DPP v Craig [2025] VCC 1462

10 years' imprisonment. I note in each case that they are rolled-up charges. They are category 2 offences and each carries a mandatory period of licence disqualification. Charge 8 was the charge of conduct endangering persons, which was the driving down the Bellarine Highway, which carries a maximum period of five years' imprisonment. Charge 9 was the charge of criminal damage for the damage caused during the driving, which carries a maximum period of 10 years' imprisonment. Charge 10 was the charge of possession of methylamphetamines, which was found after your arrest. That carries a maximum period of one year imprisonment. 4. The summary offences of driving a motor vehicle when directed to stop by a police officer carry a maximum period for a subsequent offence (which it is in your case) of 120 penalty units or 12 months' imprisonment or both. Summary offence 40, driving a motor vehicle with more than the prescribed concentration of drugs present, for a second offence, is a fine of not more than 60 penalty units under s. 49(1)(bb) Road Safety Act. It appears not to carry a period of imprisonment. 5. Summary offence 47, driving whilst disqualified, carries a maximum penalty of 240 penalty units or two years' imprisonment. Careless driving carries a fine of not more than 12 penalty units, and the two charges of failing to stop after an accident carry a maximum penalty of five penalty units or 14 days' imprisonment. For a subsequent offence, a fine of 10 penalty units or 14 days to a month's imprisonment. 6. The prosecution tendered a summary of prosecution opening for plea dated

23 July 2025, and a summary of your offending is as follows. 7. This was aptly described by the prosecution as a three-day spree of methylamphetamine offending. Early on the morning of 23 June 2024, you attended an address in Osborne Avenue in North Geelong and tried to break into a Holden parked in the front yard of the property. This offending was captured on CCTV footage. When you were unsuccessful, you then went to the next-door address, broke into the garage, went through the cupboards and drawers, but did not remove any items. That is the charge of burglary. You then entered a shed at the rear of the property and removed what appears to have been an electronic bike, Wheeler Proton bike, valued at $3,000, wheeled it to the front of the property and then rode off. This was also captured on CCTV footage. 8. Then, on 25 June 2024, you stole a white Isuzu truck from an address in Newcomb and drove the truck down the Bellarine Highway in Newcomb. You hit a power pole, causing significant damage. You were disqualified from driving at the time. At about 8.40 am, you were seen by a driver in her rear vision mirror as she drove towards Geelong. You hit the victim from behind, damaging the left quarter panel of her car. You were charged with careless driving for that. You failed to stop after this accident. The driver of that car called Triple 0. 9. A few minutes later, the driver of a white Ford Ranger was parked outside a shop on Watsons Road, Newcomb. You drove past and hit this vehicle, causing damage. These are the charges of careless driving and failure to stop after an accident. You reached the Barwon Heads Road and continued north. You were seen by a patrol car, which attempted to intercept you. You failed to stop on a police direction. As you turned onto Tucker Street, Breakwater and then onto Carr Street, East Geelong police could see the damage to the rear tray of the truck you were driving. You were followed along roads in Breakwater, and then you turned into the Gordon TAFE car park and came to a stop behind a Scania truck. 10. The driver of the truck, Anthony Karagiosis, had just finished unloading the truck, which contained dangerous goods, being gas cylinders. You hit the truck from behind, causing damage to the truck and forklift. This was the charge of recklessly endangering Mr Karagiosis, who ran into a doorway, fearing he would be run over by your truck. It was then that Senior Constable Sam Elliott, whom I noted on the plea was involved in the other drug-fuelled spree of Quinton, which I sentenced earlier this week or late last week, ran towards the truck in an effort to remove you and smashed the side passenger window with a baton. You continued to attempt to drive away from the car park, running into and causing damage to six vehicles. 11. You caused danger to Senior Constable Reece Wood, to

