R v Mielke[2021] QSC 127

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

HER HONOUR:   All right.  Would you stand up, please, Ms Mielke.  I am sentencing you on your own plea of guilty to one count of manslaughter and four counts of malicious act with intent. 

Your counsel submitted that all the offences on the indictment comprised one series of related criminal acts and, accordingly, that I should impose a sentence on count 4, the most serious, which will reflect the overall criminality, with lesser concurrent sentences on the other counts.  I agree with that approach. 

Therefore, on count 4 of the indictment, I impose a sentence of 12 years imprisonment.  I make the serious violent offender declaration that I am compelled to make by force of legislation as a result of imposing that term of imprisonment.  Concurrently with that, I impose sentences of five years in relation to counts 1 and 3, a sentence of three years on count 2 and a sentence of 18 months on count 5.

Now, you can sit down while I give my reasons for those sentences and make some other remarks. 

All the offending that I am dealing with occurred on the 12^th of May 2017.  You were 39 years old at that time.  You were homeless and you were living in Woolcock Park in Ashgrove, and you had been living in that park for about two years. 

You were suffering from a psychotic mental illness which required medication, but you had dropped out of treatment and stopped taking medication in August 2016.  You were using alcohol and illegal drugs on a regular basis in the two years preceding the offending.  In the Mental Health Court, you were assessed as having a low/average IQ.  I think that somewhere in the material in that Court, it is recorded as being in the vicinity of 65.

You spent a substantial part of the day on 12 May 2017 drinking alcohol.  There is no evidence that you used illegal drugs that day or the day before. 

Somewhere between 9 and 10 pm on 12 May 2017, you left Woolcock Park in Ashgrove and you walked approximately one and a-half kilometres to Pinjarra Lodge in Paddington.  At about 10 pm, one of the residents of the lodge, a Mr Potter, went outside to smoke a cigarette.  He saw you sitting on the ground outside the building.  You asked if you could walk through his room to visit your friend, Michael Ralph.  Mr Potter let you inside and you walked into the bedroom shared by Michael Ralph and Jay Morgan.  You had a very large knife which you had taken from a set of barbecue implements, owned by one Joseph Bognar, who lived in Woolcock Park with you.  You also had a plastic cup from which you were drinking wine.

You sat on the floor of Michael Ralph’s room, estimates vary, between 10 and 30 minutes.  You announced to both the occupants of that room, both of whom you knew:

I love you both, but we’re all going to die tonight. 

You then walked out of the room and down the corridor.  By this time, Mr Potter had returned to his room and was in bed.  You walked into his room, said something to him, took out the knife and stabbed him in the chest. 

You walked back to the room shared by Michael Ralph and Jay Morgan, placed the knife on the floor and said:

Someone’s going to get hurt tonight.”

The two men did not take you seriously, but then you suddenly turned on them saying:

You bastards.

You attacked Michael Ralph, despite his pleas to you.  You stabbed him in the abdomen.  When Jay Morgan intervened, you turned towards him and stabbed him in the stomach.  You then grabbed his guitar and ran out the door.

Once outside the building, you encountered another resident of the lodge, one Andrew Faulks, and you stabbed him several times to various parts of his trunk. 

You then walked back to Woolcock Park, a distance of one and a-half kilometres.  In a car park adjoining that park, you were seen by an Uber driver carrying the knife at chest height and shouting:

I’ve just stabbed four people, and I will kill you. 

You were also seen by another lady waiting in the car park in her car.  She saw you screaming in a violent and angry way:

I had to do it.  You asked me to.  I had to kill him. 

She heard you say, “Well?” repeatedly, as though questioning somebody. 

All this time, there was nobody with you, and I do accept from this evidence that you were suffering from your psychosis quite acutely at that time.

When you arrived back at the park where you lived, you sat down with Joseph Bognar and you told him that you had killed Mr Potter, Mr Faulks and Mr Ralph.  Bognar then, apparently, asked you to put the knife away.  You refused.  He insisted and you suddenly jumped up and ran towards him with the knife.  He evaded you, save only that the tip of the knife hit him in the ribcage.  This caused minor injuries, a red mark and some pain.  Mr Bognar ran a short distance and called out to a third person who lived in the park, one Colin Moore:

Get up.  She’s got a knife. 

You continued to chase Bognar while holding the knife.  He saw police on the street and ran over to them.  You then desisted in chasing him, but moved back towards Moore with the knife still in your hand.

