R v Atanovski [2012] NSWDC 168
R v Pucariello [2012] NSWDC 70
R v Rustom
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
R v AbdallahR v Atanovski [2012] NSWDC 168
R v Pucariello [2012] NSWDC 70
R v Rustom
Judgment (3 paragraphs)
[1]
Mr A Bellanto QC (Counsel for the accused)
File Number(s): 2017/74389
[2]
Judgment
The distribution of illicit drugs causes considerable harm, not just to those who purchase and take the drugs but to the community in general. The trade in illicit drugs is one of the principal sources for crime in the community. It is not just the sale of drugs. The crimes that are committed by those who seek to obtain funds for drugs and drug use leading to destruction of family and personal life are significant problems.
The seriousness of the offence of supply a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), is illustrated by the fact that the Parliament has chosen to fix a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of ten years both of which are important guideposts or yardsticks in the sentencing process.
R v Achmar [2018] NSWDC 461 | Case summary | Zoe
Charbil Achmar, who was born in October 1978, has pleaded guilty to one count of supply a commercial quantity being 355 grams of cocaine in the period between 9 November 2017 and 11 January 2018. He also pleaded guilty to one count of possess an unregistered firearm being a .177 calibre air pistol under s 36 of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years and no standard non-parole period. Those penalties are also an indication of the seriousness with which the legislation and the community treats the possession of unregistered firearms.
In relation to the first count, he asked me to take into account, as I will, a matter on a Form 1, of participate in a criminal group under s 93T of the Crimes Act 1990 (NSW) which carries a maximum penalty of five years, and I will deal with that in the way that the Chief Justice suggests in the guideline judgment on Form 1 matters.
I have to take into account the purposes of sentencing which are set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and it is often said that they are conflicting, but each of them are important purposes and the Court must always bear them in mind. The purposes are to ensure that an offender is adequately punished for the offence, to prevent crime by deterring the offender and others from committing similar offences, to protect the community from the offender, to promote the rehabilitation of the offender, to make him accountable for his actions, to denounce his conduct and to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and to the community.
I must not sentence a person to a term of imprisonment unless all other alternatives have been considered and rejected. It is conceded here by Mr Bellanto QC for the offender, that no alternative need be considered and it is therefore unnecessary for me to do so, notwithstanding that Mr Bellanto initially suggested the term of imprisonment to be served by say of an ICO may be appropriate. He ultimately accepted that the most optimistic outcome for his client could be that the term that has been served since his arrest on 7 March 2018 should be taken into account towards satisfaction of any non-parole period to be imposed.
The agreed facts demonstrate that a strike force was initiated in 2017 to investigate the supply of prohibited drugs in south-west Sydney. Police identified an organised hierarchy in a drug syndicate responsible for supplying cocaine in the south-west suburbs. The principal was identified as Wahib Moussa assisted by his brother Elias Moussa. Those two gentlemen have both been arrested and charged and their matters are being dealt with at the moment in the Local Court.
Achmar was utilised as a runner who participated in the actual supply of cocaine. Elias Moussa was primarily the controller of the run phone and Wahib Moussa was referred to as the boss. The various episodes of supply, all to an undercover police officer, commenced on 7 November 2017 and in exchange for $ 7300 cash there was a provision of 26 grams of cocaine. On 13 November, there was a further supply of 27 grams for another agreed amount of $7,300. On 23 November, there was a further supply of 27 grams for $7,500. On 4 December, there was a supply of 137 grams for $34,000 and on 11 January, a supply of 136 grams for $35,000.
On 4 December, in the course of conversations with the undercover operative, Achmar said "I don't do this for a living, I don't even know why I am getting myself involved in this" and there was a discussion about whether the police officer knew Ben, a man who is referred to in evidence to which I will return.
He told the policeman that Ben was a long-time friend of his and Ben had helped him out financially and the reason he was involved was because Ben had asked for his help and he said "I felt sorry for him, I helped the guy out, I don't do this, I'm scared, I've never done this in my whole life. You know how much I'm making, nothing" and that is all consistent with evidence from the offender that I accept.
