DPP v Yilmaz [2019] VCC 1563 (24 September 2019)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback County Court of Victoria

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

SERDAR YILMAZ

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 September 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 September 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Yilmaz
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1563

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr J. Goetz	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions

For the Offender	Mr P. Gordon	Stary Norton Halphen

1 Serdar Yilmaz, you have pleaded guilty on Indictment J12345642 to two charges of theft, the maximum penalty being ten years’ imprisonment; one charge of being a prohibited person possessing a firearm, the maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment or 1,200 penalty units; and one charge of handling stolen goods, the maximum penalty fifteen years’ imprisonment.

2 You have also agreed to me hearing three Summary Charges; 15, 17 and 19 pursuant to s145 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2000. Charge 15 possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence or permit has a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units, Charge 17, possessing a drug of dependence and various unknown prescription medications, a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units and Charge 19, dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment.

3 It is not necessary for me to recount in great detail the facts of this matter as they are on transcript, the matter having been opened in some detail by the learned prosecutor consistent with Exhibit A. I proceed to sentence you on the basis of the facts as summarised by the prosecutor and discussed during the course of your plea hearing.

4 For present purposes it is sufficient to say the facts of this case are most concerning. Your behaviour obviously quite unacceptable.

6 At the time of it you were 29 years of age and living at an address in Meadow Heights and you are 30 years of age at sentence.

7 Sergio Incandela is the registered owner of a 2013 Mercedes Benz sedan which from approximately January 2018, he advertised for short-term lease through Facebook.

8 On 24 August 2018, Incandela received a Facebook message from someone with the profile “Sam Charaani”. Charaani asked whether or not he could use the vehicle for a few days for a photo shoot. Charaani did not specify the type of event the vehicle was to be used in.

9 Incandela wrote back to Charaani and told him the vehicle was available, and that a bond would be required.

11 Charaani came with his wife and children. Incandela took a photo of Charaani’s driver’s licence, which had the name “Osamah Charaani”.

12 Incandela and Charaani agreed the vehicle would be returned to Degani Café on Monday morning.

13 On 27 August 2018, the vehicle was returned as agreed. When the vehicle was returned, Charaani and Incandela exchanged contact details.

14 On 31 August 2018, Charaani contacted Incandela for a second time and arranged for a short-term lease of the vehicle. Charaani collected the vehicle from Degani Café and paid Incandela $200 for two days hire. In addition, Incandela took out a further $500 bond to be returned once the vehicle was returned. The vehicle was then returned on 3 September 2018.

15 After collecting the vehicle, Charaani went to the residential address in Thomastown and parked the car in the driveway.

16 On Sunday, 2 September 2018, at approximately 9.00pm, a friend of Charaani’s, Aleksandar Soklevski, arrived at his address. Shortly after his arrival, Soklevski and Charaani left in the company of Charaani’s two young daughters in the Mercedes Benz.

17 At 3.16am on 3 September, Charaani contacted Incandela via text message telling him the vehicle had been stolen (Charge 1, theft of motor vehicle).

18 Incandela attempted to report the theft to Fawkner Police Station, however, was advised that Charaani would need to report the matter. Incandela instructed Charaani to report it to the police.

19 At 12.45pm on 3 September 2018, Charaani informed Incandela via text message that he wanted to speak to him face to face before reporting the matter to police. Charaani attended Degani Café at approximately 3.00pm and told Incandela of the theft. Incandela covertly recorded the conversation on his mobile phone. Charaani did not report the incident to police after that conversation.

20 At 10.05pm on 3 September 2018, Charaani contacted Incandela via text message and said the vehicle was parked in a driveway in Meadow Heights. Incandela called Charaani and requested he collect the vehicle. Charaani refused, stating that it was dangerous and the police would have to attend.

21 Incandela contacted police and told them the location of the vehicle and, at 11.17pm on 3 September 2018, First Constable Simcock-Bailey and Constable McCowan saw the Mercedes Benz belonging to Mr Incandela in the driveway of 1/19 Tarcoola Avenue, Meadow Heights (your address).

22 First Constable Simcock-Bailey contacted Incandela and confirmed the location of the vehicle. The vehicle was not listed as stolen and therefore police took no further action.

