DPP v Brindley [2015] VCC 1289 (16 September 2015)

Last Updated: 25 September 2015

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
IAN BRINDLEY

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LACAVA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 July 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 September 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Brindley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VCC 1289

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject: Obtain Property by Deception x 14.

Catchwords: Continuing Criminal Enterprise Offender

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:

Sentence: Seven and a Half Years' Imprisonment/Non-Parole Period 5 Years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr D. Porceddu
For the accused	Mr T. Alexander

HIS HONOUR:

1. Ian Brindley you have pleaded guilty to 14 charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The amount of the financial advantage in each charge means that in the circumstances each charge is a continuing criminal enterprise offence within the meaning of the Sentencing Act 1991 (“the Act”). Because each offence you have committed is a continuing criminal enterprise offence, the maximum penalty for each charge is 20 years imprisonment.
2. I am required to have entered into the records of the court the fact I sentence you as a continuing criminal enterprise offender for each of these continuing criminal enterprise offences and I direct that be done.
3. The circumstances of your offending are contained in a prosecution summary which was tendered in evidence and read in open court by the prosecutor Mr Porceddu. With a few corrections the summary was accepted by your counsel Mr Alexander as being accurate and as forming a proper factual basis upon which I can proceed to sentence you. These sentencing remarks need necessarily to be read together with the prosecution summary to get a full understanding of your offending. I refer to your offending here only in a summary way.
4. In the 1990s a co-offender Denis Angelieri identified a business opportunity to make a profit by financing sub-prime borrowers who wished to purchase second hand motor vehicles. Angelieri set up a an elaborate corporate structure, which I will collectively call Australian Motor Finance or AMF, together with O’Brien and you to operate the business conceived by him. You were a director of one of the operating companies and the deputy managing director of another and, together with Angelieri and O’Brien, you occupied a position at the heart of the business.
5. AMF was a legitimate business arrangement but was always under-capitalised. In general terms the concept was that AMF would enter into an agreement with a financier such as the National Australia Bank (“NAB”) or Adelaide Bank Limited (“ABL”) as the source of money ultimately loaned to sub-prime borrowers. The borrowers were introduced to AMF through recognised car dealers and finance brokers accredited by AMF. AMF would arrange such loans and service them. AMF entered into all arrangements with the borrowers and collected the repayments by direct debit from borrowers bank accounts. The idea was that AMF would profit from the differential in interest rates between the interest charged by the financier and the interest rate at which AMF was able to obtain from the borrower. Because AMF was operating in the sub-prime market there were always risk associated with screening borrowers and AMF was trusted by the banks to vet the borrowers it put forward as genuine borrowers.
6. From a purely business point of view the business concept was sound but required a lot of work to establish and maintain and employed a number of people. This all cost money and the business cost a lot of money to set up and run. Further, the concept was to some extent subject to the economic cycle.
7. The NAB funded the loans until May 2007.
8. For various reasons, by late 2003 AMF had run out of money. Unless there was an injection of money into AMF to enable it to keep operating it would be insolvent and would have to cease trading. Instead of taking either of these options, Angelieri conceived of the idea to create false loans and to channel the funds derived first from the NAB and, later from ABL, into accounts controlled by him. In this way money ostensibly loaned by the banks to borrowers for car loans, was funnelled back into the AMF structure thus enabling it to continue to operate.
9. In late 2003 Angelieri discussed his idea to create the false loans with O’Brien and a plan was put in place which effectively meant that monies derived from the NAB (at that time) ostensibly for the purpose of financing various fictitious borrowers to purchase a motor vehicle would instead be used in part as a source of overdraft to AMF to enable it to continue to operate. The money received from the NAB and, later from ABL, would be disguised as legitimate loans to sub-prime borrowers but the loans were false.
10. The original plan to defraud the NAB in this way was that it was to be a short term arrangement for only so long as AMF became more established. But as time went on and, more and more false loans were processed, they (the false loans) required more and more time to service and more and more money to service the repayments at high interest rates because the money defrauded was ostensibly being borrowed by sub-prime borrowers who borrowed at high interest rates.
