The Queen v Goh; The Queen v Chan

[2022] VCC 951

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No.  CR-21-01046 & CR-21-01230

THE QUEEN

v

JIT GOH;

and

SOON CHAN

‑‑‑

JUDGE:	His Honour Judge Hannebery
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 April & 26 May 2022, 16 June 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Goh; The Queen v Chan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 951

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
‑‑‑

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:              Attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug - methamphetamine - high moral culpability - serious offending - good prospects of rehabilitation - plea of guilty - substantial utilitarian worth - no evidence of family hardship - burden of imprisonment - parity - general deterrence - prison environment made more burdensome by reason of pandemic restrictions - COVID-19

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Sentencing Act 1991

Cases Cited:R v Markovic (2010) 30 VR 589; Kwan v The Queen; Kwok v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 313; Tran v The Queen [2021] VSCA 278; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169

Sentence:                  Goh - seven years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years.

Chan - eight years and nine months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and three months.

‑‑‑

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the CDPP	Mr S.  Ginsbourg	Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For Goh  For Chan	Mr C.  Wareham Mr M.  Reardon	James Dowsley & Associates Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1Jit Meng Goh, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge, being attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug, namely, methamphetamine.[1]  The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. 

[1]Contrary to subsections 11.1(1) and 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

2Soon Huat Chan, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge, being attempt to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely, methamphetamine, reasonably suspected of having been unlawfully imported.[2]  The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment.

[2]Contrary to sub-sections 11.1(1) and 307.8(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

3Pursuant to s 16A(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), in relation to Mr Chan, you also admit guilt to two further offences of attempting to possess a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug. The maximum penalty for these offences is 25 years' imprisonment. Pursuant to s 16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I take these offences into account when sentencing you on Charge 1.

4In sentencing you both for these offences, I take into account the matters set out in Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), in particular s 16A(2), which sets out a non‑exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account as far as they are relevant and known when sentencing a federal offender.

Summary of offending

5An amended summary of prosecution opening was tendered on the plea[3] and read aloud in an abbreviated form.  Your offending can be summarised as follows:

[3]Prosecution Exhibit 1.

6On 5 April 2020, a container which had been shipped from Malaysia arrived in Melbourne.  The container contained an assortment of household furniture and four plastic‑wrapped boxes and was described on shipping documents as 'Sofa Sets, Dining Tables, Cabinets And Wardrobes'.  Each box weighed about 20 kilograms or more. 

7On 9 April 2020, the consignment was transported to a commercial premises in Tottenham.  On 11 April 2020, the contents of the consignment were transported to a commercial and then residential premises in Truganina before being unloaded into a garage. 

8Over the following days, one Ikram Shahruddin directed MNB Logistics, a local transportation company, about the distribution of the plastic‑wrapped boxes from the Truganina premises.  Mr Shahruddin is a Malaysian national who entered Australia in February 2020 and left in March 2020.  He has not been arrested in connection to these proceedings due to his departure from Australia.  Mr Shahruddin directed the delivery of one of the boxes to a hotel in Spencer Street, Melbourne, the Great Southern Hotel, where you, Mr Chan, and you, Mr Goh, were staying at the time. 

9On 15 April 2020, there were WeChat communications in the lead‑up to this delivery between you, Mr Chan, and someone who appears to have been your mother.  You told her that you were starting work this Friday, which was a reference to taking delivery and distributing the drugs from the consignment.  You said you would be dealing with 'cold-one 7', a reference to an amount of methamphetamine, and 'cocaine 18', a reference to an amount of cocaine.

10Later that day you, Mr Chan, made a reservation for yourself and an additional guest, 'Kenny', for four nights at the Great Southern Hotel, beginning 17 April 2020. 

11On 16 April, you, Mr Chan, communicated with a contact called 'Poor' on WeChat.  Poor is a person who communicated with you both and instructed you in your dealing with this consignment and the consignment that arrived in June.  In this WeChat communication, Poor said to you, Mr Chan, that Poor had been contacted by 'Jimmy', an alias for you, Mr Goh.  Poor provided your number as the number to be used as the contact number.