23 The following day (4 September 2018), Charaani attended Fawkner Police Station and made a statement.

24 Later that day at 4.20pm, Detective Senior Constable Hussey and Senior Constable Carroll attended the Meadow Heights address and saw the Mercedes Benz parked in the driveway. They did not maintain observations.

25 At 6.10pm, Senior Constables Carroll and O’Neill returned to the Meadow Heights address and maintained observations of the address. The Mercedes Benz was still parked in the driveway. A male of middle eastern appearance entered the vehicle and drove away, and Senior Constables Carroll and O’Neill attempted to follow him, however lost sight of the vehicle in Roxburgh Park.

26 The following day at 1.00pm (5 September 2018), Detective Senior Constable Priestly and Senior Constable Berzins saw the Mercedes Benz in a driveway in Roxburgh Park. Investigators maintained observation of the vehicle from that point.

27 At 6.30pm on 5 September 2018, police attended the Roxburgh Park address and search warrants were executed. An extensive movement of people was seen throughout the house.

28 All occupants surrendered at approximately 6.45pm. You were present in the company of Levent Bozkurt and his partner, Nesreen Omar. You, Bozkurt and Omar were arrested, taken to the police station and interviewed.

29 A search of that property located a number of items including Incandela’s Mercedes Benz motor vehicle, original registration plates belonging to the car, various altered and fraudulent registration plates (Charge 3, handling stolen goods), a sawn-off shotgun (Charge 2, prohibited person possessing a firearm), three shotgun shells (Summary Charge 15), six small ammunition rounds (part of Summary Charge 15), $803 cash (Summary Charge 19) and possess prescription drugs (Summary Charge 17).

30 A search of the garage of the property located a stolen Triumph motorcycle belonging to Raymond Ching (Charge 4, theft of motor cycle).

31 Police also located various stolen number plates, credit cards, identification cards and two ATM drawers (part of Charge 3, handle stolen goods).

32 Enquiries revealed the sawn-off shotgun (Charge 2) was stolen from a residential burglary on 25 May 2018, the barrel of the shotgun shortened following the burglary.

33 In a record of interview on 5 September 2018, you exercised your right to make a “no comment” record of interview. As I say that was your right.

34 As at 9 September 2019 you had been in custody for 369 days on remand for these offences.

35 You have pleaded guilty to these charges and you are entitled to have that fact taken into account in your favour and I do so. You have, by your pleas of guilty, spared the time and cost of a trial and witnesses have not been required to give evidence upon your trial. I also take into account you intimated early your intention to plead guilty to these charges.

36 On 5 December 2018, the matter was listed for a committal hearing on 9 January 2019. At that committal hearing the matter resolved without witnesses being called. An application for summary jurisdiction at that time was refused, and the matter came to this Court.

37 I accept your pleas of guilty reflects some remorse by you, however given your prior similar type offending I have concerns regarding the extent of your remorse.

38 You have admitted an extensive and relevant criminal history commencing with an appearance at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court on 20 September 2010. You appeared on that occasion on weapons’ charges, possessing amphetamine and driving a motor vehicle without a permit.

39 You next appeared at court on 1 November 2010 on a charge of possessing amphetamine without a conviction, and were fined.

40 You next appeared at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court on 21 March 2011, on weapons’ charges, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, and possessing a drug of dependence. Without conviction, you were fined.

41 You next appeared at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 28 April 2011 on a charge of intentionally damage property and, without conviction, the matter was adjourned for one year.

42 You next appeared on 18 October 2011 on failing to comply with the Community Based Order imposed on 20 September 2010. The original order was confirmed and, without conviction, a Community Based Order for 12 months was imposed with a number of conditions attached.

43 You were also on that date dealt with for a number of other charges, again in general, involving weapons’ charges, failing to answer bail, dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime and driving whilst suspended. A sentence of imprisonment was wholly suspended.

44 You next appeared on 27 August 2014 on a charge of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime and possessing methylamphetamine, and were convicted and placed on a Community Correction Order.

45 On 16 December 2014, on two charges of shop steal you were, convicted and fined. On that same date you also appeared for contravening a suspended sentence order. Exceptional circumstances were found and no order was made as to the suspended sentence.

