IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-19-00877

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
BEN AFRAM YOUSIF		

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE GWYNN	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	14 September 2020	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 October 2020	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Yousif	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 1640	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:	Criminal law
Catchwords:	Causing injury intentionally; contravention of order intending to cause harm or fear for safety
Legislation Cited:	Family Violence Protection Act 2008; Disability Act 2006; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:	Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119; Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269
Sentence:	Ten months imprisonment; two year community corrections order; justice plan, fine of $1,000
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr B. Sonnet	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Offender	Mr D. Sala	Emma Turnbull Lawyers	

HER HONOUR:
1	Ben Afram Yousif, you have pleaded guilty on indictment to causing injury intentionally and to contravention of a family violence intervention order intending to cause harm or fear for safety.  You have also pleaded guilty to two summary offences of committing an indictable offence, namely causing injury intentionally and contravention of an order intending to cause harm or fear for safety, whilst being on bail.
2	In sentencing you for these crimes I must have regard to the maximum penalties for each of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty.  The charge of causing injury intentionally carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.  The charge of contravening a family violence order carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, and the remaining summary offences each carry a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment.
3	The circumstances of your offending were set out in a document entitled “Summary of agreed factual basis of the alleged offending” dated 26 May 2020.  That was used for the purposes of a sentence indication held on 1 June 2020 and remained a document on which both the prosecution rely, and the defence accept, as the factual basis for sentencing.  Through that document you conceded the elements of each of the offences.  I note that a sentence indication was not in fact given and you entered pleas of guilty on 9 June 2020.
4	The Crown document itself is detailed and will not be repeated here in full.  However, some of the circumstances need to be set out to understand the serious nature of the offending and the basis for which I am to sentence.
5	The offending arose in the context of your “on-again off-again” relationship of some five years with Ms Monique Ramsay.  On 6 December 2018, she was granted an interim intervention order pursuant to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 at the Magistrates' Court located in Melbourne.  You were the respondent and the order contained a range of conditions as set out in the prosecution opening, but essentially prevented you from being anywhere near Ms Ramsay.  The conditions were explained to you by the court on 
6 December 2018.  
6	At about 10 o'clock in the morning of Saturday 8 December you showed up at Ms Ramsay’s premises.  She let you in and there were no problems on that occasion.  You then left her flat together and went to Richmond to visit friends, before then travelling to the city.  
7	In the afternoon you were near Lonsdale Street between Swanston and Elizabeth Streets when Ms Ramsay felt her mobile phone being grabbed.  This was by you and you ran off with it along Lonsdale Street, crossing to a Melbourne Central carpark.  
8	Ms Ramsay followed you into the carpark and demanded her phone.  You told her she was not getting it, before throwing it on the ground.  When Ms Ramsay bent to pick it up, you grabbed her wallet from her bag, took $150, and put the money in your pocket.  You also removed her identification and threw it around the carpark.  At this time, you were abusing her and calling her names.  It is at the commencement of this childish display of behaviour that Charge 2, contravene family violence intervention order intending to cause harm or fear for safety, is said to commence.  That charge is a continuing offence.
9	You then left the carpark and Ms Ramsay attended at the Melbourne East police station to report what had occurred.  Photographs were taken of her at that time displaying no injuries.  
10	Ms Ramsay returned to the city and came across you for the second time.  You apologised and asked her to come with you.  You both went to Osbourne House in Nicholson Street, Carlton, where you were living at the time, you entering by the front door and Ms Ramsay using another entrance.  Once both inside the building, you met upstairs and went into the room being occupied by you.  
11	Once inside the room you inexplicably punched Ms Ramsay to the face, causing her pain and shock.  She immediately asked “What did I do?  What was that for?”  You then said “Monique, you are going to die in my hands” and you grabbed a pair of yellow socks from the wardrobe and shoved them into her mouth.  You took her mobile phone and grabbed some plastic cable ties, pushing her onto the bed.  You tied her to that bed with the cable ties.  She was unable to move and the socks remained in her mouth.
