriorated. You have experienced suicidal thoughts and on 7 September 2020 you were admitted to Dandenong Hospital as a result of concerns for your mental well-being.
Gravity of offending
36The charge of using a carriage service to procure a person believed to be under 16 years of age is an inherently serious offence. It is an offence that has at its core actions intended to achieve the aim of child sexual abuse. The offence can, however, be committed in a wide array of circumstances. In my view, this case represents a particularly serious example of the offence.
37In your case this was an offence committed against an actual 13 year old victim until the intervention of the complainant's parents. This is an aggravating feature that distinguishes your case from those where the accused simply believes them to be engaging with a person under 16 years but is in fact speaking to an undercover operative. In your case the child involved was also the daughter of people who believed they knew you and could trust you. This case involves a gross breach of that trust.
38Your conduct spanned a significant period of time, more than two months. Your conduct was persistent. It involved multiple individual acts all aimed at achieving the result of sexual activity with a 13 year old. Those acts in and of themselves involved very serious conduct. You repeatedly sent sexual images. You repeatedly used sexually explicit language. This is a case where the gravity of the procure charge is not merely to be found in what you were preparing to do. The actions you took in pursuit of that aim were in and of themselves acts of a highly sexualised nature that exposed a 13 year old to distressing and damaging material.
39Your conduct in seeking to engage a child in an act that involved you masturbating while she watched online only ceased with your arrest.
40In assessing the gravity of Charge 1 I note that the intended sexual activity was not activity that involved in-person contact between you and the complainant. That is relevant to assessing the gravity of the offence. However, even if the ultimate sexual aim was objectively lesser in seriousness than intended acts of penetration or sexual assault, the nature and volume of the acts you took in pursuit of that aim were such that this still should be regarded as a very serious example of the offence.
41In relation to Charge 1, I also take into account the matters outlined in the victim impact statements of Melissa Merchant, Douglas Merchant, and Amelia Merchant. What those statements reveal is that your conduct over the period dealt with by Charge 1 should not simply be judged by the gravity of the sexual activity with the complainant you intended to procure. The statements illustrate that the methods you engaged to pursue that aim caused significant damage in and of themselves. The statements also reinforce that your actions represented a substantial breach of the trust of people who considered you a close friend.
42Your moral culpability for the conduct comprising Charge 1 is very high. By your own admission you knew that your actions would cause harm to the complainant. When asked by the police what you thought the impact of your conduct would be on the complainant, you said 'Well, it's gunna fuck her for a long time. It's gunna absolutely ruin her'.
43The possession of child abuse material, the subject of Charge 2, is also an inherently serious offence. By possessing these items, you have been part of an audience for this kind of material that encourages its production and as such child sexual exploitation.
44In your case, you were in possession of a significant amount of material. I note, however, that the vast majority of that material was classified as being category 1, which has been described as involving children in sexualised poses. Only a small amount of the material you possessed, a few dozen items among the more than 2000 in your possession, fell into the more grave 2, 3 4 and 5 categories. There is no suggestion that you have possessed this material with the view of its further dissemination. There is no evidence that you intended to profit from the sale of this material. There is no evidence as to the period that you have had these items in your possession.
45
Charge 3, as previously noted, relates to you accessing five files containing child abuse material through Instagram between 10:43 PM on 21 April 2020 and
8:19 AM on 22 April 2020. Accessing material of this type is a serious offence, as revealed by its maximum penalty. In the context of the matters dealt with in Charge 2, however, it does not add significantly to your overall criminality. As the charge has been put, the files accessed are comprised entirely of category 1 material. Further that category 1 material relates to items already the subject of the Charge 2 possession offence.
46I note that pursuant to s.16 BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that in sentencing you for Charge 3 you have consented to having the further offence of using a carriage service to access child pornography taken into account[5]. That further offence, deals with your accessing of less than 20 files of child abuse material through the application Tumblr. It is not clear, however, that these 20 files represent material that is additional to the material in your possession and the subject of Charge 2. To the extent I take it into account with regard to the sentence on Charge 3, it is in that it reveals that your accessing of child abuse material in April 2020 cannot be regarded as an isolated incident.
