DPP v McNeight [2018] VCC 619

The first trial - Alexis Baird and Hayley Sutton

1. Dealing with the offences that were dealt with in the first trial, it is necessary to set out in some detail the acts which give rise to the specific charges.
2. The two complainants in the first trial, Alexis Baird and Hayley Sutton, were the daughters of two families befriended by you in 1998. Alexis was born in March 1998.
3. Because at the time of the offending the complainants were young children, I shall use their first names when referring to them.
4. Alexis is the daughter of Rebecca Cabrera[5] later married to Samuel Cabrera.[6] Alexis said in her evidence at the special hearing that you were like a grandfather to her and that you had known her since she was about 15 months old.
5. When she was aged 18 months her mother, who was at that time a single parent, moved into your residence, staying there for about two years. You began offending against Alexis when she was between three and four years old and it ceased when she was ten.
6. Hayley was born in May 1996. She first came into contact with you when she was five as her family then lived next door to Alexis and her family. Her parents are Sara[7] and Benjamin Marsh[8].
7. You had very close associations with the families and you would sometimes babysit the two girls. The girls themselves were very close friends, as if they were cousins, and they virtually grew up together. The two girls often stayed the night at your house. You would involve them in games with them running around naked while you chased them and grabbed their legs and thighs.
8. On one occasion you took photographs of Hayley jumping on the couch naked. You also took photographs of Alexis when she was naked on a different occasion.
9. The first incident occurred on an occasion when you were babysitting the children at your home and you screened a pornographic movie in the children's presence. That is the subject of Charges 1 and 14, an indecent act with a child under 16.
10. You also told them to remove their clothes and lie naked in the bed beside you. That is Charge 2 and Charge 15, further charges of an indecent act with a child under 16.
11. The second incident was on another babysitting occasion when you took the girls to Hungry Jacks and they were given a microphone toy with their meal. Later at your house you made Hayley lie you on your bed and instructed her to spread her legs, telling her, "Don't be afraid". You then rubbed her vagina with the toy and inserted it into her vagina. That is Charge 3, sexual penetration of a child under 16.
12. You were charged with having done the same things with Alexis. You were found not guilty of the charge of sexual penetration against her but found to have committed the alternative Charge 16 of an indecent act against her.
13. On a further babysitting occasion you obtained from a wardrobe a recorder, a musical instrument like a flute, and played nursery songs to the children. You told Hayley to lie on the bed and you inserted the recorder into her vagina. That is Charge 4, sexual penetration of a child under 16.
14. You were also charged with the same offence against Alexis. You were found not guilty of that charge but found to have committed of the alternative, Charge 17, of committing an indecent act against her.
15. You were also found to have committed an indecent act against Alexis by touching her vagina with your finger. That is the alternative Charge 18.
16. You then placed your finger into Hayley's vagina, Charge 5. You said to her, "Don't tell Mummy and Daddy. It's our little secret" and you told her not to be afraid.
17. You were found not guilty of a related charge, Charge 6, and not guilty of the two similar charges relating to Alexis.
18. On one occasion when babysitting the two girls, you told Alexis to lie in bed with Hayley and you cuddled Hayley while you masturbated yourself until you ejaculated. That gives rise to Charges 7 and 20, indecent act with a child under 16, which you were found to have committed.
19. Later the two families moved to another town where you would visit them occasionally. You were not found to have committed any further offences against Hayley, and so the remaining charges relate to Alexis. They are charges 25 - 32 and you were found to have committed them.
20. During a visit, you told Alexis to masturbate the family dog by placing her hand onto the dog's penis. That gives rise to Charges 25 and 26, indecent act with a child under 16.
21. Alexis's family returned to live in the same town as you and further incidents occurred there. Charges 27 and 29, indecent acts, occurred when you rubbed the recorder and a shaving brush on Alexis's vagina.
22. Charge 28 is a charge of sexual penetration, inserting the recorder into Alexis' vagina. Charge 30 is a charge of sexual penetration of a child which you committed by inserting a vibrator into Alexis' vagina.
23. Charge 31 occurred when you screened a pornographic movie in Alexis' presence and got her to masturbate herself with the vibrator.
24. Charge 32 occurred when you penetrated her vagina to a slight extent with your penis.
25. On 28 February 2015 Ms Baird disclosed your offending to her family friends and her mother and said that Hayley Sutton had also been abused. Ms Baird's mother rang Ms Sutton's mother who contacted her daughter who then disclosed the offending to her mother. The matter was then reported to the police.

