//
[2025] NSWDC 309
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2025-03-28
Neilson DCJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chu [2025] NSWDC 309
Hearing dates: 29 November 2024, 28 March 2025
Date of orders: 28 March 2025
Decision date: 28 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision: See pars [53]-[56].
Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE
Commonwealth offences – 4 counts of money laundering – Taking cash from undercover operatives to be converted into cryptocurrency – “Frontline” worker – Remunerated by 1% of each transaction – Syndicate collecting 6% of each transaction – Genuine remorse – Prior good character – Re-offending unlikely – Aggregate sentence of 3 years to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order.
State offence – Crimes Act 1900 s192K, possession of identification information to deal with proceeds of crime – Fixed term of imprisonment for time served before being bailed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 ss 192K, 193BA.
Criminal Code Act 1995 ss 11.1(1), 400.4(2), 400.5(2), 400.9(1A).
Cases Cited: Vamadevan v R [2024] NSWCCA 223
Kim v R; Fang v R [2016] VSCA 238
Texts Cited: Nil.
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (Cth)
Offender – Dong Sun Chu
Representation: Counsel:
Crown – Mr Ng, K.
Offender – Mr Park, J.
File Number(s): 2022/00281556
Publication restriction: Nil.
HIS HONOUR: Dong Sun Chu appears before me today for sentence. The substantive sentencing hearing was held on 28 November 2024, but the matter needed to be adjourned to await the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Vamadevan v R [2024] NSWCCA 223 (‘Vamadevan v R’) which was given on 6 December 2024. The circumstances in which Mr Chu stands for sentence are somewhat unusual.
On 29 July 2024, the offender was arraigned before his Honour, Judge Coleman SC, and a jury panel. An indictment was presented containing six counts. The offender pleaded guilty to counts numbered 1, 3, 5 and 6, but pleaded not guilty to counts 2 and 4. The offender’s pleas of guilty were not accepted by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in discharge of the entire indictment. Accordingly, a trial commenced in respect of counts 2 and 4.
On 1 August 2024, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty in respect of counts 2 and 4. Not before the jury was an offence contained on a s 16 certificate, an offence contrary to s 192K of the Crimes Act 1900. That offence was formally pleaded in a Court Attendance Notice in this fashion:
“On 20 September 2022 at Rhodes in the State of New South Wales, Dong Sun Chu, did possess identification information, to wit five bank cards with the intention of committing an indictable offence, to wit dealing with the proceeds of general crime intending to disguise features of the property contrary to s 193BA of the Crimes Act 1900.”
That is an offence which is punishable by imprisonment for seven years, but, when it is contained on a s 166 certificate, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years.
“…the offender…conducted… a money laundering service that converted cash to crypto currency. Potential customers would contact the online username of ‘Cashtradeonly’ using the single end‑to‑end encrypted messaging application ‘Wickr’ to organise a meeting to exchange cash for Bitcoin.”
This was a money laundering exercise. On 25 February 2022, an undercover police operative (‘UCO’) commenced messaging “Cashtradeonly” through Wickr to negotiate the purchase of Bitcoin for cash. During negotiations, “Cashtradeonly” stated that its fee was 6% per transaction and that it could facilitate trades in Sydney for the purchase of $50,000 or more.
On 25 March 2022, at about 12.10pm, the offender met with a UCO known as UCO1 in a vehicle on Shoreline Drive, Rhodes. During the meeting UCO1 gave to the offender $50,000 in cash in a brown paper bag. The offender then used his mobile phone and shortly thereafter “Cashtradeonly” transferred 0.792 Bitcoin to a nominated address after factoring in an exchange fee of 6%, namely $3,000. A conversation between the offender and UCO1 was recorded. This is the conversation:
“UCO1: You’re for Cashtrade yeah?
OFFENDER: Yeah. You bring 50 yeah?
UCO1: Yep. Sorry, did you say ‘Cashtradeonly’ yeah?
