EDITED EXTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS
SUPREME COURT OF THE
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE REFSHAUGE
SCC No 133 of 2009
SCC No 134 of 2009
SCC No 137 of 2009
THE QUEEN
and
PHILIP TERENCE AVIS, SHAREE BONFINI &
CAROL MAREE PYKE
3.04 PM, FRIDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2009
Appearing before me today for sentence are
Mr Philip Avis, Ms Sharee Bonifini and
Ms Carol Pyke. All pleaded guilty
in the Canberra Magistrates Court to an offence under s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) that they
trafficked in a controlled drug, other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine.
This charge is a serious one rendering them
liable to a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, that is a $100,000 fine, or
10 years imprisonment, or both. It
is thus a serious offence, though by no means the most serious in the criminal
calendar. There are more serious
offences, but the fine and imprisonment show that the legislature requires such
offences to be taken seriously by the courts and the courts have, therefore,
treated this offence as a serious offence.
The offence is part of the attempt to
respond to the social evil that drug addiction causes with the lives of addicts
being damaged, often irreparably, sometimes even ending in death from overdoses
and the diseases associated with drug taking, and often other members of
society being preyed upon for resources to pay for the addiction to be
fed. As the Court of Appeal accepted in
It seems to me that a sentence of
imprisonment becomes inevitable, but the precise circumstances of the offence
and the personal circumstances of each offender are critical in determining how
this is to be served by the methods prescribed by the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), namely full‑time custody,
periodic detention or a suspended sentence.
I can deal with all three offenders
together to a certain extent because the facts of the offence are common to
all. Each, however, has particular
personal circumstances which I must take into account when deciding the
sentence to impose.
The offences came to light through the
interception of a number of communications made through the mobile phone of
Mr Avis. Several of the intercepted
calls involved conversations between Mr Avis, Ms Pyke and Ms Bonifini. The calls were made individually between
Mr Avis and each of the two women and involved the making of arrangements
for him to meet them and others in
Later search warrants were executed at the
residence of Mr Avis when he and Ms Pyke were there. Methylamphetamine, though not of a trafficable
quantity, was found. The search of
Ms Bonifini’s car located 0.98 grams of methylamphetamine and a
number of syringes, a set of scales and a number of empty clip seal bags. Ms Bonifini made full admissions to
using the drug. The three appeared in
the Canberra Magistrates Court and initially Mr Avis and Ms Pyke were
remanded in custody, while Ms Bonifini was granted bail. Subsequently, both Mr Avis and
Ms Pyke were granted bail, having been in custody for five and four days,
respectively. All entered pleas of not
guilty at first, but their cases were listed for mention prior to the case
management hearing and all then indicated pleas of guilty were to be
entered. They were subsequently committed
for sentence to this Court.
The Crown has fairly accepted that the
circumstances of the offences disclosed an operation at the lower end of
seriousness. Nevertheless, it seems to
have been a reasonably thriving operation, though between people who were
already drug users and known to the three of them. As Ms Bonifini said to the author of the
very helpful pre‑sentence report:
She stated that in other ways
she felt compelled to traffic drugs to support her habit. She stated that she never ‘pushed’ drugs, and
that people who knew her would ask her for stuff and she would supply it as she
had a reliable and trustworthy supplier.
At the time she did not think of the consequences as she was able to get
what she needed for herself and not touch the money that she would use for her
children and food.
The author also noted that Ms Pyke’s
comments were to similar effect:
Ms Pyke stated that she
had never ‘pushed drugs’. She stated
that she has ‘friends’ who know that she can get them ‘stuff’. She stated that there is a ‘trust - I
wouldn’t give them stuff I wouldn’t use myself’. She stated that because she would obtain a
larger amount, she would get better prices and would then be able to sell to
other users. She stated that she does
not feel like she is trafficking as she supplies a product that she knows is good
quality to people she knows.
In a way this does not minimise the offence
for such arrangements still amount to drug dealing, though they are perhaps more
reactive than proactive. The tight knit
group and trust, however, means that it can make detection more difficult. Nevertheless the Crown has accepted that it
is not to be compared with a more significant commercial‑type operation
where, for example, profit is sought or even where the dealers are not users, for
here they were dealing to support their own habit.
