R v Bin LI and Kun WANG

REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1Almost everyone has had to go to some trouble to obtain a credit card. They fill in forms and have their credit rating assessed by a financial institution. It becomes easier once a person already has one or two cards. 2For most people, buying high end designer goods is an expensive luxury. It might be a gift or an indulgence and they might take some time to pay off the purchase with interest if they use a credit card. Others of course can afford such goods regularly because they earn more money from their occupation. 3Financial institutions have made it easier for us to afford such purchases. We can buy the goods immediately, the retailer is paid, the financial institution bears the risk of waiting for us to pay for the goods but we agree to pay interest for the advance of the funds. These arrangements underpin a vast number of transactions by individuals. They promote commerce and personal convenience. 4Bin Li, whom I am sentencing today, aggressively abused the processes and understandings which underlie these arrangements which benefit so many. He went about fraudulently manufacturing his own credit cards. These cards were used to buy high end luxury goods which he then arranged to on-sell for cash. He had a virtual factory set up at his home for producing hundreds and hundreds of false but effective credit cards. He had a person out shopping with these cards. If one card did not work, another was tried. His operation was extensive, well organised and was backed by sophisticated plant and equipment. 5In addition Bin Li had equipment to manufacture cards - other than credit cards, such as driver licences - which could be used for identification purposes. Therefore the system we are all familiar with of producing a form of identification was being deliberately undermined by Bin Li's criminal activity. To make matters even worse, when the police arrested him at his home they found a good deal of methylamphetamine, far more than for personal use. 6At the same time I am sentencing one of Bin Li's shoppers, a woman named Kun Wang. 7I will first set out the crimes that each of them has been charged with. Then I must say something about what they did to bring about these charges. I will say something about each of them personally. I will consider the arguments put in their favour and by the prosecution and then I will sentence them. 8I am sentencing Bin Li for four offences. Two of the charges are against s 256(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 of making, or possessing the equipment to make, a false document. To each of those offences the New South Wales Parliament has fixed a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. For the identity documents I am sentencing him for a crime against s 192L of the Crimes Act. That is for possessing equipment capable of making identification documents intending that the documents be used to commit a serious offence. Parliament has fixed a maximum of 3 years to that offence. 9I am also sentencing him for a crime against s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 because the amount of methylamphetamine he had was so much that it is assumed it was for supplying it to somebody else. Parliament has fixed a maximum of 15 years imprisonment for that offence. When I am sentencing him for the drug offence he has asked me to take into account an offence of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime which is an offence against s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act. Parliament has fixed a maximum of 15 years imprisonment to that crime. I say that to indicate how serious it is. I have signed a certificate saying I will take that offence into account. 10I am sentencing Kun Wang for one crime of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime and that is also an offence against s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act and, as I said, carries a maximum of 15 years imprisonment. 11I will now turn to saying something about what the police found to bring about these charges. 12A multi-agency strike force was monitoring Mr Li, related to identity crimes. Part of exhibit A is a statement of facts. I will quote some passages from that statement of facts, which explain the crimes Mr Li was engaged in. They had intercepted telephone calls between Mr Li and Ms Wang. The telephone calls, say the facts "illustrate an agreement between the two persons to commit numerous and ongoing frauds using counterfeit credit cards and false identification documents." 13Mr Li was in on the criminal activity from the outset. The facts say that at the time the agreement was made, the intention by Mr Li was that numerous transactions and purchases of a fraudulent nature would be carried out. The two of them set about defrauding "numerous vendors". The facts say that Mr Li "instructs, guides and receives 'reports' from" Ms Wang and others. The conversations illustrate the extent of their involvement in purchasing the goods. On one occasion Ms Wang was buying goods and Mr Li was acting as a lookout. Mr Li told Ms Wang in one call that "people shopping for him at Gucci in Westfield Cabramatta had reported over $4000.00 in purchases." Instructions were given by Mr Li to Ms Wang and discussions were about onselling the goods. The facts go on to say that the police allegation is that Ms Wang "acted as both a shopper for and a disposer of fraudulently obtained goods." That is obvious from the statement of facts which is a part of exhibit C (the case against Ms Wang) where at one stage Ms Wang "discussed the on-selling of the goods" to someone else, indicating how much the other person wanted. 