DPP v Sultan [2021] VCC 2011

3 You were born in 1985 and you are 36 years of age. So your crimes cannot be put down to youthful folly or inexperience or exuberance.

4 The maximum penalties are correctly set out in the agreed opening. Ten years' imprisonment for Charges 1 and 2 and five years' imprisonment for Charge 3. The summary offence has a three month maximum term of imprisonment.

5 Mr Profitt appeared to prosecute on the plea and relied upon a written summary of prosecution opening dated 18 November 2021. That document was marked as Exhibit A on the plea. Your barrister Ms Freijah told me it was an agreed summary. In addition, there were two statements referred to in the agreed summary relating to the examination of the firearms. Those statements were marked as Exhibit B and they gave a better sense of the nature of the operational firearm as well as the imitation. It explained why there was reference in the summary and the charge to the imitation firearm being modified or altered. It had in fact been heavily modified with efforts taken by someone to create from that toy an operational handgun. They were not successful and hence it was still correctly to be described as an imitation weapon.

6 I see no need then to set out the full sentencing facts in these my reasons as I will sentence pursuant to that agreed material.**

**7 By way only of very brief summary, on 6 July 2021, two search warrants were executed upon your home address in Lalor.

8 During the search of the address, police located a black Harley Davidson motorcycle, confirmed to be an outstanding stolen bike and that was located in the front yard. There was a sawn-off .22 calibre rifle, which was located within a backpack in a shed at the rear of the premises and there was an imitation revolver located within a black bag under the bonnet of a grey Volkswagen Golf hatchback that was parked out in the front yard. That imitation hand gun was found with bullets of the calibre for which the imitation had been modified to use, though as I say, it is clear from the ballistics statement, the modification had not been successful. They were also of the same calibre as would be used by the sawn down weapon and there was also a single live round contained within the backpack which housed that sawn down weapon.

9 You were arrested and taken to the Reservoir Police Station and you were interviewed. The summary sets out some of your answers. You gave no real explanation for possessing either of these items. That was preferable to the explanations provided to the court, if I may say so.

10 You were a prohibited person at the time owing to the recency of a community corrections order with supervision.

12 You have been in custody since your arrest in July and that summary sets out the chronology of listing.

13 So much then for what is really my short summary of the summary. I will sentence pursuant to the more detailed statement which is marked as Exhibit A on the plea, as well as those additional statements. There are also some photographs of the firearm and imitation firearm though there is no need for me to mark them as exhibits as they are contained within the depositional material.

14 There is no victim impact statement in this case.

15 Your counsel Ms Freijah conducted the plea on your behalf and relied upon a six page written outline dated 29 November and marked as Exhibit 1.

16 She filed a report co-signed by Ms Kennedy and Dr Ball, as well as two character references and some clean drug screens. Also a large bundle of prison course completion documents and finally a letter confirming employment.

17 She placed before me the details of your personal and family background including your educational and employment history. She made some submissions as to the relative gravity of the offending, your reasons for possessing the weapons, your rehabilitative prospects as well as the relevant sentencing principles at play in this case.

• Your admissions and early guilty plea in the midst of the global pandemic;

• The impacts of COVID-19 upon your custodial experience;

• A level of disadvantage in your developmental background.

19 She conceded the inevitability of a prison sentence but was arguing that given your existing pre-sentence detention, that it would be open to release you onto a community corrections order. She was not suggesting that your release could be immediate. Look I do not want you riding every word of my sentencing remarks wondering if that will occur. So let me put you out of your misery. It just will not be happening. You will not be released today. The fact is I could not secure your release even if I thought it was appropriate, as you are held in custody on a variety of other matters. But the disposition sought by your counsel is really quite unrealistic for a number of other reasons which I will spell out in due course.

20 Mr Profitt had prepared some brief written submissions that were dated 3 December and which were marked as part of Exhibit A. They really were for the large part uncontroversial and went to matters of sentencing principle generally, and then specific to this particular case. He made submissions as to matters in aggravation and mitigation here and he pointed to your lack of response on past court orders. He dealt with the seriousness of this offending and the need to deter you. I do not feel the need to descend to the full detail of those written submissions.

21 The prosecution was calling for a prison term. These days, they are debarred from making a submission as to range. As to the possible release mechanism, well the prosecution submitted that was really a matter for the court. Whether the sentence was of a dimension able to accommodate a community corrections order was further a matter for the court. A non-parole period was, of course, one other obvious option.