12	You then picked up what Ms Ramsay described as an “Oxy torch” and began to heat up a “crack pipe”.  You sat on Ms Ramsay and placed the hot crack pipe on her face, over her nose, and on her chin, causing burning pain.  She heard and felt her skin “sizzle”.  At this time you were swearing at her, saying 
“You're nothing but a slut now”.  You also kept saying “I will get you again, I will, and next time will be worse”.  Ms Ramsay was in fear for her life.
13	It is estimated that this went on for some five to ten minutes before 
Ms Ramsay was released by another person.  She ran from the address.  This marks the end of each of the charges on the indictment and the summary offences.
14	Ms Ramsay was seen by a general practitioner on 10 December 2018 and reported the matter to the police on 11 December 2018.  She subsequently attended the Royal Melbourne Hospital, presenting with contact burns to her nose and to her chin.  There were concerns that her burns may show signs of early infection.  Both wounds were debrided and cleaned and dressed.  
Ms Ramsay was discharged with prescription for antibiotics and booked in for a review.  
15	A report authored by forensic physician Dr Caroline Bolt dated 4 January 2019 confirms that Ms Ramsay suffered:
a.	burns to the bridge of her nose with the base of dried slough approximately the size of a 20 cent piece.  Slough describes a layer of dead tissue with can form at the base of a wound and is a normal part of healing;
b.	a burn to the chin of similar appearance about the size of a five cent piece;
c.	a swollen nose; and 
d.	a superficial wound to the right forehead and left cheek which was scabbed over. 
16	I have no updated information as to these injuries and can only act on the evidence before me.  It is certainly more by good fortune than good management that the injuries were not more serious.  Despite the objectively serious circumstances in which they occurred; the injuries Ms Ramsay suffered were not at the high end.
17	Whilst no victim impact statement has been provided, I have little doubt that, particularly during the events of Charge 1, Ms Ramsay would have been terrified.  She was completely powerless, vulnerable, and unable to protect herself in the circumstances.  Your offending appears unprovoked, unexpected, and particularly cruel; they amount to a form of torture.  
18	At the time of your offending you were on two operating grants of bail, the subject of the two summary charges.  
19	It is trite to say that this is extremely serious offending.  It firstly represents an inability to abide by court orders in terms of both the intervention order and bail orders.  
20	Your offending clearly occurred in the context of family violence.  General deterrence is usually a primary sentencing objection for family violence offences.  In Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119 the Court of Appeal emphasised the need for general deterrence in such circumstances, stating that:
“The sentence must convey the unmistakable message that male partners have no right to subject their female partners to threats or violence.  The sentences must be of such an order as strongly to denounce violence within a domestic relationship.”
21	Relevant also to the sentencing exercise is the principle of totality.  The totality principle requires that where an offender has been sentenced to multiple terms, or is otherwise to serve multiple sentences, then the sentencer should ensure that the total sentence remains just and appropriate for the whole of the offending.
22	Care must be taken with the summary charges of commit indictable offence whilst on bail, where the indictable offence is said to be the charges on the indictment, as it must also be, where the offending in Charge 1 is also partly reflected in the offending in Charge 2.  
23	In this particular instance, the contravening of a family violence intervention order encompasses a range of behaviours in breach of that order over an extended period.  The charge of intentionally causing injury also breaches that order and occurred during the same period.  The offending itself as already outlined was in breach of bail orders.  There is an obvious need to be careful to avoid double punishment in those circumstances.
24	What is also relevant is your prior criminal history.  Your history spans the years 2010 until 2018.  On 7 July 2010 you were sentenced at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for trafficking heroin and you were fined.  On 6 December of that year you were placed on an adjourned undertaking for possessing heroin.  Four years later, on 17 January, you were fined for a charge of obtaining property by deception.  On 27 October 2014 you were sentenced by the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court for a range of offences which included dishonesty, driving offences, threat to inflict serious injury and failing to answer bail.  You were convicted and placed on a community corrections order, including treatment conditions for a period of 24 months.  
