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

CR 21-00871
L12302609

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
DANIEL HOGGETT		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	17 September 2021	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 September 2021	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Hoggett	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VCC 1471	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:	                       SENTENCE - CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: 			Attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception – 			obtain financial advantage by deception – obtain 				property by deception – relevant prior offending – COVID-19 – specific deterrence and community protection – deferred sentence – Odyssey House Drug Rehabilitation Program
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1958 s 321M, s 81, s 82; Sentencing Act 1991 s   83A, s 18 s 6AAA
Cases Cited:						Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence:		Convicted and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.
Section 6AAA:		three years and 10 months with a minimum non-parole period of two years and eight months.				
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms E. Rutherford	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Mr L. Barker	SLQK Lawyers Pty Ltd	

HIS HONOUR:
1	Daniel Hoggett, on 17 September 2021 you pleaded guilty to 3 charges of attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception, 3 charges of obtain financial advantage by deception, and 8 charges of obtain property by deception. The maximum penalties for these offences are: attempt to obtain financial advantage – 5 years; obtain financial advantage by deception – 10 years; obtain property by deception - 10 years.  On 17 September 2021 I deferred sentence under section 83A of the Sentencing Act and granted bail for you participate in the Odyssey House Residential Drug Rehabilitation Program.  
2	This matter was initially listed today for a bail revocation because you left Odyssey house after three days. Your counsel Mr Barker had submitted that I should now proceed to sentence as there is no longer any point in the deferral given the collapse of the Odyssey house option. 
3	You were born on 10 September 1990 and are currently 30 years old. At the time of the offending, you were aged between 25 and 29 years old. 
4	The facts of this matter are set out in the Prosecution opening which was tendered as an exhibit on the plea. They are not disputed. 
Circumstances of the Offending  
Attempt to Obtain a Financial Advantage by Deception - Charges 1, 3 and 7. 
5	Between 22 May 2016 and 20 March 2020, on 46 separate occasions, you applied for a Latitude After-Pay credit account.  Each application was made using a stolen name but purported to be a legitimate application.  In relation to 24 of these applications, you attempted to obtain from Latitude a total amount of $168,500. The value of the other 22 applications was not able to be determined.  Typically, in the submitted applications, you provided the address, driver’s licence number and date of birth from a stolen identity.  Some of the names that you used recur throughout the offences in this case.  The details of the 46 transactions or applications you made to Latitude are set out in table A.1 to the indictment.  That is the basis of Charge 1 which is a rolled-up charge encompassing the 46 occasions.
6	On 28 September 2019, you applied for $9,500 credit from FlexiCards Australia using the stolen name of Andrew Proctor.  Within the application was Proctor’s address, driver’s licence number and date of birth.  At the conclusion of the application, you certified that the information provided was true and correct. This is the basis of Charge 3 - attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception from FlexiCards. 
7	On 24 February 2020, you applied for an American Express Essential Credit card with a credit limit of $20,000, using the stolen name and license details of Christian Langkau.  Also contained within the application was an address of 18 Olinda Road, Mount Evelyn.  That is the address of David Gibson, an associate of yours.  This false application is the basis of Charge 7.
Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception - Charges 2, 4 and 5.
8	On 17 September 2019, you applied for and you were granted, an American Express credit card with a credit limit of $6,500, using the stolen name of Daniel Gardiner.  Provided in the application was a fraudulent group certificate in the name of Daniel Gardiner.  Also in the application was an address of 15-17 Haynes Street, Silvan which is similar to your address namely 15 Haynes Street, Silvan.  This is the basis of Charge 2 - obtaining a financial advantage by deception from American Express.