14When the police came to arrest Mr Li at his home they found four plastic bags. Three of those contained what turned out to be methylamphetamine. There were digital scales, clear resealable bags and fingerprints of Mr Li. The fourth bag contained something which was described by the police as "commonly used in the supply of prohibited drugs to break down drug purity for bagging and sale." 15In another part of the house police found "two machines designed for embossing blank plastic cards." They found computer terminals and on one of them "nearly one hundred lines of data, appearing to be credit card numbers". They found a card printer which can be used to print text and characters onto plastic cards and they found a printer with information about New South Wales and Victorian driver licences and blank membership cards. The facts say that a "full list of information obtained from the printer ribbons was produced by the document examiners and contains thousands of sets of identification information". In another part of the house they found holograms consistent with those used in making Victorian driver licences. They found a heat press/laminator which can be used for embossing cards as well as a magnetic card encoder or reader. All of the equipment I have just described was made the subject of a charge under s 256 of the Crimes Act. 16A further charge was laid regarding some additional equipment found. In Mr Li's garage police found blank unembossed cards with logos, designs and information consistent with those located on genuine credit cards from financial institutions. The agreed facts go on to say the "credit cards were of an extremely high quality and would be reasonably expected to induce a reasonable person to accept them as genuine". The police say the "combined total of individual credit cards seized from the garage area alone was 11,707." They found blank unembossed cards contained in some boxes in his bedroom and some blank Medicare cards, once again of extremely high quality. There were almost 400 cards in his bedroom. 17The offence of possession of material to make identification documents under s 192L of the Crimes Act was a charge regarding 120 blank cards found in Mr Li's garage containing "markings that are consistent with security features located on genuine New South Wales driver licences". 18The offence of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime - which I am taking into account on the drug offence sentence - concerns an amount of nearly $29,000 cash found in a bedside drawer. The facts go on to say that the telephone intercepts demonstrate that Mr Li "regularly received sums of money in the value of thousands of dollars from persons reporting to him as a supervisor of shoppers". Police go on to say that the large amount of money represented "proceeds from the onselling of the fraudulently obtained goods" which was "not banked in order to avoid law enforcement detection." 19Concerning Ms Wang, police went to her home on the same day, which was 18 October 2011. They had been listening in on conversations between Ms Wang and Mr Li, so they had heard Mr Li giving directions to Ms Wang about the use of the cards. It is clear Mr Li was the person in charge and giving directions to Ms Wang. At one stage Mr Li asked if Ms Wang had "sold the goods off" and Ms Wang said "no." Mr Li told Ms Wang "to work harder as he was short of money." They discussed percentage discounts off the retail value of the high-end goods. 20The facts for Ms Wang say that when they searched her house they found "a large quantity of high-end designer goods". These included "handbags, clothing and jewellery of various brands including Versace, Gucci, Salvatore Farragoma, Balenciaga and Burberry." They found about 90 items; some of them were new and had tags attached and most of them were in Ms Wang's bedroom. They found a large quantity of empty bags from designer clothing and accessories stores. They listed in the facts a dozen or more items that came to a total of just under $28,000. They found an iPhone with photographs of "high-end designer goods" as well as receipts. They found what appeared to be "a number of handwritten shopping lists detailing purchases or prospective purchases of high-end designer goods." They found a credit card which was consistent with those produced by Mr Li. They searched a safe deposit box which contained Australian currency (which was not the subject of a charge) two diamond rings and two Swiss watches, one of which was valued at $7000. 21I now need to say something about the personal circumstances of Mr Li and Ms Wang. Mr Li is 39. There is a pre-sentence report about him, which became exhibit B. He was educated in China and did a mechanic's apprenticeship. He came to Australia when he was 25 and had casual employment. He became addicted to gambling but he says he had dealt with it by the time he was arrested. Some years ago he started to smoke methylamphetamine, which he stopped using on his arrest. He acknowledged his wrongdoing, asserting "that he would not ever repeat them, citing as his reason that they were too risky." The author of the pre-sentence report observed that Mr Li "appeared to have a pragmatic rather than a principled approach to criminal behaviour, and to lack insight into the effects of his actions on others, including the broader society." It did however note he appeared to be "reflectively aware of the negative effects of gambling and illicit drug use". 