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

CR 21-00841
CR-21-01627

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
SAVIO MANSOUR
ANGELO ODISHO		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE M.P. BOURKE	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:		
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 November 2021	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Mansour & Anor	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VCC 1774	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms R. Bergshoeff		
			
For Accused Mansour	Ms N. Grunwald		
			
For Accused Odisho	Mr M. Nicolosi		

HIS HONOUR:
1	Savio Mansour, on indictment L11670367 you are to be sentenced for one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence.  I will say that again, one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, methylamphetamine, in a commercial quantity, maximum sentence 25 years' imprisonment; four charges of trafficking a drug of dependence, maximum sentence 15 years' imprisonment; two charges of supplying a drug of dependence to a child, maximum sentence 
15 years' imprisonment; one charge of attempt to acquire a firearm in breach of a firearm prohibition order, maximum sentence 15 years' imprisonment; and one charge of theft, maximum sentence 10 years' imprisonment.
2	Also, you are to be sentenced for the following summary offences.  Two charges of driving whilst suspended, one charge of possession of a prohibited weapon,  one charge of failing to comply with the direction to supply the passcode to a mobile phone, and one charge of dealing with proceeds of crime.  
3	Angelo Odisho, on indictment L11670334 you are to be sentenced for three charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence, and three charges of possession of such a drug.  The possession of drug of dependence carries, applicable here, the maximum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment.  You are also to be sentenced for the following summary offences, committing an indictable offence on bail, two charges of that,  breaching a bail condition, failing to supply a mobile phone passcode, and dealing with the proceeds of crime.
4	You both pleaded guilty before me on 8 October.  You were arrested and charged on 13 July 2020 but not interviewed because of COVID-19 restrictions.  Mansour, your matters resolved to a plea of guilty in April 2021 and committal went by hand-up brief.  Odisho, your matters resolved to a plea in July of this year and then committal also went by hand-up brief.  
5	You both receive  the benefit of your pleas of guilty and that level of cooperation in the proceeding.  Your pleas of guilty should be seen as similarly early.  They have facilitated the interests of justice, accepted responsibility and expressed remorse.   There is additional weight to this, given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the criminal trial system.  
6	At your plea hearing, also on 8 October, Mr Devlin for the Crown tendered an amended summary of prosecution opening.  That included an appendix charting relevant phone calls, or messages, and quantities of drug.
7	Ms Grunwald for you, Mansour,  tendered drug screen testing results taken in remand custody, a number of letters of personal history and character reference, including by members of your family, the forensic psychological reports of Luke Armstrong dated 15 October 2018 and Warren Simmonds dated 27 July 2021, the letter of psychologist and counsellor Sharon Ellison dated 28 July 2021, a list of rehabilitation and like programs undertaken in remand custody, and the letter of Dr Gillette Hooper, your mother's general practitioner.
8	Mr Nicolosi for you, Odisho, tendered the forensic psychological report of 
Dr Matthew Barth dated 5 March 2021, letters of character reference, a list of rehabilitation programs undertaken during this remand and a present sentence, and your own letter to the court.  All three counsel provided written submissions on sentence.
9	The circumstances of your offences are very comprehensively set out in the tendered Crown opening, which is Exhibit A.  My own summary may therefore be short.  
10	A police operation named Interline 2020 conducted by the Hume Criminal Investigation Unit uncovered drug trafficking involving you two and it is alleged, another man named Slio  S-l-i-o.  You were aged 21 at the time of offending, Slio about 30.  His trial is pending.  This ran broadly between March and July 2020; although the period for you, Odisho, is lesser, April to June.  In effect, you Mansour advertised drugs for sale in what are termed drug chatrooms on Facebook.  Those drugs were or included methylamphetamine, cocaine, and alprazolam.  You both trafficked in those.
11	You, Mansour, are also guilty of trafficking cannabis and ecstasy, MDMA.  The two of you used the garage at the Odisho family home in Roxborough Park.  The basic method was that the buyer make an order by mobile phone and then a meeting there or 300 to 400 metres away from the garage would follow.  The basic method was when necessary adjusted to circumstances.  The Crown case,  which I accept,  is that you were equal participants in this, at least in the lesser period applicable to you, Odisho,  April to June 2020.
12	Relevant phones were intercepted by police and the Crown summary provides examples of the conversations, messages and process.  Paragraph 21 of the tendered summary states as to the overall offending.  