Senior Constable Sam Elliott and to Senior Constable Daniel Melino, all of which was captured on CCTV footage. Sergeant Morrow deployed stop sticks, which successfully deflated the car's left passenger tyre. You drove out of the car park, nevertheless, back onto St Albans Road, where you were followed by vehicles. The police vehicle pulled up next to you but the erratic driving, which it is conceded was caused by the damage to your vehicle and your attempts to retain control of the vehicle, caused damage to the police vehicle that tried to intercept you. 12. When you crossed onto the Bellarine Highway again, a pursuit was called, and you moved at this point onto the wrong side of the road. You caused danger to a cyclist who was exiting the rail trail, and when you failed to stop, you narrowly avoided hitting the cyclist. You moved back onto the Portarlington Highway towards Geelong. You turned onto the wrong side of the road, driving in the bike lane. Police deployed stop sticks near Caledonia Street in Moolap, deflating the front two tyres. You still nevertheless refused to stop. You drove your car onto the other side of the road into a lane of oncoming traffic. You drove at a truck heading north. The truck driver had to take evasive action to get out of the way. 13. You crashed into the rear driver's panel of a grey Holden Barina, which was driven by a disability worker who had just collected a client who was a passenger in the vehicle. You continued again down the wrong side of the road on the Bellarine Highway, making a right turn at Helms Street in Newcomb. The front tyres of the truck had come off and were sparking from the rims while driving on the road. Police drove on the wrong side of the road in an effort to get in front of you to cause you to stop the truck. The police had to swerve and slam on the brakes to avoid being hit. You were, it was conceded, driving at a slow speed. 14. You hit the front of a police car, causing criminal damage. You were taken from the car. It is conceded that you apologised and told police that you had been using methylamphetamine. An amount of methylamphetamine was removed from your pocket. You were tested by an oral fluid test and methylamphetamine was detected in the sample. Although you had made some admissions to police on their body-worn camera and CCTV footage, you exercised your right at the time of interview to make a no comment record of interview. The CCTV footage of the driving was tendered on the plea. I make the observation that your driving was sustained and protracted. That you drove for a long distance. You drove at times on the wrong side of the road. You caused cars to stop and take evasive action. There were people, cyclists and cars put at risk by your driving. 15. You have been held in custody since your arrest on these charges, and you have now been on remand for 429 days excluding today, which will be reckoned as the period already served. 16. I turn then to consider the objective seriousness of your offending and your moral culpability for it. 17. Starting with the charges of aggravated offence of exposing emergency workers to risk, Charges 6 and 7. They are category 2 offences, which means that Parliament presumes a period of imprisonment, excluding a combination sentence, will be imposed on these offences. Given that no exception exists, a period of imprisonment, excluding a combination sentence, will be imposed for those offences. The maximum penalty for those offences, that is a period of

10 years, marks the seriousness of those offences. The fact that a licence disqualification of at least 24 months must be imposed also marks the seriousness of the offending, and both of these counts are rolled-up charges. 18. A rolled-up charge is a charge where multiple instances of the same offence are contained in the same charge. This means that the sentencing judge is able to take into account the fact that the offence contains identifiable multiple instances of the same offending. This may alter the sentencing consideration in that the offending can be considered more serious than a single offence or an offence that occurs out of the blue for the fact that it contains multiple offences. But the maximum penalty imposable for that offence is that for a single offence, and I cannot move beyond that, but I will, in each instance, take into account the fact that it is rolled up. 19. Generally, your driving was appalling. You drove under the influence of methylamphetamine. The CCTV footage of your driving, which takes into account conduct endangering in two separates instances, danger to police and the aggravated offence of recklessly exposing emergency workers, that is police, to risk is marked by the varying degrees of the carelessness of your driving, the recklessness of your driving, the danger that you caused to police, to road users and even to those in the car park at the Gordon TAFE. The seriousness of your offending, Mr Craig, is obvious. 20. The vehicle used was a truck. In other words, it was a large vehicle that had lost both tyres. One tyre, in one piece of the footage, is shown rolling at speed off the truck into the driveway of a house adjacent to the Bellarine Highway. Your ability to control the truck was compromised by the fact that it had lost its tyres, although this is to some extent compensated by the fact that you could only drive, for the most part, at low speed. The venues on which your driving took place, the Bellarine Highway and the Portarlington Highway, were marked by the footage by the fact that there was a lot of traffic. 