46 On 11 May 2016, you were again dealt with for contravening a Community Correction Order.

47 On that same day, you were also dealt with for a number of firearms’ offences, possessing amphetamine, possessing a drug of dependence (cannabis), and failing an oral fluid test within three hours of driving. You received an aggregate sentence of two years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months, and some fines.

48 I was told you were released on parole on 26 August 2017 for approximately 6 months (until February 2018). I note despite completing parole you nevertheless committed these offences approximately 7 months after, as I discussed with your counsel Mr Gordon.

49 Your counsel provided a Written Outline of Submissions for your plea hearing. He also relied upon a report of Warren Simmons, psychologist, dated

18 April 2019, and a report of Susan Carey, clinical neuropsychologist, dated

50 In his written outline, Mr Gordon conceded your offending was serious and that a term of imprisonment was the only available appropriate sentence. That, in my opinion, was a realistic and appropriate concession. His ultimate submission was that your complex psychological picture should be moderated, leading to a reduction in particular in the minimum term.

51 Mr Gordon submitted that from the records before me, you were a vulnerable person who required significant support upon release. Much of the plea hearing involved discussion about the reports and the transcript will reveal that discussion. Ultimately I found the reports of minimal assistance. Mr Gordon conceded there was uncertainty about the precise nature of your psychological difficulties described within the reports and as I have said much of the plea hearing involved concerns regarding the reports relied upon.

52 Mr Gordon urged you had longstanding issues with learning, cognition and behaviour management, likely with low-average cognition and poor behaviour control.

53 Mr Gordon however was not relying upon the principles in R v Verdins & Ors [1] and, in my opinion, that was also an appropriate concession on the material before me.

54 Turning to your plea of guilty, Mr Gordon urged that it was at an early stage without the committal hearing proceeding, and after the more serious charges were withdrawn by the prosecution. I accept that is so.

55 You are now 30 years of age as I have said. Mr Gordon acknowledged you had relevant prior convictions and you do. You attributed your prior criminal history to poor decision making and association with others who used significant quantities of illicit substances.

56 You instructed you were keen to try and make a change and wanted to enter a Residential Rehabilitation Program in the future.

57 You described a strict upbringing and exposure to violence. You struggled with education, literacy and your numeracy skills were poor.

58 Your drug use commenced during your formative years and over time you have abused multiple illicit substances; cannabis, methylamphetamine and benzodiazepine.

59 You reported two attempts at suicide, the first involving an overdose on benzodiazepine and ephedrine, the second, self-harming by cutting.

60 You retained the support of your family, and said you wished to pursue employment with your father upon your eventual release and I note family members in court to support you at your plea hearing.

61 I turn to the report of Warren Simmons, psychologist, dated 18 April 2019. It was observed that at presentation, you expressed a desire to make changes in your life, however had limited insight as to what the changes would need to be.

62 Further details were provided of your personal history within that report.

Mr Simmons also referred to violence in the home. You described being closer to your mother than your father when growing up, although now you say close to both. You now had a relationship with your sister.

63 You described difficulties focussing at primary school. You had to attend anger-management classes because of your temper. Your spelling was poor and reading rudimentary. Your relationship with teachers was always poor, and you received a lot of detentions. You were also frequently in fights with your peers.

64 You spent eight months at Gladstone Park Secondary School, before you were expelled for verbally abusing a teacher. You then went to Craigieburn Secondary College for six months then to a school in Coburg, for two months.

65 After leaving school, you were in and out of employment, work usually lasting approximately six months. You enjoyed work, however stated you generally left because you struggled with being told what to do.

66 You had previously been in a relationship with “Linda” for approximately twelve months. She was a drug user.

67 You reported commencing cannabis use from age 14, from 16 you used amphetamines. At 17, you commenced use of methamphetamines and by 18 using that daily.

68 You said that you had only ever not used drugs when in custody or when overseas.

70 At night clubs you have used other drugs, as described in the report (paragraph 16). You reported having overdosed on three or four occasions, generally as a result of mixing methamphetamine and GHB.

71 You do not consume alcohol (although I discussed apparent differing instructions to Ms Carey).

72 You described having undertaken drug and alcohol courses at Loddon Prison, but you said they did not help.

73 Turning to your medical and psychiatric history, you described falling from a three-storey building at the age of 2 (although I note a different description to Ms Carey) and of suffering a cracked skull. You told Mr Simmons you did not receive medical intervention at the time (I note a difference in Ms Carey’s report).