Moore calmed you down to some extent and you sat down on a mattress.  You were arrested at that point.  On arrest, and immediately afterwards, you made numerous unprompted remarks such as:

I’m sorry.  I’m usually a nice person.  I haven’t slept for a year.  Getting to me.  Getting to me.  Been on the streets for a year.  Constantly feeling bones digging into you when you lie down to sleep.  Wouldn’t you feel angry?

At some point, you aggressively growled, “Shut up, I’m not a wimp”. 

At about 1.25 am, you became agitated in the police cell yelling, “Stop talking to me”, and, “Shut up”, further, “Stop telling me what to do”, and, “Now look what’s happened”.  All this time, you were alone.  Once again, I accept that this evidence is good evidence that your psychosis was quite prominent in your thinking at this time.

Mr Potter was taken to hospital by ambulance.  He had a laceration to his chest, which had penetrated the pleura, resulting in a pneumothorax.  He underwent investigation and significant treatment.  The injury could not have been left untreated.  It is likely to have endangered his life. 

Mr Ralph was also taken to hospital by ambulance.  He had a single penetrating wound to his abdomen, which broke the true skin, but did not need any significant medical treatment. 

Mr Morgan was also taken to hospital by ambulance.  The stab wound to his abdomen had penetrated his small bowel and he underwent a laparotomy.  Had the wound not been treated, he would likely have died. 

Mr Faulks was taken to hospital by ambulance.  He was in a bad way.  A laparotomy was commenced but discontinued, as further treatment was considered futile.  He died at 11.30 pm that night, essentially from loss of blood caused by the stab wounds which you inflicted.

You were originally charged with murder and three counts of attempted murder, as well as with malicious act with intent in relation to Mr Bognar.  In September last year, the Mental Health Court granted you the partial defence of diminished responsibility. 

A new indictment charging you with manslaughter, three counts of attempted murder or, in the alternative, malicious act with intent, and one of malicious act with intent (in relation to Mr Bognar) was presented in this Court.  Before me, you pleaded guilty to manslaughter and four counts of malicious act with intent, which the Crown accepted in satisfaction of the indictment.

In the Mental Health Court all the psychiatrists who gave evidence, and the assisting psychiatrists to the Court, accepted that you had a psychotic illness:  either schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia.  Likewise, there was general agreement that you had a level of personality dysfunction.  Opinions varied as to the exact nature of this, but there was broad agreement that you had borderline personality disorder with some antisocial personality traits noted by some experts. There was no doubt that you had a long history of polysubstance abuse, including cannabis, alcohol, methamphetamine, benzodiazepines and morphine.

All of the psychiatrists who reported to the Mental Health Court were hampered by the fact that you told them you could not remember the events which are the subject of these charges.  I think it is right to record there was scepticism as to this expressed both by the psychiatrists in their evidence and also by the assisting psychiatrists. 

Two psychiatrists, Dr Phillips and Dr Heffernan, examined you on 12 May 2017 (the day of the offending) and 17 May 2017, respectively.  Both of them thought you were floridly psychotic during these examinations, and I note that fits with the lay evidence as to your behaviour on the day.

Dr van de Hoef’s interpretation of all the evidence was that you were suffering from an episode of severe untreated chronic schizoaffective disorder at the time of the offending and, as a result, experiencing extreme mood disturbances, delusional beliefs and auditory hallucinations.  She thought you were likely intoxicated at the time, but that your illness was so severe that the intoxication could be disregarded.  She therefore supported a finding of unsoundness of mind. 

Her view was not accepted by the Mental Health Court, because (1) you would not tell anyone what was going on in your mind at the time of the events which are the subject of these charges, and (2) there was a history of conflict between you and the Pinjarra Lodge and several of the victims, which preceded the events which constitute the offending.  In those circumstances, the Mental Health Court was quite rightly reluctant to draw the inference that not only were you suffering from a psychosis, but that it deprived you of the ability to know what you were doing, the ability to know what you were doing was wrong, or the ability to control your actions.

Also relevant to this point is assistant psychiatrist Dr Redden’s advice to the Court to accept that you were psychotic at the time of the offending.  She noted, however, there was no evidence that you actually held delusional beliefs about any of the victims.  She thought that if you had held delusions about them, it is likely that they would have emerged in some form over the lengthy period of examination and observation to which you were subject after the offending.