These three offenders first came before me
on 28 July 2009 for sentence, but for various reasons all sentences were
adjourned to today. This has been
helpful because all have been under supervision and so I have had an
opportunity to see how they have responded and to see whether progress has been
made, on which I can rely for deciding on the sentence to be imposed. All have made commendable progress. I need now to deal with each offender
personally.
Mr Avis
I am asked to take into account that an
additional charge of possessing property reasonably suspected of being stolen
has been listed in a schedule. This
relates to certain property found at Mr Avis’ premises when police executed a
search warrant there. The property
consisted of a black Hewlett Packard laptop computer with leads, a seven inch
digital picture frame, an Icon brand digital camera with a black carry bag, a
Canon brand digital video camera with a grey carry bag, a green Nike sports
bag, a Dell laptop computer, Panasonic digital camera with two memory cards and
a two millilitre ampoule of Diazepam.
I think it is appropriate to take this offence into account and I do so.
I note that Speigelman CJ recently
explained how that is to be done in R v
Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63,
where his Honour said (at [64]):
The court does so by giving
greater weight to two elements which are always material in the sentencing
process. The first is the need for
personal deterrence, which the commission of the other offences will frequently
indicate, ought to be given greater weight by reason of the course of conduct
in which the accused has engaged. The
second is the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious
offences when there are offences for which no punishment has in fact been
imposed. These elements are entitled to
greater weight than they may otherwise be given when sentencing for the primary
offence. There are matters which limit
the extent to which this is so. The
express position … in referring to the maximum penalty for the primary offence
is one. The principle of totality is another.
Mr Avis had an unremarkable childhood
with a good relationship with his parents and siblings. He maintains some contact with them. He left home at age 18 to move in with
his girlfriend and they were married when he was 21 years of age. This, however, ended 12 months
later. He said they married too
young. He had a new relationship at
age 23 and this lasted for seven years and he and his wife had two
children, now aged 23 and 21. He had
another relationship which resulted in two children. He has sporadic contact with his older
children, but maintains more regular contact with his younger children aged 21
and 12. He is currently in a de facto
relationship.
Mr Avis completed a motor mechanic
apprenticeship and became a qualified mechanic, operating his own business for
about 20 years. A back injury
prevented him from continuing in that employment. He commenced work as a self‑employed
tow truck operator for about 10 years.
This operation ended when there was an accident and insurance
difficulties rendered his truck unusable and unable to be repaired. He has been unemployed since then. Mr Avis commenced alcohol use at 22 and
continues as a social drinker.
Mr Avis started using amphetamines in
his early 20s as a social user at parties with friends. This use escalated in his late 30s when
he commenced his tow truck business. His
contacts through the trucking industry made amphetamines readily available to
him, which he used to manage the long hours of driving that were required of
him. He would use approximately one gram
of amphetamines three times a fortnight.
He would also use amphetamines when he was feeling depressed as a “pick
me up”. The ease with which he had
access to the drug led to him supplying it to friends and to commit this
offence.
Mr Avis is suffering from depression
that is currently untreated. He had a
short period of treatment from his general practitioner that included anti‑psychotic
medication. He has, however, ceased this
treatment.
He has a long list of prior offences, all
for traffic offences for which his occupation might largely account. It does limit to some extent the leniency
that the court can extend. He had
initially a problematic relationship with the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment
Service, the agency to which he was referred.
But since July the signs have been much more positive.
Since last in court Mr Avis has
attended weekly for supervision by ACT Corrective Services, as directed. He has presented as motivated to discuss his
substance abuse issues and has accepted referral to the ACT Health, Alcohol and
Drug Program for counselling. He has
been open and honest regarding his use of illicit substances and has actively
discussed triggers for his substance abuse.
During supervision Mr Avis has been
directed to undertake urinalysis that was drug screening on three
occasions. On 19 August 2009 the
results of the test was positive for amphetamine, methylamphetamine and
codeine. Drug screen results for
9 September 2009 returned positive results for cocaine metabolites,
codeine, ephedrine, methylamphetamine and amphetamine. Drug screen results for 23 September
2009 were not available. Mr Avis
reported some use of ecstasy that may explain drug screen results which were
positive for cocaine metabolite. He
discussed his ongoing use of illicit substances and described the difficulty he
has experienced in changing his 15 year substance abuse history.