Turning to the facts of the s 93T charge, they set out that there was a conversation on 18 January between Achmar and the police witness and Mr Bellanto describes what Mr Achmar said at that time as perhaps the most telling statement in his story. A police witness came to a job site and he said:
"I told you, I don't do that thing, I'm not interested in that, that's what I tried to tell you, I just don't know how it happened, you deal with them direct now, I don't want a bar of it anymore, deal with him directly, I'm making nothing. Believe me, I'm making nothing out of it bro. I take a gram out of it. Is it worth it? It's not worth it".
That is a reference to what is common ground, namely, that in relation to each of the five supplies, the offender took for his own use about a gram at a value of around $250 or so each making a total of $1,319 being the value of the cocaine said to have been taken by him for his own use out of the total supply of 355 grams for a total of $91,000. There was a further supply on 25 January 2018 but Achmar was not involved. That supply involved Elias Moussa supplying drugs to the police.
There was some further contact after 25 January. The police made several attempts to contact Achmar without success and ultimately, on 1 March there was a conversation in which Achmar said "I'm just scared mate, you want the truth? I said I'm out, I'm doing my work". He later said "I'm just the middle man, I'm just trying to help someone out, you know what I mean?" There was some further contact up to 2 March and contact ceased after that date.
The police went to Achmar's home at Greenacre on 7 March where they arrested him and took him to Bankstown Police Station. A search warrant was executed at his home and that is where police located the air pistol stored in the top drawer of a shelf in the office garage. He participated in an interview in which he declined to comment in relation to the drug supply allegations, only saying words to the effect of "I'm sorry man, I'm an idiot, I just can't believe it" and when asked about the firearm, he said it was a gas pellet toy gun that was given to him about three years prior. He said he had never purchased the gas required for firing the gun and he never used it. He also said at that time, "A piece of advice, don't ever feel sorry for no-one, don't ever help anyone in your life".
His record includes no matters involving the use of drugs. There are some driving offences; there was a s 10 bond in 2008 in relation to a fraud count; there was an assault occasioning actual bodily harm in December 2017 dealt with by a Community Corrections order. There was also an offence of drive while disqualified in 2011 which led to a Community Service order for 200 hours. Community Corrections records that his attendance was poor and he failed to attend on a number of occasions and it took him 12 months to complete. The sentencing assessment report indicates a 300 hour obligation but the record indicates that it was a 200 hour obligation.
The offender has been in custody since the date of his arrest on 7 March 2018.
A number of reports and documents were relied upon by Mr Bellanto QC. First, an affidavit of John Parker, Project Manager with C J Duncan Builders who are a large company with an apparently industry wide reputation as a reliable and specialist company in the remedial construction field. He says he has worked closely with the offender for over six years up until early 2018 and the work relationship has very largely depended upon the involvement of the offender who is described as being an excellent workman and dedicated to ensuring the provision of quality services. He says that he and the management team are aware of the circumstances of his arrest, detention and the charges against him. They visited him while he was on remand. His absence from the team has had a significant impact on the business. They are prepared to accommodate the business in the absence of the offender for some time but despite their affection for the offender and the company, they may have to cease operations with it if the current state of play, as he calls it, were to continue for any lengthy period of time. He also speaks highly of his personal contact with the offender and describes him as hard-working and family oriented.
The offender's wife is 35 years of age and has provided an affidavit which describes the devastating effect of her husband's arrest and incarceration and the effect upon their six year old son. She describes the significant efforts that her husband made to provide for the family through the difficult years early in their marriage. It is clear that the business had developed to a point where he had a number of employees and sub-contractors and the evidence was that the turnover of the business was about $2 million annually at the time of his arrest.
The evidence establishes that despite the best efforts of the offender's brother, the business has not been prospering to the extent that it would otherwise. I take account of the evidence as to the effect of the incarceration upon the family and, particularly, the six year old son. She also speaks in, not surprisingly, glowing terms of her husband's character, generosity and sympathy for other people and that was re-enforced by the offender when he gave evidence himself today. I accept his assertions that he is a generous and caring person who provides significantly for his family and his extended family.
I have regard to the treatment report in relation to the offender's brother, prepared by a counselling psychologist that sets out the treatment for his major depressive disorder following a work-related accident which led, as the offender described in evidence, to the loss of fingers on his right hand and a low back injury.