21. The Bellarine Highway, at the point at which your driving was captured on footage, has a speed limit of variously 70 and 80 kilometres an hour. At the time of day, people were travelling towards Geelong, presumably to work. So the fact that you could not drive fast does not particularly mitigate your offending because there were those unaware road users who were driving at speed down the highway. It was made more dangerous by the fact that you drove on the wrong side of the road and through intersections. You drove without warning through intersections towards people who were forced to anticipate but were not aware of what speed you were going to do or what reactions you would make. This is all the more so when I say that your own perceptions, judgment and reactions were depleted by drug use. 22. I do, however, take into account Mr Bell's submissions on the seriousness of your offending. Whilst Mr Bell conceded that your driving was dangerous, it was dangerous without actually causing injury or death. Mr Bell submitted that the objective gravity of the risk meant that there was a degree of foresight exercised, and you created a natural risk of danger to drivers. Your driving must have had foresight of the danger caused but the actual risk here, he submitted, was at the lower end, notwithstanding that the aggravated offences as to emergency workers were rolled up. 23. At the Gordon TAFE, Mr Bell submitted that the three officers were respectively to the side of the car, that is, Wood and Elliott, and Melino was metres clear. Karagiosis made his way safely to the doorway of the building and was clear of your vehicle. Charge 7, although Mr Bell conceded your driving and offending was serious, the car had lost its front tyres and you were driving on the rims. You did not have control of the car because you were driving on the rims, but you were described as driving slowly from side to side, notwithstanding the fact that the police driver had to slam on the brakes. 24. Charge 8 was indeed perhaps some of the most serious driving because it was protracted and over a long distance, and you exposed civilian road users and cyclists to danger. It was conceded that there was some speed involved in your driving at times. I will return to the question of your moral culpability after I assess your biographical material and your mental health material, but the risk to road users is obvious given the compromised state of your car and your use of methylamphetamine. Ordinarily, such offending would draw into consideration, dominant consideration, principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and a large measure of protection of the community. 25. I turn now to a consideration of your personal circumstances. You are 30 years of age, having turned 30 in September 2025, that is the day of the plea. You are a Gunditjmara man born in Geelong. Your parents separated when you were young. Returning to your Aboriginality, you inherited your Aboriginality from your father. I am told that you have only recently become aware of your indigenous heritage, but it is comforting that since you have become aware of it, you have received support from indigenous cultural support services whilst in prison. 26. Returning to your family constellation. You have two older siblings, an older brother and an older sister. I recognise that you had a particularly difficult childhood. Your mother worked in abattoirs, and your father had a motorbike wrecking business. There were frequent arguments between your parents in your formative years, and it is clear that your family life was unhappy. You have the traumatic memory of finding your older sister, when she was about 11 or 12, hanging from a tree. She was only revived and saved by quick medical intervention and assistance. Your parents divorced soon after this incident when you were about six or so years old. 27. Your mother re-partnered, and you lived with her until you were about 14. You attended school on the Bellarine at Leopold and then moved on to Oberon, but then moved over to Hastings Primary School on the Mornington side. At primary school, you were frequently bullied for your appearance and learning difficulties. You were also bullied, it appears, by your step-father, that is, your mother's partner, who would call you names, that is, body shaming you and referring to your learning difficulties. There was violence between your mother and your stepfather on occasions. 28. You continued to frequently move schools. You attended

Western Port Secondary until Year 7. You then moved to Newcomb Secondary for Year 8. You were living with your father, but dropped out of school altogether by Year 9. You have had no formal schooling since. Your schooling years were marked, as I say, by learning difficulties. Notwithstanding your learning difficulties as a young man, you were industrious in your outlook, and you got employment as a tyre fitter. You found that work very difficult as it is very heavy and physically demanding work, and you simply were too young and too physically immature to take it on. You got a Certificate II at Gordon TAFE in spray painting and panel beating, and you worked as a spray painter at a panel shop in Moolap for a period of time. 29. Unfortunately, you moved out of your dad's house, and you started using methylamphetamines by the age of about 18. You lived for periods of time in youth housing, but you were constantly looking for permanent housing from the age of 18. Since that age and so for nearly 12 years now, drug addiction has been the cause of your legal problems, exacerbated by a lack of stable housing. Your legal problems have plagued you over your adult life. You have a 15-page history that dates back to January 2017 and a four-page VicRoads history dating back to May 2014. Your criminal history involves a range of relevant offences, that is relevant to this offending, including dangerous driving offences, property offences and offences for breaching court orders. 