11. The plan was elaborate, sophisticated, well planned and protracted. No stone was left unturned to avoid detection.
12. The fraud was a gross breach of trust placed upon you as a director of AMF through the complex financing agreements entered into by AMF with ABL.
13. The charges that you have pleaded guilty to do not involve obtaining financial advantage from the NAB. That offending occurred between approximately January 2003 and 16 May 2007 a period of just over four (4) years. On 16 May 2007 ABL took over as the financier of the car loans and the NAB was paid out by financing obtained from ABL on that day. That is when the offence in Charge 1 occurred. The dollar value in each of Charges 1 to 13 represents the total funding provided by ABL for the period alleged in each charge and the amount is a combination of genuine and fraudulent loans. Each month a spreadsheet was provided by AMF to ABL setting out the amount sought and, the particulars of various loans some of which were genuine and some of which were false. ABL provided the total funding set out on the spreadsheet. In all, ABL provided $56,649,136.45 of which $24,729,759 was for 885 false loans. Each of the charges is a rolled up charge to include many false loans.
14. The offending in Charge 14 is different to the offending in the other 13 charges. It covers a nineteen month period and represents 24 rolled up charges where originally legitimate loans had been made out but the borrowers defaulted and the vehicles concerned were repossessed and sold. Instead of providing the sale proceeds to ABL to reduce the indebtedness of the individual loans, the sale proceeds were retained by AMF for its use. ABL was not told of the individual defaults or that the vehicles had been repossessed. The loans thus remained on the books of ABL and allowed to continue as if there had been no default at all.
15. The whole fraud required identifying false loan borrowers, completing and submitting false loan applications supported by false documents reflecting the false sale and false purchase of a motor vehicle, setting up and servicing of accounts to receive the money derived and to make monthly repayments on each loan to avoid detection.
16. Your criminality in the charges over the period from May 2007 to January 2009, when ABL appointed a receiver to AMF, effectively involved covering up the false loans. Your role was to arrange for the “polling” of the false loans created by Angelieri and O’Brien. From the funds received from ABL for the false loans and through very complex arrangements involving a number of bank accounts you had to ensure that the fictitious borrowings were regularly serviced by loan repayments in a way that could not be detected because this would reveal the fraud. Over the period of your offending each month you knew you were robbing Peter to pay Paul and that was done for the purpose of the fraud. You knew there were large sums of money involved.
17. Over the period covered by the charges the monthly amount required to service these false loans increased from $243,000 in May 2007 to $729,000 in December 2008 shortly before the appointment of a receiver. That gives some idea of the enormity of the fraud for which your role was central.
18. You also signed the sale notices that were sent to ABL requesting funds for each of the false loans.
19. From time to time over the period of your offending you were sent a list of loans which ABL auditors wished to review. From time to time you would provide this list to O’Brien and Angelieri who, with your knowledge, would then create a false file which you or someone on your direction would then provide to the auditors to review. The false file created was provided to the auditors as a record of the factual basis used to substantiate what was in fact a false loan.
20. Angelieri conceived of the whole idea to create the false loans to provide a source of funds to prop up the AMF business. O’Brien was left in charge of creating the false loans. You embraced Angelieri’s plan and you knew that many of the loans submitted to ABL were false and that the money was being used to prop up AMF. You acted to make sure that the false loans were obtained and that those loans were serviced so as to perpetuate the appearance that they were legitimate. In this way the fraudulent scheme conceived by Angelieri was able to continue over the 19 months of your offending.
21. Your conduct in this offending represents a very serious example of what are serious offences. Because of the amounts of money involved, the period of time over which the offending occurred, the sophistication of the deception and, the elaborate cover up, for which you were primarily responsible, and the breach of trust involved upon a banking institution, your fraudulent conduct is towards the top end of the scale for this kind of offending in my opinion.
22. Annexure A to the prosecution opening sets out the loss eventually suffered by ABL. After litigation with auditors and contribution from other companies involved that were legally obliged to pay ABL, ABL was left out of pocket $12,247,437.49. The total amount of false loans received from ABL was $24,752,624.87.
23. The prosecution also relied upon a number of victim impact statements mainly from persons who had been affected by having false loans made in their names. I have taken those victim impact statements into account.