OFFENDER: Yeah.
UCO1: This is your only job?
OFFENDER: No, no, no. I got one other job. This is just for like a side job being a middle-man.
UCO1: You get paid for it though?
OFFENDER: Oh probably should. It’s a very contradicting cause you know, you pick up this much cash, you know, when you can hand over it over like I don’t know, like maybe 1/10th of it, no even.
UCO1: I’m hanging to go back to the casino tomorrow night sort of some more cash. And maybe I’ll throw in a bit extra on the…
OFFENDER: On top of it.
UCO1: On top of it, see if I can make myself a bit.
OFFENDER: ..ah it isn’t that, isn’t that a bit like, you guys have to be careful cause, you know.
UCO1: 100% yeah, yeah, yeah. No, we, we got systems for it. You guys, do you know if you guys are going to want more soon again?
OFFENDER: Um, I think should be 100 grand next week.”
The latter remark referred to an arranged transaction for the following week, where $100,000 was to be the subject of the money laundering exercise. At the conclusion of the transaction on 25 March 2022, the offender was subject to physical surveillance. He was observed to have in his possession the brown paper bag and walked towards 11-13 Mary Street, Rhodes, which was an apartment building in which he lived.
The CCTV footage from the offender’s apartment depicted him leaving the apartment, walking through the courtyard of the unit complex, and out the gate on the corner of Sevier Avenue and Shoreline Drive. Subsequently, the offender was depicted returning to his apartment carrying the brown paper shopping bag via the underground car park door situated on Sevier Avenue. Those facts support Count 1 in the indictment.
The following facts support Count 3 in the indictment, the charge being recklessly dealing with the proceeds of an indictable crime where the proceeds exceeded or equalled $100,000. Following a communication between “Cashtradeonly” and a UCO through Wickr, about 11.10am on 29 March 2022, the offender met with another UCO known as UCO2 in a vehicle on Shoreline Drive, Rhodes.
During the meeting the UCO2 provided $100,000 to the offender which the offender placed into a green shopping bag. The offender was observed to use his mobile telephone and, shortly thereafter, “Cashtradeonly” transferred 1.479 Bitcoin to a nominated address after factoring in an exchange fee of 6%, namely $6,000. The agreed facts set out a conversation between the offender and UCO2. In that conversation, the offender described himself to UCO2 as “the middle‑man.”
UCO2 then asked the offender whether he could process between one quarter of a million dollars and half a million dollars, which was described by UCO2 as the likely proceeds of a shipment that was coming through Mexico. Inferentially, the shipment was of illicit drugs. The offender agreed that he could be instrumental in processing up to $1.5 million. Further parts of the conversation indicated that UCO2 was describing a shipment from Mexico of cocaine.
At the conclusion of this interaction, the offender was again subject to surveillance. He was observed to attend Chambers Fine Coffee on Rider Boulevard, Rhodes before returning to his apartment via the driveway to his apartment building. He was then carrying the green bag into which he had placed the cash. CCTV footage from the offender’s apartment depicted him leaving his apartment with an umbrella and a green bag and walking out the gate onto Mary Street.
Subsequently, the same CCTV footage showed the offender returning to his apartment carrying the umbrella and the green bag, entering via the underground car park door on Sevier Avenue.
The facts to support Count 5 were very similar. Following communications between “Cashtradeonly” and an undercover operative via Wickr, about 9.31am on 21 July 2022 the offender met UCO2 again in a vehicle on Shoreline Drive at Rhodes.
During the meeting UCO2 provided $50,000 in cash to the offender in a bag, which the offender placed in a light blue insulated bag he had brought with him to the meeting. The offender was observed to use his mobile phone and, shortly thereafter, “Cashtradeonly” transferred 1.372 Bitcoin to a nominated address after factoring in the exchange rate of 6%, namely $3,000. The conversation between UCO2 and the offender on this occasion is also set out in the agreed facts, but it merely reiterates details which have been previously described.