74 You also report having a cardiac arrest at aged 21, necessitating you being hospitalised for three days, although according to Mr Simmons, the cause was not entirely clear.

75 You told Mr Simmons you had been shot in the left knee in 2016 which you treated yourself. You also described being stabbed in the right hand and shoulder blade, although the circumstances of that were unclear.

76 You described at age 25, taking multiple ephedrine and Xanax tablets, and being taken to the Northern Hospital for two days. I note no material was before me to support your instructions and I also discussed with your counsel the differing self-reports to both Mr Simmons and Ms Carey generally.

77 Psychological testing revealed you would be in the disabled range of intellectual functioning (paragraph 23). There were also difficulties with memory and executive functioning. These conclusions were also discussed with Mr Gordon, in particular the reported concern regarding the validity/accuracy of

78 Regarding your prior convictions, you said you kept weapons as self-protection, having been shot in the past. Your other offences were when you were drug affected.

79 In the opinion of Mr Simmons, your childhood left you vulnerable to substance use. That you presented with limited intellectual ability and with major difficulties with cognitive function. Your use of drugs, such as benzodiazepines, would further decrease your overall cognitive functioning.

80 Regarding the charges before me, you were unable to provide any particular insight into your offending and that remained so in your instructions to

5 September 2019. You reported a head injury as a toddler and behavioural and learning difficulties through schooling.

82 In her report further details were provided regarding your personal history, which I have read but will not repeat.

83 You described falling from one storey, and landing on your head (three storeys according to Mr Simmons’ report). You recalled being told, at that time, that the brain scan was normal. In the report of Mr Simmons (paragraph 18) you said you do not consume alcohol, whereas in the report of Ms Carey, you would binge drink during social occasions to the present (i.e. before remand).

84 Referring to your substance use, you reported you used substances to self-medicate your mental health disorder symptoms. It was noted you had not undertaken any medically-supervised detoxification or residential rehabilitation in the past, although had completed a couple of AOD courses you said whilst under previous custodial sentences and also some counselling in 2011.

85 You expressed plans in the future to stay away from drug use and to undertake AOD interventions. You thought working with your parents might minimise your risk of relapse.

86 Reference was made by Ms Carey to the possibility of reduced effort by you during testing, also noted by me. Ms Carey suggested the results may have been an under estimate of your true abilities. Nevertheless, Ms Carey referred to Mr Simmons opinion that you were a man of limited intellectual ability, with substance use thought to be a contributing factor to your difficulties with the law, and further exacerbating your underlying cognitive problems.

87 You described low frustration tolerance and poor anger management. You were impulsive, and felt calmer, you said when you used drugs.

88 In relation to her neuropsychological examination, Ms Carey concluded the results needed to be interpreted with caution (paragraph 27).

89 In Ms Carey’s opinion, you were conservatively estimated to be of borderline intellectual functioning, however, you demonstrated variability in your level of formally assessed effort which made it difficult to interpret your cognitive performance. Your current cognitive profile, as described within her report, was an under estimate of your true cognitive abilities due to the fluctuations in your level of effort.

Mr Simmons of an IQ of 47 was far below you current IQ score, making it difficult to gain a valid picture of your true level of cognitive ability. Ms Carey noted, as do I, the difficulty ascertaining any contribution of any reported head injury as a toddler due to the lack of corroborating medical evidence.

91 In Ms Carey’s opinion, on balance, you were likely to be mildly to moderately below average in many aspects of your cognitive functioning and behavioural control. She was unable, however, to precisely quantify the specific nature and severity of any cognitive deficits due to your inconsistent effort across formal cognitive examination.

92 Ms Carey agreed with Mr Simmons’ assessment that you impressed as a ‘vulnerable’ man with a complex history and limited intervention in adulthood.

93 Ms Carey responded in her report to a number of referral questions. She “suspected” you had antisocial personality traits or ASPD and/or ADHD, although it was not formally examined. In addition, you had several substance use disorders, specifically Cannabis Use Disorder, Stimulant Use Disorder and Anxiolytic Use Disorder.