The history of your association with Pinjarra Lodge was that you had originally lived there, but about two years before the offending, you had been asked to leave because you would not abide by the rules.  In particular, you were drinking alcohol on the premises.  After that, it appears that you visited the lodge after hours in order to contact people that you knew and seek admission to have a shower, etcetera.

It is plain that you did harbour grievance against the manager of the Pinjarra Lodge, because on 23 June 2016 you attended the lodge and slashed the tyres of her car.  This is the subject matter of the wilful damage conviction on your Queensland criminal history.  That offending sits about a year after your expulsion from the lodge and about a year before the offending with which I am dealing. 

As well as this, you had a longstanding relationship with the victim Michael Ralph.  You had been in an “on and off again” sexual relationship with him for about 14 years.  At the time of the offending, the relationship was off and had been so for about 12 months.  Nonetheless, he saw you regularly and he had been drinking with you in the park earlier that day.

You had known Mr Bognar for about three years and you had had sexual relations with him on occasion.  He says that on the night of 8^th December 2016, you were very distressed because a woman you were in a relationship with died, and when he said something which caused you offence, you chased him with a steak knife in the park.  Nonetheless, he said you calmed down after about 10 minutes and went back to normal.  He attributed that behaviour to the loss of your girlfriend.  Mr Bognar says that for the whole time he had known you, you were a caring and good person.

I think there has to be some qualification about information obtained from Mr Bognar, given that the third person living with you in the park, Mr Moore, told police that immediately before you left the park with the knife on the night of the offending, Mr Bognar had been encouraging you to kill named people at the lodge.  Mr Moore said that Mr Bognar told you to take the barbecue knife and go and kill them.  At one stage, you reported this same version of events to Dr Voita.

You had known Mr Morgan for about four years and had, according to him, not had any arguments except for one incident a few months prior to the night of this offending:  you were drinking with him when you unaccountably turned on him, punched him to the head and threw his possessions into the bush. 

Mr Potter did not give any account of animosity between you and him, but he did think that there was some argument between you and Mr Faulks. 

As discussed, this evidence does raise a possibility that you were motivated to attack the victims of your offending for non-psychotic reasons.

The other independent expert to give evidence in the Mental Health Court, Dr Arthur, analysed your behaviour more in terms of your personality disorder than mental illness.  In contrast to Dr van de Hoef, he did not support unsoundness, and and even had difficulty accepting that the psychosis you were suffering from at the time of the offending was a substantial impairment so as to entitle you to a partial defence of diminished responsibility. 

In those circumstances, the advice of the assisting psychiatrists was recorded by Justice Flanagan as:

I note Dr Redden and Dr Simpson’s advice to this Court that an unsoundness defence is not available for any of the charges, primarily because the Court has no insight into the defendant’s mental state at the relevant time.  Dr Redden and Dr Simpson, however, support a finding that at the time of the alleged murder, the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired her capacity to know that she ought not do the act and the capacity to control her actions.

Justice Flanagan accepted the advice of his assisting psychiatrists, making a further note that a finding of unsoundness would have been unsafe when the weight of evidence was that you were intoxicated with alcohol at the relevant time. 

I sentence you on the basis that you intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on all five of your victims.  In relation to the four victims at the lodge, I sentence you on the basis that you formed the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm either on them or someone else at the time you left the park.  You took the barbecue knife with you and you walked 1.5 kilometres to the hostel.  The offending is more culpable than simply offending in a flash of anger or psychotic inspiration to do wrong.

The violence in relation to Mr Faulks was particularly persistent.  He was stabbed several times. 

The course of offending at the lodge is also persistent.  The four men were stabbed one after the other, and you were observed not to be rushed, hurried or panicked during, or immediately after the offending. 

You pled guilty in this matter, and you are entitled to credit in relation to that plea for saving the costs of a trial.  Your Counsel submits that you are remorseful.  You wrote a very basic letter to me expressing remorse.  I find it difficult to see that it shows anything other than a superficial understanding of your crimes and the effect that they have had on the victims and their families.  Having regard to your intelligence and your personality, it may be that that is the extent of the remorse you are capable of feeling.

You were 39 at the time of the offending.  You are 43 now.  You have a criminal history.  There is the entry of wilful damage from the Queensland criminal history already mentioned.  There is some very minor history in Victoria, which I regard as irrelevant.  In New South Wales, you were sentenced to 14 days imprisonment for assaulting a police officer in 2002, and in 2003 you were sentenced to 18 months with a nine-month non-parole period for assault with intent to rob, robbery armed with an offensive weapon, and demanding property by force in company.  Those 2003 offences were serious enough; they were violent and, therefore, relevant to this sentence. 