The second trial Stacey McNeil and Danielle Macais

1. I come now to the second trial involving the complainants Stacey McNeil and Danielle Macias. The background to these offences needs to be explained by reference to the fact that Rebecca and Samuel Cabrera separated and you maintained your friendship with Samuel Cabrera. His new partner was Maya Levy[9] and she had two daughters, the complainants Stacey and Danielle.
2. Stacey was born in June 2007. She was about three years old when she first came into contact when her mother began dating Mr Cabrera. At the start of the offending she was six years old and it continued until she was seven.
3. Danielle was born in February 2009. She was four years old when the offending began and it ceased when Stacey made her disclosures to the family on Danielle's sixth birthday.
4. At the trial you were found to have committed the following offences:

Charges 1 to 8 relate to Stacey and Charges 9 to 11 relate to Danielle. Both children were babysat by you, usually fortnightly on a Friday night. On the alternate weekend you would go camping with the family at their caravan.

1. Charge 1 is a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 when you tickled Stacey and inserted your fingers into her vagina. You also masturbated in her presence. That is Charge 2, committing an indecent act with a child.
2. On another occasion you inserted a vibrator into her vagina, Charge 3, an indecent act. On a different occasion you placed her hand on your erect penis and masturbated yourself to ejaculation. That is Charge 4, a further indecent act.
3. Charge 5 occurred when you played a pornographic movie in her presence and you masturbated. The masturbation is an uncharged act.
4. Your behaviour on several occasions did not result in any charges but demonstrated continuing sexual abuse of the child.
5. On an occasion at the camping ground you inserted your fingers into her vagina and told her to touch your penis. Those are Charges 6 and 7, sexual penetration and indecent act.
6. When babysitting her at your home one night, you walked naked in the house with an erect penis and then masturbated. That is Charge 8.
7. As to the charges against Danielle, Charge 9 is a charge of digital sexual penetration of a child under 16, which occurred when you were babysitting her and her sister.
8. The two further charges involving Danielle are Charges 10 and 11 and they seem to have been left off this version of the sentence. So I think I will continue and I will come back to that a little later and add those two to the record.
9. Your offending was disclosed in February 2015 when you were babysitting the children. After a minor disagreement with them you drove to the home of their grandfather Ronald Levy[10] and left them on the nature strip. Stacey had returned home without her underwear and Mr Levy and his daughter-in-law became suspicious as to whether you may have sexually assaulted her. Stacey disclosed the offending and the police were contacted a few days later.
10. A few days after that you were arrested and your home was searched. A number of items were found which were consistent with the items described by the complainants used upon them during the offending, including vibrators, a dildo and a recorder.
11. You denied the offences but acknowledge or admitted the general and non-sexual circumstances described by the complainants and consistent with the offending. You admitted having the children run around naked and encouraging them to engage in highly sexual behaviour while denying this was inappropriate in any way or that you had any involvement.
12. Now I notice that two members of the public left the court room a little while ago. Perhaps my associate could let them know that they can come back in.
13. MS PARKES: Thank you, Your Honour.
14. HER HONOUR: I now turn to deal with the steps taken towards an appropriate order under the Act. On 11 October 2017 I made a declaration under s.26 of the Act that you were liable for supervision. That was necessary because you have been found unfit to stand trial. It set in train a request from the Department of Health and Human Services for a certificate of available services under s.47 of the Act and a report under s.41.
15. The report from forensic psychologist Mr Peter Stanislawski stated that you do not have an intellectual disability and therefore there are no services available for you. He made certain recommendations as to your management, supervision and treatment including the need to live in an aged care facility and with your management being reviewed regularly. Mr Stanislawski considered that you are at average risk of reoffending sexually and that you need treatment as a sex offender tailored to your capacity to recall and implement relapse prevention strategies. He considered group treatment was contraindicated. He considered you should be referred to day programs such as the Men's Shed and that in terms of supervision you require at least one face-to-face contact every second month with a case manager or supervising officer.
16. Mr Stanislawski's detailed report also set out the concerns as to risk which I have carefully considered. (I note that his opinion is pertinent also to questions which should be considered as part of your treatment[11].) These concerns include your capacity to deceive, as demonstrated by the history you gave Mr Stanislawski and the manner of giving it. He concluded that you are capable of manipulation and what he termed "impression management". This could lead to untrained support workers either dismissing or diminishing your capacity to reoffend noting that you offended both before and after the strokes in 2009 that have been associated with the onset of dementia[12]. Indeed, Mr Stanislawski provided a very firm view of the ways in which you should be managed by those who support and supervise you[13], although elsewhere in his report he stated that the most effective risk management strategy is to control access to victims.[14]
17. Section 47 sub-s.3 of the Act provides that if no services are available, the certificate may contain other options that the Secretary to the Department of Health and Human Services considers appropriate for the court to consider. The certificate in your case states that the Department made a referral to the aged care assessment service at Ballarat Health Services to assess your condition of dementia which is understood to be the result of the strokes you suffered in 2009 and 2010. Recommendations were also sought regarding your current and future care needs, and the community programs to which you may have access for support and counselling in keeping with Mr Stanislawski's recommendation.
18. One of his recommendations was for a neuropsychological assessment which was undertaken by Mr Martin Jackson. Mr Jackson had available to him the reports from the practitioners I have mentioned as well as a recent report from a geriatrician, Dr Alfie Obieta, dated 16 February 2018.
19. Dr Obieta had concluded that there was no evidence of progressive ongoing cognitive decline and that you were managing with only minimal formal community supports. He thought it likely that owing to your level of independence you would not thrive in community care.
20. Mr Jackson concluded from the tests he administered that there is no evidence of a disorder of impulse control, but that your planning and organisational skills are moderately impaired. Otherwise your cognitive functioning is predominantly intact. Some impairments to your executive functioning are likely to be due to longstanding cerebrovascular disease evidenced by changes seen on brain scans examined by Mr Jackson.
21. He considers that you have the ability to comply with a Supervision Order, and the intellectual and other abilities to understand, learn and remember the obligations such an order would place on you. He considers that you also have the ability to manage these independently, although with some assistance from your family.
22. Overall Mr Jackson agreed with the opinions of Mr Stanislawski and Dr Obieta and he does not think you are as cognitively impaired as previous reports suggested. He noted that those reports were obtained around the time when you were first charged with the offences and may have reflected your anxiety at that time.