94 Ms Carey concluded formal examination of your cognition, said was impeded by your variability and effort limiting the conclusions she could draw about the nature and severity of any potential cognitive impairment. Despite that, she was of the opinion you were likely to be below average (but not intellectually disabled) in various aspects of your overall cognitive functioning and behavioural regulation based on your self-reported history and presentation scores. She was unable to draw any strong conclusions about the severity of any cognitive deficits you may have. She was unable to determine what impact any potential cognitive impairment may have had on your offending behaviour.

95 Ms Carey was unable to form a diagnosis of intellectual disability due to your performance validity on testing. The obtained IQ she proffered, may not be valid.

96 I discussed at great length with Mr Gordon his submissions in relation to the two reports that were before me, to which I have just referred. He conceded there were difficulties with the conclusions of both authors, given the inconsistencies, in particular through your self-reporting.

97 Mr Gordon was appropriately not relying on principles in Verdins. He urged, however, that the assessment and testing by Ms Carey in particular, paragraphs 27 to 32, would warrant a reduction in both the head sentence and, in particular, the non-parole period imposed.

98 As I said, I spent a significant amount of time with Mr Gordon discussing my concerns regarding the two reports and relying on them as urged by him.

99 Mr Gordon urged that the time you would likely spend on parole would cater for your difficulties as referred to within the report and provide you with supervision and the assistance you needed. However, I also discussed with Mr Gordon that you have previously been on parole, and which I understood was successfully completed, nevertheless you offended within approximately seven months with your offending that is before me. Mr Gordon said your offending before me involved a relapse into drug use.

100 You now understood that substance abuse was a real issue for you, according to Mr Gordon, and your capacity to not offend was linked directly to your drug use and that, I agree, is highly likely.

101 Mr Gordon referred to a report of Dr Brookstein which confirmed you attended fourteen appointments with her for drug and alcohol counselling. That is to your credit. Also that you have undertaken two courses in custody.

102 I turn to the report from Dr Delene Brookstein (Exhibit 5), dated 7 August 2019, clinical and forensic psychologist. She referred to you accessing psychology support on remand at MRC, however since your move to Port Phillip Prison, you have been unable to access those facilities. She confirmed you had been engaged with Forensicare mobile mental health services since December 2018 and had attended 14 individual treatment sessions with her. Dr Brookstein noted you engaged very well with therapy.

103 Also tendered were Certificates of Completion of courses undertaken by you on remand (Exhibit 6). A twenty-four-hour Relapse Prevention Program and a six-hour AOD and Depression Program. These are positive achievements by you and will hopefully assist your rehabilitation. Time will tell when you are eventually released whether you can abstain from drug use.

104 Mr Gordon conceded your offending was serious, in particular the firearm offending, but urged the non-parole period was the critical part of the sentence which, he urged, should be reduced based on the material before me.

105 There was a reference from Sybel Guler, your sister, dated 5 September 2019. You had expressed regret for your offending and the decisions you had made over the years. Your family was supportive of you. She referred to your difficulty with negative peers. Marrying and starting a family was a current future goal for you. You felt you were getting old and wasting your life. She believed you would make a change in your life for the better when released back into the community.

106 In his submission on sentence, the prosecutor Mr Goetz referred to the inconsistencies in the reports of Ms Carey and Mr Simmons, with no explanation for those inconsistencies. He submitted it was inappropriate for me to guess why there were inconsistencies. He referred to the author’s reliance on self-reporting for the conclusions of both Mr Simmons and Ms Carey and he submitted “little useful material could be obtained from them”.

107 The prosecution submitted an immediate term of imprisonment was the only appropriate disposition. Regarding a longer period on parole, he submitted the vulnerability relied upon by Mr Gordon had little or no evidentiary basis on any of the material before me. That your vulnerability had a hollow ring to it, given you re-offended so soon after the end of the parole period.

108 I do have concerns regarding the two reports and utilising them as urged by

Mr Gordon relevant to the non-parole period when sentencing you. In my opinion, the material before me does not support significant reduction in the non-parole period.

109 Regarding your rehabilitation prospects, I have, at best, guarded optimism. You have previously been on Community Correction Orders and have, for various reasons, breached them. You have also previously breached a suspended sentence. You did complete a period of parole in February 2018, yet within approximately seven months re-offended by your offending before me.