9	On 14 October 2019 you applied online for a Bendigo Bank credit and debit account with a $5,500 limit, using the stolen name of Andrew Proctor.  The application included an address of 15 Haynes Street, Silvan, which is your address, and a mobile telephone number.  The online identification component of the application failed and as a result the Bendigo Bank requested you attend a Bendigo branch to provide identification documentation.  On 18 October 2019, you were captured on CCTV attending the Mount Evelyn branch to provide the requested identification documentation.  You provided a driver’s licence in the name of Andrew S. Proctor. When asked by the branch what the ‘S’ stood for in the licence, you said “Stuart”, which is not Mr Proctor’s middle name.  The application was subsequently approved by the Bendigo Bank.  You gave your own address.  You gave a mobile telephone number registered to Daniel Gardiner who reported his identity as stolen to police in September 2019. This is the basis of Charge 4. 
10	Between 2 January 2020 and 10 June 2020, on 17 separate occasions, you applied for a Latitude After-Pay credit account.  Each application contained a stolen name and purported to be a legitimate application.  As a result of the deception, the Latitude credit accounts were approved which resulted in you obtaining a total financial advantage of $14,000.  This is the basis of Charge 5 which is a rolled-up charge.  Typically, you had used stolen identity details such as addresses to make these applications.  The details of the 17 transactions made by you are set out in table A.2 to the indictment.
Obtain Property by Deception - Charges 6, 8-14. 
11	On 31 January 2020, you applied for and were granted an Optus account using the stolen name of James McHugh.  Contained within the application was Mr McHugh’s driver’s licence number.  On the same day you used the McHugh Optus account to purchase an Apple iPhone 11 and an iPad Pro 11, with a total combined value of $2,778.19.  On 10 June 2020, you used the McHugh Optus account again to purchase an Apple iPhone 11 Pro, Apple iPhone SE and an Apple iPad Pro 11, to a total combined value of $6,114.24.  On this date you changed the mobile telephone number for this account to a particular number, which is the number registered to a woman named Samantha Gristci.  The total combined value of all items purchased using the McHugh Optus account is $8,892.24. This is the basis of Charge 6.  Charge 6 is a rolled-up charge covering the various actions on different days. 
12	On 7 February 2020, you attended the Optus store at Fountain Gate and applied for and were granted two Optus accounts using the stolen name of Linden Brunt.  Contained within the application was Mr Brunt’s driver’s licence number, date of birth and address. You used the Brunt account to purchase two Apple iPhone 11 handsets, valued at $4,235.45.  You were captured on CCTV at the Optus store.  This is the basis of Charge 8.
13	On 6 March 2020, you purchased an Apple iPad Air, valued at $999 on The Good Guys’ website using a LatitudePay account.  The order was made using the stolen name of Jacob Muller.  On 6 March 2020, you attended The Good Guys at Bayswater and produced Jacob Muller’s license and you collected the item.  On 3 July 2020, you purchased an Apple iPhone SE, valued at $829 on the Good Guys’ website using a LatitudePay account.  Again, the order was made using the stolen name of Jacob Muller.  The total value of all items purchased from The Good Guys using the identity of Jacob Muller was $1,828. This is the basis of Charge 9. 
14	On 9 March 2020, you purchased an iPad Air, valued at $829 on The Good Guys’ website using a LatitudePay account.  The order was made using the stolen name of Joel Martin.  You had a friend to collect the item pretending to be Joel Martin.  This is the basis of Charge 10 - obtain property by deception from The Good Guys.
15	On 9 June 2020, you purchased a Surface Go 2 Pentium, valued at $629 on The Good Guys’ website using a LatitudePay account.  The order was made using the stolen name of Samantha Gristci.  Again, you had a friend to collect the item apparently pretending to be Muller.  This is the basis of Charge 11.
16	On 26 June 2020, you purchased an Apple iPhone SE and Bonelk USB multiport hub, valued at $926 on The Good Guys’ website.  The order was made in the name of Adam Treweek using a LatitudePay account.  You elected for a friend to collect the item and nominated Rebecca Mansfield, who was your partner at the time.  Contained within the application was an address of 70 Lusher Road, Croydon and a mobile phone number registered to Daniel Gardiner.  The address provided is your twin brothers’ address.  This is the basis of Charge 12. 