[5]Exhibit P1.
47In relation to the possession of amphetamine that is the subject of Charge 4, as I indicated at the plea hearing, I am prepared to sentence you on the basis that it is established on the balance of probabilities that the offence was not committed for any purpose relating to trafficking in amphetamine. As such, the maximum penalty in those circumstances is imprisonment for one year or a fine 30 penalty units or both. Whilst the volume of drugs was in excess of the 'Trafficable quantity' for amphetamine, the amount is still relatively small and consistent with your contention in the interview with police that it was possessed for your own use.
48I also note that you made other admissions in your interview as to your use of amphetamine, and similarly you have contended in your statements to Dr Barth that you have a substantial history involving the use of that drug to help you stay awake on long trips whilst driving trucks. While the discovery of the deal bags and digital scales may be capable of suggesting otherwise, I also note that these plus the razor and the spoon can still be consistent with intended personal use, and as such, I am prepared to accept as more likely than not, that the drug the subject of Charge 4 was intended for your own use.
Matters in mitigation
49A number of matters have been put in mitigation of sentence.
50You have pleaded guilty at a time that should properly be considered your first reasonable opportunity. You are entitled to consideration for this matter. There is substantial utilitarian value in your plea. Your plea has saved the time and resources that would otherwise have been expended on a contested committal and trial. Especially in this time of pandemic restrictions, and the enormous pressure this has placed on court listings, your plea of guilty is a significant matter to be taken into account in your favour on sentence.
51I also regard your plea of guilty as being consistent with you having genuine remorse for your actions. Your plea is to be considered in combination with the substantial admissions you made in your interview, the direct expressions of remorse you have made in the psychological material, the remorse evident in the letter you provided to the court that was read in the course of your plea hearing[6], and perhaps most significantly by your actions subsequent to your arrest in engaging with and participating fully in treatment aimed at your rehabilitation.
[6]Exhibit D4.
52You have no prior criminal history. I have also read references from your father, Kevin Derby Senior, your uncle Craig Derby, and your aunt Sheryl Derby[7]. They all attest to your previous good character. All express a level of shock at the matters that have brought you before this court. All attest to your remorse, your desire to engage with appropriate professional assistance, and their continuing support for you. You are entitled to have these matters taken into account in your favour.
[7]Exhibits D5, D6, and D7.
53I also have regard for your prospects of rehabilitation.
54You have engaged in offending against a child that was persistent in nature and disturbing in its content. This offending must also be viewed in the context of your possession of child exploitation materials, evidence that you have accessed similar materials as far back as 2018, and your own admission to the police when asked if you had ever sent similar material to other children that, 'I daresay I have, but I don't recall'.
55Dr Barth identifies that you have a 'Severe psychosexual pathology' and significant interpersonal and sexual problems. He assesses your risk of reoffending as 'Moderate to high'[8].
[8]Exhibit D2.
56The challenge you face in relation to successfully rehabilitating is significant. Part of that challenge is what is revealed by the nature of the offending before the court. I note Dr Barth's statement that, “The diversity of Mr Derby's paraphilia sexual interests together with the entrenched nature of his online activities are deeply concerning”. The other part of that challenge is that the type of offending that you have engaged in is one which requires little infrastructure, is difficult to detect, and can be committed from anywhere where you have access to a device and the Internet. There are ultimately few structural impediments that can be created to prevent you offending in a similar way in the future beyond the professional treatment you are receiving. The combination of these matters, plus the additional contributing factor of your history of drug use, means that it is difficult to be excessively optimistic about your prospects.
57
That said, I acknowledge that since your arrest you have done all that could reasonably be hoped of you in relation to your engagement with appropriate assessment and treatment. It is very much to your credit that the report of
Dr Burrows confirms that significant progress has been made to address the issues that have led to your offending. I also note your abstinence from drugs since your arrest, and that this is corroborated by the drug screens tendered on the plea. It is noted, however, that you are in what are clearly the early stages of treatment that will require a long-term commitment.