The offender affirmed the history that he had given to Dr Richard Furst, a psychiatrist, in a recent interview. The offender was born to Lebanese parents in Sydney, growing up in South Strathfield. The family moved to Lebanon in 1989 when he was 10 years of age where he went to school and then university. His family were well educated and his three sisters and elder brother were all married in Lebanon. The family came back to Australia in 1999 when he was 20 and he worked in the bathroom industry and obtained a diploma at TAFE in the evenings. He purchased a house and had an owner builder's licence. He went into business with his parents running a service station, and then worked in a bricklaying business with his cousin. He purchased his current family home in 2008 which, at the time of the offending, was subject to a mortgage of about $390,000 and the offender said that it was worth about $800,000.
He had never been dependent on alcohol. He had used cocaine on a social basis and on a more regular basis in 2017 related to the stressors that developed at the time. He said he smoked cannabis occasionally. He said that his wife knew nothing about his cocaine use and that he would take cocaine late at night when she was asleep and he was in his office or garage. The history that he gave to Dr Furst was consistent with his evidence today, namely that he had initially borrowed about $60,000 from a gentleman named Ben, or $80,000 as he said today, and after repaying that he then received a phone call from an unknown person to the effect that he said "Your mate Ben owes me about $30,000 or so". Things progressed to the point where he felt threatened and scared for his wife and family and he told man that he would give him $10,000 and the man also asked for Ben's boat in payment of some debt. the unknown
He went off to Lebanon for a family holiday in June and July 2017 and when they returned Ben said he needed $21,000 to help with legal costs. He said that he just wanted Ben out of his life and he ultimately became involved in the supply of cocaine as I have outlined.
Dr Furst said that the history demonstrates that he comes from a hard-working and responsible family with positive social values and Catholic Maronite faith, his wife has similar values and he is close to his parents and siblings. He has employed a number of workers and contractors and he was not dependent upon drugs. He said that his actions were misguided, naïve and not for any significant financial gain which, as Dr Furst notes, was what he had already told the undercover police operative. Dr Furst said that he does not present as having a major medical condition, he has no apparent need for specific medical treatment. Notwithstanding that he is anxious about his current circumstances and feels a lot of guilt about the impact of the offending on his family. He says that he would benefit from working with a clinical psychologist in the area of cognitive behaviour therapy.
He expressed to me and to Dr Furst that he has regretted the offending, is remorseful and accepts that his actions were wrong. His prospects of being successfully rehabilitated are good, according to Dr Furst, and I accept that in the light of the evidence that I have heard and read today, particularly in the light of the significant family support that he has. Extracts from his work diaries are attached to his affidavit, which demonstrate the busy nature of the business at the time of the offending.
I have been greatly assisted by the competent, professional and comprehensive way in which the matter has been prepared both by the Crown and by Mr Bellanto QC, particularly in the provision of detailed written submissions which do not demonstrate a great deal in issue between the parties, other than a slight controversy as to the assessment of objective seriousness of the offending.
Turning to the Crown's submissions it points out that in assessing the seriousness of the offending a number of factors must be considered: the amount and purity of the drug; the number of occasions on which the drug was supplied; the motivation; the planning involved; and the role of the offender. The amount here, some 355 grams, was in excess of the threshold of 250 grams for a commercial supply but well below the top of the range which is one kilogram for a large commercial supply. The purity was high, around 80% for the first four, and lower for the last supply and the offender knew that, according to his conversations with the officer. As the Crown said, he had the opportunity to have regard to what he was doing in carrying out the five acts which make up the supply offence. He had the opportunity to meet his perceived needs in an alternative way and he frankly conceded that in evidence today, that he had sources of funds if not from the substantial business, over some $2 million per annum, then from family resources given that the family was involved in the ownership or construction of a number of real estate developments or indeed perhaps by extension of the mortgage on his home which was, on his evidence, geared to less than 50% of the value of the home. When pressed on that quite properly by the Crown Prosecutor he simply said that he did not want to dip into his pockets or the family pockets, he really just wanted it all to go away because he was scared, even though he knew that it was illegal and he knew he faced going to gaol if he was caught.