110 You have, however, to your credit, been attending with Dr Brookstein for counselling and completed two courses in custody. You have a long way to go before I will be satisfied your rehabilitation prospects are good. For the moment, I cannot reach such a conclusion. In fixing sentence of course, I must, however, seek to maximise your chances of rehabilitation, as they may be. In that regard, I note you are 30 years of age and perhaps at a turning point in your life.

111 Two others persons were charged, as I understood it, from the search of the property at Roxburgh Park on 5 September 2018, Bozkurt and Omar. They have been charged with different offences to yours, and consideration of parity do not apply when sentencing you. Mr Gordon and Mr Goetz agreed parity was not a relevant consideration when sentencing you.

113 As well as those matters personal to you, to which I have referred, including your prospects of rehabilitation, as I find them to be, I must also take into account matters such as deterrence, especially general deterrence, which is of considerable importance in a case such as this.

114 There is also the need for specific deterrence when sentencing you, as you have a relevant and extensive prior criminal history.

115 I must also consider the question of protection of members of the community from you and bear in mind the likelihood of your re-offending. This concerns me although, again, I note some efforts made by you, most recently with

116 I am called upon by the Sentencing Act 1991 to manifest the community’s denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment.

117 When sentencing you, I take into account principles of totality and I sentence you as follows. Stand please.

124 And on Summary Charge 19, convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.

127 I direct that four months of Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon Charge 1.

128 I direct that six months of Charge 3 be served cumulatively upon Charge 1.

129 I direct that six months of Charge 4 be served cumulatively upon Charge 1, and I direct that two months of Summary Charge 19 be served cumulatively upon Charge 1.

130 That should result in a total effective sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment and I direct you serve a period of 20 months before being eligible for parole.

131 For clarity, the orders for cumulation are upon each other and upon the base sentence.

132 Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty to these charges and been found guilty of them, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of five years and a non-parole period of three years and six months.

133 Pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have been in custody on these matters from 6 September 2018, and up to and including

9 September 2019 you had served 369 days in custody, and as at the date prior to sentence (23 September 2019) you have served a total of 383 days in custody. I would like that checked. Have a seat.

134 The prosecution made application for a Disposal Order. That was consented to by counsel on your behalf and I make the Order in the terms sought.

135 The prosecution made application for a Forfeiture Order. That was consented to by counsel on your behalf and I make the Order in the terms sought.

136 A forensic sample was sought by the prosecution. That was consented to by counsel on your behalf and I make the Order in the terms sought. It will be for a saliva sample, and I make the Order based on the seriousness of your offending and your prior criminal history. I must advise you the authorities may use reasonable force in order to obtain that sample.

137 On Charges 1 and 4, I order that any driver’s licence you have be cancelled, and you be prohibited from obtaining a licence for a period of three years from today’s date (i.e. from 24 September 2019).

138 In determining the length of cancellation, I am conscious of your rehabilitation (see R v Lefebure [2]).

139 Any other orders? No, I do not think so. But what about the PSD, is that right?

140 MR GOETZ: We've checked the PSD and my learned friend and I both agree Your Honour's figure is correct.

141 HER HONOUR: Great. Now, what about the maths. I'm not asking if you like the figures, I'm just asking did you get them written down and they all add up?

144 HER HONOUR: That's all that matters. Now, can someone just clarify the date of that appearance on 1 November?

148 HER HONOUR: It was a typo. That is all right, 2010. So, it will be amended, the sentencing reasons will be amended to reflect 2010, not that day in November. All right, is there anything further. Have I signed everything or not? I do not know that I have. Have I signed the 464s and disposals and all that? I will do that outside and bring them straight back.

150 HER HONOUR: So, if your instructor at least can wait for 5 minutes, I will take care of those.

152 HER HONOUR: You will need to wait for five while I sign them as well so copies can be given to you.

159 HER HONOUR: No? All right, out you go. Thanks. I will do them while I am here I suppose. Are they all there? Thank you. You will have to fill in the names of the people, your instructor, Mr Goetz, and the date. That is not right, you do not want that one. That is rubbish. That was the not in custody one. There is the disposal order. There is the forfeiture order. You need dates and names of counsel. Is that the same thing the forfeiture order, why have I got two? Anyway, check it out. And there is the 464 relevant to in custody. All right, we got that? I will sign these outside. Thanks.

County Court of Victoria

DPP v Yilmaz [2019] VCC 1563 (24 September 2019)