58You also have a number of other matters that are relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation. As mentioned, you have no prior criminal history, nor anything subsequent. You made admissions and pleaded guilty at an early stage. You are remorseful. You have ongoing support from your family in New Zealand. All these matters are in your favour.
59Ultimately your prospects of rehabilitation will depend on your capacity to access appropriate treatment, your continued willingness to engage in that treatment, and then for that treatment to be successful. Whilst your actions since your arrest on these matters does promote optimism for your own intention to continue on the path of rehabilitation, given that this offending is relatively recent and your encouraging engagement with professional services still in its early phases, some caution in relation to your prospects of rehabilitation is warranted.
60I would assess those prospects currently to be reasonable because of the large number of uncertainties, but with the potential to become more optimistic if you continue on your current path.
61I take into account two matters that in my view impact upon how burdensome imprisonment will be for you. First, I am instructed that you do not have family support in Australia. I place some relatively small weight on the fact that you are unlikely to have regular visitors during your incarceration as a result of this isolation. Second, you are going to be imprisoned at a time where pandemic restrictions will be in force within the prison environment for the foreseeable future. I have regard for the fact that being in a prison environment at a time of pandemic may reasonably cause a level of anxiety and stress that makes prison objectively more burdensome than it would otherwise be.
Current sentencing practices
62I have been provided with three comparable cases said to be of use in gauging the appropriate range of penalties available in this case[9]. I have had regard for those cases, first for what they say about the identification and application of relevant sentencing principles, and second, for what they show to be relevant sentencing practices for broadly similar offending. These sentences are somewhat useful as a yardstick without necessarily establishing or limiting what might be an appropriate sentence in the individual circumstances of your case.
[9]Exhibit P7.
63I note that the Crown places your offending as objectively less serious than was the case in Moore[10], but greater than that in Rampley[11] and Fuller[12]. I broadly agree with that analysis, though direct comparison between cases is a fraught exercise. As mentioned, in this case the conduct you engaged in over the course of the procure charge was persistent and of a nature that repeatedly exposed the complainant to inappropriate and explicit material. However, it might be said that the sexual activity you sought to procure was a less serious objective than seems to have been evident in the cases provided for comparison. As I said, it is difficult to directly compare cases and each one must be assessed on its own unique circumstances.
[10] [2018] NSWCCA 26
[11] [2010] NSWCCA 293
[12] [2010] NSWCCA 192
Submissions on sentence
64Ms Franjic made submissions on your behalf[13]. Both in her written submissions and in her oral presentation on the plea hearing, she very reasonably conceded the seriousness of the offences before the court, and acknowledged that notwithstanding the matters in mitigation that a period of imprisonment was the appropriate penalty on Charges 1, 2, and 3. She submitted, however, that there should be only modest cumulation between the sentences on Charge 1 and Charge 2, and substantial concurrency should be ordered in relation to the sentences imposed on Charges 2 and 3 because of the substantial overlap between the two. Ms Franjic submitted, correctly, that the court must be careful to impose a total effective sentence on you that is just and appropriate and that is no more severe than is necessary in all the circumstances. In her submission, this meant the imposition of a term of imprisonment of a duration that enabled the court to impose a recognisance release order.
[13]Exhibit D1.
65Mr Keks submitted that the procure charge was one for which general deterrence must be given significant weight. He contended this was because of the prevalence of the offending, the difficulties of its detection, and the paramount public interest in the protection of children. He submitted that there were a number of features of the offending comprising Charge 1 that were relevant to its seriousness. Amongst these reasons were the pre-existing relationship you had with the victim, the 'persistent and insistent' nature of your conduct, its predatory nature, and that it only concluded as a result of your detection and arrest. He submitted that notwithstanding your plea of guilty and efforts at rehabilitation since your arrest, the appropriate sentence was a period of imprisonment of a length that required the imposition of a non-parole period[14].
[14]Exhibit P6.