25	On 20 July 2015 you were again sentenced by the Magistrates' Court for breaching the community corrections order on which you were placed on 24 October 2014, as well as for offences of burglary, threatening to inflict serious injury, assault, failing to answer bail, drug possession, breaches of bail, dishonesty offences and contravening a family violence intervention order.  At that time you received a total effective sentence of six months imprisonment, of which 120 days were reckoned as having already been served.  You were also placed on a community corrections order for a period of 15 months. 
26	On 11 January 2016 you were sentenced by the Magistrates' Court for offences of obtaining financial advantage by deception and contravening a family violence intervention order.  You were placed on two community corrections orders, of which the total duration was 12 months.  On 11 March 2016 you again appeared at the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court for charges of possessing a controlled weapon, theft, and failing to answer bail, and received seven days imprisonment.  On 23 March 2016 you were fined for charges of theft of motor vehicle, drive motor vehicle without a licence, assault with a weapon, fail to answer bail and contravening family violence orders.  
27	The criminal record reflects you appearing at the Melbourne County Court on 6 October 2016 in relation to persistent breach of family violence intervention order and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, at which time you were convicted and sentenced to two months imprisonment with 54 days reckoned as having already been served.
28	You next appeared in the Melbourne ARC list on 13 February 2018 in relation to contravening a community corrections order which had been imposed on 
10 January 2016 for drug offences, dishonesty offences, contravening family violence intervention orders, property damage, breach of bail conditions and burglary.  At that time you were sentenced to an aggregate of 90 days imprisonment, together with a community corrections order of some eight months.  I note that the ARC list refers to the Assessment and Referral Court, which is a specialist jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court that deals with therapeutic intervention for offenders who suffer a mental illness, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, autism spectrum disorder, or neurological impairment which reduces their capacity for self-care, self-management, communication, and/or to socially interact.  I do not know the basis on which you were accepted into the ARC list.
29	On 13 September 2018 you were sentenced for contravening the community corrections order imposed on 20 July 2015, contravening the community corrections order of 13 February 2018, and further offending which involved dishonesty and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.  You were sentenced to six months imprisonment, with 224 days reckoned as having been served, meaning that you would have been released at that time.  That chronology would indicate that until now your longest period in custody appears to have been six months or, to be more precise, 224 days.  
30	In terms of your prior criminal history, you are not to be sentenced for that a second time.  It is relevant, however, to the assessment that I need to undertake as to the weight to give to specific deterrence - that is, putting you off further offending - denunciation and to protecting the community.  You clearly have a relevant history for breaching family violence intervention orders and for low level violence.  
31	Your criminal history is also relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation.  I note that neither the sanction of imprisonment nor the intervention of therapeutic orders has so far assisted you or deterred you from further offending.  
32	In terms of these matters, you have been on remand since 10 December 2018 but there have been intervening sentences.  You received two months imprisonment on 10 January 2019 for dishonesty and bail offences, and four months imprisonment on 10 October 2019 for a single charge of threat to inflict serious injury.  
33	In terms of the matters before me, you have 456 days available as pre-sentence detention but, again, the totality principle has some application.  
34	As I am obliged to do, I take into account your personal circumstances, some of which have particular significance to the sentencing exercise.  
35	You are presently aged 30 years and were born in Iraq as the youngest of a sibship of eight.  
36	In approximately 1998 to 1999 your family left Iraq and travelled to Jordan, before finding their way to New Zealand in the year 2000 when you were only nine years of age.  Your family settled there, before moving to Australia in 2004 when you were around 13.  Whilst you hold New Zealand citizenship, you only lived there for four years and as a child.  
37	When in Iraq you recall the horror of seeing a couple being burnt alive whilst you were hiding.  Your family was Catholic.  You had one brother taken by soldiers when picking you up from your school gate.  You believe your parents were affected by what they experienced and you had two brothers escape the army and flee from Iraq to Syria and then to New Zealand, followed by your sister.  Your parents came at a later stage.
38	When you arrived in Australia in 2004, you continued with schooling but left school by Year 9.  You were bullied and struggled academically.  Your educational experience was extremely challenging and it is now apparent that you do have intellectual deficits that were either not recognised or not addressed by both the education system and, unfortunately, also by your family.