'The prosecution generally submits their roles are as principles and equals during the period 15 April 2020 and 14 June 2020, including on the basis that the accused operated out of the garage of Odisho which they refer to in the telephone intercepts as the base and discuss  "Doing it together". A significant number of drug deals are made out of the garage of Odisho or on Hollywood Drive located 350 metres from Odisho's house.  The accused discuss needing more drugs for sale, the prices to accept for transactions with customers, money owing to or by one another to third parties.  They sell to customers on behalf of one another.  They both participate in a transaction with undercover operatives.  They travel together to do a large deal in Dandenong'.
13	As to quantities of relevant drugs, which the evidence, mainly the call summaries,  can attribute to each of you, paragraph 24 states as follows, “Based on the analysis of the evidence, the aggregate amount of drugs trafficked by each accused over the period are as follows.
'Mansour, methylamphetamine 490 grams, Charge 1 traffick commercial quantity.  Cocaine, 104.3 grams, Charge 2 traffick simpliciter.  Cannabis, 368 grams, Charge 3 traffick simpliciter.  Alprazolam, 116 bottles, Charge 4, traffick simpliciter.  MDMA, 300 grams, Charge 7 traffick simpliciter,  single date.  Odisho, Methylamphetamine, 350 grams, Charge 1 traffick simpliciter.  Cocaine, 91.6 grams, Charge 2 traffick simpliciter.  Alprazolam, 96 bottles, Charge 3 traffick simpliciter”.
14	The legislative commercial quantity threshold for methylamphetamine relevant to Charge 1 against you, Mansour, is 250 grams.  The Crown has conceded in respect of you, Odisho, that despite the quantity of methylamphetamine attributable to your shown activity, being above the threshold, the evidence does not sustain requisite knowledge or intent on your part.  You are to be treated as fundamental equals in the broad process, but there are differences in what the evidence shows as to each and, therefore, in your respective indictments.  Your joint participation, but also those differences, must be reflected in your sentences.  
15	There are additional offences shown by the evidence and to which you, Mansour, have pleaded guilty. Charge 5 and 9 on your indictment relate to supply a drug of dependence to a child.  As part of the general enterprise, you dealt to the same 17-year-old.  He made contact with you, one presumes because of what you held out.  The drug was cannabis on one occasion and MDMA, ecstasy.  The quantities were relatively small.  Charge 6 relates,  based on telephone intercepts,  to your attempt in a number of calls  over the period of April to June to purchase a handgun and ammunition.  The evidence does not show that it came off.  Charge 8 is theft of a motor vehicle in May 2020;  again, based on the intercepted telephone conversations.  You bought a vehicle stolen in Shepparton.  The price seems to have been $350 or an equivalent in drugs.  Delivery was discussed but does not seem to have come about.
16	Additional charges on your indictment, Odisho, four to six, relate to what was found at your home on 13 July 2020.  You possessed relatively small quantities of cocaine, alprazolam and cannabis.  There was cash, $4910, and a 
Louis Vuitton bag which make out the summary offence, dealing with proceeds of crime.  The police raided your home, Mansour on the same day.
17	As to the rest of the summary charges, you both failed to supply codes to your phones.  You, Mansour, were seen to drive whilst suspended under police surveillance on a number of occasions.  $1050 was found at your home, also a hunting knife, baton, and what is described as a Camo, C-a-m-o bow.  
18	Odisho, you had been charged for other matters in December 2019.  You were granted bail in early February, and therefore the indictable offences before me were committed during that bail.  You also breached a curfew condition.  
19	Clearly the main offending by you both is represented by the trafficking charges which arose out of the business conducted and which I have described as stated. 
20	You, Mansour face trafficking in a commercial quantity on Charge 1 of your indictment.  Odisho, whilst you are not to be sentenced for that, it is relevant that you trafficked over the commercial quantity, albeit without the requisite intention or state of knowledge.  
21	Savio Mansour, you are now aged 22 and you were 21 at the time of offending.  You await this sentence in remand custody.  You are of an Iraqi family who came here when you were six years old as political refugees.  Your father was targeted in Iraq.  Your family was in Syria and then came here.  There were traumatic circumstances attached to all of this and your earlier life, including that you were kidnapped and assaulted at five years in Iraq.  The family settled in the north-west of Melbourne.  You have one older and three younger sisters.