The court cannot and does not condone such
use. It is illegal and the legislature
has mandated abstinence as the lawful position.
Nevertheless, the court cannot be blind to the strength and power of
drug addiction and that a reduction to abstinence is often a slow and patchy
process. Mr Avis’ commitment to
rehabilitation is to be commended and supported and his interim use is not to
be accepted or tolerated, but recognised as part of the inevitable process
directed towards abstinence.
Nevertheless, Mr Avis has not made
perhaps as much progress as would
entitle him to immediate leniency of a kind that may be available to his
co‑offenders.
A helpful pre‑sentence report has
recently assessed Mr Avis as displaying:
a renewed motivation during the
bail period, actively participating in counselling and openly discussing his
substance abuse. It is considered that
the task of making significant changes to a fifteen year cycle of
substance abuse may take considerable time.
However, Mr Avis’ renewed motivation and openness is considered the
start of what may be a lengthy process.
It is considered that to
successfully address his substance abuse issues the offender may require a
period of residential rehabilitation, however, there would be little benefit in
him undertaking such an intervention unless he is motivated to comply.
It is unclear if Mr Avis’ current
motivation will endure the lengthy and difficult process required to fully
address his substance abuse. I take into
account Mr Avis’ plea of guilty at an early stage.
Ms Pyke
Ms Pyke was born in
After leaving school she started an
apprenticeship as a hairdresser, achieving her certificate and was employed
until her son was born in 1991. She was
then at home, but in 2002 worked at a retirement village doing the residents’
hair.
She had a turbulent period when she
succumbed to septicaemia and was hospitalised.
Her ex‑husband took her son to
During 2002 she was involved in a
relationship with a person who was physically abusive towards her and who also
introduced her to illicit drugs. She had
at times to reside in refuges due to the domestic violence and when she
attempted to get some normalcy into her life again found that she would have to
start from scratch.
She had continued to reside in refuges and
share accommodation over the past few years and recently moved into a caravan
in a friend’s home, but she was recently homeless due to rent arrears. She feels she has little stability in her
life. That is probably an earlier
assessment with some significant signs of growing stability, which the court
would wish to underline and encourage.
It would appear that from 2004 to 2006
Ms Pyke attended drug rehabilitation for differing periods. In March 2009 she travelled to
Her brother has offered her casual
employment in his business. This was a
huge step forward for her. She is still
working with him for about two to three days per week and this is expected to
increase to five days shortly.
I had a detailed report from
Dr Bruce Stevens, a well known forensic psychiatrist. Dr Stevens reported:
Ms Pyke has a long history
of poor emotional regulation skills, and distress tolerance … I am concerned that she is still using
amphetamines to cope with life’s daily struggles and think that Ms Pyke’s
attitudes towards drug use and supply remain quite dysfunctional. It is likely that unless she learns new
skills to cope with distress she will continue to use and be at risk of further
drug related offences.
Ms Pyke has a number of
strengths. She comes from a stable
family. She did not have a history of
behavioural problems as a child. She
completed the Year 10 certificate and a trade in Hairdressing. She has positive attitudes and motivation to
finding employment.
The risk of further drug-related
offending can be reduced if she is willing to undertake extensive counselling
for her emotion [sic] regulation and distress tolerance skills. Given her numerous attempts at drug
rehabilitation programs and her current negative attitude towards further drug
rehabilitation, I think that enforcing this option would be of little
benefit. Ms Pyke can also reduce
her risk of re‑offending by reducing contact with drug using friends, and
obtaining stable employment. Her previous
enjoyment of her full‑time work and her current openness to seek
professional help are both positive indications for treatment.
That report was some time ago and since
then I have had an updated pre‑sentence report. However, Dr Stevens did say:
I recommend that she develop a
plan for amphetamine abstinence with her [drug and alcohol] counsellor. I think that the cognitive skills program
offered by Corrections ACT would be helpful with her disorder thinking. I also recommend that she have treatment with
a psychologist or psychiatrist who will treat her emotional regulation problems
with an Evidence Based Therapy, such as Dialectical Behaviour Therapy. I would also recommend that she consult her
GP for returning to medication for anxiety and mood stability. A psychiatric consult may be helpful for
prescribing the most appropriate medication.