I do note that the criminal history from New South Wales records that in 2003 the sentence included that your release was subject to supervision, particularly to drug and alcohol counselling and psychological assessment, treatment and monitoring.

That is the totality of your criminal history, and it could not be said that your criminal history shows repeated violence over time.  I also note that there are no offences between 2003 and 2016. 

Having regard to section 9 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, the two matters which are most significant in fixing my sentence for your crimes are related to your mental functioning.  They are the same two matters which must almost inevitably dominate any sentence for an offender who has received the partial defence of diminished responsibility.  They were described by Justice Fryberg in R v Neumann [2005] QCA 362, p. 10 as countervailing.  On the one hand, you deserve mitigation of your sentence because the criminality of your acts is diminished by the fact of your impaired understanding of what you ought and ought not do, and your impaired ability to control yourself.  On the other hand, these same factors mark you as a more intractable subject for reform than one who is not so affected, and even as one who is more likely to offend again, to slightly misquote the words of Brennan J in R v Shannon (1978) 20 ALR 1, pp. 4-5.The first of these principles means that you are not a good medium for a sentence which will generally deter.  The second factor means that, in order to protect the community, a longer sentence may be necessary.

In terms of comparable cases, the Crown relied on the case of Zarnke [2019] QCA 141.  I think it is a very comparable case.  Like you, Mr Zarnke was charged with murder, but received the partial defence of diminished responsibility in the Mental Health Court.  He received a sentence of 13 years imprisonment for manslaughter, and the Court of Appeal refused to interfere with that. 

He was of similar age to you.  He did have a longer criminal history than you; however, most of his convictions were for drug offences, not offences of violence.  He had a conviction of assaulting police and one other conviction for violence, which was a breach of a domestic violence order.  In terms of violent offending, your criminal history is similar, but slightly worse, than that of Mr Zarnke. 

Both you and Mr Zarnke had uncharged offences of violence.  As a seven year old, he had chased his mother down the street with a butcher’s knife, and he attacked his brother with a knife aged 14. 

You also have uncharged acts of violence, for example, charging Mr Bognar with a knife and beating Mr Morgan about the head.  I note that Dr van de Hoef records threats to kill on 28 June 2016 at Pinjarra Lodge, and a history of many presentations to emergency centres at the Royal Brisbane Hospital – including the Royal Brisbane Hospital,  complicated by intoxication and aggression.

Mr Zarnke killed a friend of his aunt.  He violently stabbed him to the chest and stomach.  Blood was pouring out of his body.  The victim staggered and fell onto the road.  He and Mr Zarnke’s aunt yelled at Mr Zarnke to stop, but he replied that he was going to kill him.  He knelt over the deceased man, raised his knife and struck it repeatedly into his upper body saying:

I told you I would get you.

Before the killing, Zarnke had delusions that his aunt and others were trying to poison him.  He made those allegations on the day of the killing, and also threatened to kill the deceased man if it transpired that he had caused Mr Zarnke’s de facto to have left Mr Zarnke.  When police arrested Mr Zarnke some time later, he said he killed the deceased man because the deceased man poisoned him.  He said it was hard to tell if all the voices in his head were from being poisoned, but he thought the deceased man deserved it. 

The evidence in the Mental Health Court was that Mr Zarnke had a severe and treatment-resistant illness.  He was suffering from an episode of that illness so severe at the time of the offending that the Mental Health Court found that he was, in fact, deprived of the capacity to know he ought not kill the deceased man, and was deprived of the capacity to control himself.  He was not entitled to the defence of unsoundness because he was intoxicated with cannabis and methylamphetamine at the time.  He was given the partial defence of diminished responsibility.  He had a personality with a propensity towards violence, and his condition was further exacerbated by frequent and longstanding consumption of illegal drugs.  The sentencing Judge recognised that Mr Zarnke remained a considerable risk in the community. 

Mr Zarnke’s attack was more sustained and more violent than your attack on Mr Faulks.  Mr Zarnke intended to kill, whereas I sentence you on the basis that you did not.  The lack of an intention to kill on your part is in your favour on a factual comparison between the two manslaughters.  On the other hand, Mr Zarnke was deprived of the capacity to know he ought not do the act and the capacity to control himself when he killed.  You were substantially impaired in these capacities, but not deprived of them. 