At the conclusion of this transaction, the offender was again subject to surveillance. He was observed to attend the Rhodes shopping centre before returning to his apartment with the light blue insulated bag into which he had placed the money. An optical device recorded the offender leaving the apartment with his light blue bag and returning with it some 36 minutes later.
At about 2pm on 20 September 2022, police executed a search warrant at the offender’s residence in the unit in which he resided at the premises known as 11-13 Mary Street, Rhodes. The offender was presented with an order requiring him to assist the police in gaining access to his electronic devices. He did so. As a result of the execution of the search warrant, the offender was charged with what is known as Count 6 in the Indictment, and also resulted in his being charged with the offence under s 192K of the Crimes Act 1900.
During the search of the offender’s premises, the police found numerous credit cards, identified in the agreed facts as “bank cards”, and other identity documents in the names of various people. Those cards and documents were found in a locked safe. The police also found $330,000 in Australian bank notes, which were found in a hallway cupboard. The Australian cash is the subject of Count 6.
The possession of credit cards and identity documents is the subject of the New South Wales offence. The offender told the police that the cash found in the hallway cupboard was from accumulated savings, but he could not specify the origin of any part of the money and declined to answer questions about any income.
Count 6 in the indictment, to which the offender pleaded guilty, was that on or about 20 September 2022 at Rhodes and elsewhere in this state he did deal with money, it being reasonable to suspect that such money was the proceeds of indictable crime, and at the time of dealing, the value of the money was less than $100,000. That is an offence contrary to s 400.9(1A) of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth.
The “bank cards” were a Velocity Global Wallet prepaid visa card in the name of Andrew Spice, a Velocity Global Wallet prepaid visa card in the same of Asha Joseph, an AMP visa debit card in the name of Benjamin Mitchell, an ANZ visa debit card in the name of Jason Breen, and a St. George visa debit card in the name of Mandy Oswin.
Those people are real people. None of them was aware of the existence of the card or associated bank accounts that were attributed to them. They did not know the offender. Those people had complained of identity fraud and said that they did not recognise the personal details provided for the accounts, other than their name and date of birth. Neither Spice, Joseph, Mitchell or Breen was able to identify how his personal information was obtained. Oswin was aware that her driver licence details had been used to commit other identity offences, but she was not aware until approached by police of the existence of the St. George visa debit card in her name. Some of the accounts had been used to deposit and withdraw cash from automated teller machines on multiple occasions between 2017 and 2020, ranging from a few hundred dollars, up to $3,000.
Count 1 is an offence contrary to s 11.1(1) and s 400.5(2) of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years. Count 3 in the indictment is an offence contrary to the provisions of s 11.1(1) and s 400.4(2) of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for ten years. The offence involved in Count 5 is the same offence as is pleaded in Count 1 and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years.
The offence pleaded in Count 6 is one contrary to s 11.1(1) and 400.9(1A) of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years. Conveniently, the Crown written submissions, MFI 1, provide me with a précis of the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Kim v R; Fang v R [2016] VSCA 238. In that case, the Court drew upon previous intermediate appellate decisions and identified the key principles to be applied in sentencing offenders for the proceeds of criminal offences of this nature.
Firstly, the starting point is to consider where the offence sits in the scheme of offences provided by Div 400 of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth. The Court’s attention must then be focused on the precise circumstances of what the offender did, including the actions which constituted the dealing for the purposes of the offence, the period of time over which the offence or offences were committed, the number of transactions involved, the amount involved in the offending, and the role of the offender in the money laundering arrangement, including whether the offender was the author or instigator of the arrangement, and the degree of authority reposed in the offender in carrying out the purpose of the offending.