I recommend that she have
counselling as part of an overall strategy to recover from drug addiction. I am concerned that this might not be
possible if she is incarcerated. I am
also concerned that the psychological testing indicated a high risk for suicide
and this combined with previous attempts might place her at additional risk if
she is incarcerated.
Ms Pyke has been assessed under the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT). The assessment was that:
(a) Ms Pyke is assessed as a drug dependent
person, as defined by s 122 of the Act and is suitable for a treatment
order under s 123 of that Act;
(b) Ms Pyke understands and consents to the
condition of a treatment order;
(c) the Treatment Assessment Panel (the Panel) believes
that the most suitable treatment would be a 12 month treatment order comprising
of community‑based options, including counselling and any other
treatments as deemed necessary by the Panel ; and
(d) should the court grant a treatment order the Panel
would conduct regular reviews, initially fortnightly, monitor and supervise
treatment progress and provide regular reports to the court.
Ms Pyke has been directed to attend
for urinalysis, but has failed to do so.
She must accept that this is an important element in the inevitable
monitoring to which the offences she has committed now subject her. She has demonstrated a good work ethic, which
is a very important part of her rehabilitation and she is to be encouraged in
this. She needs, however, to address her
drug use and a treatment order may well be the best way to achieve this. She needs, too, to address her mental health
issues.
I take into account her early plea of
guilty. She has a poor criminal record,
with some serious offences, some of which resulted in prison terms, though
suspended. These mitigate against
significant leniency.
Ms Bonifini
Ms Bonifini was born in Queanbeyan,
but the family moved about many times while she was a child. At approximately six years of age her father
disappeared and she was placed in care.
After this episode she felt that her mother hated her and it was not
until she was approximately 13 years old that she met her father again. Ms Bonifini stated that she had three
stepfathers and has two younger brothers, one of whom is from her father and
another from her mother’s second husband.
She does not see her mother or brothers any more: “They only live across the border - I am not
important to my brothers any more”.
Her circumstances are tragic, but she has
managed, to some extent, to rise above them.
Ms Bonifini has five children from her marriage, which lasted from
1988 until 2004. Her ex‑husband
lives in the ACT with his mother and has regular contact with her
children. The children’s ages are
19 years, 16 years, twins 13 years, 10 years and a two‑year
old.
Ms Bonifini reported that
approximately three years ago she had entered into a relationship which
resulted in the birth of her youngest child who turned two years in
July 2009. She stated that this
partner has been involved in drugs and that they had a volatile
relationship. He has since moved to
Townsville in
She had a further relationship with a male
friend who she has known since before her marriage. This relationship, she said, was bad for her,
however, her partner is reliable for transport and child minding, but she feels
he manipulates her and does not really love or care for her. He is not aware of her drug use. Ms Bonifini says that her relationship
with the children is the most important thing in her life. She states that her children are not aware of
her drug use as she continues to keep this part of her life separate from
them. Ms Bonifini reported that she
is a full‑time mother and that whilst “it is the hardest job … it is the
best job”. This is true and I repeat
what I said in R v McLaughlin (unreported, Australian
Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, 7 August 2009):
I have to take into account also the fact that [in this case Ms Bonifini] is the carer for her children. Section 11 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), as well as s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) both
mandate that I have regard to these matters and that I take into account what
was said by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in M v The State [2007] ZACC 18, namely that there is a
right for the interests of the children to be taken into account, even in cases
of serious offending.
Ms Bonifini commenced alcohol use when
she was approximately 10 years old, as she said: it “helped numb the pain
when my mother hit me”. She rarely
drinks now that she has resorted to other drugs to help her cope. Ms Bonifini commenced drug use in the
1990s as an initial one‑off shot as a further means of coping. She had been informed that the drugs would
take the “bad feelings away, make you feel happy and get you wanting to do
things again”. She has been using
amphetamines for the past 10 years, almost every day. It is understandable then that it is
difficult for her to resolve her drug addiction.
Ms Bonifini reported initially that
she had been using diet pills for her weight and had got a “buzz from
them”. These “pills” helped her to cope
with housework, her husband and her life.
She then progressed on to amphetamines and a “friend” had helped her
“shoot up” until she could do it herself.