The Crown says that Mr Achmar could be described as a middle man or a essential conduit given that he was facilitating drug supplies between the co‑accused and the buyer. He was more than a mere street runner as evidenced by him being trusted to handle substantial quantities of drugs and cash which he collected and dropped off to the co-accused at their address. His role was also reflected in the 93T charge which is to be dealt with on the Form 1.
There is some controversy as to the significance of the fact that the drugs supplied to undercover police would not be disseminated into the community. As the Court said in R v Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103 at [21],
"[o]f itself this is usually unlikely to lead to other than a very minor diminution of culpability."
The prevailing consideration is that the offender fully intended the drugs would be disseminated. More recently in AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273 the Court said that where the drugs are not actually disseminated into the community because of a police operation the moral culpability of an offender is not thereby reduced. Mr Bellanto QC on that issue refers to what was said by Hulme J in R v DW (2012) 221 A Crim R 63. His Honour said, at [117]
"If the involvement of the authorities prevents the transaction from resulting in harm, it is illogical not to afford that fact appropriate weight just as in the converse situation one would take account of any damage that was a consequence of the offending."
As the Crown points out there is a passage from the judgment of Badger-Parker J R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387 which is often referred to in these cases where his Honour said,
"… the question is … whether there is a real possibility that but for the assistance, encouragement or incitement offered by police officers he would not have [committed the crime], and whether in all the circumstanes of the case the involvement of the police in the commission of the crim was such as to diminish his culpability"
Picking up on that vein Latham J said in Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25,
"…that the applicant must demonstrate the real possibility he would not have committed offences but for the involvement of the undercover operatives in addition to demonstrating that in all the circumstances his culpability was diminished."
As the Crown correctly submits it cannot be said here that the offender would not have committed the offences but for the involvement of the undercover police officers, given the evidence to which I have referred. The Crown summarised its position in reference to a number of factors set out in Sponberg v R [2017] NSWCCA 120 noting that there was a substantial quantity of drugs involved, of mostly high purity and there were multiple supplies. The offender was able to supply substantial quantities at short notice and was trusted by those he obtained them from. He was motivated by his own drug addiction and assisting a friend financially, which he could have used his own funds for and he facilitated the undercover operative to meet with the upscale suppliers.
Mr Bellanto's riposte is to note that his role was the least culpable within the group and his motivation as in the least culpable category for offences of this kind.
There is no link between the firearm offence and the drug offence and he separately notes the strong subjective case. Mr Bellanto QC optimistically submitted that the offending fell within the lowest end of the spectrum of objective gravity for offences of both the drug and the firearms crime. The drug supply offence is, in my view, well below the mid-range of objective seriousness and that together with the subjective case provides substantial reasons for a significant departure from the standard non-parole period.
As to the firearm offence, as Latham J said in R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391, the legislative policy reflected in the maximum penalty of 14 years is to deter and punish the possession of firearms. The Crown concedes that while it looked like a standard pistol, it is accepted that it was not connected with the drug supply and concedes that the objective seriousness of that offence falls well below midrange. There being no standard non-parole period, it is unnecessary for me to make a finding as to where it sits in a scale of objective seriousness, but it is at the very lowest end of the range, in my view (Sharma v R [2017] NSWCCA 85 at [63], per RA Hulme J).
Turning to the subjective case, the Crown notes, as I have indicated, that the offender was on bail for a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm at the time of the offending, which is a matter to be considered in aggravation under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The Crown accepts the expressions of remorse and the Crown points to a number of cases to which I have had reference and which I will review together with the cases that Mr Bellanto QC has referred. The Crown correctly notes that as a result of Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284, the Clark principle no longer applies, but it is common ground that the threshold under s 5 has been crossed and the Crown concludes by asserting that a consistent message of deterrence in drug supply cases is necessary and the protection of the community is of significant importance.
As Mr Bellanto QC puts, the evidence establishes that by early March 2018 Mr Achmar had voluntarily withdrawn from the enterprise and voluntarily ceased all criminal activity. As to the distinction between regret and genuine contrition I accept that the offender has a real insight into the gravity of offending and the effect that it has had on the community and his family. I am comfortably satisfied that he is genuinely remorseful, and that goes to a finding that his prospects of rehabilitation are very good and the likelihood of him reoffending is minimal, in particular because of his voluntary cessation of offending and his expressions of his reluctance in some manner to be involved in the offending in the course of his conversations with the undercover officer.