22 I turn to your background and I will do so briefly and that is because I have no reason to doubt the details of your personal and family background that has been placed before me so I accept that account.

23 You are now 36 years of age and you were born in Kuwait in 1985 and migrated to Australia in the Year 2000 with your family and that was owing to the Gulf War in Kuwait. Well that brief sentence glosses over a pretty diabolical phase of your early life. Your counsel developed that submission very late in the plea. Up to that point, I really had no idea that the well-known case of Bugmy[1] was being relied upon here as it had not been mentioned in the written outline. I asked your counsel and she submitted that that case had some application and was being relied upon to an extent. Well I accept that it does have application here. The expert report goes into a level of detail about your early life. I see no need to spell out all of that detail in my reasons. It is pretty obvious you saw many things you should never have seen and there must have been a level of instability and dysfunction brought about by living in that region at that time. Things once seen really cannot be unseen and you have laboured under issues connected up with post-traumatic stress order. It was hardly an ideal setting and I give your background full weight.

24 You did not speak any English at the time of your arrival. You and your family lived in Shepparton and you attended high school there but left too soon due to language difficulties. You started an English course at TAFE for a short period and subsequently worked on a farm for a few years. You are an Australian citizen so at least you do not face the prospect of deportation. I enquired directly of your counsel on that topic.

25 Your family moved to Melbourne where you got employment in various roles and maintained good employment for some six years. Until December 2020, you were employed at a factory but your father underwent open heart surgery and was very unwell. I was told that you could not risk bringing COVID-19 into the family home due to your father's condition and so you ceased employment at the factory.

26 You are a married man. You have three children and prior to your remand you lived in Lalor with your parents, wife, children and a couple of brothers. You had been the primary carer for your elderly parents who are not in great health and they still require ongoing assistance at home. Upon release, it is proposed that you would continue caring for your parents and also commence a part time factory job which awaits you. There is a letter from Levi Steed from Allied Glass.

27 I accept that it has not been a good time to be in custody and you have been subject to limitations including quarantine.

28 You have an extensive criminal history and you have been sent to prison frequently enough. You have breached many court orders. There are also a range of matters outstanding. As to the outstanding matters, some are to be contested. They are the matters that are listed in February of next year. I put those particular matters aside altogether. Other matters are listed tomorrow including a breach of a 2019 community corrections order and a range of other offences including that expanded list provided to me by your counsel after the plea. You are pleading guilty to those various matters and they include matters for which you were on bail at the time you committed the offences that I am dealing with. They included drug and dishonesty offences.

29 There really is no point in my conducting a line by line and page by page audit of what is a lengthy criminal history. There are many matters of relevance there. You know that.

30 You do not fall to be sentenced a second time for any of those past matters. You received and served sentences but that criminal history assumes real importance when I consider the need to deter you, and to protect the community from you. It is also relevant in informing my judgment as to your risk of reoffence and your prospects of rehabilitation. You just have not taken your chances. The need for deterrence is very plain here. I turn then to consider the matters raised by your counsel.

31 The first of those matters is your early guilty plea. Despite the lengthy listing chronology, your plea was entered at what I will treat as the earliest stage. It was your right to apply for summary jurisdiction. If I may so, it was quite correctly refused in this case. You were however always pleading guilty.

32 By pleading guilty you have taken this early responsibility for your offending. As a result of your early plea, the time, the cost and the effort of a committal hearing in the lower court or a trial up in this court have all been avoided. No witnesses have been required to give evidence at all.

33 You have in these ways then facilitated the course of justice.

34 Your guilty plea is also worthy of extra weight for the many reasons set out in the decision of Worboyes[2]. There is a large backlog of cases waiting for a hearing in this court. Your case is not one of them.

35 You also co-operated to a degree with the police and you made some damaging admissions there is no question about that. It was hardly a complete account but I take into account the fact of some co-operation and the admissions that you made to these offences.