Zarnke killed one person, meaning to kill, because he had a delusion about that one person.  With the intention to do grievous bodily harm you stabbed five men in one night.  You killed Mr Faulks.  Two others sustained injuries amounting to grievous bodily harm.  Your motive for attacking the five people remains unknown.

The material in the Mental Health Court gives information about your risk of reoffending.  Dr van de Hoef’s report records that you had contact with mental health services from age 12.  You had a history of what Dr van de Hoef calls repeated itinerancy, and you had been homeless since 2016.  Dr van de Hoef’s report records that your surviving sister wants nothing to do with you.  Dr Arthur’s report makes the same note in relation to your mother, adding that you were not invited to the funeral of your deceased sister.

Dr van de Hoef’s report shows just how many diagnoses, treating clinicians and treating regimes you have been on between 2009 and 2016.  Her description of this information covers three very closely typed pages.  It describes the very opposite of good consistent care.  She records that in times of crisis you present to emergency departments, but you have no history of co-operating in long-term treatment.

Dr van de Hoef says that, given your personality disorder and heavy alcohol and drug use, it is likely that you often lie or minimise your symptoms and aggressive ideas in order to escape scrutiny and detention.  She notes that the Queensland Health records show numerous times when you would not answer your phone or had changed address and could not be found when workers were looking to provide you with medication either by prescription or by depot injection.  It really does seem from this description that Queensland Health agencies made great efforts to find you, contacting people such as The Salvation Army, Mission Australia and Police Beat to try and have some consistent follow-up with your care.

Dr van de Hoef says that you require long-term treatment with anti-psychotic medication and probably mood stabilising medication as well.  In her oral evidence to the Mental Health Court, she said that despite the various diagnoses which you have attracted over time, it is clear that you do much better when you are medicated than when you are not.  She notes that you have responded well, “but not completely” whilst in high secure mental health care detention or in jail.

The difficulty is that when you return to the community, you will more than likely resume the type of life you were living before the offending.  You have no family support.  There is no evidence that you have ever worked.  Your dysfunctional personality means that you are unlikely to abide by the rules in places such as Pinjarra Lodge.  Your violent offending will mean that you are unlikely to be accepted into any such place in the future, in any event.  You are disinclined to co‑operation.  It is most unlikely that you will stay in any long or medium-term consistent treatment for your mental health issues.  You have little understanding or insight into the nature of your illness and the need to do so.

In this context, I wanted to say something about the difference between a forensic order imposed by the Mental Health Court and an involuntary treatment order, now called a treatment authority, imposed by a treating practitioner, and I do so partly because there are comments in the cases where the Court seems to assume that people in your position will be – or can be assumed to be – likely to be managed in the community on an involuntary treatment order once released from prison.  I do not think that assumption can be made in your case.

There is a great deal of difference between a forensic order and a treatment authority.  A treatment authority cannot be made by a treating practitioner unless both (1) the treatment criteria apply to the person and (2) there is no less restrictive way for the person to receive treatment and care:  see section 48 of the Mental Health Act 2016.  The treatment criteria are defined at section 12 of the Mental Health Act and are all of the following:

(a) the person has a mental illness –

you do –

(b) the person does not have capacity to consent to be treated for the illness –

at the time you are released from jail after many years of a structured protective environment with proper mental health care and medication, I think it is most unlikely that you will fulfill this criteria –

(c) the absence of involuntary treatment is likely to result in imminent serious harm to the person or others;  or the person suffering serious mental deterioration.

After your release from jail, protected and medicated, I think it is most unlikely that you will present any imminent serious risk to yourself or others.  It may be that a treating practitioner thinks you might suffer serious mental deterioration without treatment. 

In contrast to a treatment authority, a forensic order is imposed by the Mental Health Court.  It is likely to operate for many years in the case of someone who has offended as you have..  While your condition may fluctuate over time, the order persists until the Mental Health Tribunal or the Mental Health Court revokes it.  This will only happen after a hearing and full assessment of risk.  In contrast a treatment authority may be discontinued by a treating psychiatrist and, in that respect, Dr van de Hoef’s observations from the long survey she made of your contact with mental health services is relevant.

While formal powers to deal with a breach of a treatment authority may be the same as those to deal with breach of a forensic order, in practice, it is possible for a patient on an involuntary treatment order in the community to escape follow-up and scrutiny, essentially, to drop out of the system.  I have never heard of such a thing in relation to a forensic order.  It is a much more robust system.  Doctors administering a forensic order are very much aware that they are administering an order of the Court.