Thirdly, the person who launders money is an important cog in the wheel of organised crime, and such conduct warrants severe punishment in which general deterrence is to be given significant weight. Fourthly, the amount of money involved is a highly significant matter and the primary identifier of the maximum penalty for any given offence. Fifthly, and speaking generally, a larger number of transactions involving small amounts of money will be more serious than a single transaction of a large amount, which may seem to be an isolated offence.
Sixthly, it is ordinarily relevant to consider how the money was dealt with in the proceeds of crime, and the extent of the offender’s belief as to or knowledge of how the money was the proceeds of crime. Finally, consideration of the sentence for which the offender may be liable, had he or she been charged with a different offence, in particular, that which generated the proceeds of crime is a distraction from the sentencing process, in respect of the offence charged.
In the current case, the offender admits to earning, for what he did, 1% of the money being laundered. Although the formal exchange rate provided by “Cashtradeonly” was 6%, the offender himself only earned 1%. Therefore, as far as the offence of the 25 March 2022 is concerned, although “Cashtradeonly” took 6%, or $3,000, the offender only earned 1%, or $500. As far as the transaction of the 29 March is concerned, although the exchange fee was, again, $6,000, the offender only earned 1%; $1,000. The offender was, as he admitted, a middleman. He was recruited by those operating “Cashtradeonly” to be the person who dealt with the person seeking to change hard cash bank notes into crypto currency.
As I shall describe when speaking of the offender’s personal circumstances, he did this to earn money for himself. He thought it was an “easy” way of making money. Unknowingly, on his part, he made himself the most vulnerable person in the chain of money laundering, the person who took cash and managed to have it exchanged into another form of trade, namely crypto currency. He was the person who exposed himself to taking hard cash from others, including those pretending to be offenders, and, in that fashion, was the most vulnerable person in the chain of money laundering to be apprehended by the police.
Whether the whole of the $30,000 found by the police in the offender’s hallway cupboard were the proceeds of crime or not is unclear, but the offender, by his plea of guilty, admitted to that fact.
The offender’s personal circumstances can be gleaned from a report by a psychologist, a Ms Kerry Watson, who interviewed the offender on 2 September 2024, and produced a report dated 8 September 2024. That report is Exhibit 1. The offender was born in Korea. He is the elder of the two children of his parents’ union. He has a sister who is the younger of the pair of siblings. The offender completed his primary schooling in Korea, and the first year of what we would describe as high school. When he was aged either 12 or 13, he was brought to Australia by his parents who believed that he would obtain a better educational standard by studying in Australia. After one year in Australia, the offender’s parents returned to Korea, leaving the offender in the care of his maternal aunt.
The offender kept in regular telephone contact with his parents in Korea and returned to Korea twice each year to meet up with his parents. Upon arriving in Australia, the offender attended a language school for one year, before commencing year 10 at a Catholic high school in Perth. He partially completed year 10 but then moved with his maternal aunt to Sydney where he recommenced year 10 at a Christian school, where he completed years 10, 11 and 12.
He told the psychologist that he achieved above average HSC results, and, as a result of that, matriculated and commenced tertiary studies at Macquarie University. There, he completed a degree of Bachelor of Commerce. After obtaining his degree, he took a “gap” period of 18 months, during which he was supported financially by his parents. He filled this 18-month gap with recreational activities such as golf, which developed into a particular interest of his. He then undertook part-time employment as a courier, which enabled him to work at night and play golf each day. After some 12 months of that, he increased his employment to full-time work for some 12 months, before resigning to dedicate his time to playing golf.
Between 2020 and 2022, he derived his income by providing private golf lessons. From late 2022, the offender had been employed part-time as a trades assistant in a mechanics shop. He was doing that at the time that he was arrested. The offender told Ms Watson that the time of his arrest and remand in custody was the most traumatic experience in his life and the cause of his mental health problems.