36 So I take these various matters into account in mitigation.

37 On the issue of remorse, I have your early guilty plea. A guilty plea is often but not always indicative of at least some remorse. There are also the references in your brother's letter and the expert report. The problem is I have your account of the offending which is plainly nonsense. I say account but the account morphed in the course of the plea to an even more ridiculous account than the one that I had already been on notice of. When I raised the pretty obvious obstacles to any acceptance of the sawn down weapon being possessed for rabbit shooting, something which by the way was not mentioned in the police interview, I was asked by your counsel to stand the matter down. I did so and really I was hoping that you might see fit to provide something resembling a truthful account of your possession of these items. For all I knew there might have been something in mitigation in your personal circumstances which necessitated the possession of a weapon or at least explained your decision to possess one. Instead, your fresh instructions were that you did not realise when you purchased the .22 sawn off rifle that it was sawn off. I mean that on its face is just quite absurd and totally at odds with your interview where you described this process of buying it from a man on the train and going to obtain the cash, not that I believe for one moment that that was true either.

38 You also gave instructions to your counsel of buying the imitation handgun at the same time from that same person on the train. That was mentioned in the written submissions and of course, was a complete departure from your interview account. I asked your counsel why you had the imitation handgun and she could not further assist me. I do not accept that you are providing anything even resembling a truthful account as to why you had the sawn down firearm and the imitation. In the face of these frankly absurd instructions that you provided on the day of the plea for possession of these weapons, it is hard to find much remorse on display in this case. I am prepared to infer some from your early guilty plea and I do take that into account in your favour.

39 You have made admissions and have pleaded guilty at the earliest of stages and have some limited remorse. I am turning now then to the aspect of rehabilitation. You have been in custody already for a decent period and it has not been easy.

40 Your criminal history and the chronology of offending is very much problematic here. You just cannot or will not learn. You keep offending despite every effort taken to avoid sending you to prison. You breach community corrections orders which are designed to keep you out of prison. Not even being sent to prison deters you. You have not taken many of the chances offered to you and you are not some silly teenager. You are a grown mature adult who, for whatever reason, chooses to offend and seriously. You were on CISP bail at the time as well as being prohibited from possessing any firearm. Your most recent breach of a community corrections order from 2019 waits in the wings. You have breached numerous such orders since 2012. You are at least doing your best in custody and you are abstinent from drugs. You have done a large number of courses and of course that is to your credit. I accept that your mother and brother miss you and hope that you can return to the family home.

41 However, that is where you were when you chose to commit these offences.

42 You have had long term and significant issues with illegal drugs of dependence, including ice. That casts a significant shadow over your future prospects. So do your past failures to abide by many court orders and to be meaningfully deterred by you dealings in the criminal justice system.

43 You are back in custody and as I say, that has not been at all easy. No doubt the fact of apprehension, being charged and being brought before the court and being on remand to this point will serve to deter you to a degree. So too of course the sentence which I shall soon impose, which will be far longer than any you have ever served in the past.

44 You still have family support. You have a job to go to but that must wait I am afraid.

45 Your counsel argued that you have some reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. She really could not put it any higher than that.

46 I can only really be quite guarded here. I do accept that you have some prospects of rehabilitation. Those prospects are none too bright but there are at least some.

47 I have not spent any real time going to the report co-signed by Ms Hudson and Dr Ball. Nor shall I. Your counsel made clear the report is not relied upon as enlivening any of the principles from the case of Verdins.[3] However, I do not for one moment ignore the report. Without mentioning all the ways in which it is relied upon, the report has a useful description of your personality, of your makeup, of the diagnosis made, of your disadvantaged early social background and also your response to the offences. Also of the things that might be addressed to improve your chances at rehabilitation. I take into account the report in the ways contemplated by your counsel.

48 I also accept the submissions made by your counsel as to the impact of

COVID-19 restrictions on your custodial experience.

49 It is clear that the COVID-19 virus and the response to it by those who run the prisons has increased your prison burden. Prison has been a more stressful environment in the time that you have been there to this point. Social distancing, I am sure, is not easy. No doubt there is a worry about catching the virus in such a setting where, unlike someone in the community, there is just no level of autonomy. There have been some lockdowns and also quarantine.

50 There have been the limitations to visiting spoken of by your counsel and also the full range of courses in the period in which you have been held. You have not had visitors at all and of course, you have a young family so that is not easy.

52 What lies ahead on the pandemic front is really impossible for me to determine and I am not free to guess about that. I cannot speculate for instance about how long restrictions on prisoner visits will persist. We are starting to open up in the community with further easing of restrictions a few weeks back as we approach the 90% vaccination rate. Prisons seem to have lagged a bit behind the community in terms of restrictions being lifted. Presumably though, the restrictions in a prison setting will lift in due course. I cannot say exactly when that will happen.