24. Mr Angelieri pleaded guilty before me to offences contained in two separate indictments. Indictment C1308887.1 contained one charge of conspiracy to defraud the NAB between 1 January 2003 and 16 May 2007 and one charge of conspiracy to defraud ABL between 25 August 2006 and 23 January 2003. There was also a charge of theft of $2.75M from Westpac. You are not to be sentenced for any of the offending relating to the NAB or the theft from Westpac as the charges which you have pleaded guilty to do not allege any offending relating to those matters. Your offending is thus confined to a shorter period than that covered by the conspiracy charges which Mr Angelieri pleaded guilty to.
25. Mr Angelieri also pleaded guilty to separate matters contained in indictment C1108169.1 and those matters do not concern you. The second charge of conspiracy to defraud ABL which Mr Angelieri pleaded guilty to covers a longer period than the period of your offending but embraces much of the prosecution case against you on the basis of concert. I sentenced Mr Angelieri to an aggregate sentence of 9 years' imprisonment for both of the conspiracy charges.
26. Mr O’Brien indicated he would plead guilty to charges at an early time and he undertook to give evidence against you and Mr Angelieri. He complied with that undertaking signing a lengthy statement and giving evidence against you in a pre-trial Basha hearing.
27. Mr O’Brien was sentenced by Chief Judge Rozenes on 13 June 2014, having pleaded guilty to the same Charges reflected in charges 1 to 13 on your indictment. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of $2.75m from Westpac. The Chief Judge sentenced Mr O’Brien to an aggregate sentence of 7 years imprisonment on charges 1 to 13 and 6 years imprisonment on the theft charge. Two years of the sentence on the theft charge was made cumulative on the aggregate sentence making a total effective sentence of 7 years imprisonment and His Honour ordered Mr O’Brien to serve a minimum of five 5 years and 4 months before being eligible for parole.
28. In sentencing Mr O’Brien, the Chief Judge said he was not the mastermind behind the offending but characterised him “as an informed participant in it." In my opinion, the same description may be attributed to you.
29. His Honour took into account delay in bringing the charges and the fact that Mr O’Brien pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and gave an undertaking to give evidence for the prosecution. His Honour found that Mr O’Brien had provided a high level of assistance to the authorities for which he was “entitled to receive the maximum benefit” for his cooperation.
30. Both you and Mr O’Brien have pleaded guilty to similar charges. You do not have the theft charge of $2.5M that he was sentenced for but he did not face what is Charge 14 on your indictment.
31. In contrast with you, Mr O’Brien indicated a plea of guilty at a very early time, he cooperated with investigators and, as I said, he made a lengthy statement implicating you and Angelieri and he gave evidence against you for which it may be inferred he received a reduction in sentence. You do not have that benefit.
32. In sentencing you I am mindful that I must have regard to and apply parity in sentencing and be mindful of the sentence imposed on Mr O’Brien in particular and the reasons for it.
33. In his very helpful submissions, Mr Alexander accepted that your offending was planned and designed to reduce the chance of detection and he conceded that your conduct in the deception of the auditors was an aggravating factor. Mr Alexander conceded that your offending was aggravated by the amount of the funding fraudulently obtained. He conceded that your offending was in breach of your position of trust.
34. Mr Alexander submitted in his written outline at paragraphs 64 to 67 that your role in the offending was “markedly different from Angelieri and substantially less than O’Brien” whose role it was to personally recommend and approve the granting of fictitious loans in conjunction with Mr Angelieri. Mr Alexander submitted that your offending was less culpable because your offending was partly by omission and partly by participation.
35. I regard your role in the offending for which you have been charged and pleaded guilty to as being lesser than that of Angelieri. He can properly be described as the mastermind of this fraudulent conduct and he was the one who enlisted you and O’Brien to carry it out. He was the one who stood to gain the most.
36. However, in my view your involvement in the offending was on a similar level to that of Mr O’Brien. Both you and Mr O’Brien each had a high level of involvement in the offending. Each of you had a job to do. Mr O’Brien in the creation of the false loans and you in servicing the false loans once made and in covering up the false loans to avoid detection. The fraud conceived by Angelieri could not have succeeded undetected for so long and with so much money being fraudulently obtained without the work of Mr O’Brien and you.