22There is a report from a forensic psychologist about Mr Li and it became exhibit 1. It noted he expressed considerable regret and remorse. He has a de facto wife of some 24 years and has two adult children at university. It was clear to the psychologist, Mr Watson-Munro, that he was close to his family. The psychologist thought he had some anxiety disorder with features of depression and the psychologist thought he would improve with continuing support and therapy and should have professional assistance. 23Exhibit 2 was a handwritten letter to the Court acknowledging what he did was wrong and expressing his remorse for the offence against the community and his own family. 24I also have information about Ms Wang. She is the mother of a daughter who is under 10 years of age and Mr Li is in fact the father of her daughter. 25There is a report about Ms Wang from Danielle Hopkins, a clinical psychologist. It notes Ms Wang's mother came to Australia in 2009 from China where Ms Wang herself was born. Ms Wang has had tertiary education and has worked in the finance industry. She said that she knew that her use of credit cards was fraudulent and said that she "did not realise that credit card fraud 'was this serious'." She said she won't get into trouble again. The psychologist noted that Ms Wang "endorsed some depressive and anxiety symptomatology and she lacks extensive social support". The psychologist noted that it remained unclear whether there was any undue influence from Mr Li. She trusted him. The psychologist concluded that Ms Wang "is not an anti-social woman and has no specific criminogenic needs. She is the carer for her elderly mother and daughter and has commitments in the community, recently becoming employed." 26Ms Wang is well regarded by her neighbours and her friends who say that she is very remorseful for what she has done. In an affidavit, Ms Wang explains her mother's and daughter's health issues. Those health issues are not serious in my opinion but, nevertheless, I do note the evidence about them. 27Neither Mr Li nor Ms Wang gave evidence before me. 28Mr Li has a prior criminal record. In 1999 he was given a gaol sentence for fraudulent misappropriation. He appealed and was given a non-custodial sentence but failed to comply with the conditions and was given periodic detention. He also has convictions for goods in custody and obtaining money by deception. He received a suspended sentence for those. He has an offence for obtaining by deception committed in 2001. Again he was given a gaol sentence but appealed and was given periodic detention. Although those offences were committed some time ago, it is a significant criminal record for the purposes of the offences that I am sentencing him for. 29Mr T Watts, who appeared for Mr Li, acknowledged that his client must spend some more time in custody but argued that it should not be very much more. He referred to the expression of his client's remorse. I note that but I do not put much weight on it because it is mainly unsworn and untested and in some instances second hand. I accept the submission of Mr T C Spohr, who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the offences concerning s 256 and 192L involved a series of criminal acts. He also submitted that they were committed for financial gain. But I really regard that as part of the crime rather than a separate aggravating feature. He argued which, I accept, that the identity card offences were preparatory, whereas the credit card offences were participatory. 30Mr Watts said that his client had been cooperative with the authorities, but this could not be pressed as far as making an allowance for assistance. He has been engaged in courses in custody which is a good start to rehabilitation. He will need some additional time on parole to pursue his rehabilitation because of the better availability of an interpreter in his dialect in the community rather than in gaol. Mr Watts argued that the sentences could all be concurrent because they were closely interconnected. He argued that his client had pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity. Mr Spohr acknowledged this and, in due course, I will discount his sentence by 25 per cent because of his plea of guilty. 31Mr Spohr acknowledged that there was room to find concurrency in respect of the various card offences but the drug offence was distinct. He referred to a high degree of purity of the drug found but I accept Mr Watts' submission that it would need to be demonstrated to me beyond reasonable doubt that the purity was significant as an aggravating factor, and I am not so convinced. I suspect Mr Spohr is quite right but I take Mr Watts' point. I regard the victims as the financial institutions rather than individuals, as Mr Watts argues. I accept from Mr Watts that there is no evidence of actual supply of the methylamphetamine, including over a period of telephone intercepts, but he also acknowledged realistically the presence of the scales and the bags. 32I propose to impose one sentence for all of the offences using the provisions of s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. However, I need to indicate what sentence would have been imposed for each offence if I were imposing separate sentences. I have already set out the extent of Mr Li's involvement in these crimes. As I said, his operation was extensive, well organised and was backed by sophisticated plant and equipment. He already has a criminal record for dishonesty offences. I must take into account dealing with the proceeds of crime when I fix a sentence for the drug supply. 