53 I do take into account then that it seems likely that these current restrictions will continue in the future at least in the short term. I am sure that will produce some ongoing worry and uncertainty and increased burden. I take into account the increased burden posed by the response to COVID-19, in the ways contemplated by your counsel.**

54 I must pay regard to the nature and the gravity of the offences before the court. This was undoubtedly serious offending. You were prohibited from possessing any firearm at all. The accounts either in the interview or to your counsel by way of instructions are, as I have said, quite ridiculous. That is not your counsel's fault. She is acting on your instructions. For whatever reason, you will not tell me why you had the sawn down real weapon or the imitation. That is your choice but you say you had only had the sawn down weapon for a matter of weeks and the imitation for a month or two on your interview account. However long you had them, you had obtained them for some reason. You cannot have forgotten the reason. The alteration of your account when I raised my concerns about the use of the sawn down weapon to go rabbit shooting was instructive. You then instructed counsel that you had not noticed that it was a sawn down weapon. That was sillier still, as I mentioned earlier in these reasons. You just will not tell me why you possessed these items, which of course is your right. As it is my right to examine the nature of the items that you did possess and the circumstances in which they are possessed, and to consider the gravity of the instant offence from what I do know. Your account of buying the sawn down weapon from two men on a train is as absurd as the reasons advanced for having it. A less promising firearm with which to shoot rabbits would be hard to imagine. A sawn down weapon exists for ease of concealment. Now I cannot find that you were the person who shortened the weapon but you possessed it. It was shortened both at the stock and the barrel a matter, of course, quite impossible to overlook. This one was operational and you had ammunition of the right calibre. The imitation was a very realistic item indeed and it was secreted under the bonnet of a car in a pouch. As we know, there had been steps taken to render that imitation operational. It was sitting in a pouch with ammunition fitting the redesigned mechanism. It was not operational. Now I am not able to find that you are the person who modified the imitation weapon but that is the one that you possessed. It is actually a pretty serious imitation firearm in the circumstances that I have described

55 Why did you have either of these items? You will not tell me. That is not an aggravating feature.

56 Guns falling into the hands of the wrong people has always been of real concern in these courts. The principles dealing with a prohibited person possessing a firearm charge are very well established. Your counsel submitted that your possession falls into what is described as the lower class as mentioned in the case of Berichon.[4]

57 Cases of Best[5], as well as the cases of Powell[6] and Simpson[7] and many other cases for that matter refer to that earlier case of Berichon, which was an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal. That case of Berichon, has references to the sentences available for the higher category offending. There have been many other cases dealing with this issue including the case of Acciarito.[8]

58 These various cases describe the two broad categories of offending, as well as sentencing practices and range for each band. The first being the least serious band, where it is not open to conclude that the possession of the firearm was associated with some ongoing criminal purpose, and the more serious second category where the evidence enables that conclusion of possession for a criminal activity or specific criminal purpose. For example, in the context of criminal activity to provide security, or as a means of enforcement. By the way, sizeable enough sentences are imposed for that lower band of offending. The fact is though that Berichon has not established some fixed subcategories of offending which constrain the court's approach to the individual circumstances of the individual case. Sentencing does not involve that sort of mechanistic or automatic exercise. Secondly Berichon itself made clear that a heavier penalty might be warranted owing to the prior criminal history even absent other features of aggravation. That is obviously always subject to the need to impose a proportionate sentence (see Basic[9]).

59 No one could lawfully possess the style of actual firearm that you possessed. No one. You had it and it is plain from your criminal history that you are a criminal who commits offences relating to drugs and stolen property. It was a sawn down and operational weapon with a round in close proximity in a back pack. I have tried but I cannot think of any lawful use or non-criminal purpose to which either of these guns could be employed. There are only sinister or criminal purposes. It is true that neither the real weapon or the imitation are there and then being pressed into some imminent criminal exercise but there is just no sensible view of your possession other than there being a criminal or sinister motive for you having them. I am satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt. You were also on bail at the time.

60 It is obvious then to me, that the prohibited person charge with the real weapon is a long way removed from the low order examples of the offending that are referred to in those cases that I have mentioned. As to the imitation, well it was not some innocent toy found in some children's playthings or toy box. It was not something there for dress-ups or fancy dress or for display. It was not on display. It was not possessed as a joke. It was a realistic imitation and one that had been altered or modified and it was contained within a bag with ammunition which fitted the real weapon and the modified non-operational imitation. It was deliberately hidden under the bonnet of a car in the backyard. It is there to be accessed. You just will not tell me why.