17	On 25 June 2020, you purchased an iPad Air, valued at $999 on The Good Guys’ website using a LatitudePay account.  This order was made in the name of Angela Connelly.  You again elected for a friend to collect the item and again nominated Rebecca Mansfield.  On 26 June 2020, you and your partner, Rebecca Mansfield, were captured on CCTV attending The Good Guys at Nunawading and collecting the item.  This is the basis of Charge 13.
18	On 1 July 2020, you purchased an iPhone SE, valued at $829 on The Good Guys’ website using a LatitudePay account.  The order was made using the stolen name of Stephanie Gabrielle.  On 31 July 2020, you purchased a Lenovo IdeaPad, valued at $799 on The Good Guys’ website, using a LatitudePay account.  The order was made in the name again of Stephanie Gabrielle.  You elected for a friend to collect the item named Elizabeth Reeves, another co-accused.  On 31 July 2020, Reeves attended The Good Guys in Chirnside Park and collected the item.  The total combined value of all items purchased from The Good Guys using the identity of Stephanie Gabrielle was $1,628.  This is the basis of Charge 14 which again is a ‘rolled up’ charge. 
19	During the period of these offences you were granted bail over the following periods: 
1) Ringwood Magistrates’ Court: from 23 October 2019 to 19 November 2019;
2) Melbourne West Police Station: from 18 February 2020 to 17 June 2020; and
3) Melbourne Magistrates’ Court: 17 June 2020 to 21 July 2020. 
20	As a result, in relation to part of Charges 1, 5, 6 and 14 and Charges 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 you were on bail at the time of the offending.  This is the Related Summary Offence (Charge 5) to which you also pleaded guilty on 17 September 2021.  The maximum penalty for that offence is three months. 
Arrest and Record of interview 
21	On 25 September 2019, police executed a search warrant at your address in relation to another matter.  During the search police located and seized a number of items including an American Express credit card in the name of D. G. Gardiner directly related to Charge 2. 
22	On 18 February 2020, you were arrested by police in relation to another matter and were found in possession of a driver’s licence, Medicare card and HCF Health insurance card in the name of James McHugh; and an ING Visa Debit card in the name of Daniel Gardiner. 
23	On 23 June 2020, you were arrested by police and taken to the Lilydale Police Station.  You made a ‘no comment’ interview to police, as is your right. 
Seriousness of the offences
24	Across all of the charges on the indictment, your offending was repeated, planned and protracted and prolific.  Mr Barker accepts the seriousness of the offending but argues that it was ultimately largely unsuccessful and that the actual losses you caused were small by the standards of this type of fraudulent behaviour.  This is true, but does not encapsulate the gravity of the totality of your offending.  His submission is that because of this, the low value of the actual losses, your offending can be properly classified as at the lower end of the spectrum looked at from an overall perspective.  The actual losses resulting from your offending were $19,000 stemming from the obtain property by deception offences.  You did obtain a financial advantage of approximately $27,000 but, as I understand it, you didn’t access that credit.  
25	Ms Rutherford submitted in relation, in particular, to the attempt charges, that an attempt is by definition unsuccessful so that can hardly be a reason to reduce the assessment of the gravity of at least those charges.  She highlighted that Charge 1, a rolled-up charge, involves 45 occasions and Charge 5 encompasses 17 occasions.  Charge 1 covers a period of three and half years and the quantum attempted to be obtained was a large amount. 
26	In my opinion, Mr Hoggett, your offending was serious given the length of time over which it took place and the very large number of criminal acts involved.  You may not have succeeded in enriching yourself substantially, but it wasn’t because you weren’t trying hard enough. The amount of money you tried to obtain in the various attempt charges was substantial. 
27	You were on bail for much of the offending and this is an aggravating feature. 
28	You have numerous prior convictions for dishonesty, for which you have been given prison sentences in the past.  There is no doubt in my mind you well understood the seriousness of what you were doing and your moral culpability for this protracted and repeated offending is significant. 
Guilty plea 
29	You pleaded guilty at the committal mention of this matter in April of this year. The matter had resolved in March.  I accept this was a plea at the earliest opportunity. 