12Later that day, you, Mr Chan, exchanged communications with WeChat user 'Rock 8822'.  You described your planned activities of taking and delivering the drugs at the direction of Poor and said you anticipated receiving $500, split by two people, for each kilogram of drugs that was collected and then distributed.  These activities included delivering the 'pieces' in a taxi, to multiple parties in one day. 

13Later that evening and the following morning, Mr Shahruddin used WhatsApp to direct MNB to deliver the long box stored in Truganina to 'Dennis' at the Great Southern Hotel.  Over that time, you, Mr Chan, exchanged communications with Poor about the distribution of that box after it was delivered, including Poor instructing you to take and send videos of the box. 

14At 1.23pm on 17 April 2020, an MNB driver delivered the box to a Malaysian man outside the Great Southern Hotel.  You, Mr Chan, communicated to Poor on WeChat, and it can be inferred from these communications that there were 18 green packages containing 1 kilogram of methamphetamine each and seven cans that contained at least 6 kilograms of cocaine.  Poor instructed you, Mr Chan, to take photos and videos of you putting the drugs into the 1 kilo cans.  You were assisted by Mr Goh in these videos and photos. 

15Subsequently, you, Mr Chan, discussed with Poor how to deliver the drugs including by putting 'six bags of green type' and one 'full quantity' 'bag of Ko-La' in luggage 'with wheels', and to deliver it 'together with the bag' and to keep the remaining units safe in the Great Southern Hotel. You, Mr Chan, then delivered the contents of that box, after testing and weighing and packaging the substance, to various people on the instruction of Poor. And that completes the description of the s16BA offences to be taken into account in relation to Mr Chan's charge only.

16On 4 June 2020, a container from Malaysia arrived in Australia at the Port of Melbourne.  The consignment was described as household furniture and contained 18 boxes that each weighed 22 kilograms, including packaging.  Each box contained 20 foil packages labelled as Chinese tea.  On 8 June 2020, ABF officers detected methamphetamine inside the container, which was seized and replaced by rock salt.  The purity of the methamphetamine was found to be 80 per cent.  The boxes were repackaged and monitored for the purposes of effecting a controlled delivery.  Between 11 June and 13 June 2020, the contents of the container were transported to a garage in Williams Landing.  You are both charged with attempting to possess one of these boxes, the contents of which equates to 16 kilos of methamphetamine. 

17In preparation for the arrival of this consignment in Australia, an associate to both of you, Mr Cham, made a booking for you in an apartment in Collins Street for 11 May until 5 June.  You extended your stay for two weeks at that apartment in Collins Street when you were advised about the date the container was being shipped from Malaysia by Poor.  Mr Chan, you reimbursed Mr Cham the booking fee for extending your time in the Collins Street apartment. 

18On 14 June 2020, Mr Shahruddin used WhatsApp to arrange for the delivery of 10 boxes of the substituted methamphetamine.  One of those boxes was to be delivered to the Collins Street apartment.  On 15 June 2020, an MNB driver used a black Honda CRV to transport a box of the substituted methamphetamine to the Collins Street apartment.  When the driver arrived, they called you, and you both exited the apartment where you, Mr Goh, went to meet the driver and you, Mr Chan, stayed by the lifts. 

19Once you had taken possession of the package, you returned to the apartment and began to take a series of photographs and videos of the package and its contents.  You also conducted tests on the substituted methamphetamine by burning it and mixing it in water.  In these videos, you both can be heard commenting on the fact that the methamphetamine appears to have been substituted. 

