R v Brett STAAS

REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1I am sentencing Brett Staas for a series of serious drug offences. Up until some years ago Mr Staas was leading a good and successful life. However, some change in fortunes led to him taking a dangerous drug of addiction and once he fell into its grip he embarked on a life of very serious criminal activity. That activity led to him being sentenced for the three crimes that I will now convict him of. 2The first crime is a conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine. The amount was the indictable quantity. That is an offence against s 24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum of 15 years imprisonment. 3The second offence is the crime of solicit to manufacture a prohibited drug. Once again the prohibited drug was methylamphetamine, but this time the crime involved a commercial quantity of that drug. That is an offence against s 24(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. 4The third crime is supplying methylamphetamine in the indictable quantity which is an offence against s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and carries a maximum of 15 years imprisonment. 5I convict Mr Staas of all three of those crimes. I should add that exhibit A - which contained the assertion that the maximum penalty for the conspiracy and the supply were 10 years each - was wrong. My associate drew that error to the attention of both the Crown Prosecutor and Senior Counsel for Mr Staas and it was agreed that the correct maximum penalties were those which I have earlier indicated. HIS HONOUR: Just apart from my remarks on sentence here, Mr Page the particulars on the indictment specify for count 1, s 24(2) and it should read s 24(1) and my guess is I think the particulars should be - it is only a particular but I think it should be amended. My guess is that it is Mr Barr who needs to make the amendment, are you authorised to? PAGE: No your Honour. HIS HONOUR: That is what I thought. What I will do is I think I will make the amendment by hand and then I will give the indictment to you and ask Mr Barr to initial it at some stage today. PAGE: Certainly your Honour. HIS HONOUR: And then return it to the court officer by arrangement with my associate. PAGE: Yes your Honour. HIS HONOUR: I will just make that change now. 6It is important for a judge to say something about the circumstances of the crimes for which the judge is sentencing an offender, as well as the personal circumstances of the offender. 7There is a summary of the crimes contained in exhibit A. So far as the conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug is concerned, the conspiracy was entered into with Craig McGregor and Clarissa Burrow. Mr McGregor was the cook and Ms Burrow was essentially a runner. They were involved in an agreement for the manufacture of methylamphetamine in Mr McGregor's unit. They worked together to fulfil the common goal and were each given tasks to complete. Ms Burrow was Mr McGregor's girlfriend. She came into the agreement only about six weeks before the three of them were arrested. As I said, her task was essentially as a runner. 8Mr Staas had a significantly more important role. His role was to source the chemicals for Mr McGregor to use in the manufacturing process. He provided half a litre of what he thought was P2P. In fact it was not. He also obtained a quantity of dry ice. He was in regular contact with Mr McGregor over some period of time. 9The conspiracy ranged between the middle of December 2008 and the end of April 2009. Mr Staas was arrested the following day, on 30 April 2009. In discussions with Mr McGregor he sourced five litres of a chemical which again he thought was MBK but was something else, and is a scheduled precursor. 10The supply charge was a charge which arose out of Mr Staas' relationship with a man he thought was a customer and to whom he was selling methylamphetamine. But the man was in fact an undercover operative. On a number of occasions Mr Staas agreed to supply the undercover operative with methylamphetamine. On one occasion, he provided some 77 grams of the substance on payment of $25,000. On another occasion, he was paid $18,000 for some 56 grams and on another occasion he was paid $10,000 and $9,000 for nearly 28 grams and 24 grams of methylamphetamine respectively. I add of course, which is relevant, that none of the methylamphetamine went into the community. 11The solicit to manufacture methylamphetamine charge arose out of the same relationship with the undercover operative. The undercover operative became interested in Mr Staas' source of the methylamphetamine. Mr Staas had referred to his "cook" and the operative asked about the process and about where the chemicals came from. Mr Staas told the operative that he supplied the ketone and that he had some 20 or 30 litres of it. He offered to supply the operative with hypophosphorus acid for between two to three thousand dollars a litre, and the ketone for some $10,000 a litre. Mr Staas said that his (Mr Staas') cook would be able to help the undercover operative by showing him how to manufacture the drugs. Mr Staas told the operative that there were various ways of making methylamphetamine and they discussed the most profitable, and the one which would lead to the greatest yield. He confirmed that he would be able to source some of the materials because the operative would not be able to get it himself. He agreed to assist him through his cook in the manufacture. Once again of course the arrangement was going nowhere, because the agreement was with the undercover operative. 