37. I accept that you did not personally directly gain from your offending. The financial advantage was to AMF and the money gained used to fund it. However, you continued to derive a handsome salary from your work. I was told and accept this was in the range of $250,000 per annum when the company went into receivership in January 2009.
38. You have pleaded guilty to the charges and that is a mitigating factor which I must take into account.
39. By your pleas of guilty you have saved the time and cost of what might have been a lengthy trial during which you were to represent yourself which itself is a factor which probably would have added to the length of the trial.
40. In your case you did not plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.
41. You were interviewed by the police on 16 June 2011, nearly two and a half years after AMF went into receivership. The interview was lengthy and transcribed it takes up over 150 pages. You did not admit your role in the offending but did give details of AMF’s business operations, particularly how money was moved through a network of accounts.
42. There was no contested committal and you were committed for trial on 11 September 2013 on the basis of the hand up brief.
43. You were then before the court on an indictment that charged both you and Mr Angelieri with 2 charges of conspiracy to defraud. One related to the period where the NAB was the funder and the other to the period where ABL was the funder. You were also charged, with Mr Angelieri, with one charge of theft of $2.5M from Westpac. The trial commenced on 13 April 2015 with preliminary argument broken up over several days and there was a short Basha where you asked questions of Mr O’Brien. You represented yourself.
44. At my urging you had discussions with the prosecution and you sought and, obtained, legal advice and that is when the trial resolved into a plea to the charges. On 15 May 2015 you were arraigned and pleaded guilty to the charges. The pre-plea transcript will reveal that you contested the conspiracy charges on the basis you were not part of a conspiracy to defraud anyone. I accept the initial idea to defraud was Mr Angelieri’s and not yours. But, by what you did, you can safely be found to have embraced the fraud. By the time ABL re-financed the NAB, which is the time that your charged acts commence you knew that the fraudulent scheme was up and running and you went along with it as a participant to ensure it continued unabated.
45. Although the pleas of guilty were made by you at a late stage they are still of considerable value in my view. As I say, your guilty pleas have saved the time and costs of a possibly lengthy trial and, importantly, they signify your remorse on your part. I accept that each of your pleas of guilty has been made because you are genuinely remorseful. You are entitled to a reduction in your sentence because of your pleas of guilty.
46. Mr Alexander submitted there had been delay in the resolution of this matter which cannot be attributed to you and is also a mitigating factor which should reduce your sentence. I generally accept that submission. The nature of this kind of offending, particularly on the scale involved here, means that investigations are often lengthy and this case is no exception. The offending here occurred between seven and nine years ago and you were charged after interview. You have been awaiting resolution since being charged for about four and a half years.
47. One major reason why these charges were not resolved earlier was because Mr Angelieri and Mr Porcaro had separately been charged with other offences which did not involve you and which concerned their operations of a company, Euroquest Pty Ltd. Both Mr Angelieri and Mr Porcaro pleaded guilty to charges those earlier this year and, when that occurred, your trial was listed to commence.
48. I am satisfied you have had these charges hanging over your head for an inordinate length of time for reasons not of your making and that this has taken its toll upon you and your family. You have been in a holding pattern as it were since you were charged and unable to move on and that of itself has been a form of punishment to you. In arriving at an appropriate sentence I have taken the delay in resolution of this matter through circumstances not of your making into account.
49. I turn to your personal circumstances.
50. You are 61 years of age and you are married with two young adult children. You were born in Melbourne and are one of three children and you grew up in Wangaratta and Geelong until aged 18 years. You attended University of New England where you completed one year only of a degree in Agricultural Economics.
51. You moved to Melbourne in 1973 where you commenced working in commerce, your first job being as an assistant accountant. Between 1973 and 1978, whilst working, you studied accounting part-time and completed a Diploma of Business Studies (Accounting). At age 24 you qualified as a Certified Practising Accountant. From mid 1970 until 1986 you worked in accounting for a company Kemtron.