1. As I have said, because you were found unfit for trial, I declared you liable for supervision. Under s.26(1) of the Act a supervision order must be made and the options are a Custodial Supervision Order (CSO) or a Non-Custodial Supervision Order (NCSO). Because you have no cognitive impairment, it follows that there are no services available for you under the legislation and arguably no treatment which can be mandated and no supervisor appointed.
2. Custody under a Supervision Order must be in an appropriate place, not prison, unless there is no practicable alternative in the circumstances[15]. The Act provides that a person who is placed on a Supervision Order, either Custodial or Non-Custodial is deemed to be in the custody of the Secretary to the Department of Health and Human Services[16], and it is noted that a person in custody in a prison is in the custody of the Secretary to the Department of Justice.
3. The Court of Appeal in the case of Richards [17] dealt with a situation comparable to yours. The appellant, charged with sexual offences against a child, had been found unfit to stand trial due to a significant cognitive impairment. Following two special hearings when juries found the appellant had committed several of the charges, he was declared liable for supervision.
4. After a series of assessments, the appellant was found not to have an intellectual disability, and so a certificate was provided stating that there were no appropriate services or facilities available. Furthermore the Department of Justice and Regulation stated that it did not consider that it had the legislative authority to supervise a person subject to a Non-Custodial Supervision Order.[18]
5. Ms Parkes and Mr Fitzgerald, I am just going to have a short break. I am going to use that time to just track down the details in relation to Charges 11 and 12 and I will return in about ten minutes.
6. MR FITZGERALD: If Your Honour pleases.
7. (Short adjournment.)
8. HER HONOUR: Now I understand that my associate has given you the correct versions of the draft of remarks.
9. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, Your Honour.
10. MS PARKES: Yes, Your Honour.
11. HER HONOUR: Thank you.
12. Continuing where I left off a few moments ago. The sentencing judge in the case of Richards determined that there was no alternative but to make a Custodial Supervision Order to be served in prison, and reluctantly he so ordered. Such a disposition is in effect an indefinite term of imprisonment with there being no power to fix a non-parole period.
13. It is important that it be spelt out that like the appellant in that case, you,