33I regard an appropriate sentence for the drug supply as one of 6 years imprisonment. I regard an appropriate sentence for each of the offences of possessing equipment to make a false document as 7 years imprisonment. I regard an appropriate sentence for the offence of possessing equipment for making an identification document as 6 months imprisonment. I would have structured the sentences by fixing the two 7 year sentences for the s 256 offences to commence 6 months apart, the first on 18 October 2011 and the second on 18 April 2012. I should say that Mr Li has been in custody relating to these offences since 18 October 2011. 34I would then fix the 6 months sentence to commence 18 July 2018 and to expire on 17 January 2019. The 6 year sentence for the drug offence would commence 18 October 2014 and expire on 17 October 2021. 35I would regard an appropriate overall sentence therefore as being one of 10 years. However, Mr Li has pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity. I will therefore discount that sentence by 25 per cent, so his overall sentence will be 7½ years. 36Normally for a 7½ year sentence, a non-parole period would be 5 years and 7 months, that is 75 per cent of the sentence. But I accept Mr Watts' argument that his client needs more time in the community for counselling and I also take into account that this is his first full-time custodial sentence. I therefore propose to affix his non-parole period as 4 years and 7 months. In due course I will fix a sentence for Mr Li which will be 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 7 months. 37Mr T Gartelmann, who appeared for Ms Wang, pointed out that his client was 34, her mother is 65 and her daughter is 7. He referred to their medical issues which, as I have said, I do not regard as very serious. He pointed to the fact that his client had no previous convictions and character references which I have taken into account. 38Mr Gartelmann acknowledged appropriately that his client had to face a sentence of imprisonment but argued that it may be served in the community. He emphasised the distinction between the sentence I give to his client and the one which I might deliver to Mr Li. He is right about that. He referred me to authorities about the significance of the maximum penalty. I remind myself that the maximum for this offence is 15 years imprisonment. As the High Court has said in Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357, maximum penalties are relevant because they invite comparison between the worst possible case and the case that I am sentencing a person for and they provide some yardstick. Adapting what was said by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tsakonas v R [2009] NSWCCA 258; (2009) 197 A Crim R 581 at 593 ([56]) the statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years in this case "must be regarded as reflecting the legislative view of the seriousness of the conduct" falling within s 193B(2). I do not accept that this could fall into the category of a "highly technical version of the offence" of the kind referred to by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Thorn v R [2009] NSWCCA 294; (2009) 198 A Crim R 135 at 142 ([31]). 39Mr Gartelmann appropriately drew comparisons with cases which involved far greater amounts, so far as the property was concerned. However I need to bear in mind that the maximum fixed by Parliament for this offence is 15 years imprisonment. This is obviously regarded by Parliament as a very serious kind of offence. Mr Gartelmann acknowledges that but says that the behaviour of Ms Wang falls towards the lower end of the range of seriousness. But the authorities also urge me to take into account the actual physical acts which a person undertakes in committing crime. I have in mind R v Guo [2010] NSWCCA 17; (2010) 201 A Crim R 403 at 415 ([87]) as well as in Tsakonas v R at 593 ([65]). This was a well organised offence. It is not a one-off holding of goods for another. Ms Wang played an important role in a systematic theft of money from financial institutions. Her role was less than that of Mr Li and she is far from being a principal but she was the operative putting the criminal scheme into action by using the cards, accumulating some of the goods and participating in selling them. I am sentencing her for an offence under s 193B of the Crimes Act. Section 193A defines dealing in the proceeds of crime widely and it could be said that Ms Wang was involved in receiving, possessing, concealing and disposing of the proceeds of crime as well as engaging directly in a transaction. Mr Gartelmann pointed out that her offending behaviour occurred just over five weeks or so which is true; but on the other hand her offending behaviour was not over a day or so, it was over a significant period of time. Nor was it an opportunistic or spontaneous offence. Ms Wang was a facilitator of serious criminal activity. 