22	School was not successful and ultimately you left after Year 10.  Vocational and trade courses did not work well for you.  You lapsed into drug abuse and criminal offending.  You have worked variously in a factory, warehouse, and as a driver.  I accept the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder, unsurprising in the light of your early childhood experiences of trauma and dislocation.  The impact of this should not be underestimated.  It is unfortunate that your mental health symptoms have been largely untreated.   Your intellectual ability is assessed as low average; but you perform worse in such areas as verbal comprehension and literacy.
23	As to drug use, you began with cannabis at 12.  You moved to cocaine, MDMA and then at 19, methamphetamine.  I accept that at the time of offending, you were both using drugs daily.
24	Your criminal record, Mansour, states multiple court appearances between May 2015, in the Children's' Court at age 16, and January 2020.  I bear in mind some duplication, for example, return to court because of failure to comply with community-based orders.  There are offences related to drugs of violence, dishonesty offences, and firearm or weapon offences.  You have been imprisoned, including a sentence of 285 days in March 2019 for drug offences.  It is an adverse factor that you were placed on a Community Corrections Order at the time of this offending.  You were released from prison in April 2019, but sentenced again in November to the Community Corrections order, albeit for offences prior to the prison sentence.  It is put on your behalf that you functioned well until early 2020.  You relapsed into drug use and this offending.  It is put and I accept that the murder of a friend badly affected you.  
25	Angelo Odisho, you have suffered a similarly difficult early life.  You were 20 to 21 during the period of offending.  Your family is Syrian and also fled Iraq as Christian refugees.  You were born here and are the second oldest of seven children.  Like Savio Mansour, you are well supported by your family.  Also, similarly, schooling was not successful.  There was a diagnosis of ADHD at about 10 years.  Ultimately, you left school during Year 11 and went to TAFE.  At this time, you were seriously affected by the brutal death of your aunt in Iraq.  I was told that you saw evidence of what happened to her.  Although you were born here, I recognise the impacts and difficulties of refugee families and their children.
26	After school, you began a pre-apprenticeship course and worked for a time in plumbing.  It fell away in the situation of your substance abuse.  You became,  in mid to late teenage, a daily cannabis user and abused alcohol.  You moved to heavier illicit substances including ecstasy and cocaine.  Your criminal record is less extensive than that of Mansour.  Between December 2016, in the Children's Court aged 17,  and March 2020, there are four court appearances, but no convictions.  Offences include those related to violence, drugs, and dishonesty.  It is not, given your age, a very serious criminal history.
27	There are subsequent matters or sentences which, amongst other things, affect my s18 pre-sentence detention declaration and bring into play the principle of totality.  Mr Nicolosi in his written submissions sets out a chronology.  In late December 2019, you were arrested and charged with offences, including kidnapping and recklessly causing injury,  committed at that time.  You were granted bail on 7 February 2020 after 45 days on remand.  Your period of this offending, that before me, was 15 April to 14 June.  You were arrested for it on 13 July, but the February bail was not revoked until 24 November.  Sentence was imposed for the December offences, kidnap and others, on 25 March 2021.  You were sentenced by Judge Sexton of this court to a total effective sentence of 30 months with a minimum term of 18 months.  That minimum term still runs, invoking s14 of the Sentencing Act on my sentence of you.
28	In his sentence, Judge Sexton declared 168 days of pre-sentence detention,  the combination of 45 days before the February bail and 123 days from the revoking of that bail, 24 November to 25 March.  The s18 pre-sentence declaration on my sentence can only be 135 days from 13 July to 24 November when you were on remand for my matter, but on bail for Judge Sexton's.  I was told by Mr Nicolosi that Judge Sexton explicitly did not include this in his s18 declaration.  However, he did consider the whole of the time spent in coming to the length of sentence imposed on 25 March.  He did so recognising the possibility for example, that the 135 days may not ultimately be declared.  
29	This chronology must be considered by me in my sentence and in applying s14 of the Act.  
30	The psychological evidence states extensively diagnoses of adjustment disorder, stimulant and alcohol use disorder, and personality disorder.  I find that the important factor in your case also,  Odisho, is early life experience which I accept has had significant impact.  It is an aggravating or at least adverse factor for you, that you were on bail at the time of offending.  It makes relevant the provisions of s16(C) of the Sentencing Act; however, I see yours as a case in which those provisions on prima facie cumulation of sentences must be considered in the light of a high relevance of totality to your sentence.