39	You recall severe physical abuse by your older brothers whilst growing up and at one stage you were placed into the care of the Department of Health and Human Services when you were around 15 years of age.  You returned home at age 16 but were not there long before living on the streets.  Your family support has varied over the years as your drug use is not tolerated.  You began using drugs in your teens, initially marijuana and then graduating to both ice and heroin.  As a result, you have a limited employment history.  
40	You partnered with Ms Ramsay around 2015.  You had three children together, all boys, who have never been in your care.  You and Ms Ramsay both developed a drug habit within six months of being together and were homeless at various stages.  Really, your life has been extremely chaotic particularly over the last five years.  
41	Ms Ramsay has written to you whilst you have been in prison but you have decided that you no longer wish to continue with that relationship.  This is probably best for each of you.
42	A report authored by Ms Gina Cidoni, consultant psychologist, dated 12 May 2020 has been tendered and is of considerable importance to the sentencing exercise.  
43	Ms Cidoni opines that your full scale IQ is at 53, where 99 per cent of people your age would do better.  You fall in the impaired range, explaining your difficulties at school and decision-making overall.  It is an extremely low IQ; persons would normally qualify for access to intellectual disability services with an IQ of 70 or below.
44	According to Ms Cidoni, your cognitive impairment impacts on your making of sound judgements, problem-solving and clear thinking.  You lack skills for 
day-to-day living and have problems with memory.  You encounter difficulty in logical thinking and connecting actions with consequences.  She finds that your ability to exercise appropriate judgement and make calm and rational choices is highly compromised, as is your ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct.
45	You have impulsive tendencies and lack insight and self-examination, reflecting naivete that causes you to behave both recklessly and irresponsibly.  You have difficulty planning ahead.
46	This goes part-way to providing some context to your offending and difficulty in complying with court orders.  Your moral culpability, in my view, is considerably reduced as a result of Ms Cidoni's assessment.
47	Ms Cidoni believes that you were affected by exposure to severe trauma in Iraq as a child and later from the abuse inflicted by your brothers.  Therefore, underlying your intellectual deficits are severe mental health problems, many of which arise from your traumatic childhood experiences.  This has contributed to your use and abuse of drugs.  You present as a complex picture.  
48	I accept Ms Cidoni's report in terms of her cognitive and mental health assessment.  I note these aspects of her report are unchallenged.
49	Based on submissions by your counsel and Ms Cidoni's identification of your significant intellectual deficits, I asked that you be assessed as to your suitability for a justice plan and a further community corrections order, so that I would be better informed in the sentencing exercise.  The further hearing of your matter was listed on 14 September 2020 so that those assessments could be undertaken.  On that day an extended pre-sentence assessment outcome report dated 12 August 2020 was provided.  It commented on your lack of insight into your offending and denial of the circumstances.  At the time the report was written, the author had not had access to any material from Disability Services.  The assessor found that you were an offender with high needs and will require significant intervention and assessment, with which I agree.  Overall, you were assessed as suitable for a further community corrections order.
50	The ability to reside with your family in Meadow Heights the assessor saw as a protective factor and was obviously not available to you at the time of the offending before this court; indeed, has not been available to you for many years.  Unfortunately, on 14 September 2020 the justice plan was not available and the matter had to be further adjourned.  The materials now provided from Disability Services, available for today's hearing, are also of significance to the sentencing exercise.  
51	In terms of the positives of this process, it has allowed for a slow unfolding of matters extremely relevant to the sentencing task.  I have now received a Statement of Intellectual Disability confirming that you have significant 
sub-average general intellectual functioning and significant deficits in adaptive behaviour, each of which were manifest before the age of 18 years.  The document is dated 18 August 2020 and represents the first time that your intellectual disability has been acknowledged under the Disability Act 2006.  It therefore represents your first opportunity to access appropriate services.  It certainly confirms that your disability was in existence at the time of your offending.