She stated that she used 95% of the time, almost every day. Ms Bonifini has also used cannabis on
occasions to help her sleep. Ms Bonifini
has tried on numerous occasions to stop her drug abuse and the longest period
was six months. On occasion she may go
from between four to eight days abstinence, but does not have the strength to
stop completely.
Ms Bonifini has attended Directions
ACT, Lesley’s Place, the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service, the ACT
Health Alcohol and Drug Program and the Women’s Information Resources and Education
on Drugs and Dependency. However, in all
cases she has failed to continue to attend these support services.
Initially, with ACT Corrective Services her
reporting for supervision was spasmodic, but this has changed in the past nine
months, whereby she has made considerable improvement in her reporting
regime.
On 27 August 2009 Ms Bonifini
entered Arcadia House for detoxification.
She successfully completed their program and returned home to her
children on 3 September 2009. This
is a significant change in attitude and a very impressive performance, which
needs to be encouraged and recognised.
She then attended Directions ACT for drug
counselling on a number of occasions.
She appears to maintain a normal family life with her children, despite
her apparent difficulty in divulging her drug use issues to them, a matter on
which she and I will have to disagree.
On 25 September 2009 she relapsed.
She says that she had “been at the wrong place at the wrong time” and
she had used amphetamines once. She
stated that “in some ways relapse was good as it showed me that I did not need
the drugs.” She stated that since then
she has not used any illicit substances and is feeling stronger in her resolve
to stay drug free.
On 9, 16 and 23 September 2009
Ms Bonifini supplied urine samples for drug screening through Directions
ACT, these samples testing negative for illicit substances. On 18 September 2009 Ms Bonifini
attended the offices of Forensic Services ACT Health for psychiatric
assessment. Dr George found that:
Despite her substance abuse
disorder she really does not have a functional psychiatric diagnosis. I believe that she has more of a
charactorlogical [sic] depression or a disthymic disorder, as opposed to any
major depression. She has elements of a
mixed personality disorder.
In short Ms Bonifini does
not suffer from mental illness, nor does she suffer from mental
impairment. She will profit by attending
drug and alcohol counselling services and maintaining contact with a substance
abuse counsellor over a number of years to remain abstinent.
Ms Bonifini has five prior
offences. They are not of a very serious
nature, though disentitling her to the maximum amount of leniency that the
court could otherwise offer. I take into
account her plea of guilty at a very early stage.
Mr Avis, please stand.
I order you to appear before me at
9.30 am on 3 March 2010 to be sentenced for this offence. The order will be subject to conditions and I
will release you on bail. I am required
to explain to you the penalty you might receive if you comply with the order
and your bail conditions, and the penalty you might receive if you do not
comply. I consider a period of two years
imprisonment is suitable. If you comply
with the order and bail conditions I will be likely to direct that the term be
suspended, subject to a good behaviour order, including possibly a community
service condition. If you do not comply
with the order I will be likely to direct that a significant period be served
by periodic detention, or be subject to a good behaviour order with or without
a community service option.
The conditions of the order are:
(1) that you
accept the supervision of the chief executive or his delegate and obey all reasonable
directions of the person delegated to supervise you; and
(2) that you undertake any treatment, counselling
or other programs directed by the person delegated to supervise you in relation
to issues of alcohol and drugs.
I grant you bail today, 2 October 2009, to
attend before me at 9.30 am on 3 March 2010 with the following
conditions:
(1) that you submit yourself as and when required
by an officer of ACT Corrective Services for urinalysis;
(2) that you report upon your release forthwith
to ACT Corrective Services at Eclipse House for the purpose of arranging
supervision under the deferred sentence order; and
(3) that you notify the Registrar of the Supreme
Court of any change of address within 24 hours of making that change.
I further direct under Pt 4.2 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) that
a pre‑sentence report be prepared by the Chief Executive for 3 March
2010 dealing with your performance under the deferred sentence order and your
compliance with the conditions of that order.
Had you not pleaded guilty I would have considered a term of
imprisonment of three years, a significant part of which would have been served
in full‑time custody.
Mr Avis, what I have done is I have
made a deferred sentence order. I
consider at the moment that your rehabilitation is not quite at the stage where
I can be confident that a suspended sentence would be appropriate and I
encourage you to continue with your resolve towards rehabilitation.