52. In 1986 you commenced working for companies associated with Mr Robert Holmes a Court. I received into evidence a reference from Mrs Janet Holmes a Court who spoke of your work for Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd and associated companies over a six year period. The 1990 annual report of Heytesbury Holdings, also in evidence, records you as the manager of Victoria. You left Heytesbury Holdings because of a major restructure of that company after the sudden death of Mr Holmes a Court in September 1990 and Mrs Holmes a Court was glowing of you in her reference saying, inter alia, “He has carried out a variety of management and board level functions for me and my family with skill and commitment....Ian is quick to assess a situation and has ability to act decisively, at all times having in mind the best interest of the company, its owners and employees.”
53. I was told and accept you were highly regarded by the late Mr Robert Homes a Court and his family, managing the affairs of that family on the Australian east coast. I have no difficulty in finding you were and are a highly capable accountant skilled in running the affairs and accounts of companies.
54. That is what makes your offending hard to understand. You obviously could have and, should have, said no to Mr Angelieri and not taken any part in the fraud he conceived. You knew what you were doing was wrong and you knew that what Mr Angelieri and Mr O’Brien were doing was wrong but you went along with them. You seemed to have done so out of loyalty to them and the company, seduced by Mr Angelieri’s representations that the false loans would only be required for a short period of time and would be repaid. For a man so highly trained and experienced in the ways of commerce at a very senior level, yours was a grave error of judgment.
55. When you left the employment of Heytesbury Holdings in 1992 you took up a position with Dalgety Farmers as a General Manager Special projects for three years. Dalgety Farmers was owned by the ANZ Banking Group. That job involved selling some $400M in receivables owed to the group.
56. Following Dalgety you had other employment and engaged in brokerage work in equities and finance before becoming involved in what became AMF.
57. A Receiver was appointed to AMF in January 2009 and the company eventually went into liquidation. There followed legal proceedings in the Federal Court where the liquidator obtained judgment against you and others in a proceeding that alleged breach of director’s duties. Between 2011 and 2013 the family home was sold and you were made a bankrupt from which you were discharged in March 2014.
58. There is only a modest amount of the equity in the home belonging to your wife and received by her left. As a result of this offending you and your wife have been financially ruined. I accept the years from January 2009 have not been easy for you. From 2011 you have faced these charges and you have faced the Federal Court proceeding and bankruptcy to contend with.
59. Prior to this offending from what I have read you did not live what is sometimes described as the high life but you had a comfortable home in a good suburb and your children attended private schools. When you were financially ruined your son was suspended from his school because you could not afford the fees. Your wife has had to take up work as a teacher. You have recently had work in a call centre receiving a very meagre hourly rate of pay. Your fall from grace is complete and it was a steep fall. I heard evidence and I accept you have been ostracised by former so-called friends and it has been very hard for you and each of the members of your family as a result. Unfortunately, these are the consequences that often result from this kind of offending.
60. Until you engaged in this offending you had led a life without blemish. Despite a very full career in high-level commerce you have never been charged with any offence and you have no prior convictions. That is what makes the fall from grace so much harder for you and your family. But it is the fact that you are highly regarded that results in others, particularly banks, placing such trust in you and when that trust is breached in the way that you have, the drastic consequences that you and your family have had to endure over the last several years may be expected to follow.
61. In addition to the reference from Mrs Holmes a Court, I received into evidence a number of other references relating to your former employment. All speak highly of you.
62. I also received into evidence a letter that you wrote to me. In that letter you acknowledged your regret at your offending and you apologised for it. In the letter your shame comes through. I accept you are remorseful and I accept it is unlikely that you will ever offend again in this way. I think you have good prospects for a full rehabilitation.
63. Others also wrote letters which I received into evidence. Your sister wrote a letter in which she spoke of your growing up. Your children also prepared letters as did your wife in which she speaks of the hardship for the whole family over the last few years caused by your offending. What comes through is that, this offending aside, you seem to have been an honest, modest, hard-working devoted family man who hitherto contributed in many ways to society generally and to his family. In those circumstances I am not surprised at the shock to everyone when your offending was revealed exposing you as a fraudster and this has greatly affected your family.