Mr McNeight, are being dealt with under specific legislation, the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness To Be Tried) Act and so I have no power to sentence you to a term of imprisonment in what might be described as the usual way under the Sentencing Act which would provide for your punishment as one of the sentencing goals. 14. Clearly these are very serious charges and would, in other circumstances, attract a very substantial prison sentence. Because you were found to be unfit to stand trial, punishment is not a consideration in your case. Rather, it is your treatment that is the focus of my decision as well as the factors I must consider under s.40(1) of the Act including risk to others and the need for the protection of the community. 15. I also have to pay attention to s.26(4) of the Act which states that:

"The court must not make a supervision order committing a person to custody in a prison unless it is satisfied that there is no practicable alternative in the circumstances."

"...consider the principle that restrictions on a person's freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to the minimum consistent with the safety of the community."

1. Returning to the case of Richards, the Court of Appeal decided that a court may make a Non-Custodial Supervision Order even if it does receive a certificate stating that services referred to in s.26(3)(b) are not available.[19]
2. On appeal, the appellant in that case was placed on a Non-Custodial Supervision Order to be supervised by the Director of Public Prosecutions as being best place to manage risk to the community.
3. In your case, I have had the advantage of hearing on two occasions from Ms Coombs, representing the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office who outlined some of the problems that would face the Office of Corrections if they were required to supervise your treatment and progress in the community rather than in prison.
4. It has now transpired that one of those problems could be met by providing one- on-one sex offender treatment, subject, however, to an assessment which must be performed.
5. Ms Coombs was not instructed to convey to the court that the Office of Corrections would undertake your supervision because it is not an appropriate authority under the Act.
6. This brings me to the decision of His Honour Judge Murphy of this court in the case of DPP v James[20] to impose a Non-Custodial Supervision Order supervised by the Department of Justice with conditions resembling those that would commonly be part of a Community Correction Order including a sex offender program.
7. A Community Correction Order is not available to you, and was not in that other case, because it is a sentence available only under the Sentencing Act. You are not being sentenced for the reasons I have already explained.
8. The material before me and the evidence I heard yesterday from your daughter-in-law Ms Deveraux, satisfies me that there would be adequate monitoring of you if you remained in the community. She and your son Bradley have two young children with whom you have no contact as decided by their parents. You are visited twice weekly by your other son Ashley and other family members also visit regularly and take you to appointments.
9. The risk of you reoffending is considered to be average and you are capable of learning how to avoid the risk. You have already taken steps to arrange counselling of a general nature with a psychologist and you are prepared to take part in a sex offender program provided through Corrections, as I have indicated. That takes place in Melbourne and your family members are prepared to take you there.
10. You attend a community program each week and other possibilities will be explored as well by your family. You attend church on Sundays. Your engagement in such activities is fairly limited presently and should be increased, as recommended by Mr Stanislawski.
11. The risk that exists might be reduced if you were to live in other accommodation such as an aged care home because it would provide an opportunity for some degree of monitoring.
12. It would also remove the risk noted by Mr Stanislawski in his report that living alone is a risk factor. [21] Arguably it could also increase the risk of you coming into contact with children, a risk that appears to be well-managed at the present time.
13. This is linked to another considerable concern. The fact that because you live independently, you move around the community doing your shopping and so on, and you are often seen by the complainants and their families. This is distressing for them and it is quite understandable that seeing you revives the trauma they have experienced and are trying to overcome.
14. They have explained this in their victim impact statements and it is sad to read the extent of the impact and the way the very great hurt caused by you, and anger towards you has permeated the families. Your behaviour has caused great harm to them.
15. The weight of the evidence, including that of the victims and their families, in relation to your accommodation, points towards the desirability of you moving into an aged care home or the equivalent. Ms Deveraux said the family has already begun to have those discussions and the necessary funding will be made available.
16. I heard yesterday from Ms Coombs that notwithstanding the view of the Office of Corrections, that it is not an appropriate "person" to supervise you, a suitable sex offender program might be available to offer to you. That resource, together with counselling and various day programs, and the proposed monitoring by your family in combination satisfies me that I can impose a Non-Custodial Supervision order. I am satisfied that there is a practicable alternative to imprisonment as I am required to consider under s.26(4).
17. Accordingly you will be released on that Order to be under the supervision of the Department of Justice or their delegate, which in effect means you will be supervised by the Office of Corrections. You can continue to live in your current address until such time as arrangements are made for you to reside in suitable alternative accommodation as directed by those supervising you. You must abide by any lawful directions to comply with assessment, testing and treatment and you must attend any specialised offender programs, including a sex offender program as directed.
18. Reports as to your progress will have to be provided to the court at regular intervals. The first such report, dealing primarily with your accommodation arrangements, must be provided within six months of today's date. I will list a date in mid-November when the case will return before me.
19. I now turn to the next question, the duration of the order I am imposing. Under s.27, a Supervision Order is for an indefinite term but s.28 requires the court to set a nominal term. In this case, to be equivalent to the maximum term of imprisonment for the most serious offence you committed. Accordingly I set the nominal term of this Order at 25 years which begins today.
20. If you do not comply with any of the conditions of the order, the Secretary may apply to vary the order or you can apply to vary the order. Non-compliance could result in the order being changed to a Custodial Supervision Order and you would then be sent to prison. In the meantime, after the first review in six months' time, there will be a review every 12 months following that date.
21. The final condition will be that you attend the Office of Corrections no later than 4 pm next Monday, so you have two full days within which to go there. You will be placed on the Sex Offenders Register, meaning that you must provide your details to the police every year for the rest of your life.
22. Now I am just going to briefly return to that part of my remarks where I dealt with the final part of the offending to include Charges 10 and 11.
23. They were charges against Danielle Macias. Ms Macias, if you are in court and you do not wish to stay here just for the next couple of minutes, then you certainly may leave if you wish to, but it will not take long.
24. After I had dealt with Charge 9 I should have gone on to say: Charge 10 was penetration of her vagina with your tongue, and Charge 11 occurred when you rubbed a vibrator on the child's vagina on the outside of her underwear. So that was the completion of those charges.
25. Now returning to the Sex Offenders Register, that form has been prepared,