12Mr Staas was represented in the sentence proceedings by Mr H K Dhanji SC and the Director of Public Prosecutions was represented by the Crown Prosecutor Mr M Barr. Mr Dhanji called his client. He is 47 years old. He spent well over a year and a half in custody after his arrest and before being bailed; in fact, he spent 1 year, 7 months, 2 weeks and 1 day in custody, and in due course I will backdate his sentence to commence on 11 November 2010 to take into account that period which he has spent in custody. He found the experience very scary, but one advantage of the period in custody was that he was able to rid himself of the drugs in his system. He effectively detoxified himself in gaol. 13He gave evidence about the serious decline in his life after the combination of his marriage to his first wife collapsing - because of her serious mental health problem - and the failure of his business. He was homeless for some time and at other times was living with his parents until they realised the extent of his drug taking, which involved methylamphetamine. He dipped into his superannuation to buy drugs. 14The precursor P2P is used in the print industry and he was able to source that for the agreement with Mr McGregor. Mr Staas got what Mr McGregor asked for. For each of the transactions with the undercover operative selling methylamphetamine, he received $500 for each ounce he sold. 15He has a daughter, Silvia. She is now 13. She is the daughter of Mr Staas and his first wife. She is living with Mr Staas' mother. Her own mother has remarried but is still not sufficiently stable to be able to look after Silvia fulltime. Mr Staas gave evidence about his mother's medical condition, which I will come to refer to further. Mr Staas has a sister living in Avalon who has two adult children, and works six days a week in real estate. Silvia is in Year 7 at school. He expressed his shame and remorse at what he had done and said that it was inexcusable. 16Mrs Janice Staas gave evidence. She was married to Mr Staas' father but her husband died in the last few years. She gave evidence about Mr Staas staying with her and her husband as he was deteriorating. At one stage, she took him to the Manly Crisis Centre and I have records indicating that attendance. Mr Staas had become very depressed. He was also taking drugs at the same time, which his mother had a suspicion about. She has noticed his change over the last 12 months, and the return of his personality. He was in fact given bail because his father was dying, and he reconciled with his father before his father died. He has now done, as Mrs Staas said, all things just right and is back to work admitting his wrong. She was 98 per cent sure that her son would be okay. She confirmed that she has a daughter as well, but pointed out that the daughter has two grandchildren as well as her two adult children. 17Mr Staas comes from a family which has conducted for many years a printing business. His father and his uncle, Ian Staas, were partners in the business. Mr Dhanji SC called Mr Ian Staas to give evidence. He is still working in the business which supports six employees. Mr Staas, the offender, is employed in the business as the manager for about three days a week. Mr Ian Staas knows about his nephew's drug addiction and problems, and trusts him now because he has seen changes in his nephew's condition. He trusts in the rehabilitation process which his nephew has been undergoing. Mr Ian Staas would like to retire and hand over the business to the offender, Mr Staas. If need be he can carry on. 18Mr Dhanji SC tendered as exhibit 1 a psychologist's report about Mr Staas the offender, as well as clinical notes from his attendance at the Crisis Centre in 2006, and a medical report from his mother's GP, and some references and certificates. His mother's GP confirmed that Mrs Staas suffers from several chronic conditions, which she listed. The references all indicate that Mr Staas is now well regard both personally and in business. He has undertaken some courses whilst in custody. 19Mr Dhanji SC, when the matter was listed for sentence yesterday, sought leave to re open his client's case and to tender fresh evidence. The evidence concerns Mr Staas' mother, Mrs Staas, who collapsed over the weekend and was admitted to hospital for the day. She was reviewed in there. Her medication was adjusted and she was referred back to her GP, who saw her again last Monday when she was still dizzy, off-balance and requiring assistance to work. She is of course affected by the stress of Mr Staas' court case but the exhibit tendered by Mr Staas, which I have marked 2, also included a report from two psychologists about Silvia Staas. 