30	I give you credit for the utilitarian value of your plea which has saved the court the time and resources involved in what would have been a long trial.  The utilitarian value of your plea is heightened in the current circumstances, where the court faces a very substantial backlog of trials resulting from the suspension of jury trials during the pandemic.  This increased utilitarian value was recognised the Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169 where the court said: 

'Given the unhappy state of the courts’ lists, the courts must, in an endeavour to alleviate the strain on the system, encourage those accused who are guilty to so plead.  Such encouragement must come from an actual and palpable amelioration of sentence.'
31	I also accept your guilty plea indicates some remorse and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
32	You must receive a significant sentencing discount for your guilty plea. 
Prior convictions
33	You have a relevant criminal history for dishonesty offending and bail offending, including 13 offences of obtain property by deception, two offences of attempting to obtain property by deception and 13 offences of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.  You have served a number of terms of imprisonment for offending of a similar kind.  On a number of occasions you have recommenced dishonesty offending shortly after being released from custody.  On 29 November 2017 you were sentenced to an aggregate term of six months' imprisonment in relation to dishonesty offending.  You were released from that sentence on 30 January 2018 and within four weeks commenced repeated dishonesty based offending again.  On 26 November 2019 you were sentenced to an aggregate term of 30 days' imprisonment in relation to dishonesty offending.  You were released from custody on 3 December 2019 and eight days later you recommenced committing dishonesty offending.  On 5 May 2020 you were sentenced to an adjourned undertaking at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court in relation to dishonesty offending.  Within five weeks you commenced repeated dishonesty offending.     
34	Your criminal record is plainly relevant to the importance of specific deterrence in this case.  That is, Mr Hoggett, the need for my sentence to deter you from continued offending of this nature.  It is also relevant to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation.  I will return to that issue. 
35	Mr Barker submitted that a notable feature of your criminal record is that it does not commence until you reached you mid-twenties, which does suggest that if you can address your drug use you can lead an offence free and productive life.
Personal circumstances 
36	Your personal circumstances are outlined in the comprehensive plea submissions filed by Mr Barker and in the psychological report of Carla Ferrari dated 3 September 2021 which was tendered and marked as an exhibit on the plea. 
37	You are the youngest of six children and your parents remain married.  Your father worked as a prison officer for over 20 years and he was in the Navy for some 25 years.  Your mother was a homemaker and also worked intermittently.  You have a positive relationship with your family members who are close and remain supportive of you.  This is clear from the letters of support which have been tendered on your behalf.
38	At school you excelled at sport, but you suffered attention and behaviour problems and you were easily distracted in class.  After completing Year 10 you worked in fencing with a friend’s father.  You left this position at the age of 19 when your partner at the time became pregnant.  Since then you have worked sporadically, largely because of your drug use problems.  You worked in a galvanising plant for some 12 months and later in landscaping and you have also completed a machine operating course.  In custody, you have completed a number of ATLAS courses as demonstrated by the certificates tendered on the plea. 
39	Between the ages of 18 and 22 you had a long-term relationship with a woman named Maryanne Addicot.  She has provided letters in support.  You have a child together, Noah, born 18 July 2010.  He was three years old when you separated.  Since you have been remanded in custody you have been separated from your son.  This has weighed heavily on you.  You last saw him around Christmas 2020 and since then you have only seen him over video links. 
40	You commenced using methylamphetamine in 2015 at approximately the age of 25.  Your use of methylamphetamine has been a constant in your life since and has increased over the years, up until you were arrested in relation to these matters.  You have also used GHB from 2017 in significant quantities.  You have dabbled in heroin, cannabis and alcohol as well but they have not become problematic for you.  Since December 2020 you have been on a methadone program in prison.  As I indicated earlier, I accept that since you were released last week you have not used drugs and you have sought assistance from Ms Carly Doyle who has submitted letters dated 23 and 30 September on your behalf.
41	Between 2017 and 2020, you were in a relationship with Rebecca Mansfield, a co-offender in this matter.  She is also a drug user. 