Mr Fitzgerald. 26. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, Your Honour. 27. HER HONOUR: Would you like to accompany my associate to

Mr McNeight for him to sign it? Is that appropriate in the circumstances? 28. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, Your Honour. 29. HER HONOUR: Now Mr Fitzgerald, I have provided you and Ms Parkes with a page setting out the proposed orders. 30. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, Your Honour. 31. HER HONOUR: There is an alteration to the nominal term at the bottom of the page should be 25. 32. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, I see that, Your Honour. 33. HER HONOUR: There may be others. That is why I have provided them so that you and Ms Parkes can have a look. Do you want to have a bit of time to reflect on those and let me know whether they cover all the matters necessary? 34. MR FITZGERALD: They seem to, from my point of view, Your Honour, I had a brief discussion when Your Honour had a brief break, about the specifics of the charges at the top of the page and I think that it is good that is agreed to be correct, Your Honour, as I understand it. Excuse just a moment, if I may just 35. HER HONOUR: Yes, certainly. 36. MR FITZGERALD: Your Honour, I cannot see anything but just as an out of abundance of caution, Your Honour, perhaps to allow my learned friend and I to have a brief discussion about it. 37. HER HONOUR: Certainly. I will just add too that the copy of the remarks I gave you is of course a draft. I think the word "draft" appears on every page. 38. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, it does. 39. HER HONOUR: The revised version will become available in a week or so but I would ask you just to treat this very specifically as a draft only. 40. MR FITZGERALD: Understood, Your Honour, thank you. 41. HER HONOUR: How long do you think you might need? 42. MR FITZGERALD: I would hope only a few minutes, Your Honour. 43. MS PARKES: Yes, Your Honour. 44. HER HONOUR: All right, I will return shortly. 45. (Short adjournment.) 46. HER HONOUR: Yes. 47. MS PARKES: From our perspective, Your Honour, two matters. At F, a tighter timeframe in terms of Mr McNeight's family advising as to the aged care arrangements. So three months in terms of a review. That would be our preference. 48. HER HONOUR: What about if it were listed for mention in three months? 49. MS PARKES: Yes. 50. HER HONOUR: If there are any concerns it could be listed a month or so after that. We could hear at the mention what the progress was in terms of the housing. 51. MS PARKES: Yes. 52. HER HONOUR: So rather than requiring reports et cetera 53. MS PARKES: Yes, rather than a full review, perhaps a mention would suffice. 54. HER HONOUR: Yes, a mention. 55. MS PARKES: An additional condition, Your Honour, being no contact with children, or no unsupervised contact with children. 56. HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you. 57. MS PARKES: Thank you, Your Honour. 58. HER HONOUR: Yes, Mr Fitzgerald? 59. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, Your Honour. My submission is in relation to the latter point. It would be unsupervised and under 16 given the time - given the frame, the way it worked is the risk likelihood referred to by Mr Stanislawski. So in other words, no unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16. 60. HER HONOUR: You are content with that? 61. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, Your Honour. 62. HER HONOUR: All right. 63. MR FITZGERALD: Your Honour, in my submission, as discussed yesterday, the reality of exploring various options with aged care facilities, calling them nursing homes essentially, in the area, I understand there are some which would be inappropriate because victims and or family members work at some of those in the area. 64. HER HONOUR: Yes, I have heard that. 65. MR FITZGERALD: So obviously they have to be excluded as possibilities and that really, six months is in fact a realistic timetable. 