20The report referred to significant sources of adversity which young Silvia Staas has had to encounter in her short life. Her parents became separated and divorced, which of course these days is not unusual. However her mother had suffered from bipolar disorder and a schizoid affective disorder, which impacted on her ability to be Silvia's fulltime parent. She went into formal guardianship with her grandparents, Mrs and Mrs Staas, however the psychologist records that Mr Staas "died whilst caring for Silvia" in late 2010. The psychologists went on to say that since Mr Staas senior's death "Janet noted that Silvia appeared emotionally numb and had withdrawn from others." The psychologists observe that these circumstances have "impacted significantly on the family's levels of stress, and Janice's ability to support Silvia." They express the opinion that given Silvia's history of grief and loss, and current mental health concerns, it was "imperative that her father, Brett, continues to play the role of her father in her life." They believe that imprisonment would further punish Silvia, "with the potential of this decision resulting her in becoming a ward of the State." They thought that Silvia continued to be "at risk of serious mental health difficulties, given her strong family history of mental illness, coping with her grandmother's health concerns, her mother's mental health concerns and adjusting to the loss of her grandfather." I will return to what Mr Dhanji SC and Mr Barr had to say specifically about that issue shortly. 21In their general submissions I was greatly assisted by written submissions prepared by Mr Dhanji SC, which I marked for identification 2. He pointed out that the drug supply amounted in all to about 186 grams of methylamphetamine, and that he sought to supply the drugs in order to fund his habit. That may well be the case, but he also sourced the drugs in order to generate income to support his family. It is the case, and I accept, that no drugs were distributed into the community as a result of his contact with the undercover operative. 22Mr Dhanji SC said that Mr Staas' role in soliciting the undercover operative to manufacture methylamphetamine was an example of someone keen to talk big perhaps for ulterior motives. That may well be the case, but it should be seen in the context that his efforts to manufacture methylamphetamine in agreement with Craig McGregor were not producing results and so it seems Mr Staas was prepared to extend his manufacturing supply activities on a second front. Although the chemicals he was sourcing and supplying were of no use in manufacturing, he did source what he thought was needed and used his contacts to do that. He had been diagnosed with a depression and anxiety disorder as a result of his personal and professional life falling apart and I do accept that his judgment was probably affected by that. 23I accept that he has no significant record of prior convictions. His prior convictions - although related to the possession of drugs - occurred 20 or 30 years ago and I regard their weight as negligible. I do find that his prospects of rehabilitation are good and that he is unlikely to re-offend. He was well regarded in the community. 24I accept that the drug supply involved a series of criminal acts. 25I do not agree with Mr Dhanji SC that Mr Staas and Ms Burrow's roles were similar. Ms Burrow was in the conspiracy for a shorter time and her role was limited to that of a runner. Mr Staas' role was one of the primary participants and he was an original participant in the agreement with Mr McGregor and played a more important role in sourcing what he thought were the necessary precursors. 26I overlooked making reference in these remarks to the helpful reports from the clinical psychologist who examined Mr Staas. That was the experienced forensic psychologist Anita Duffy whose report was contained in exhibit 1. She provided a detailed history of Mr Staas' life, including his failed marriage to his first wife who was severely affected by a mental health disorder and his deterioration into drug use and the failure of his business. He has resumed his work in the family business and is happily married to his second wife and she accepts his assertion that he has no desire to use drugs again. He is resilient now. She was of the opinion that going to gaol would place his progress in jeopardy. She thought his judgment was affected at the time by his depression and anxiety. 27The drug supplies which Mr Staas made with the undercover operative were relatively large amounts and involved a relatively large amount of money. I regard general deterrence as a very important factor to take into account. 28So far as specific deterrence is concerned it is obviously important but it is a factor which I think has already had its influence on Mr Staas. I think it is unlikely that he will engage in this activity again. 