64. Your wife, Karen, gave evidence before me and was a good witness. She has returned to teaching and teaches English as a second language. She told me how your temperament changed after you became involved with AMF and you changed as a person. She confirmed the consequences for her and your children caused by your offending. She described how she had been overwhelmed by the consequences, especially the financial ones. In passing sentence I have taken all this evidence into account. To your credit, you appear to have done your best in difficult circumstances to hold your head up and to steer your family through a difficult period.
65. I received into evidence a psychological report from Mr Jeffrey Cummins who saw you for reporting purposes on 21 July 2015. Mr Cummins opined, inter alia: “In my opinion at the time of offending he was not suffering from any diagnosable mental health condition. He now reports some symptoms of reactive anxiety and depression (triggered by his offending and his associated legal situation) and he would now be diagnosed with a reactive Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed mood (DSM-5 Code 309.28) of mild severity.” Mr Cummins thought your offending was motivated by a combination of factors but primarily by the fact that you are, by personality, more a follower then a leader and you are loyal to others. I accept what Mr Cummins has said and have taken these matters into account in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
66. As I said when sentencing Mr Angelieri, offending of this kind often calls for a stern sentence because of the need to apply general deterrence and to adequately reflect denunciation for your offending. This kind of offending strikes at the heart of this area of commerce which concerns commercial business borrowing from financial institutions. It almost always involves a breach of trust, as here, by offenders who are qualified professionals who have never previously been found to have breached the law. That is why stern sentences are called for as a general deterrent to others who may be tempted to offend as you have. This kind of fraud is difficult to detect and investigate and such investigations are costly and time consuming. They take up a lot of resources in investigation and prosecution, as had been the case here. At the centre of the crime rests the fact that the loans were false and the borrowers and, motor vehicles purportedly financed, were non- existent. In the result the lender has no security to fall back on and the money loaned is invariably lost. The offending often extends over several months or even years. In your case the offending lasted in total several months. For these reasons, a lengthy term of imprisonment must be imposed.
67. Your counsel asked me to consider the imposition of a jail term followed by a Community Corrections Order to take effect upon your release from prison. In such a case the term of imprisonment would be limited to two years. Having regard to your role in the offending, the period of time over which the offending occurred and the scale of your offending, I do not accept Mr Alexander’s submission as appropriate. Apart from anything else such a disposition would not be in parity with the sentence received by Mr O’Brien and Mr Angelieri. I do not regard the disposition submitted by Mr Alexander as being anywhere near appropriate to your offending in all the circumstances.
68. On Charges 1 to 14 being charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of seven and a half years.
69. I direct that you serve a minimum term of five years before being eligible for release on parole.
70. For the purposes of s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I state that had it not been for your pleas of guilty to the charges I would have imposed an aggregate sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and I would have directed that you serve a minimum of 6 years and 8 months' imprisonment before being eligible for release on parole.
71. I declare there has been 51 days pre-sentence detention and that 51 days be reckoned as having been already served under the sentence passed this day and be deducted administratively.
72. I have been asked to sign a compensation order in favour of ABL in the amount of $12,247,437.49. The application was not opposed and I have signed that order.
73. I have also been asked to sign a forfeiture order relating to computer equipment. It was not opposed and I have also signed the order.
74. Are there any questions arising out of that?
75. MR ALEXANDER: No, thank you, Your Honour.
76. MR PORCEDDU: Just that, Your Honour, the application, the 464ZF, the forensic sample.
77. HIS HONOUR: Yes. I have also been asked to sign an order under s.464ZF of the Crimes Act having regard to the level of offending involved here I am of the opinion it is in the public interest that I sign that order and I will do so.
78. MR PORCEDDU: As Your Honour pleases.
79. MR ALEXANDER: May it please the court.
80. HIS HONOUR: Do you have that order there, Mr - - - ?
81. MR PORCEDDU: No, Your Honour, it will be sent through.
82. HIS HONOUR: Very well, if that could be sent to my associate I'll send that order.
83. MR PORCEDDU: Indeed, it will be done today.
84. HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
85. MR PORCEDDU: Thank you.
86. HIS HONOUR: Yes, could you remove Mr Brindley, please.

- - -