It is common ground that due to an early plea of guilty, the offender should receive a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea.
I accept that some hardship to family members may be taken into account in the general mix of subjective factors but that the evidence does not amount to exceptional circumstances as Mr Bellanto QC acknowledges would otherwise be required in accordance with cases such as Greentree v R [2018] NSWCCA 277.
I take account, as Mr Bellanto QC submits, of the significant period in custody to date in the way described by Adams J in Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282, namely that remand prisoners are held in maximum security prisons and many of the programs available to the sentenced prisoners are not available to them and where there is a lengthy period on remand a mere calendar adjustment will not fairly reflect the relative harshness of this form of imprisonment and some downward adjustment of the ultimate sentence is appropriate.
Mr Bellanto QC accepts that deterrence both general and specific play a significant part in the determination of the ultimate sentences but he points out that personal deterrence is of less significance given that the risk factors are no longer present. There is no challenge to the submission that a finding of special circumstances should be made due to the fact that this is the first time in custody for this offender but his prospects of rehabilitation are good and he would benefit from a significant adjustment of the standard ratio and also bearing in mind the hardship to the family to which I have referred.
I have been provided with a range of statistics from the Judicial Commission and some of the cases behind those statistics have been referred to by both parties. They demonstrate, as has already been conceded, that a term of full time imprisonment is inevitable and they provide some very broad indication of the range of outcomes that are a relatively large sample range for all offenders, but in a relatively small sample range for the refined characteristics best applied to this offender. It is of some value to look to each of the cases that have been referred to by the Crown and Mr Bellanto.
In R v Pucariello [2012] NSWDC 70, Haesler DCJ dealt with a charge of commercial supply of 320 grams of cocaine. The offender in that case had a prior term of imprisonment for drugs. There was a money laundering charge involving $1.5 million and after a 12.5% discount for a plea of guilty, his Honour imposed a sentence for the drug supply charge of three years with an 18 month non-parole period to be included in an aggregate sentence of three years, six months with one year, nine months non-parole period. The offender in that case was involved in a very large importation, distribution and warehousing operation which involved sentencing a number of offenders. As his Honour said at [45] - [47] :
Sentences must try by their severity to deter this offender and more importantly others from involving themselves in the drug trade. Even those low in the hierarchy who are involved only for days can expect a term of imprisonment. I also have to consider, as I have indicated, the sentences imposed on others and ensure there is some proportionality. What this offender did must be denounced and the harm to the community recognised. I must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask what is the appropriate sentence for all that was done (Mill (1998) 166 CLR 59 at 63)
In Parris v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 5, the Court dismissed an appeal from a sentence imposed by Finnane DCJ which involved supply of 714 grams of cocaine with six matters on a Form 1. After a 12.5% discount for a plea of guilty his Honour imposed a sentence of six years and one month with a two years and six month non-parole period which was, somewhat surprisingly, only 40% of the head sentence so there was a very significant variation of the statutory ratio. The Court said there at [28], that
"The Sentencing Judge was entitled to regard the objective seriousness of the offences committed by Lipton (the co-offender) as being diminished by the actions of the undercover police officer who brought them about."
I have dealt with that matter earlier in these remarks.
I have had regard to the sentences imposed by Berman DCJ in the matters of R v Petrovski; R v Abdallah; R v Atanovski [2012] NSWDC 168 but the factual circumstances in the subjective cases are not of sufficient relevance to be of any great assistance in this matter. Reference is also made by Mr Bellanto QC to the decision of Neilson DCJ in R v Rustom; R v Vernon [2017] NSWDC 245 which involved the supply of 355 grams of cocaine. After a 25% discount for the plea of guilty and taking into account the matters on the Form 1 and the finding that the offending was below midrange, his Honour imposed a sentence of three years and nine months with a two year non-parole period on Vernon and five years and three months with a non-parole period of three years and three months on Rustom. The significant difference related at least in part to the very significant criminal history of the latter.