29Both counsel drew my attention to the importance of parity in sentencing. When I sentenced Mr McGregor I imposed a sentence of 4 years and 9 months for the conspiracy to manufacture a drug - being the same conspiracy that Mr Staas was in - and I ordered a non-parole period of 3 years. For Ms Burrow there was one very significant mitigating factor. I imposed a sentence for her participation in the same conspiracy of 2 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months. I regard Mr Staas' role in the conspiracy as about the same as Mr McGregor's and Ms Burrow's role as less significant than both of them. 30Mr Dhanji SC - when he made his submissions last Friday 22 June - argued that Mr Staas' rehabilitation, future prospects and his return to the family business may be such that I might see it as an appropriate case to exercise extraordinary leniency and to fix a non-parole period which would be about the same as the amount of time he has already spent in custody. When I came onto the bench to sentence Mr Staas yesterday I had decided that I would not take that course and that his non-parole period would be longer than that. I then heard the additional evidence about Mrs Janice Staas and about Mr Staas' daughter Silvia and heard further submissions from Mr Barr and Mr Dhanji SC. Mr Dhanji argued that the circumstances concerning his daughter and Mrs Janice Staas' precarious situation were such that it tipped the considerations of hardship to people other than the offender over the line from being a general factor to take into account amongst the personal considerations relevant to an offender into the very exceptional circumstance where I might take it into account as a specific mitigating factor in either reducing the non-parole period to be no greater than the period he has already spent in custody or at least significantly reducing what might otherwise be the non-parole period. 31I have given this matter earnest consideration over the last 24 hours. I am concerned about what the psychologists say about the precarious position which Silvia finds herself in. There has been a combination of adverse factors in her life identified by the psychologists which have resulted in her being in a very difficult situation at a very young age. 32I also take into account the health of Mrs Staas and her uncertain ability to be available to continue to look after Silvia. 33I have decided that that will have an impact on the non-parole period which I will fix. I do not propose to reduce it to a period which is no more than the amount of time that Mr Staas has served in custody. I think that that would be result in a sentence which was too lenient and which would be inadequate to reflect the extent of the criminal behaviour which he was engaged in. I propose in due course to sentence him to a period of imprisonment with a non-parole period which will see his release in January next year. I also propose to impose an aggregate sentence under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. 34I should add that I heard submissions about the pleas of guilty which Mr Staas had entered. I accept that he should receive a full discount for his pleas to the conspiracy to manufacture the indictable quantity of methylamphetamine and his supply of methylamphetamine. I have determined that the discount for his plea to the solicit to manufacture should be 15 per cent. 35The sentence which I would have imposed for his conspiracy to manufacture an indictable quantity (the conspiracy being with Mr McGregor and Ms Burrow) was 5 years imprisonment. Because of his plea of guilty and the contribution which that makes to the administration of justice I propose to discount that by 25 per cent so that the sentence will be 3 years and 9 months imprisonment. 36In respect of the supplying of drugs to the undercover operative, I regard an appropriate sentence is one of 5 years imprisonment. For the same reason I will discount that by 25 per cent and the sentence that I would have imposed would have been 3 years and 9 months. I would have commenced the second sentence 1 year after the first sentence. The first sentence would have commenced on 11 November 2010 having taken into account Mr Staas's period in custody. The second sentence would have commenced on 11 November 2011, 1 year later. 37The sentence I would have imposed for the solicit to manufacture would have been 4 years imprisonment. I would have discounted that by 15 per cent and imposed a sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment and I would have directed that to commence 6 months later on 11 May 2012. 38The total period of the sentence would have been 4 years and 10 months from 11 November 2010 to 10 September 2015. 