30. You have 15 prior convictions for theft, five of which relate to stealing cars and two previous convictions for burglary. You have numerous convictions for driving whilst disqualified, dangerous driving and drug driving and for failing to stop on a police direction. You have been placed on numerous community corrections orders, and you have been previously sentenced to a four-month term of imprisonment in 2018. You do, however, have a lack of prior convictions for drug-related offending apart from the driving whilst under the influence of drugs. 31. As I say, you were remanded in custody after you were arrested for this offending in June 2024. You were bailed at one point to residential rehabilitation at the beginning of this year, but for reasons which were not explained and I do not consider relevant to the sentencing consideration, you were unsuccessful and you were remanded back in custody. Since you have been in custody, your productivity has again returned, which I assume follows from the fact that you have been determinedly free of drug use whilst in custody. You have completed or are about to complete programs on methylamphetamine use, Skating on Ice and Me, Myself and Ice. You work five days a week in a prison logistics role, packaging headphones for Qantas flights. Most importantly, you work as a mentor for new prisoners, showing them how to successfully negotiate prison life, and you are to be commended for that work indeed. 32. You have been assessed by a psychologist, Ms Carla Lechner, on two occasions since you have been in custody for this offending, and you have also been assessed by a neuropsychologist, Dr Linda Borg. Dr Borg primarily concludes that you suffer from significant cognitive deficits, noting your full-scale IQ of 70. Dr Borg states that your IQ indicates borderline intellectual functioning, suggesting limitations in cognitive abilities across multiple domains. She notes you present with symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in a combined presentation with neurodevelopmental disability evident on a background of borderline to low to average intellect. 33. Dr Borg notes you present with anxiety and depression, stimulant use disorder and that your cognitive development is influenced by your family history, which limited your learning capacity through your childhood and early years. The borderline to low intellect is indicated in your full scale IQ across your general intellectual functioning, your verbal comprehension and literacy, your perceptual reasoning, your working memory, your processing speed, your attention, your memory, new learning and your executive functioning - all of which operate, with the exception of attention and memory, at low borderline levels. 34. Ms Lechner noted that you still maintain a positive relationship with your mother, and you were well supported in court. She notes the traumatic effect of finding your sister hanging. That has had an ongoing profound effect on you, and she notes that in your upbringing, moving from the abusive relationship with your step-father to moving in with your father did not bring much relief because your father lived with his sister, who was an alcoholic, your aunt. That your father needed an enormous amount of help. He was morbidly obese. He had unstable housing and had a number of social issues himself. In the end, the instability of your situation with your father caused you to apply for youth housing. 35. Ms Lechner noted in October 2024 that you present with a complex clinical picture requiring a multidisciplinary approach to intervention. She assessed you as suffering from ADHD, as noted by Dr Borg, but that you also have genuine cognitive limitations, which further undermine your ability to problem solve and to interact socially. Ms Lechner notes that your inability to interact socially and to problem solve has led to your significant drug addiction over the years. She notes that, notwithstanding your failure at rehabilitation at the beginning of the year, you are strongly motivated to remain drug-free and offence-free into the future. 36. Ms Lechner notes that your exit from the residential rehabilitation program at the beginning of the year appeared to have occurred after you had taken a painkiller after a tooth extraction. You were given the painkiller, but that led to problems at Windana. Whilst Ms Lechner considers that the sentencing disposition is a matter entirely for the court to determine, from a psychological perspective, you require engagement with treatment services both in custody and on your release. She notes that you will need to engage the NDIS program if this can be accessed because of your intellectual functioning, and that you would benefit from a more formal assessment for possible ASD, which