61 This was serious offending. I do not, by the way, suggest that you are in the same position as the offender in Berichon.

62 The proceeds of crime offence is, of course, less serious but still serious enough. You have relevant prior convictions for all of these matters actually. Firearms, weapons and many dishonesty offences. One of the subsequent matters to which you are pleading guilty relates to possession of knuckledusters. There are a variety of other weapons offences, as well as the specific firearms prior convictions for which you were in fact imprisoned, many years ago.

63 The proceeds of crime matter I am dealing with relates to a valuable item worth some $20,000. You were on bail at the time for dishonesty offences.

64 I have to consider a number of purposes of sentencing. I do pay regard to your prospects of rehabilitation. I can only be quite guarded here. There are some prospects but other purposes assume greater importance in my task.

65 I must punish you and I must do that justly and proportionately. Punishment is an obvious and important consideration here.

66 I must also denounce your conduct. That also is important.

67 Community protection is also of importance given the nature of this conduct and your lack of response to many past orders.

68 I must pay appropriate weight to deterrence, both general and specific. There is the need for this court to deter you and others from this style of offending in the future. Specific deterrence, which is the need to deter you, is of real importance here. Time and time again you offend and/or then breach court orders. You are a very slow learner. I must try again to deter you.

69 General deterrence is also a significant sentencing purpose in this sort of case. That is the need to deter other offenders. We are sick of guns being in the wrong hands. It is a serious crime to possess an operational weapon such as the one that you did whilst being prohibited. Having an imitation weapon in the circumstances in which you did is also quite serious, though not as serious as the sawn down operational weapon.

70 This court must convey the message that sizeable sentences will be imposed upon those who choose to commit crimes such as yours. We, as judges, must seek to deter others from committing these offences.

71 I have to have regard to the maximum penalties in play.

72 I do pay regard to current sentencing practices. It is not a single controlling factor. I have looked at the relevant portions of the Sentencing Advisory Council online data for examples of sentences imposed on each of the prohibited person charges. I am though well familiar with the sentencing practices for those crimes.

73 I have looked at the Judicial College of Victoria online sentencing manual at 12.1. Many of the cases that I have already mentioned, themselves have surveys of past sentences imposed by the courts.

74 The fact is though, that other cases are not precedents and there is no such thing as one correct sentence. Statistics have got inherent limitations. I have to pass an appropriate sentence in your case. I have taken into account all of the submissions made both by your counsel and by the prosecution. Also all of the material including the references which I do not see any further need to detail. I have had regard to them. I have read them over the weekend.

75 Prison is correctly, a disposition of last resort. There is no doubt at all in my mind that your conduct is deserving of a substantial term of imprisonment. There is no question as to the availability of a community corrections order here. Such an outcome even in combination with your existing pre-sentence detention or even with an additional 12 months would not achieve the purposes of sentencing. It would not give adequate weight to punishment, community protection or deterrence. Then, of course, there is your failure to have complied with around half a dozen such orders in the last several years and that is not even factoring in the existence of these other matters for which you are held in custody, over which I have no control.

76 A community corrections order is simply not open to me here and it would not give adequate weight to the various purposes of sentencing.

77 I consider and apply the principal of totality of sentence here. I must consider whether the effect of the sentences is just and appropriate and commensurate with your overall criminality. Totality of sentence is an important consideration here. The offences are all committed on the same day and two relate to weapons so there is some commonality there. They are however of course, quite different weapons. The proceeds of crime offence is itself a quite distinct offence.

78 I must also consider the time in custody not embraced by the strict s 18 pre‑sentence detention declaration which I will be required to make here. That is the Renzella[10] point that had been raised by your counsel. I do not ignore her submission at paragraph 3 of the outline. You served 95 days for which there was never any pre-sentence detention declaration as the major charges were withdrawn and a non-custodial option was ultimately selected back in April 2020. So that was what is referred to as 'dead time' in the way that that phrase has been used in cases such as Karpinski[11], Vella[12] and Kheir[13], to name but a few. It was dead time and recent enough to justify a court having regard to it and I do but nor can I ignore the fact that that exercise finished when you went to court in April 2020 and the serious offences I am dealing with occurred in July of the following year, July 2021. I do though take that period into account in the way contemplated by your counsel.