20Poor instructed you to send those photos and videos to him.  You did so and told him that the product was unusable.  Poor instructed you to dispose of the packaging however you saw fit.  You both did so by putting the remnants of the package into green wheelie bins outside of your apartment.  Now, this is Charge 1 for Mr Chan, namely, attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely, methamphetamine, that is reasonably suspected of having been unlawfully important, and Charge 1 for Goh, namely, attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely, methamphetamine, that was unlawfully imported. 

21On 16 June 2020, you both exchanged communications on WeChat with each other, where you discussed taking a further delivery of another package to recoup the losses you had suffered from the substituted methamphetamine.

22On 17 June 2020, AFP officers attended the Collins Street apartment.  You, Mr Chan, were arrested on the ground floor and you, Mr Goh, were arrested outside the apartment. 

23Mr Chan, you were interviewed and said that:

(a)   You are also known as 'Alwin';

(b)   You had been residing at Collins Street for the last four to five weeks;

(c)   You met Mr Goh in Malaysia and have known him for 10 to 20 years;

(d)   You have lived in Australia for six years;

(e)   In regards to collecting the package, you went with Mr Goh to have a smoke while Mr Goh collected the goods;

(f)    You had to wait because only one of you had a key card;

(g)   This was the only occasion you saw Mr Goh with the box;

(h)   You thought the box weighed 2 to 3 kilos;

(i)    You did not know who the box belongs to and did not know what was in the box or see what was inside the box;

(j)    The next time you noticed the box was the next day, when the box was open, and you did not know who unwrapped the box;

(k)   You had not seen the tea packets or the crystal substance inside the tea packets; and

(l)    You did not instruct Mr Goh to collect the box. 

24Mr Goh, you were interviewed and said that you were currently unemployed and living on Collins Street for a holiday and that you were working as a fruit picker in Mildura.  You otherwise answered 'no comment' to the questions put to you. 

Nature and circumstances of offences

25You have both pleaded guilty to charges that carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.  This clearly indicates the inherent gravity of those offences.  That there is a slight difference in the exact nature of each of your offences apparently  reflects the respective timing of each of your pleas of guilty and the law as it was at those times.  There is, in reality, no reason to distinguish between the two of you with regard to your culpability for the charged offences.

26You both attempted to possess 16 kilos of imported methamphetamine.  This amount is approximately 20 times the designated commercial quantity.  The offences were committed for financial gain.  The evidence suggests that you expected $500 per kilo of drugs that you handled, to be split between the two of you.  This is not an insignificant amount but is utterly disproportionate to the risks that you were taking in undertaking this task. 

27You committed these offences as individuals under financial pressure as a result of gambling debts.  This is not a matter in mitigation of sentence, but, rather, provides an explanation for personal choices that might otherwise seem inexplicable.  You were employees of others who stood to profit, had the drugs been distributed and sold.  You had no equity in the drugs nor any expectation of further reward after completion of your task.

28Your roles were, however, crucial to the aims of the importation.  You were prepared to engage in significant preparatory conduct.  You secured a safe location to accept delivery of the drugs, which you funded yourselves.  You were prepared to use those premises in expectation of receiving and delivering the drugs.  Your roles were beyond the mere transportation of the imported product:  you tested the drugs and videotaped the unpacking of the substance, which you sent to others involved in the process.  It was your role to accept delivery of the drugs and verify their quality before distributing them to buyers. 

29Your role was one that required a great deal of trust to be placed in you by those criminals running the syndicate.  That you did not deliver the drugs as you anticipated was purely the result of the police detection and subsequent substitution of the drugs that were imported from Malaysia.

30Your moral culpability for this offending is high.  This is undoubtedly serious offending.

31In relation to you, Mr Chan, I must also take into account, pursuant to s 16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the two offences from April 2020. These offences relate respectively to methylamphetamine and cocaine and are similar in character to the charged offence, save for the fact they relate to a 'marketable' quantity of drugs. The purity of the drugs involved in the April importation is unknowable.