Ms Lechner considers may be the proper diagnosis rather than ADHD. 37. Mr Bell, who, as I say, appeared on your behalf, submitted that the following matters, in addition to those that I have already outlined, showed mitigatory offending. First of all, that you pleaded guilty at an early time; That your plea has a utilitarian benefit and is indicative of remorse. I note that Ms Lechner considers that you expressed remorse to her. Mr Bell points to the fact that you apologised to the police. You made some critical admissions to them about your drug use affecting your driving. 38. Second, that I should take into account your low IQ and the provisional diagnosis of ADHD, the possible diagnosis of ASD, the fact that you have suffered from anxiety and depression and that you also suffer from stimulant use disorder in partial remission in custody. 39. Next, it is submitted that your early childhood and upbringing enlivened the Bugmy and Herrmann principles. Mr Bell submits that your prospects of rehabilitation are inextricably linked to your drug use and your mental health but nevertheless I should consider that you have prospects of rehabilitation given the way that you have used your time in custody. The fact that you have family support, which was demonstrated in court. That you have some employment history and a determination to work, and you are determined to address your drug use. 40. Mr Bell submits that I must take into account the principle of totality, which, although there is a presumption of cumulation for Charges 6 and 7, totality can and should form a basis for departure from that presumption to ensure that a crushing sentence is not imposed in this case. Mr Bell concedes that dominant sentencing principals, the protection of the community, punishment, specific deterrence, general deterrence and denunciation all have a role to play in the sentencing consideration and as such a term of imprisonment with a non‑parole period is appropriate in this case, but that a non-parole period at the lesser end of the usual range ought to be imposed so that a lengthy parole period will improve your rehabilitative prospects. 41. Ms Guesdon, who prosecuted the matter, submitted that the objective gravity of your offending should be found to lie in the midrange. The seriousness of your offending is affected by the fact that you were under the influence of methylamphetamines, disqualified from driving and that you were subject to a CCO at the time. Ms Guesdon conceded that you are burdened by your borderline intellectual functioning and ADHD, but submitted that this was insufficient to enliven Verdins. As such, general deterrence, specific deterrence and protection of the community are the most important sentencing factors.

Ms Guesdon submitted that your lengthy and relevant criminal history has failed to deter you from re-offending. 42. The prosecution agrees and concedes that the general principles outlined in the High Court case of Bugmy do reduce moral culpability to a limited extent, but do elevate the need to protect the community. The prosecution agrees that you have exhibited genuine remorse. The prosecution submits that your prospects of rehabilitation depend almost entirely on your ability to cease using drugs, particularly methylamphetamines and that your prospects should be viewed as guarded. Nevertheless, the plea of guilty has utilitarian benefits. The prosecution notes there are no victim impact statements; however, the impact on police and members of the community, by the consequences of your conduct, is obvious. The prosecution submits that a period of imprisonment is the only possible sentence. 43. I turn then to my analysis. I am satisfied that your plea of guilty was made at an early time and that your plea, together with other expressions, exhibit remorse for your offending. As such, I am satisfied that your plea has utilitarian benefit and, at least to some extent, facilitates the course of justice. I note the reports of Borg and Lechner and the fact that you suffer from significant cognitive deficits. I note your IQ, the learning deficits that you suffered during your childhood, and as such, I am satisfied that the principles of Bugmy and the general principles of Herrmann apply to your circumstances, such that there should be at least some small reduction in your moral culpability. I take note of the disadvantage you suffer, but I also consider that there must be some elevation of the protection of the community as a consequence. 