40I regard an appropriate sentence for Ms Wang as being one of 3 years imprisonment. Because she pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity I would discount that sentence by 25 per cent and fix it at 2 years and 3 months imprisonment. 41I accept that there are special circumstances for adjusting what would be the normal non-parole period of about 20 months on such a sentence. They include that it is the first time for her in custody and she will need to resume her life in the community and her employment and her care for her mother and her daughter. I should add, to make it clear, that the circumstances of her mother and daughter are not such that they could be regarded as hardship in the way that the High Court of Australia and the Court of Criminal Appeal have accepted as necessary to reduce a sentence. 42I would regard an appropriate non-parole period as being one of 1 year and 2 months which will commence along with the sentence today. HIS HONOUR: Mr Li, I will sentence you first. Stand up. 43Mr Li, I fix a non-parole period of 4 years and 7 months. It commenced on 18 October 2011 and will expire on 17 May 2016. The overall sentence is 7 years and 6 months which commenced on 18 October 2011 and the overall sentence expires on 17 April 2019. The first date on which you will be eligible to be considered for parole is 17 May 2016. Have a seat, Mr Li. 44Ms Wang, I fix a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months which commences today. HIS HONOUR: I am sorry. Ms Wang spent some time in custody, I think 8 days? SPOHR: Seven days I think your Honour is the calculation that I originally had. HIS HONOUR: Yes. SPOHR: Was in custody from 20 October 2011 and admitted to bail on 27 October 2011. VELASQUEZ: That's correct, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Good, 7 days, 8 days? I am going to make it 8. SPOHR: Yes, thank you, your Honour. 45I will backdate the sentence to take into account your time in custody. I will backdate it by eight days to 15 August 2013. Your non-parole period is 1 year and 2 months commencing on 15 August 2013, expiring on 14 October 2014. The balance of the term is 1 year and 1 month and the overall sentence is 2 years and 3 months commencing on 15 August 2013 and expiring on 14 November 2015. The first date on which you will be eligible for parole is 14 October 2014. Have a seat, Ms Wang. HIS HONOUR: Mr Spohr, Ms Herczog and Ms Velasquez, would you just take your time looking at the mathematics and tell me if I have made any errors or indeed if there are any other errors of the kind that could be dealt with under s 43 whilst we are all here. SPOHR: If I can indicate on behalf of the Crown, your Honour, I am not able to identify any such issues so I do not wish to be heard in respect of those issues. HIS HONOUR: Those issues, right, but just wait and see what Ms Velasquez and Ms Herczog say. VELASQUEZ: Your Honour, 14 October by my calculations and my calendar is correct. HERCZOG: I don't see any errors. HIS HONOUR: Thank you both. Yes, Mr Velasquez? VELASQUEZ: I would ask that the matter stand for about five minutes, I would like to discuss the thing with Ms Wang. HIS HONOUR: Yes, that's all right, sort of because we have got something else, a person in custody. One thing I will ask you two to get instructions on. Corrective Services say that sending to them psychological reports or psychiatric reports is helpful in their classification. Some prisoners do not want that sort of material floating around, some do not mind but Corrective Services make it clear that to those who classify, this material is helpful, very helpful. So if you would get instructions on that and then my Associate can fax them on Monday to the appropriate part of Corrective Services. All right, now did you want to say something, Mr Spohr? SPOHR: Yes, your Honour, there's just two subsequent orders, both of which I don't think take up any time. The first one is that the Crown asks that your Honour makes a drug destruction order in respect of Mr Li's case for methylamphetamine. HIS HONOUR: Mr Herczog? HERCZOG: There is no objection. 46Under s 39P of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, I make a drug destruction order in respect of methylamphetamine found in Mr Li's premises, yes. SPOHR: Thank you, your Honour, and the remaining order is in respect of Ms Wang's matter. I understand without meaning to verbal my friend from Mr Gartelmann that it is not opposed. There is an application pursuant to the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act for an amount of cash and for the proceeds that are the subject of the charge and I have the respective orders in respect of that but I will allow my friend to respond in respect of that. HIS HONOUR: Right. Ms Velasquez, are you aware of that? Have you seen the documents? VELASQUEZ: I haven't seen those documents. I would like to see them. HIS HONOUR: That makes sense. VELASQUEZ: I do remember something in relation to that from the last occasion. HIS HONOUR: I will not force you into - I mean, I will allow you to get instructions. We can deal with it today or next week or even by consent or something so it sounds as though you two want to have a word to your respective clients, is that right? VELASQUEZ: Yes, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Why don't I finish what I have to do which is to explain to Mr Li once again the sentence. 