Psychological report 
42	You were assessed by Ms Carla Ferrari, forensic psychologist in late August 2021 and her report was tendered.
43	Her testing was indicative of possible ADHD, indicating a need for further clinical and psychometric testing to confirm the diagnosis.  She said taking into account your historical functioning and educational difficulties along with the test results, she considers it is likely you have undiagnosed ADHD.  She says you have self-medicated with substances and have developed a stimulant use disorder and a sedative, hypnotic, anxiolytic use disorder. 
44	She postulated that,
 
‘The thrill-seeking behaviour described by Mr Hoggett in relation to being motivated to continue to offend to gain higher credit limits is also explained by the neurological deficits associated with ADHD; that is deficits in dopamine which drives the individual to engage in activities that will increase brain dopamine function.'
45	She also says people with ADHD are more likely to use alcohol and substances to mitigate their symptoms or to cope with stress.
46	She goes on to say,
‘It appears there are a number of factors outlined above which are linked to Mr Hoggett’s behaviour and impaired functioning at the time of the offending.’ 
47	Ms Ferrari reiterates that, 
‘Substance use increases levels of impulsivity, risk-taking, behavioural disinhibition and a lack of restraint and self-control leading to poor decision making and impaired judgment, particularly in individuals with underlying mental health conditions.'  
48	She notes your offending commenced after you began using methamphetamine in 2015.
49	Ms Ferrari said you are a moderate to high risk of re-offending.  She said you need to maintain your abstinence from substances and engage in ongoing psychological treatment.
50	She opines that imprisonment would likely weigh more heavily on you than a person without your conditions.  She talked of the potential for significant mood fluctuation and behavioural disinhibition within the prison setting and the unavailability of medication to assist you in prison.
51	Mr Barker submitted there is a nexus between your ADHD and your offences and that in accordance with Verdins principles your moral culpability is reduced and the weight to be given to general and specific deterrence should be moderated. 
52	The prosecutor Ms Rutherford submitted that the diagnosis of ADHD is not definitive and she submitted there is not cogent evidence of a realistic connection between any psychological deficits and the offending in this case.  I am not satisfied there is such cogent evidence or a realistic connection between a psychological condition and the offending, other than as a background factor.  On the material before me it seems the primary driver of your offending is your use of methamphetamine.  In my view your moral culpability is not reduced by reason of your mental state, and nor is this a case where your mental state requires moderation of general deterrence and specific deterrence.  I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the burden of your imprisonment is increased by your psychological condition. 
53	I take into account your background psychological deficits as increasing to some level the burden of your imprisonment.  It does seem to me likely that you have some psychological deficits, probably accurately characterised as ADHD, that do also operate as a background factor to your drug use and the offending and I have had regard to the matters in Ms Ferrari’s report as relevant personal factors to be taken into account. 
Prospects of rehabilitation 
54	Your substantial criminal history and the nature and extent of the current offending tends to suggest that your prospects of rehabilitation are poor.  However, your family and friends remain supportive of you as indicated in the significant number of letters that have been tendered on your behalf, including a number of letters supplied this morning, which I have read and had regard to.  In addition, it is true that your criminal offending did not start until you were comparatively mature.  Abstinence from drugs will be the key to your rehabilitation.  That is why I bailed you to Odyssey House.  It is disappointing and hardly encouraging that you simply decided to leave in breach of your bail conditions.  However, as I have said, I accept that you sought other assistance and you have not used drugs since you were released.
55	Taking all these matters into account, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as guarded.  
COVID-19 
56	I accept the period you will have spent in custody and the further period to be imposed will more onerous due to the pandemic related restrictions such as the suspension of visits and limited access to rehabilitative programs.  The effect of the restrictions has already been significant given the limited contact you have had with your son in the time you have been in prison.  I have taken these matters into account as a mitigating factor.
Totality 
57	The totality principle requires that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the offending as a whole.  In this case your offending was a course of conduct of similar offending over a period of time.  Notwithstanding that you were on bail when you committed these offences, significant concurrency between the individual sentences and in some cases complete concurrency, is required to ensure a just and appropriate total sentence. 