32In sentencing you for the charged offence, I take this previous offending into account in concluding that the charged conduct was not isolated. The previous offending means that specific deterrence has more significant weight in your case. The consideration pursuant to s 16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) means that some disparity is justified between the sentence imposed on you and that imposed on Mr Goh.

Personal circumstances

Goh

33Mr Goh, you are now 46 years of age.  You were 44 years old at the time of the offending.  You are the eldest of four siblings.  You were first married at age 20 and have one 26 year old daughter from that relationship.  You married again in 2005 and you have three daughters aged 17, 15 and 11 with your wife.  All your family are in Malaysia.  You have continued to maintain regular contact with your family whilst incarcerated.

34Your mother is alive and aged in her 70s.  She plays a large role in assisting with the care of your children.  Your father was a truck driver and died when you were 10 years old. 

35After your father's death, you assumed significant responsibility for the care of your younger siblings whilst your mother worked at a hotel to support the family.

36You are educated to Year 11 level.  You subsequently trained and qualified as an electrician.

37You relocated to Australia in October 2019.  You initially arrived on a holiday visa.  There is little evidence before the Court about the reasons for your decision to come to Australia beyond the statement in the psychological report to Ms Ferrari that you were seeking to 'escape from gambling issues he was experiencing in his home country'.  You instruct that you have done some work picking fruit since arriving in Australia.

38You have admitted to a history of gambling at a problematic level.  I accept that this behaviour and its financial consequences has been the motivation for your choice to engage in this criminal activity.  There is no evidence that you have received any treatment for any psychological or psychiatric issue prior to your remand in custody, including any treatment for gambling problems. 

39You do not report any significant substance use history.  You contended to Ms Ferrari that you used ketamine for a week prior to your arrest, on your account, for the purpose of managing the stress caused by 'having realised that the shipment likely contained illegal substances and not knowing how to withdraw from the situation without negative repercussions'.  Based on other material available in this matter, I simply do not accept to the requisite standard that you were other than fully aware that you were engaged in a task concerning imported drugs. 

40You have no prior criminal history.  You have family support, despite your choice to engage in conduct that has cost them dearly.

41You have pleaded guilty.  Whilst undoubtably the prosecution case was very strong, I accept that this reveals some level of contrition for the consequences of your actions, albeit something short of complete remorse for the offending itself.

42You have engaged positively with work and educational opportunities since being remanded in custody.

43On balance, I accept that you have good prospects of rehabilitation.

Chan

44Mr Chan, you are now 46 years old and were 44 years old at the time of the offending.  You are a Malaysian national.  You arrived in Australia in January 2014. 

45You were born and raised in Penang Island, Malaysia, a small village.  You are an only child.  Your parents divorced when you were three years old. 

46Your mother worked as a midwife.  She has now re-partnered and you have four half‑siblings from that relationship.  She now lives in Singapore.  I am instructed that you have phone contact with her multiple times per week.  It is evident from the reference she provided to the Court that she remains deeply engaged with your welfare.

47Your father worked as a cement plasterer.  He moved to Kuala Lumpur following the separation.  He re-partnered and you have two half‑siblings from that relationship.  He passed away due to complications from a stroke when you were 13 years old.

48You lived with your paternal grandparents from the time of your parents' separation.

49You married in 2008 and have one child from that relationship.  That relationship ended after four years.  I am instructed that you no longer have contact with your child. 

50You are educated to the equivalent of Year 9.  After leaving school, you worked in a variety of service‑related jobs in Malaysia and Singapore.  You came to Australia in 2014.  You initially worked as a fruit picker before obtaining employment as a plasterer in Sydney.  You worked for that employer for five years until the business was sold.  You went on to work for a second plastering business in Sydney for a period but left as a result of a significant cut in your wages. 

51You instructed you then worked seasonally as a fruit picker, moving around regional Australia to places including Mildura and Coffs Harbour.  Your income from the fruit picking was modest. 

52You instruct that you have been a user of cannabis from your late teens and have been addicted to that substance for much of your adult life.  You also admit to the abuse of cocaine since your arrival in Australia.  That said, it was contended that gambling rather than drug use has been the catalyst for your involvement in this offending. 