52	A comprehensive disability overview report dated 5 October 2020 and authored by Mr Wellington Nyagwande, disability justice coordinator, has also been received.  That report states: 
“Mr Yousif requires support from others who understand the impact of his disability and mental health needs.  His ability to exercise appropriate judgement, make clear and rational choices, think clearly, or appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct is significantly compromised based on the information provided.”
53	The writer confirms after speaking with your family that you are able to reside with your parents upon release.  Importantly, Disability Justice is also able to assist you and to help you explore your eligibility for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.  
54	A justice plan has also been formulated.  It recommends that you participate in further assessment and planning with your now allocated disability justice coordinator, that you agree to supports and treatment as identified and recommended by your disability justice coordinator, and that should you be placed on a community corrections order, you be referred for treatment and assessment with ACSO COATS, which will deal with the drug issues.  These recommendations are made to reduce your risk of reoffending.  The Department of Health and Human Services indicate that they will monitor your participation in the recommended services and advise if the justice plan requires review.  This appears to be very responsive to your needs.
55	The recognition of your intellectual disability also plays a role in the weight to give your criminal history.  Previous courts would not have had the opportunity to take into account this relevant factor in the sentencing exercise.  Both parties refer to the relevance of the Victorian decision of Verdins & Ors and the High Court decision of Muldrock.  I accept, based on the report of Ms Cidoni and the subsequent statement of intellectual disability, that there should be moderation of both general and specific deterrence in your favour, which also impacts on what can appropriately be described as ‘just punishment’.  The need for denunciation has less weight.  
56	There is a clear causal connection between your condition and your offending behaviour.  I note, however, that this leaves continued concerns about how best to protect the community.  Some of this concern will be alleviated in the ability you now have to be linked in with Disability Services.  As I have said, it would appear to be the first time that your intellectual deficits have been properly identified and have been properly able to be taken into account.  This presents you with the first opportunity to be properly supported and does represent a mechanism, in my view, by which to afford the community protection.  
57	You have pleaded guilty to the charges on a negotiated indictment which in that sense represents an early plea.  Prior to that occurring you also faced charges of criminal damage, theft, and false imprisonment.  You are not now to be punished for that offending.  I do not factor in remorse to your guilty plea, but this is perhaps a matter of less concern bearing in mind your intellectual disability.
58	I do accept that your plea of guilty has high utilitarian value, particularly in times where the Court’s operations have been significantly disrupted as a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic.  
59	In your case, your decision to plead guilty has come about during the Court's emergency response to the pandemic.  In those circumstances I consider it to have additional utilitarian value, given the present public health concerns regarding the virus.  This has impacted on the practical management of jury trials which have been suspended for the time being in Victoria.  No jury pool was therefore required in your case.
60	More importantly, your plea has avoided the need for Ms Ramsay and other witnesses to attend and re-live the events of December 2018, which, given the suspension of trials, would have been at an uncertain date in the future.  Your plea has given certainty in the finalisation of these proceedings, and these factors will be taken into account in your favour.  
61	In addition, I accept that the pandemic has altered the conditions for those on remand.  There has been a cessation of physical visits and restricted access to programs.  There is an understandable anxiety about the virus impacting upon the prison system, even if it has not actually eventuated.  I take these aspects into account in a general sense.
62	The pandemic also affected the ability of this Court to get suitability assessments undertaken by the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Health and Human Services, which in effect continued your remand.  This is another factor I take into account.  It has delayed the outcome of this matter.
63	You have received correspondence from the Department of Home Affairs giving you notice of intention to consider cancellation of your visa on character grounds.  
64	You are genuinely and perhaps reasonably concerned about your prospects of deportation to New Zealand in circumstances where you only lived there from the age of approximately nine to 13 years.  You have no family or connections in New Zealand and have significant intellectual disabilities, given your IQ of 53.  The prospects of you navigating your environment safely in those circumstances would be minimal if not non-existent.  Ms Cidoni's report reflects you lack the skills for day-to-day living.  I accept that this uncertainty as to your status weighs heavily upon you, making your time in custody more burdensome, and is relevant in that way to the sentencing exercise.