58	In fixing the overall sentence I have kept in mind that the actual losses occurred in this case amounted to $19,000.  
Sentencing principles 
59	In my opinion considerations of general and specific deterrence are highly relevant in this case, particularly specific deterrence given your history.  Denunciation of your conduct is also important. In fixing the appropriate sentence, I must of course still have regard to your rehabilitation and the need to promote your reintegration into the community.  There are some signs from your time in prison, the material in the psychological report and the letters of support I have received, that you at least have a positive mindset towards your rehabilitation at the moment.
60	This will be comfortably the longest sentence you have served, and the first time you have received a sentence with a non-parole period.  In fixing the non-parole period, I will allow for a reasonably significant period of supervision if you are released at the end of your non-parole period. 
Sentence
61	Could you stand up please, Mr Hoggett.  Mr Hoggett, the sentences I impose are as follows:
62	On Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.
63	On Charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment.
64	On Charge 3 you are convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
65	On Charge 4 you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
66	On Charge 5 you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
67	On Charge 6 you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
68	On Charge 7 you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment.
69	On Charge 8 you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
70	On Charge 9 you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment.
71	On Charge 10 you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
72	On Charge 11 you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment. 
73	On Charge 12 you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
74	On Charge 13 you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
75	On Charge 14 you are convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
76	The base sentence is 10 months, being Charge 1.  I order that one month of the sentence on Charge 2, two months of the sentence on Charge 4, four months of the sentence on Charge 5,  six months of the sentence on Charge 6, one month of the sentence on Charge 7, three months of the sentence on Charge 8, two months of the sentence on Charge 9 and one month of the sentence on Charge 14 be served cumulatively on the  base sentence, being Charge 10, and upon each other.
77	Now I will just make sure I have got my maths right.  That should make a total effective sentence of 30 months.
78	MR BARKER:  I agree with that, Your Honour.
79	HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  I fix a non - - -
80	MS RUTHERFORD:  I also agree, Your Honour.
81	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  I will fix a non-parole period in this matter of 18 months.
82	I will declare 357 days as having already been served to be deducted from the sentence pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act.
83	Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act,  I indicate that but for plea of guilty I would have imposed a total effective sentence of three years and 10 months with a minimum non-parole period of two years and eight months.
84	So that is a total effective sentence, Mr Hoggett, of 30 months.  I have fixed a minimum non-parole period of 18 months and I have declared pre-sentence detention of 357 days.  So that is the landscape for you.
85	Now, are there any ancillary orders required, Ms Rutherford?
86	MS RUTHERFORD:  There is, Your Honour.  There's a forfeiture order that was filed.  I understand Your Honour ordered - - -
87	HIS HONOUR:  Did I make that - - -
88	MS RUTHERFORD:  I believe you did but I was going to just clarify if that order was actually made.
89	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I have a recollection - - -
90	MR BARKER:  I thought you made it last time.
91	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I thought I did, yes.  All right.
92	MS RUTHERFORD:  Thank you.
93	HIS HONOUR:  No other orders?
94	MR BARKER:  No, Your Honour.
95	MS RUTHERFORD:  No other orders but can I just enquire there was a related summary offence, Your Honour, before the court as well.
96	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I beg your pardon, if course there was.  Given - I meant to deal with that.
97	Given that I have treated that as an aggravating factor in relation to the offences overall, on the related summary offence you are convicted and discharged.  
98	MS RUTHERFORD:  As Your Honour pleases.
99	HIS HONOUR:  All right, that is committing the offence on bail, Mr Hoggett.  Thanks for that, Ms Rutherford.  Nothing needs to be clarified from your point of view, Mr Barker?
100	MR BARKER:  Not at all, Your Honour, thank you, sir.
101	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Can I thank both of you for the quality of your submissions which allowed me to finish this today, so thank you both.
102	MR BARKER:  Thank you, Your Honour.
103	MS RUTHERFORD:  Thank you, Your Honour.
104	HIS HONOUR:  All right, if Mr Hoggett could now go into custody.  All right, I will now adjourn until tomorrow, thanks.
- - -