66. HER HONOUR: Taking into account Ms Parkes' point, the danger in that is that six months might go by and we find that virtually nothing has happened. So if a mention were to take place in three months then I could hear what progress has been made in terms of those enquiries and we could take it from there. 67. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, Your Honour. Well I have nothing further to add. 68. HER HONOUR: All right. So just let me have a look at how that would be altered. I think if paragraph F is struck out completely, and replaced with something like this? "A mention should be listed three months from today's date" and just before I go any further, I will just check with my associate as to the practicalities of that date. 69. So a mention to be held in mid-July and I will come to the date in a minute. Then I think we could continue on with paragraph F, reports as to progress to be provided to the court at regular intervals. The first such report to be provided within six months of today's date. So that could be maintained. Brought back for review on 13 November. Thereafter the same wording for review at intervals of 12 months. So that just builds in a mention in July. 70. MS PARKES: Yes, Your Honour. 71. HER HONOUR: Sub-paragraph G will be that there be no unsupervised contact with children under 16, Mr Fitzgerald, the usual way, if this were a Community Correction Order, which it is not, the offender concerned is usually asked if they have agreed to all of these conditions. That is not appropriate in this case. 72. MR FITZGERALD: No, with respect I agree with that. 73. HER HONOUR: There is nothing for him to sign. He simply understands now, presumably, perhaps to be reinforced by you, later, what these conditions are and most importantly that he go to the Office of Corrections by

4 o'clock next Monday. I do not have the address handy but I am sure someone can provide that. 74. MR FITZGERALD: We will find that out, Your Honour, and I will undertake to go through the conditions with Mr McNeight and his family, Your Honour, who are present. 75. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you very much. Are there any other matters that I have neglected? 76. MS PARKES: No, Your Honour. 77. MR FITZGERALD: No, Your Honour. 78. HER HONOUR: Excuse me a moment, there might be. The mention date. Can I suggest Tuesday 17 July at 9.30? I am flexible about that a little bit. 79. MR FITZGERALD: The only thing that worried me, Your Honour, is I will be a trial that is running throughout July but a 9.30 am mention would be suitable. 80. HER HONOUR: It is suitable, is it? All right, yes. All right, 9.30 on the 17th. Is that all right with you, Ms Parkes? 81. MS PARKES: Yes, I am also on a trial, Your Honour, but 9.30 would suit me. 82. HER HONOUR: All right. Yes, my associate has suggested a video link. That would be suitable. I do not think your client needs to come here. 83. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, thank you for that, Your Honour. I am grateful for that suggestion. I will note it and ask that my instructor make the necessary arrangements perhaps or be in touch with Your Honour's associate about it anyway. 84. HER HONOUR: All right, I will leave it at that then. This is the end of quite a long process. So I thank Ms Parkes and you, Mr Fitzgerald, and your respective instructors for all your assistance during the process. Thank you.

[11] Report of Mr Peter Stanislawski dated 24/1/2018, p7

[15] Crimes (Mental and Unfitness to be tried) Act 1997, s.26(4)

[17] DPP v Richards (a pseudonym) (2017) VSCA 174

[21] Report of Mr peter Stanislawskiu dated 24/1/2018 p 6