53You convey a history of problematic gambling going back more than a decade.  This is consistent with what the prosecution say are messages between you and Mr Goh speaking about gambling.  It is also consistent with the psychologist's view that at the time of the offending you had an adjustment disorder related to the stress of your financial position.  You were motivated to engage in this offending because of gambling‑related debt.  Similarly to Mr Goh, however, this is an explanation rather than a matter in mitigation.

54You have no relevant prior history.  I accept that your plea of guilty displays some, albeit limited, contrition.  You have exhibited some level of insight about the wrongfulness of your offending in the psychological report.[4]  You have been assessed by psychologist Marlese Bovenkerk as having low to moderate risk of general recidivism.  You have also have engaged positively with work and educational opportunities whilst in custody.  Your prospects of rehabilitation are good. 

[4]Defence Exhibit 2 on the plea of Mr Chan.

Plea of guilty

55Mr Goh, you first indicated a plea of guilty to the charge on the indictment at the committal mention.  I consider this plea to be entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity.  By your plea of guilty, you have spared the very significant time and resources that would otherwise have been expended upon contested proceedings.  In this case, a trial would have been weeks long and both legally and factually complicated.  It would have required the engagement of interpreters.  Your plea of guilty has very substantial utilitarian worth.  This is especially so in circumstances where the pandemic has placed considerable pressure on court listings. 

56Mr Chan, your plea of guilty was first indicated after a contested committal hearing. Whilst it was entered at a later stage than Mr Goh first indicated his plea, I accept that your circumstances were somewhat more complicated. This is due to the allegations about the April consignment that are now the subject of s16BA consideration. In all the circumstances, I consider your plea to have also been entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity. For the reason stated in relation to Mr Goh, you are also entitled to similar consideration for the utilitarian benefit of your plea of guilty that is enhanced as a result of the pandemic's pressure on court listings.

Family hardship

57It was submitted on behalf of you, Mr Goh, that your imprisonment would result in hardship to your family in Malaysia.  Specifically, it was alleged that, as a direct result of your conviction, your wife would no longer be entitled to reside in Malaysia and would be deported to Indonesia. 

58In relation to the issue of third-party hardship, I consider that I must apply the law as expressed in the case of R v Markovic,[5] namely, that I cannot take such hardship into account unless I am satisfied that it amounts to 'exceptional circumstances'.  In this case, no evidence has been presented to verify the submissions made about your family's hardship.  I simply do not have any evidentiary basis to conclude the hardship that has been contended.  Having failed to meet this evidentiary burden on the balance of probabilities, I will not take it into account on sentence nor make any conclusion as to whether the hardship was 'exceptional'.

[5](2010) 30 VR 589.

59I do accept, however, that in your case, Mr Goh, that you are understandably anxious about the impact that your imprisonment will have upon your family.  I take this into account as something that adds to the burden of imprisonment for you.

Comparative cases

60Consistency in federal sentencing is achieved through courts being informed as to the appropriate sentencing range by reference to sentences that have previously been imposed by other courts.  It has been properly conceded by the prosecution that there is no previous case whose circumstances closely replicate the current matter.  The case of Kwan v The Queen; Kwok v The Queen[6] involved an attempt to possess about double the quantity of drugs than were the subject of the charges against both of you.  Similarly, the case of Tran v The Queen[7] concerned offending involving a much larger quantity of drugs than is the case here.  I must also be conscious about comparisons with sentences imposed prior to the pandemic where the accused did not get the benefit of the Worboyes v R[8] discount.

[6][2020] NSWCCA 313.

[7][2021] VSCA 278.

[8][2021] VSCA 169.

61What can generally be observed from previous cases is that very substantial periods of imprisonment have been imposed for offences involving the attempted possession of commercial quantities of imported drugs. 