In summary, I think it is unlikely that you will qualify to be placed on a treatment authority when you are released from jail.  Even if you were, it is by no means certain it would continue in the medium or long-term.  Both Dr van de Hoef and Dr Arthur made similar comments in the Mental Health Court as to the need for your ongoing care.  Dr van de Hoef said:

If the Mental Health Court finds Natascha Mielke of unsound mind in relation to any of the charges or unfit for trial, I would support her ongoing treatment being subject to a forensic order, given the severity of her illness, the extreme seriousness of her charges, her insightlessness during periods of illness, her history of non-compliance with treatment and her history of resort to weapons when most unwell and the serious risk she poses to others when most unwell.

Dr Arthur said:

Given the nature of the offence and her history of severe personality disorder and substance use, were she found permanently unfit for trial or of unsound mind, a forensic order would be indicated to ensure that she remains compliant, abstinent from substances and that her mental state is closely monitored.

They are my reasons for imposing the sentences which I imposed.  I do wish to add some remarks based on my observations after having spent six years hearing cases on the Mental Health Court and occasionally hearing cases such as yours as a sentencing Judge. 

When someone with a mental illness kills at a time when they are deprived of the capacity to know what they are doing, know that they ought not do the act, or the capacity to control themselves and they are not intoxicated, they have a complete defence to the criminal charge of murder and are placed on a forensic order.  Because of the robust nature of the forensic order, it is unlikely that they will commit a similar crime, and, in that way, the legal system seeks to ensure the safety of the community. 

When someone kills, claiming to have a mental illness or an abnormal state of mind, and it is found that they were not deprived of a relevant capacity and were not substantially impaired in any relevant capacity, they face a jury trial.  If convicted, they are sentenced to imprisonment for life.  Again, this is the response of the legal system in trying to ensure the safety of the community.

You fall into a third class of persons:  persons who have some illness or other abnormality of mind which does not deprive them of a relevant capacity but which substantially impairs a relevant capacity.  In consequence, you receive the partial defence of diminished responsibility, and one of the most salient questions when you come to be sentenced is the protection of the community.  Very often, people in this category of case not only have an illness, but, as is the case with you, have a personality disorder.^[1]

A personality disorder, by and large, is not amenable to treatment.  Personality is generally immutable.  Antisocial personality traits, which are common in this group of defendants, render defendants likely to be violent, by nature.  Borderline personality disorders, common in this group of defendants, render the person unco-operative and unable to abide by rules, by nature.

Drug and alcohol abuse is also very common in this group of defendants. 

In short, this group of defendants has characteristics which make them likely to reoffend and unlikely to co-operate with voluntary mental health care in the community and, indeed, even with mental health care delivered under the auspices of a treatment authority.

In my view, the Mental Health Act ought to be amended to give the Mental Health Court a discretion to place persons in this group of defendants on a forensic order, if you like, as the price for receiving the partial defence of diminished responsibility.  Such a scheme would keep the community safer. 

It would also mean that when people in this group of defendants are sentenced in the trial Court, the sentencing Judge has less need to impose high sentences in order to protect the community.  To a large extent, the trial Judge in the sentencing Court could assume that that protection would be provided by the forensic order.

I will direct that the Director of Public Prosecutions provide a copy of these reasons to the Attorney-General and, in particular, draw the Attorney’s attention to the remarks that I have made at the conclusion of my sentence, and I will also record that I will provide a copy of the remarks to Justice Applegarth in his role as head of the Law Reform Commission. 

All right.  Now, so far as the sentence is concerned, Ms Kovac, did you have anything further?

MS KOVAC:   Your Honour, nothing further, apart from a formal declaration regarding the time that Ms Mielke has ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   A formal declaration, sorry, that of – a serious violent offender declaration?

MS KOVAC:   Pre-sentence custody certificate, yes.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  Thank you.  Thanks very much.  All right. 

I declare 1449 days between 12 May 2017 and 29 April 2021 as time served pursuant to the sentences I impose. 

Is there anything further from you, Ms Prskalo?

MS PRSKALO:   Nothing further.  Thank you, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Thank you both, and can I say thank you both for the assistance you did give me on the sentence and, as you can see, perhaps, Ms Kovac, I did do a bit of reading in the case law that you provided me.  So thank you very much.

MS KOVAC:   Thank you, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   We can adjourn.  Thanks.