Sentence
66
I must sentence you in accordance with part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
I must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate to all the circumstances of the offence. I must take into account the matters set out in s16a(2) of the Crimes Act so far as they are relevant and known.
67The nature of the offence of procuring a person under 16 years for sexual activity has been noted repeatedly by the courts to be offending that is insidious and often highly damaging to children. It is offending that is difficult to detect. There is a paramount public interest in the protection of children. Clearly, general deterrence must be given significant weight when imposing a sentence for such an offence. Some weight must also be given to specifically deterring you from further offending, though your positive actions since your arrest and previous good character reduces the weight that might otherwise have been given to specific deterrence.
68In imposing a sentence that is appropriate in all the circumstances, I am required to impose individual sentences that, so far as possible, accurately reflect the gravity of each offence. I must also have regard for the need to impose a total effective sentence which, so far as possible, accurately reflects the totality of criminality comprised in the totality of the offences. I accept that this means that there must necessarily be a measure of discretionary moderation and accumulation of the individual sentences.
69As is required by s.17A of the Crimes Act, I declare that on Charges 1, 2, and 3, no sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In all the circumstances, I regard it as appropriate that there be some cumulation of the sentence on Charge 2 on that imposed on Charge 1. It is also appropriate, given the very substantial overlap between the circumstances comprising Charge 2 and Charge 3 that the sentences imposed on each of those charges be served concurrently.
70Taking all of these matters into account, including those matters in mitigation that I have already mentioned, I sentence you as follows:
71On Charge 1 you convicted and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment.
72On Charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced 12 months' imprisonment.
73On Charge 3 you are convicted and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment.
74On Charge 4 you are convicted and fined $500.
75I order that the sentence imposed on Charge 1 commence today 31 March 2021.
76I order that the sentence imposed on Charge 2 commence 2 years and 6 months after the commencement of the sentence imposed on Charge 1.
77I order that the sentence imposed on Charge 3 commence 2 years and 6 months after the commencement of the sentence imposed on Charge 1.
78That results in a total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
79I order that you serve a period of 2 years and 6 months before you are eligible for parole.
80I declare that there are 8 days of pre-sentence detention already served.
81I will declare pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) that but for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of four years and six months' imprisonment, and I would have fixed a non-parole period of three years and six months. I will cause that declaration to be noted in the records of the court.
82On Charges 1 and 3, I note that these are class two offences under the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. Pursuant to that Act you are a registrable offender with an obligation to comply with reporting conditions for a period of 15 years.
83Now, whilst I note Mr Derby is not in court, what I was proposing to do is just provide a copy of the sex offender obligations to his solicitors to forward on to him, and to explain to him as required. Now, Mr Keks, are there any other orders that you seek to have made?
84MR KEKS: No, Your Honour, and I agree with the pre-sentence detention.
85HIS HONOUR: All right. On other orders, anything in relation to the drugs, scales, et cetera? Just because, I raise that just because if I do nothing, I am sure the police will come back in six months' time, and say we have got drugs that we need to destroy.
86MR KEKS: Yes, Your Honour. I am grateful for that, thank you. My instructor has just handed me a document. I am reminded that forfeiture of those items has been consented to by Mr Derby and so no order of this court is required.
87HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you very much.
88MR KEKS: There is one formal matter and that is the s.16BA certificate.
89HIS HONOUR: Yes, which I have signed. Do I need to do any - - -
90MR KEKS: I was just wanting to remind Your Honour of that obligation.
91HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. I have signed that certificate. Do you want me to exhibit the signed certificate as - - -
92MR KEKS: I am in Your Honour's hands, but it seems to me that it would be appropriately kept with the indictment itself.
93HIS HONOUR: All right.
94MR KEKS: Which was hand amended in this case on the court file.
95HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, I can tell you, this morning I signed that s.16BA certificate and I will order that it form a record of the sentence, along with the indictment.
96MR KEKS: Yes, Your Honour.
97HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Is there anything further?
98MR KEKS: No, Your Honour.
99MS FRANJIC: No, Your Honour.
100HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I will adjourn.
- - -
0
3
0