39The special circumstances which I take into account in adjusting the ratio between the non-parole period and the full sentence include the hardship to Silvia but also the need for Mr Staas to continue in his efforts of rehabilitation. If I had imposed the standard non-parole period for a sentence of 4 years and 10 months it would be a non-parole period of 3 years and 7 months. If I had reduced that to 50 per cent it would have been 2 years and 5 months. I propose to reduce the non-parole period by a factor which will result in it being 45 per cent of the head sentence, namely, a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months. HIS HONOUR: I will now sentence you, Mr Staas, if you would stand up. 40Mr Staas, I fix a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months to commence on 11 November 2010 and to expire on 10 January 2013. There will be an additional period of 2 years and 8 months to commence on 11 January 2013 and to expire on 10 September 2015. Your full sentence is 4 years and 10 months commencing 11 November 2010 and expiring 10 September 2015. Your non-parole period commenced on 11 November 2010 and will expire 2 years and 2 months later on 10 January 2013. You are eligible for release on parole on 10 January 2013 that will be the first date upon which it seems to me that you are eligible to be released. Your release will depend upon the Parole Authority. Have a seat, Mr Staas. HIS HONOUR: Mr Page, Mr Mallinson, the figures - I think I have them correct. Would you both please check them? Mr Page, Mr Mallinson, do it carefully there's no rush. I will provide you with a copy of the order actually, it might help. MALLINSON: That's correct, your Honour. PAGE: That's correct, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Thank you both. 41Mr Staas, for the reasons that I have just given I have given you the sentence which I have just announced. You must go into custody now. You will be eligible for release in January, 10 January next year that is significantly reduced to what it would be normally. Normally a standard non-parole period - not a "standard" one but the legislation provides for it being 75 per cent of the full sentence so if that formula was applied your non-parole period would be 3 years and 7 months. Even if I halve that it would be 2 years and 5 months. I have fixed it so that it expires just into next year: 2 years and 2 months represents 45 per cent of the head sentence which is a significant reduction. I have taken into account, you have heard me, particularly your daughter's situation, your mother's precarious health and your daughter's precarious psychological situation. I cannot fix it any shorter than that. I would regard it as inappropriate and insufficient or an inadequate punishment for the crimes that you have committed. Your release on parole depends on the Parole Authority, do you understand? All right. HIS HONOUR: Did you want a word with your client at all, the Corrective Services are here, did you want a word with your client? MALLINSON: Yes, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Have a quick word now before he is taken down. Mr Hughes, Mr Walsh. Thanks Mr Page. PAGE: There's just two small matters of housekeeping. I asked for a destruction order in relation to the drugs and drug exhibits and there's still the issue of the confiscation application. HIS HONOUR: All right. PAGE: I'll wait until my friend-- HIS HONOUR: Yes. Mr Mallinson, finish your conversation. There's just something else which has come up, just finish at this stage there's just something which has been mentioned so he's not going down right now but it will be in a minute or so. MATTER INTERPOSED HIS HONOUR: Mr Page, you were mentioning two other things. Just have a seat again, Mr Staas, Mr Page has just raised something. What was the section, do you know the section under which I destroy? PAGE: I believe it's s 39P of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. 42Good, under s 39P of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act I direct that the drugs be destroyed. HIS HONOUR: Now, there is a confiscation order. PAGE: There's a confiscation order contested application. A date for that still needs to be fixed. I spoke to my friend, 13 July is suitable to myself and defence. HIS HONOUR: 13 July I will be out of the country or flying out of the country. I am available today, depending on the jury I might be available tomorrow and then I'm back in October. MALLINSON: Regrettably, your Honour, Mr Nield who is briefed for Mr Staas isn't back in the country until 9 July I'm not too sure how that will suit your Honour's diary, it may be we have to have the matter listed when your Honour returns. HIS HONOUR: What's the subject of the dispute? PAGE: At this stage, your Honour, I don't believe any of it is consented to, there are two claims by the Crown. One is in relation to essentially the buy one of the undercover operative that money was never recovered I believe that totals $62,000. There's also a diamond ring which was seized during a search warrant. That's the item - there's a contested ownership claim of it. HIS HONOUR: All right, it sounds as though it could go over to October without any harm so to speak. PAGE: I believe so, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: I've got another matter which is listed for Friday 19 October. PAGE: That's suitable, your Honour, to the Crown. MALLINSON: That will be suitable to the defence, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: I list the confiscation matter in Brett Staas's case on Friday 19 October 2012 at 10am. What's the evidence - have you got an application there, Mr Page? PAGE: One has been filed with the registry. HIS HONOUR: We might pick it up. Is there an affidavit in support? PAGE: I believe I was told by our confiscation guru that one wasn't required there is the drug proceeds