79 Now there is an ancillary order that is sought here. There is no objection to it and it is consented to. A forfeiture order under the provisions of s151 of the Firearms Act. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make that order and I order pursuant to s151 of the Firearms Act that the property referred to in the schedule. The imitation handgun and the sawn off .22 calibre rifle which is described as a handgun because that is what it amounts to given the shortened barrel and stock but the sawn down weapon, the imitation handgun and the ammunition are forfeited and will be dealt with in the manner contemplated by that signed order.

81 On Charge 1, so that is the first of the firearms offences, a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, I convict and sentence you to two years four months' imprisonment. That will be the base sentence.

82 On the second charge relating to the imitation I convict and sentence you to 18 months' imprisonment.

83 On Charge 3 the proceeds of crime offence, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.

84 On the summary offence you are convicted and sentenced to two days' imprisonment. I have treated the fact of your being on bail as an aggravating feature and for that reason, I otherwise direct under the provisions of s16(3C) of the Sentencing Act.

85 I direct that five months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 and three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 is to be served cumulatively upon the base sentence imposed on Charge 1 and each other. The two day sentence imposed on the summary offence will be served concurrently with these various sentences.

86 Let me explain what that all amounts to then. These orders for cumulation produce a total effective sentence of 36 months or three years' imprisonment.

87 Given the dimensions of that sentence, I am required by law to fix a non‑parole period. I am not allowed to speculate as to whether you will be released on parole. That matter will rest entirely in the hands of the Adult Parole Board.

88 I direct that you serve a period of 22 months before becoming eligible for release on parole.

89 You have spent already a period of 153 days in custody by way of pre‑sentence detention and that period is declared as having already been served under this sentence. You get credit for that obviously.

90 I have taken into account your guilty plea. If you had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty of these offences by a jury, I would have sent you to prison for four years four months. I would have fixed a non-parole period of three years two months in that setting and that statement is to be entered into the records of the court.

91 Let me just see if there is anything else that I need to deal with. Anything from your perspective, Ms Van Den Akker?

93 HIS HONOUR: All right and from your perspective, Ms Carroll, any other matters I need to deal with?

95 HIS HONOUR: All right. Let me just see. Look, I'm not sure whether Ms Freijah is going to organise some sort of gaol conference, Ms Carroll, or whether you're the person doing it. I'm happy to leave you online to discuss what's occurred here with your client if you'd like to. We've got the link for a little bit longer so there's no great rush from that perspective but are you going to need to - is Ms Freijah going to be actually conferring with your client or not?

96 MS CARROLL: Your Honour, if I could have a few moments with Mr Sultan on this link that would be helpful.

97 HIS HONOUR: Yes. All right. Well look, we'll do that and then - I mean you can have that but obviously someone is going to need to either today or at some later stage discuss with him the ins and outs of all that's occurred and his rights in relation to this sentence. My practice is to revise these reasons. Once I get the reasons back from VGRS I will revise them pretty swiftly and they should be available, I would think, later this week at the latest. But look, I'll just make sure I've got a grasp of the technology. So we won't be sitting off to the side listening to anything that's said. You'll essentially be put off on your own with your client. You'll be designated as the host of the meeting. No one else will be privy to it and once you've said what you need to say you can then disconnect and end the meeting, all right?

98 MS CARROLL: Thank you, Your Honour. As the court pleases.

99 HIS HONOUR: So Mr Sultan, all you need to do is stay put where you are and the court will adjourn in a moment but you'll be left to have a chat to Ms Carroll, all right.

101 HIS HONOUR: I've got another matter later today. So I think what I'll do then is I'll just sign that order. Look I've signed that formal order then. So as I say then I'll stand down then until my next matter. So I'll stand down until 2 o'clock then please.

[1] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

[2] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169

[3] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 240

[4] Berichon v The Queen [2013] VSCA 319

[5] Best v The Queen [2015] VSCA 151

[6] Powell v The Queen [2015] VSCA 93

[7] Simpson v The Queen [2015] VSCA 210

[8] Acciarito v The Queen [2019] VSCA 264

[9] DPP v Basic [2017] VSCA 376 at [80]- [83]

[10] The Queen v Renzella [1999] VSCA 85

[12] Vella v The Queen [2011] VSCA 126

[13] Kheir v The Queen [2012] VSCA 13