Sentencing principles

62I must have regard to the principle of parity, to ensure consistency of punishment. When co-offenders are sentenced, any significant difference in sentences imposed upon them should be capable of rational explanation. In this case, there will be some disparity reflecting the two further offences to be considered, pursuant to s 16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), for you, Mr Chan.

63I note that s16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires the imposition of a sentence which is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence, including the need to ensure you are adequately punished. Whilst specific deterrence has a more limited role in sentencing for you, Mr Goh, than for you, Mr Chan, general deterrence is a prominent consideration in both of your cases.

64I accept that as foreign nationals, imprisonment in Australia represents a greater burden than would be the case for a prisoner with family and other support in close proximity.  You both face the apparently inevitable prospect of deportation upon completion of your sentences.

65Both of you have also been imprisoned at a time the prison environment has been made more burdensome by reason of pandemic restrictions.  Your time on remand has been served during the height of the lockdowns, when deprivations of liberty have been most acute.  Whilst these restrictions, which included but are not limited to restrictions on visits and programs, have been eased somewhat, it is likely that some level of increased burden because of COVID-19 risk‑mitigation measures will persist for the foreseeable future.  I take this into account in mitigation of sentence for both of you.

Sentencing submissions

66Mr Reardon, who appeared on your behalf, Mr Chan, submitted that a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period was inevitable because of the gravity of this offending, however this term of imprisonment should be moderated by the matters put in mitigation. 

67Mr Wareham, who appeared on your behalf, Mr Goh, similarly accepted that the only available disposition was a period of imprisonment with a non-parole period. 

68Mr Ginsbourg, who appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth Director, submitted that a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period be imposed on both offenders. 

Sentence

69Now, Madam Interpreter, I am just about to read out the sentence now.  So I do not think you have got this in front of you, so you might have to listen carefully. 

70Jit Meng Goh, I sentence you as follows. 

71On Charge 1, attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug, I sentence you to seven years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years. 

72I declare, pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991, that but for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to 10 years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years.

73INTERPRETER:  My apology, Your Honour, did you mention any name in the beginning or is this still for the first person?

74HIS HONOUR:  Yes, still for Mr Goh.

75INTERPRETER:  Thank you.

76HIS HONOUR: Pursuant to s16E(2) of the Crimes Act and s18(4) of the Sentencing Act, I declare that you have spent 733 days in custody, by way of pre‑sentence detention, to be reckoned as served.

77Soon Huat Chan, I sentence you as follows. 

78On Charge 1, attempt to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, I sentence you to eight years and nine months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and three months.

79INTERPRETER:  Your Honour, what is the parole for - the years for the parole?  Eight years, nine months?

80HIS HONOUR:  Eight years and nine months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and three months. 

81I declare, pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, that but for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to 11 years and nine months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine years and three months. 

82Pursuant to s 16E(2) of the Crimes Act1914 (Cth) and s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have spent 733 days in custody, by way of pre‑sentence detention, to be reckoned as already served.

83INTERPRETER:  Sorry, Your Honour, the 18, what is that section?  The one with no.18.

84HIS HONOUR:  Eighteen, sub-s4.  Okay.  So I will repeat those sentences, just to make sure we have got that right.  So for Mr Goh, you have seven years and six months', with a non-parole period of five years.  And for you, Mr Chan, you have eight years and nine months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and three months.  And for both of you, I have declared 733 days of that sentence as already having been served. 

85All right.  Now, I will make the disposal orders as sought by the prosecution.  Is there any further orders, Mr Ginsbourg?

86MR GINSBOURG:  No, Your Honour.

87HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  Nothing else that I need to address from anyone?

88MR GINSBOURG:  No.

89COUNSEL:  As the Court pleases.

90COUNSEL:  No, Your Honour.

91HIS HONOUR:  Thank you very much for your patience.  I will adjourn the Court now until 10.30 tomorrow.

92COUNSEL:  Please the court.

- - -