65	You have been in custody since December 2018, a period which is capable to some degree of offering you both sanction and deterrence independently of the sentence I am to impose.  Appreciating the lengthy time you have spent in custody and the other factors to which I have referred, I have, as outlined, had you assessed as to your suitability for a further community corrections order with justice plan attached.  This is in light of the submissions made on your behalf that the relevant sentencing principles could be addressed through what is referred to as a combination sentence.  This is a period of imprisonment in combination with a community corrections order.  
66	The prosecution's submission at first instance was that a proper exercise of the sentencing exercise required a head sentence with a non-parole period. Despite the access to the materials as to your intellectual disability and the supports that are available, that submission remains unchanged.  
67	The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, and protection of the community.  In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of matters, such as the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and those of your victim.  I must also balance the interest of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interest the community clearly has in seeking to ensure, as far as is possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and are reintegrated into society.
68	I have taken into account the relevant sentencing guidelines referred to in s.5 of the Sentencing Act where relevant to your case.  I have taken into account current sentencing practices for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty.  
69	I do propose to impose an aggregate sentence as I am satisfied that the offences are founded on the same facts, or form, or are part of a series of offences of the same or similar character.  In so doing, I bear in mind the principles of totality, parsimony, and proportionality.  
70	Bearing in mind the relationship of the summary offences to those on the indictment, you are convicted and fined the amount of $1,000 for the summary charges as an aggregate.
71	For Charges 1 and 2 on the indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to ten months imprisonment.  456 days are reckoned as having already been served.
72	This period of imprisonment is in combination with a community corrections order for a period of two years.  That in my view also represents further punishment.  That order requires supervision, assessment and treatment for drug use and abuse, assessment and treatment for programs to reduce offending, and for you to comply with a justice plan.
73	As per the recommendations made to me, you are to be referred to and undergo assessment with ACSO COATS and follow the recommendations made.  You will also be judicially monitored.  That means, Mr Yousif, you and I will see each other again so I can be updated as to how you are going on your order.
74	The community corrections order component of your sentence is deliberately tailored towards treatment interventions which I see as a mechanism of protecting the community.  
75	You are familiar to some degree with corrections orders, but in addition to the conditions I have imposed there are what we call standard conditions.  The first of those is you must not commit any other offences during the two year period which could be punished by imprisonment.  You need to report to the Office of Corrections within two working days.  You need to advise the Corrections office of any change of address of where you are living or working, and you must do so within two working days.  It is a term of all community corrections orders that you must submit to visits as directed and obey their instructions and directions.  You cannot leave Victoria without their permission.
76	In my view, the order presents you with a chance to change your life in a positive fashion, should you choose to take up that opportunity and the supports that I intend to be made available.  The order can be breached if you do not do it, and it can be breached if you re-offend.  If you do, you will have to come back in front of me for breaking the order.  I am going to have to re-sentence you for the charges and for breaking the order.
77	Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentence I would have imposed if you had not pleaded guilty to the charges.  If not for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to two years and four months with a minimum of 18 months before being eligible for parole.  
78	Now, in a moment, Mr Yousif, I will stand down so that Mr Sala can go through the corrections order with you. 
79	OFFENDER:  Yes.
80	HER HONOUR:  In terms of the conditions of the corrections order hanging over your head for two years, that is the first thing.
81	OFFENDER:  Yes.
82	HER HONOUR:  Not getting into trouble for two years.
83	OFFENDER:  Yes.
84	HER HONOUR:  Coming back and seeing me in a couple of months.
85	OFFENDER:  Yep.
86	HER HONOUR:  Do the justice plan.
87	OFFENDER:  Yep.
88	HER HONOUR:  Get drug treatment.
89	OFFENDER:  Yes.
90	HER HONOUR:  And be supervised by the office of Corrections, and also do any other programs they think are going to help you stay out of trouble.