44. As a general principle, the courts and the public are well tired of police and members of the public being put at risk; Police for doing their job and members of the public who use roadways and adjacent areas from being put at risk by methylamphetamine users taking to the roads. Now I am not using that as a statement to surreptitiously promote general deterrence, but I note in your case, Mr Craig, you have an appalling driving record, and an element of protection of the community must come into play in the sentencing consideration. I consider that your prospects for rehabilitation are guarded but not entirely extinguished. It seems to me that, having been arrested, you displayed some immediate insight. You immediately apologised and you made admissions to using drugs. Since that time, you have been motivated to abstain from drug use. 45. I also note, as Dr Borg and Ms Lechner do, that you have a history of reverting to drug use. But for the fact that you are using your time in custody constructively and you are acting as a mentor to other young men coming into the system, I am satisfied that, as I say, your prospects for rehabilitation, whilst guarded, are not extinguished. Ms Lechner notes the need for high-intensity intervention and family support. It is critical that whilst you are in custody, you take the steps, and I appreciate that you will need help to do this, to try and get a statement of intellectual disability so that you can apply for, again with help, an NDIS package. 46. It seems to me that if you have NDIS in place, family support and if you are willing to take the help and support that the indigenous cultural support workers will give you, because the one principal feature of Aboriginal support is that they look after all people who come to an awareness and understanding of their culture late. They give them the support and education that they need, and you will find great comfort from that. So if you can put those into play, if, with a period of parole, you are able to get some psychological and drug support, and if you are able to find some work, then, Mr Craig, you do have real prospects for your rehabilitation. 47. I take into account that although there is a presumption of cumulation between Charges 6 and 7, and there will be some cumulation, I must sentence you having real regard to the principle of totality. That is, I must not simply add periods of cumulation together or calculate sentences that may be mathematically correct, that do not take account of the fact that such a sentence may end up being crushing. I take that into account, and I have endeavoured to impose a sentence and periods of cumulation that are not crushing. I take into account the comparable cases referred to by your counsel. I also take into account the cases of McKay, Nelson and the sentence I imposed last week in the case of Quinton. In relation to Quinton, I note that you may have a lower moral culpability, but you were driving a truck in conditions and in locations that made your driving truly frightening for members of the public. 48. I am just about to come to the actual sentences that I will impose. Mr Craig, on Charge 1, the charge of attempted theft of a motor vehicle, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. 49. On Charge 2, the charge of burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. 50. On Charge 3, the theft of the bicycle, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment. 51. On Charge 4, the charge of theft of the truck, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. 52. On Charge 5, the charge of conduct endangering persons, you are convicted and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. 53. On Charge 6, the charge of aggravated offence exposing police to risk, you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, and Charge 6 is the base sentence. 54. On Charge 7, the further offence of aggravated offence of recklessly exposing police to risk, you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. 55. On Charge 8, the charge of conduct endangering, that is, the general driving, you are convicted and sentenced to 17 months' imprisonment. 56. On Charge 9, the charge of criminal damage of the police car, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. 57. On Charge 10, the charge of possession of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to one month's imprisonment. 58. On summary charge 5 of driving a car when directed by police to stop, you are convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. 59. On summary charge 40 of driving with proscribed drugs in your system, you are convicted and fined $500. 60. On drive whilst disqualified, summary charge 47, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment. 61. On summary charge 55, careless driving, you are convicted and fined $500. 62. On summary charge 56, failing to stop after an accident, you are convicted and fined $300. 63. On summary charge 57, careless driving, you are convicted and fined $500. 64. On summary charge 58, failing to stop after an accident, you are convicted and fined $400. 65. The periods of cumulation are as follows. These are all cumulated on