31	The offending of you both includes very serious crimes, particularly that of trafficking in drugs.  Whilst you were using yourselves, the purpose was also financial gain.  It had organisation and structure.  It ran over a period.  Your market was, at least to some extent, the young;  an example applicable to you, Mansour, the supply drug to a child offences.  The movement of harmful drugs such as these into and throughout the community is properly seen as a major problem.  Particularly, you, Mansour, have a relevant criminal record.
32	The circumstances of offending make relevant the sentencing considerations and purposes of moral culpability, deterrence, that is both specific and especially general deterrence, denunciation of the offending, and proportionate punishment of it. The circumstances make necessary sentences of imprisonment of significant length.
33	There are moderating factors which must be taken into account as relevant to both of you.  They include the following.  
1.	Your pleas of guilty and cooperation.  You both express remorse.  
2.	Your personal histories and circumstances.  There are marked similarities in your backgrounds.  Mansour, the traumatic experiences of your earlier life can be seen as particularly relevant.  I take into account the psychological conditions of you both which have been diagnosed.
3.	You are also similarly young.  This is relevant to at least explain your involvement of this offending, and judgment and choice to do so.  It makes relevant and more important your rehabilitation and the assessment of prospects for that.  Those prospects should not be discounted in respect of offenders as young as you.  The purpose and benefit of such rehabilitation can legitimately be taken into account in the sentences of both of you.
4.	The principle of totality applies,   particularly to you, Odisho, in the ways I have raised.  I should also apply the principle to your total sentence, Mansour, both as to the number and range of offences on this indictment, but also to take into account the offending and sentences imposed in 2018 and 2019.
5.	For both of you, there will be the additional hardship of those imprisoned caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.  Risk, anxiety about that, restrictions to movement, rehabilitation programs and personal supports are recognised factors relevant for sentencing.
34	There are differences between you.  This relates to the range, circumstances, and nature of offending.   For example,  Mansour, you fall to be sentenced for trafficking methylamphetamine in a commercial quantity.  You, Odisho,  offended over a lesser period,  although perhaps not very much so.  Mr Nicolosi made the point that of your own volition or  decision  you stopped engaging in the trafficking in mid-June of 2021, one month prior to arrest.  This is reflected in the indictment against you.  These points of difference are relevant.  But I also bear in mind the equally complicit nature of the primary criminal enterprise.  You, Odisho, have a lesser criminal record and there is perhaps clearer evidence of your prospects for rehabilitation;  for example, some capacity or qualification to work.  You have both attempted to engage in rehabilitation work and programs in prison, within the constraints of the COVID-19 impact and restriction.  
35	Having considered and weighed what I see to be the relevant matters, I sentence you as follows.
36	Savio Mansour on indictment L11670367, you are sentenced as follows.  On Charge 1, trafficking methylamphetamine in a commercial quantity, four years and three months' imprisonment.  Charge 2, 15 months' imprisonment.  
Charge 3, 6 months' imprisonment.  Charge 4, six months' imprisonment.  Charge 5, six months' imprisonment.  Charge 6, nine months' imprisonment.  Charge 7, 12 months' imprisonment.  I was incorrect on that.  On Charge 7, 
15 months' imprisonment.  On Charge 8, 4 months' imprisonment.  On 
Charge 9, 9 months' imprisonment.  
37	For the five summary charges or offences, you are sentenced to three months on each. 
38	As to cumulation, I direct that six months of the sentence for Charge 2 and six months of the sentence for Charge 7, three months of the sentence on Charge 7, and three months of the sentence on Charge 9 be served cumulatively on Charge 1 and on each other.  That is a total effective sentence of five years and nine months.  I set a minimum for eligibility for parole of three years and four months.
39	I meant to ask you this before, I calculate a pre-sentence detention period of 482 days.  Can somebody quickly confirm that or correct that?
40	MS GRUNWALD:  Your Honour, the prosecution and I have an agreed sum of 484 days.
41	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Well, I will declare ‑ ‑ ‑
42	MS GRUNWALD:  Not including today's date.
43	HIS HONOUR:  I will include today,  485 days.  
44	Angelo Odisho, on indictment L11670334, on Charge 1 trafficking methylamphetamine, you are imprisoned for three years and three months.  On Charge 2, for 12 months.  On Charge 3, six months.  On each of Charges 4, 5, and 6, three months.  On the five summary charges you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment on each.
45	I direct that six months of the sentence for Charge 2 be served cumulatively on the sentence for Charge 1.  That is a total effective sentence of three years and nine months.  