47I just repeat, Mr Li, your sentence is 7½ years. It commenced on the day that you were arrested so it commenced 18 October 2011. It finally finishes on 17 April 2019. The non-parole period that you must serve is 4 years and 7 months. That also started 18 October 2011 and that finishes on 17 May 2016 when you will be eligible for parole. Do you understand that? Okay. 48Ms Wang, your sentence is 2 years and 3 months gaol. It commenced on 15 August 2013 and the overall sentence will expire on 14 November 2015. Your non-parole period is 1 year and 2 months. It also commenced 15 August 2013 and it will expire on 14 October 2014. Do you understand that? HIS HONOUR: Mr Spohr and Ms Velasquez, it just occurred to me, Ms Wang's sentence is under 3 years so I make the order for her parole, don't I? SPOHR: Well, your Honour certainly has a discretion both to make that order and to set the terms. Actually, your Honour might be right, your Honour may have to make an order for parole at the expiry of the parole period. HIS HONOUR: I think I do, yes, it is under s 50. So conditions, you both should think about. 49Under s 50 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, I make an order directing that Ms Wang be released on parole on 14 October 2014. So Ms Wang, you will be released onto parole by my order, 14 October 2014. HIS HONOUR: Now, you want a quick word with your clients? VELASQUEZ: Yes, thank you, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Why don't I go off the bench for a moment and you, as well as having a word to your clients and getting instructions on the psychological stuff, have a word to Mr Spohr to see if you can agree on any conditions of parole which I have to fix. I will be back shortly. SHORT ADJOURNMENT HIS HONOUR: How did you go? VELASQUEZ: I've spoken to Ms Wang and Mr Spohr, it was a condition of the plea agreement that we consent to these orders. I've seen those documents now and so that is consented to. HIS HONOUR: So let's get the orders. SPOHR: I'm afraid I'm now down to one copy of it. HIS HONOUR: It doesn't bother me. That will go in the Court file. SPOHR: I will have to get copies in due course, if I could hand them up. HIS HONOUR: All right I will ask the court officer just to take those from you. VELASQUEZ: And I've got instructions that it would not be appropriate for the psych report to be provided to Corrective Services. HIS HONOUR: The answer is no. VELASQUEZ: Yes. HIS HONOUR: And you are acting for? VELASQUEZ: Ms Wang. HIS HONOUR: Just a second. 50I make orders contained in the short minutes of forfeiture order signed by me sealed and dated today. The second document says "gives is granted that", it should read "gives leave is granted that". I make the orders contained in the document forfeiture order signed by me dated today and sealed by me. So they will go on the Court file and I guess if you like my associate can send you copies next week or not. SPOHR: I would be extremely grateful, I know that your Honour's associate is busy but if that's possible. HIS HONOUR: Next week sometime. SPOHR: There's no rush. HIS HONOUR: Have you got a card that you could give her? SOPHR: Yes I can. HIS HONOUR: Provide that at some stage and Ms Velasquez would you like a? VELASQUEZ: Yes please. HIS HONOUR: If you would provide my associate with your respective cards. Now Ms Herczog? HERCZOG: In relation to Mr Li he consents to those reports. HIS HONOUR: All right my associate will arrange for the report in respect of Mr Li but not in respect of Ms Wang and she will send that to Corrective Services on Monday. Is there anything else, conditions of parole for Ms Wang? SPOHR: We didn't have a chance to discuss it but I wonder whether your Honour needs to go beyond the normal order that she accept the reasonable directions of, I don't think they're called the Probation and Parole Service, the Community-- HIS HONOUR: They've changed the names. SPOHR: They're called something now they've all be amalgamated but whether your Honour orders simply orders that she accept the reasonable directions of the Probation and Parole Service. HIS HONOUR: Does she need supervision, I doubt it. I'm not even sure that I need to - I'm thinking maybe good behaviour and notify any change of address and turn up to court if ordered to do so. SPOHR: Your Honour maybe entirely right she may not need supervision but Probation and Parole Service maybe in a position to provide her with assistance and to that extent she may need, I don't know whether she needs to accept the reasonable directions, but I don't wish to be heard any further. HIS HONOUR: Ms Velasquez? VELASQUEZ: I think the appropriate condition would be to be of good behaviour in relation to accepting-- 51Conditions for parole for Ms Wang are: (1)That she be of good behaviour; (2)That she notify the Parole Authority of any change in her residential address; and (3)That she attend upon court if notified that she does so. HIS HONOUR: Ms Wang when you're on parole you have to remain out of trouble, do you understand? If you move house you have to tell the Parole Authority and if you get a notice saying to come back to court you have to come, you understand that. Okay thank you. ADJOURNED