Charge 6 and on each other. On Charge 2, you are sentenced to one month's cumulation. On Charge 4, I cumulate two months. On Charge 5, I cumulate three months. On Charge 7, I cumulate six months. On Charge 8, I cumulate eight months. On summary charge 5, I cumulate one month, and on summary charge 47, I cumulate one month. The total effective sentence should therefore be a sentence of 40 months. That is four zero months, and I order that you serve a non-parole period of 25 months. 66. I declare the period of detention already served of 429 days, excluding today, reckoned as already served. 67. In addition to the periods of imprisonment and fines, on Charge 4, you are disqualified for three months from driving. That commences today. On Charges 6 and 7, you are disqualified from driving for 30 months. That is three zero months starting today. On Charge RSC5 of failing to stop, you are disqualified from driving for 12 months starting today and on RSC40, driving with more than the prescribed concentration of drugs, you are disqualified from driving for 12 months from today. 68. Ms Coverdale, is that all the periods of disqualification as far as you are aware? 69. MS COVERDALE: Yes. I believe that's all the mandatory disqualifications. 70. HIS HONOUR: Thank you, 6AAA declaration, but for the plea of guilty, all things being equal, I would have imposed a sentence of five and a half years with three years eight months to serve. 71. Mr Bell, any matters from your perspective? 72. MR BELL: There's just a handful of matters, Your Honour. 73. HIS HONOUR: Yes, a handful? 74. MR BELL: They're all quite minor, but they're worth mentioning. 75. HIS HONOUR: Yes. 76. MR BELL: The first matter is that my client was born in 1996, and so he turned 29 on Monday, not 30. 77. HIS HONOUR: Twenty-nine. Thank you. I'm always innumerate. So yes, I will make that change to the sentencing remarks. 78. MR BELL: Thank you, Your Honour. The second matter, and I believe I wrote this down correctly, is that Your Honour may have used the phrase that my client wasn't aware of his cultural heritage. 79. HIS HONOUR: I thought I was told he was not aware until relatively recently. 80. MR BELL: No. My submission was that he was aware of it. It's just that he hasn't had any engagement with it. 81. HIS HONOUR: Engagement. All right. Well, but his engagement is only relatively recent? 82. MR BELL: Since his time on remand, Your Honour. 83. HIS HONOUR: I'll make that amendment as well, Mr Bell. 84. MR BELL: I'm gazumping my friend here but I believe there was also a disposal order that was sought. 85. HIS HONOUR: Yes, I'll make that in chambers if it's not opposed. 86. MR BELL: I believe I heard Your Honour correctly in that when Your Honour made the remark that there was warranted a small reduction of moral culpability, Your Honour referred to the principles of Bugmy. I might have caught Your Honour referring to Verdins as well. 87. HIS HONOUR: No, I referred to Herrmann. 88. MR BELL: I misheard then, Your Honour. I'll withdraw that matter. 89. HIS HONOUR: So I was referring to paragraphs 46 and 47 of Herrmann in the Court of Appeal. 90. MR BELL: Yes. It was Herrmann, Your Honour. 91. HIS HONOUR: Yes. 92. MR BELL: I'll withdraw that then, Your Honour, and the last matter is,

Your Honour raised the maximum penalty in relation to summary charge 40. That's the s49(1)(bb) matter. 93. HIS HONOUR: Yes. 94. MR BELL: It's actually a third offence, and so the maximum penalty is under s49(3AAA)(c). It's 120 penalty units. The reason for that, Your Honour,

is - does Your Honour have a copy of the Road Safety Act priors handy? 95. HIS HONOUR: Yes. 96. MR BELL: My client has a theft of motor vehicle charge that was dealt with on 6 December 2017, and the finding was made that it was under the influence of a drug. 97. HIS HONOUR: Yes. 98. MR BELL: And so that counts as a subsequent as well. As a prior, if I can put it that way. 99. HIS HONOUR: Mr Bell, I'm not saying this sarcastically, but I don't intend to increase the fine as a consequence of that. 100. MR BELL: No, I was just addressing Your Honour's question from earlier. 101. HIS HONOUR: Yes. Thank you. I'm grateful, but it would not cause me to increase the penalty. 102. MR BELL: As the court pleases. 103. HIS HONOUR: All right. Now they're the matters? 104. MR BELL: They are the matters, Your Honour. 105. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Bell, do you want the opportunity to speak to Mr Craig over the link? 106. MR BELL: If I can have a - I'm looking to conference with my client subsequent to this, but if I can have a few minutes with my client once the court rises. 107. HIS HONOUR: Yes. I'm more than happy to do that. I'll just need to clear the court so that I can do that. 108. MR BELL: Yes, Your Honour. 109. HIS HONOUR: And in doing so, I'm just going to thank the Corrections staff who have been present throughout the circuit for their work, and thanks to the good work of the media that have always accurately reported the matters over the course of the circuit. I'm very grateful. So I'll give you that opportunity to speak to Mr Craig, Mr Bell. So Ms Coverdale, thanks for your appearance today and over the circuit, and I'll ask you to exit. 110. MS COVERDALE: Thank you, Your Honour.