46	As to that sentence, I would propose to set a minimum term on that head sentence of 20 months and would have declared under s18 135 days.
47	As to that head sentence of three years and nine months, I direct that it be served concurrently with the sentence presently being served, that is, my sentence begins today.  Under s14 of the Sentencing Act I set a new minimum term related to both sentences now being served of two years and six months, also to begin today. 
48	I need to set a new s18 period on my sentence, and that minimum term.  It must include the period declared on 25 March, that is, Judge Sexton's sentence.  That combines the declaration of 168 days and 135 days, which I make to be 303 days.  That is my s18 declaration.
49	Just to give some further attempt of explanation of my application of totality, particularly on the sentences of Odisho and the s14 new minimum term, it is extremely difficult to achieve this in a way that reflects cumulation for example, in an apparently logical way.  I have attempted to reflect totality and aim at a just total sentence, including that of the presently served March sentence,  by reference to my individual and total sentences,  concurrency or part concurrency, and the s14 minimum term.  For example, it is relevant that, in effectively starting the new sentences, the new sentence today, seven to eight months of the March  sentence has already been served.  To make it clear, the purpose and effect of my sentence of you, Odisho, is that you will serve a term of two years and six months before becoming eligible for parole.  That is, from today.  Your head sentence of three years and nine months also runs from today.
50	Under s6AAA, Mansour, had you not pleaded guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of seven and a half years with a minimum term of five years.  Odisho, I would have imposed, had you not pleaded guilty,  a sentence of five and a half years with a minimum term of three years.  That indication is made without reference to the s14 minimum term or minimum term that I needed to set.   
51	What else is there?  Are there other matters?
52	MR NICOLOSI:  Your Honour, can I just ask, can I just confirm that the two years and six months of the new parole period that starts today, Your Honour is effectively reckoning 303 days of that as already having been served?  Is that correct? 
53	HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  If it is a new minimum term, you have to bring into account the 303 days, because it overtakes the old minimum term.  The question for me was whether or not I should backdate both my head and minimum term to Judge Sexton's date.  You could do that, but it just seemed to me to make clearer the purpose and effect of my s14.
54	MR NICOLOSI:  Yes, so that my client understands ‑ ‑ ‑
55	HIS HONOUR:  Minimum term if I ran it from today and brought in to play on the declaration the 168 days declared.
56	MR NICOLOSI:  Yes, so that my client understands, effectively what he's got 30 months to go, but he's already done 10 of the 303 days.
57	HIS HONOUR:  That looks about right, but he has got to apply for and be granted parole of course.
58	MR NICOLOSI:  That's right ‑ ‑ ‑ 
59	HIS HONOUR:  Which is not ‑ ‑ ‑
60	MR NICOLOSI: ‑ ‑ ‑ and he can do that in about 20 months, a year and eight months away.  Yes.  I understand that, Your Honour.
61	HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I think that is right.  Yes, go on.  Yes.
62	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Your Honour, my apologies, it might have been my misunderstanding earlier.  The prosecution's original position was that His Honour Judge Sexton had taken into account the 485 days as Mr Nicolosi has said, that was taken into account in terms of the head sentence imposed on that ‑ ‑ ‑
63	HIS HONOUR:  Well, that is right, and I have factored that in.  I mean, but you cannot do it arithmetically.
64	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Yes.
65	HIS HONOUR:  So, part of the totality equation spoke against him, that is what I raised with Mr Nicolosi before.  I mean, for example, you might see the head sentences - the head sentence for charge - sorry, the individual sentence for Charge 1 to be a little unusual in that they are three years and three months.  
I will just repeat what I said about totality and that includes my consideration of the fact that he got some non-specific consideration of the 135 days in 
Judge Sexton's sentence.  But that is not to say that it was deducted in any precise way.  
66	I said this a moment or two ago.  I will say it again.  In this context, it is difficult, very difficult to apply totality consistent with what one might expect to be directed by way of cumulation in any logical way, because in a way they conflict in terms of practicality.  The aim ultimately, is a just total sentence.  So, I will just repeat what I said, so that it is understood.  Just to give some further explanation of my application of totality, particularly on sentences of Odisho, the sentences of Odisho and the s14 new minimum term.
67	It is extremely difficult to achieve this in a way that reflects cumulation for example in an apparently logical way.  I have attempted to reflect totality and aim at a just total sentence, including that of the presently served sentence, that is, having reference to the March sentence, by reference to the individual, to my individual and total sentences, concurrency or part concurrency, and the s14 minimum term.