In Sponberg v R [2017] NSWCCA 120 to which reference has been made by the Crown there was a supply of 377 grams of cocaine and there were two matters on the Form 1, involving cannabis and a firearms offence. After a 25% discount for the plea the sentence imposed by Garling DCJ was reduced by the Court of Criminal Appeal, to five years and three months with a three year and six month non-parole period. The supply had involved $75,000 in payment, and of that the offender received a profit of $10,000. The objective seriousness was assessed as midrange by the Court on resentencing.
Elhassan v R [2018] NSWCCA 118 was also referred to by the Crown. It was a sentence following a verdict of guilty by a jury to a commercial supply offence, of the supply of 278 grams of cocaine. The sentence imposed by Syme DCJ was reduced on appeal to nine years with a six year non-parole period. The offender had previously been sentenced to 15 years with a 10 year non-parole period for importing 17 kilograms of cocaine. His subjective circumstances were very significantly different to the present and there was a finding that special circumstances had been established leading to the reduction in the ratio to which I have referred.
The case of B v R [2015] NSWCCA 314 to which reference has already been made was an appeal from a decision of Berman DCJ. It involved the supply of 996 grams of methylamphetamine an amount that almost surmounts the large commercial quantity. The supply was for $235,000 and the offender received $2,700 of that. He had some prior offences and this was his first time in custody. His prior offences were for fraud and driving offences but there were no drug offences. He had provided what was described as remarkable assistance leading to a total discount of 60% for the plea of guilty and the assistance. The sentence imposed was three years and six months with a two year non-parole period after that discount.
In Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25 the Court dismissed an appeal from a sentence imposed by Arnott DCJ of eight years with a five year non-parole period in relation to the supply for $255,000 of a kilogram of cocaine. There was evidence of duress and an assertion that the police had played the role of provocateurs in engaging that offender who had significant gambling debts. The objective seriousness of that offence was assessed as falling above "that midpoint between mid-range and low range."
In Williams v R [2014] NSWCCA 57, an appeal against a sentence imposed by Wells DCJ was dismissed. After a 40% discount for the plea and assistance, the sentence of six years, with three years nine months non-parole period was imposed for the supply of 392 grams of cocaine for a total of $107,000. The offender's reward was very small and his use of cocaine for personal purposes was very modest.
I should indicate that in B v R [2015] NSWCCA 314 to which I have referred, Johnson J, also reviewed a number of cases to which reference was made in the submissions, namely, R v Dang [2005] NSWCCA 430, R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135, Do v R [2008] NSWCCA 34, R v Mendez [2005] NSWCCA 246 and Blair v R [2005] NSWCCA 78 and I have had regard to the summary of those matters set out in Johnson J's remarks.
Mr Bellanto's closing submissions eloquently put the case on behalf of his client as involving participation in an activity which was completely out of character for this man in light of the evidence that I have seen. He put that it was very much at the bottom end of the scale which is somewhat, over -optimistic, compared to my finding of objective seriousness. He reminded me of the importance of the early plea, his good prospects of rehabilitation, and that he was clearly a demonstrable and highly emotional person, who has been described in the evidence as a good man and a man of good morals. As Mr Bellanto QC acknowledged the real question is how much longer need he spend in gaol given that he is well motivated, and with good support and that all the factors point in the one direction, namely, towards the release, as soon as reasonably practicable, within the confines of the purposes of sentencing and the subjective and objective features of this case.
The orders that I will make are as follows:
1. The offender is convicted of each offence.
2. I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years, 8 months, to commence on 7 March 2018 and expiring on 6 November 2021.
3. I impose a non-parole period of 2 years, expiring on 6 March 2020. The offender is eligible for release to parole on that date.
4. The indicative sentences are:
1. Seq 001, taking into account the Form 1 offence - 3 years 6 months; with a non-parole period of 1 years, 11 months.
2. Seq 005 - 6 months.
1. I find special circumstances.
Note - These ex-tempore remarks were revised without access to the court file.
[3]
Amendments
13 March 2019 - Anonymised unique personal identifiers at [3], [18], [19], [20]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 13 March 2019