If you are successful in your compliance
with the order then I would be likely to make a suspended sentence at the end
of that time with some conditions, such as ongoing treatment and so on. I have made it a condition of the deferred
sentence order that you be under supervision and, in particular, address issues
of counselling and treatment. And it is
better that you do that with the person directed to supervise you. The bail is minimal, it is much less
significant than previously. I think you
are entitled to have that level of confidence, but if you breach the deferred
sentence order or if you breach the bail then you will be brought back before
me and I may well incarcerate you until we can determine how finally to dispose
of the matter. I am impressed by the efforts
that you have made to date, but they are still at a fairly early stage and I
encourage you to take care to progress with that and I will see you in March
next year. You may be seated.
Ms Pyke, please stand.
I convict you of the offence of trafficking
in a controlled drug, other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine. I sentence you to two years imprisonment to
commence from 27 September 2009 to take into account the four days you
have already spent in custody. I suspend
the sentence today, 2 October 2009, and require you to sign an undertaking to
comply with the offender’s obligations under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
In addition, I include a probation
condition, namely that you be supervised by the Chief Executive, or his
delegate, for a period of two years and obey all reasonable directions of the
person delegated to supervise you. I
also include a condition that you submit to urinalysis as and when required by
an officer of ACT Corrective Services.
I make a treatment order, namely that
during the period of 12 months you submit yourself to the treatment
specified in the notice of assessment by the Panel, being community‑based
counselling and other treatment deemed necessary by the Panel.
Had you not pleaded guilty I would have
considered a term of imprisonment for three years, a significant part of which
would have been served by full‑time custody.
I have looked at the legislation. You probably were not interested earlier, but
there was some debate between me and your counsel about whether I could make a
treatment order and a suspended sentence.
It is possible under the Crimes
(Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and
it seems to me that it is proper. These
are serious offences and I need to tell the community that you are liable to two
years imprisonment for committing them, but I am very impressed by the efforts
that you have made and I want to encourage you in continuing to do that. Therefore, I have suspended the sentence on
conditions that you continue to be under supervision and continue with your
treatment and rehabilitation. And, in
particular, a treatment order at the supervision of the Panel.
I do not need to see you again. In fact, apart from wandering around town, I
hope I do not see you again. You have
the opportunity now to put this sad part of your life behind you and then to
get on with the rest of your life and make a contribution to your
community. You may be seated.
Ms Bonifini, please stand.
I convict you of the offence of trafficking
in a controlled drug, other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine. I sentence you to two years imprisonment to
commence from today 2 October 2009. I
suspend that sentence today and require you to sign an undertaking to comply
with the offender’s obligations under the Crimes
(Sentencing) Administration Act 2005 (ACT).
In addition, I include a probation
condition, namely that you be supervised by the Chief Executive or his delegate
for a period of two years and obey all reasonable directions of the person
delegated to supervise you, particularly as to drug counselling and treatment
and mental health counselling and treatment.
I also make a condition that you attend drug counselling programs at
Directions ACT as may be directed by the person delegated to supervise
you. I also include a condition that you
submit to urinalysis as and when required by an officer of ACT Corrective
Services.
Again, I can repeat very much what I have
said to the others. I am impressed by
the steps that you have made. In your
case, perhaps, they are a little bit more tentative, but I was very impressed
with your attempts to detoxify at Arcadia House and your recognition that you
have really got to do something. If you
genuinely put your children first, and I believe you do consciously, but
unconsciously you have got to make sure that you put this drug use well behind
you and you have got the strength and the willpower to do that and I believe
that you will have that opportunity. So
I have made a good behaviour order. The
conditions of that are that you do not commit any further offences and that you
be subject to supervision.
You seem to have a good relationship with
your supervisor. I hope your perception
of that is the same as Ms Howell’s and you can use that positively. It can be just a ‘tick a box’ and it can be a
bit of a problem, but it can be positive, to assist you to deal with some of
the issues that regrettably you have to deal with and hopefully to overcome
them.
I say as I did to Ms Pyke that, apart
from wandering around Civic, preferably not at 3 am when you are unlikely
to see me at any rate, I hope that the courts will not see you again. I wish you all well and I hope this
experience will be the only opportunity you have to come before the criminal
courts.