68	For example, it is relevant that in effectively starting the new sentence, the new sentence today, seven to eight months of the March sentence has already been served.  You can call that a piece of notional cumulation if you like.  You know, he would call it dead time, but that is what I am trying to do.  In this case ‑ ‑ ‑
69	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Yes, Your Honour.
70	HIS HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ it has required me looking at a number of aspects of what had happened and that includes - that includes Judge Sexton's indication that he was applying totality in respect of the 135 days.  Yes.  But my obligation is to declare the 135 days, but I have attempted to balance it off, that is what I have attempted to do.  But look at a lot of other factors related to what the just total sentence should be.  When you come to sentence, imposing s14 minimum terms, it is a nightmare.  All right.
71	MS BERGSHOEFF:  I understand that, Your Honour.
72	HIS HONOUR:  Now, what else do I need to do?
73	MS BERGSHOEFF:  There was a couple of other matters.  Your Honour, on Charge 8 for Mr Mansour, theft of motor vehicle, that requires a license cancellation and disqualification.
74	HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  That is Charge 8, theft of a motor vehicle.  What are the parameters there?  What is the minimum or maximum?  What do I do in terms of it?
75	MS BERGSHOEFF:  There is no minimum under the section, Your Honour.  But there is a default of three months is nothing is declared.  
76	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  There is no obligation on the driving whilst suspended?
77	MS BERGSHOEFF:  There is not, Your Honour.
78	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  I mean, these two young men are still young.  They are probably very young in the context of the adult prison system.  I think he should be given every opportunity of rehabilitating when he gets out.  So, I am going to impose a period of disqualification that will end before his minimum term comes up.  That is my reason for doing it.  His minimum term - his expectation is what, about two years to go, is it not?  Is that about right?  I will impose 12 months, no.  I will impose six months for theft of motor car.  Although fairly low in the range of things, did it not, really?
79	So, that is a six months period of disqualification.  What else is there?
80	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Your Honour, on summary Charge 16, the prosecution opening has an error in terms of the maximum penalty for drive suspended, maximum penalty is one month on that particular charge.  
81	HIS HONOUR:  What charge is that?
82	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Summary Charge 16, drive whilst suspended. 
83	HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  What did you say it was in your document?
84	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Three months.  Sorry, two years in the opening.  It is one month because of the nature of ‑ ‑ ‑
85	HIS HONOUR:  It is only one month, is it?
86	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Yes, Your Honour.
87	HIS HONOUR:  Presently, I have imposed a sentence beyond the maximum.  Of course, it stands as a concurrent sentence.  So, I change my sentence.  This is Mansour, is it not?
88	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Yes, Your Honour.
89	HIS HONOUR:  On the driving whilst suspended charges, two weeks, a sentence of two weeks on each, and then three months on each of the other three summary charges, possession of a prohibited weapon, failing to comply with the passcode request, and dealing with proceeds of crime.  All right.  Anything else that needs to be done?  What about forfeiture and disposal orders?
90	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Yes, Your Honour.  There are five orders in total sought.  
91	HIS HONOUR:  Indeed, let us have a look at this.  There is no argument against making these orders, is there? 
92	MR NICOLOSI:  None at all, Your Honour.
93	MS GRUNWALD:  No, Your Honour.
94	HIS HONOUR:  There is a disposal order for drugs.  That is made against - this one I am signing now is made against Odisho.  There is a forfeiture order against him, bar the money.  There is a disposal order related to Mansour in relation to drugs.  There is a forfeiture order against him in relation to the money.  There is a disposal order in relation to the weapons.  All right, so those orders are all made.  All right, is that it?
95	MS BERGSHOEFF:  Yes, Your Honour.
96	MR NICOLOSI:  Thank you, Your Honour.
97	HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  I do not know whether or not the informant is present.
98	MS BERGSHOEFF:  He is, Your Honour.
99	HIS HONOUR:  I am just wondering whether I could ask him this question.  How common are these drug chatrooms?  You have not come through.  Have another go, we will give up if we cannot get you to come through clearly.  It is all right, I mean they seem to - speaking as a now older than middle age man, I think it is astonishing that such facilities are made available to young people without proper legislative coverage of them.  Astonishing.  All right.  I will adjourn for the day now.  Thank you.
---