order on the short minutes of order and the-- HIS HONOUR: Sorry, the what? PAGE: The Short Minutes of Order, the drug proceeds order, I was told an affidavit wasn't required, I can file one if your Honour-- HIS HONOUR: I don't know because I don't know what the application is about. Why don't I list it for mention at 2 o'clock today just to sort out - we'll see if we can find the application and I just want to sort out what to keep in my chambers and what I do need and what I don't need, what I can send back and what I don't need to send back. PAGE: I believe your Honour still retain the exhibits from the McGregor trial. HIS HONOUR: I do. PAGE: One of them was returned but if there are any further I'm happy to take custody of them. HIS HONOUR: Thanks, we'll have a look at that. All right, I'll list it for mention at 2 o'clock. Mr Staas, we will bring you back up at 2 o'clock. We will just sort out the confiscation matter which I will not hear until the middle of October but we will just see what is in it at 2 o'clock. Mr Staas can be taken down, thank you, gentlemen. MATTER INTERPOSED HIS HONOUR: Just whilst I think of it Mr Mallinson there's a report by Ms Anita Duffy, as I referred to in the remarks on sentence, about your client. The prison authorities indicate that they are assisted by reports such as that in their classification of a prisoner and my associate often sends them to the Corrective Services Department but I don't do that without the permission of the offender and it's something you might like to get instructions about. It does assist the Corrective Services in classification. Some prisoners don't want that sort of material being sent to the Corrective Services Department for their own reasons. So do you want to get some instructions on that? Thanks. MALLINSON: Your Honour, I've received instructions. Mr Staas is happy with that course. HIS HONOUR: He's happy with that course, thank you. My associate will send a copy of that this afternoon by email or fax. The application I have listed for I think 19 October, we've got the application and the draft orders and as you say, Mr Page, it's about the money used to purchase the drugs and also a ring by the looks of it. There's no affidavits. PAGE: No, your Honour, I received some instructions in relation to that and I was told - we intend to proceed by way of tendering a statement in those circumstances an affidavit is not required. HIS HONOUR: All right. PAGE: I can advise the statement we intend to rely upon it's from the officer-in-charge it has been served on the defence. HIS HONOUR: Been served, all right. PAGE: Yes. HIS HONOUR: Mr Mallinson, do you know whether you will be -I'm just trying to work out how much time to allocate it that's all - whether you will be calling evidence or not or you don't know the answer to that question? MALLINSON: Your Honour, I've spoken to Mr ..(not transcribable).. of senior counsel in the break, he's indicated that 19 October isn't suitable to his diary. HIS HONOUR: Is not? MALLINSON: Is not because as I understand the Crown needs the matter to be listed on a Friday, the 5th and the 12th are available, if that's available to your Honour . HIS HONOUR: The 5th is not - no, neither of those is I'm interstate. I mean, I picked that Friday because the following two weeks I'm in Bourke. MALLINSON: Your Honour, the 19th is available for Mr Nield of junior counsel who will also be able to appear for Mr Staas. HIS HONOUR: Yes, I think that's the best I can do I'm afraid. MALLINSON: In terms of the statement we've received that from the Crown but at this stage, your Honour, I don't have instructions or any guidance from counsel about whether or not we will be leading evidence. It's the intention of Mr Staas to have this matter settled with the Crown sometime before 19 October. HIS HONOUR: Want to try and settle it? MALLINSON: That's correct, your Honour. PAGE: The only complicating aspect to that, your Honour, is that the - subject to a claim by a third party, someone who is in custody so it's going to complicate things as far as settling that aspect of the confiscation application. I intend on inviting that person to provide a statement to us in relation to their involvement which I will serve on defence and it could be arising out of that statement that the matter is able to be resolved out of court as it were. HIS HONOUR: All right. I direct that my associate be notified by Friday 12 October 2012 of whether the matter has been settled at that stage or not. If not, I direct the Crown to indicate how many witnesses, if any, it proposes to call and what documents it proposes to tender and I direct the defence to indicate how many witnesses it proposes to call and what documents it proposes to tender. How does that sound? PAGE: If the court pleases. HIS HONOUR: My associate will provide each of you with her card so that that direction can be complied with. PAGE: Thank you, your Honour. Might I also hand up the indictment amended by the Crown Prosecutor? HIS HONOUR: Thanks, Mr Page. That can go on the court file. Mr Page, Mr Mallinson you are excused and Mr Staas can be taken down. ADJOURNED TO FRIDAY 19 OCTOBER 2012