91	OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.  I appreciate everything you have done.
92	HER HONOUR:  All right.  So I will give Mr Sala the chance to discuss it with you.  But will you agree to signing an order with that ‑ ‑ ‑
93	OFFENDER:  Yeah, yeah.  For sure, yeah.  Absolutely.  Yep.
94	HER HONOUR:  So just pardon me a moment.  Mr Sonnet, anything I missed?
95	MR SONNET:  No, Your Honour.  It is very, very comprehensive.
96	HER HONOUR:  Anything that you need to bring my attention to at this stage?
97	MR SONNET:  No, Your Honour, and we do not seek any ancillary orders either.  I just had that confirmed by my instructor.
98	HER HONOUR:  All right, thank you.  I am very grateful.  Mr Sala, are you happy to assist to the court in going through the order with Mr Yousif?
99	MR SALA:  Absolutely, Your Honour.  What I cannot assist Your Honour with is the manner in which it is done now, in terms of signatures with the pandemic.  Obviously that is a system that Your Honour might have dealt with, but I certainly have not or Mr Sonnet might have dealt with.
100	HER HONOUR:  Well, he is required to consent to the order.  It does not have to be in written form.  He has just consented to the order.
101	MR SALA:  Then that is fine.
102	HER HONOUR:  But in any event, they are going to be sent to the prison.
103	MR SALA:  May it please the court.
104	HER HONOUR:  And we are going to send you the draft so it is easier for you to run through.
105	MR SALA:  That is appreciated, Your Honour.
106	HER HONOUR:  All right.  So, I do not intend to come back onto the Bench unless there is a problem.
107	MR SALA:  Very well, Your Honour.
108	HER HONOUR:  I am not going anywhere, I am here, just in case a problem eventuates.
109	MR SALA:  No, thank you, Your Honour.
110	OFFENDER:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Thank you very much.
111	HER HONOUR:  All right.  Well, I can tell you, Mr Yousif, the one way to thank me is to stick to it.  Now we just have to pick a date for you to come back.
112	OFFENDER:  Yep.
113	HER HONOUR:  And when you come back, I get a report from the Office of Corrections.  It will tell me you have been a good boy, or it will tell me you have been a bad boy.  I want to only hear you have been a good boy.
114	OFFENDER:  Yes.  I will, Your Honour.
115	MR SALA:  Your Honour, I was going to advise Mr Yousif, I am just trying to cut off as many possible difficulties as we can.  I was going to advise him that that is likely to be an appointment via a video conference.  Does Your Honour - I know that we do not know.  But we will deal with it as best we can.  Yes, Your Honour.
116	HER HONOUR:  It might involve a phone call, Mr Sala.
117	MR SALA:  Yes.  I am just trying to get my ducks in a row in this instance, as best as I can has been my experience.
118	HER HONOUR:  I love ducks in a row, Mr Sala.  It is certainly one of my favourite phrases for a start.  We will just get a date for the judicial monitoring if you do not mind.  15 December at 10.30.  I cannot tell you, Mr Yousif, whether you need to come here for judicial monitoring, or will be over video or not.  Your corrections officer will be able to tell you closer to that date.
119	OFFENDER:  Yes.
120	HER HONOUR:  So I am going to disappear in a moment.  So, Mr Sala can go through the order with you.  It is going to be the Coolaroo Office of Corrections.  You will be given their phone number.  It may well be, Mr Sala, that another family member can assist with making the phone call to find out how that appointment takes place, because it is in the category of not my problem.
121	MR SALA:  Yes, Your Honour.
122	HER HONOUR:  All right.  Anything further from your end at this stage, 
Mr Sonnet?
123	MR SONNET:  No, Your Honour.
124	HER HONOUR:  No, thank you very much once again for your assistance which is always gratefully received.  
125	MR SONNET:  Thank you, Your Honour.
126	HER HONOUR:  Mr Sala, anything more from your end at this stage?
127	MR SALA:  I do not believe so, Your Honour.
128	HER HONOUR:  All right, well I thank you also for your assistance.  I am going to close the court until 10 o'clock on Monday, but I can come back if there is any issues with the orders.
129	MR SALA:  May it please the court.
130	MR SONNET:  As Your Honour pleases.
‑ ‑ ‑