The offender denied to Ms Watson any history of drug use and said that his only use of alcohol was on a social basis about twice monthly. As far as his time in custody was concerned, the offender referred to “shock” and “fear”. According to Ms Watson, that led to his developing an acute stress reaction, as well as anxiety and depressive symptoms. Ms Watson went on to describe a major depressive episode with anxiety, but the diagnosis of a major depressive episode is a diagnosis of an endogenous condition, which may be triggered by external stimuli.
The alternative diagnosis ought be an adjustment disorder, which is triggered by an external stimulus, and that appears to be more consistent with the facts of the current case. In other words, I do not accept that the offender has an underlying psychiatric condition triggered by this offence. Rather, this offence, the offender’s reaction to be charged, arrested and imprisoned, was the cause of his psychiatric illness. There was nothing else that has occurred in the offender’s life which would indicate any underlying psychiatric illness.
The offender was otherwise a man of good character. There are a number of references before me. The first is from his maternal aunt which whom he had been living in Australia since about the age of 12. She said this:
“Dong Sun is not a criminal person. I was more than surprised when I heard about the offences. He is usually law-abiding and does not usually make silly mistakes. I believe he made a bad mistake on those occasions because he had financial issues. I clearly saw that he felt guilty and was deeply sorry for what he had done. Although this does not excuse his behaviour, I am also aware of the immense stress from his difficult situation. He had to speak to his parents about the court proceedings. He stayed in gaol for more than two weeks and after he had bail, he has been complying with strict bail conditions without failure.”
“When I became aware of the offence, I was shocked as I never imagined Dong Sun would ever be involved in something of this nature. I have known Dong Sun as responsible and a person who has emphasised the importance of strong work ethic when providing guidance and advice. Migrating to Australia and having to learn and adapt quickly to his new environment, I have respect for Dong Sun for his independence and resilience. Dong Sun enjoys sharing his knowledge and skills within his hobbies and interests, especially when it comes to cars and golf. I could see that Dong Sun is respected by his friends as they and Dong Sun make themselves available to help out when needed.
Dong Sun has always been a valued member of our family and has contributed positively by helping the family through work, translation and other activities. Outside of the family, Dong Sun has been committed to making a positive difference to the community such as teaching golf and providing support to his colleagues and friends.
The offence is completely out of character and Dong Sun has expressed his general regret and remorse for his actions, and that he is taking active steps towards a positive life.”
“We have maintained a close relationship until today. I am happy to stand by him to support his court proceedings. I am aware that he has [pleaded] guilty to the offences for dealing with the proceeds of crimes in relation to handling money illegally on three occasions.
He has…helped me developed my business over the years working together or referring potential new clients to help me grow my company back [to] 2018. Which has now flourished from his caring, selflessness and loyal nature.
Over the years of knowing Dong Sun he is someone who will always be there for you in times of need. Always has his hand out to help, accountable (rare trait to find these days, in my opinion), a shoulder to lean on, a great listener and advice giver. He always has a positive attitude towards life. But he is also quite sensitive as well, which I believe is good that to be vulnerable in my eyes.”
Mr Ong goes on to speak of the genuine remorsefulness of the offender.
Another reference comes from Mr Michael Mak. He is the owner and head mechanic of a mechanical workshop at Tempe. He has been working there for the last six or seven years. He has known the offender for about five years, “as customer, friend and now working together for the last two years.” Since the offender was arrested and charged, he has been working with Mr Mak. Mr Mak is married and has two children. He describes the offender as being a hard-working person, who is clearly reliable, travelling between Castle Hill and Tempe daily to perform his work for Mr Mak.
Exhibit 2 is a letter from the offender and complements the assertions by the offender’s family and friends about his remorse for his illicit activity. In his letter he said this:
“I am very shamed for and embarrassed to face the situation today. First it was very hard for me to accept the reality but I soon realised that what I have done is a serious crime. I am deeply remorseful for my actions and fully acknowledge the seriousness of my conduct, which has not only impacted me but also my family and friends. I absolutely [have] no excuses for my actions and I take the full responsibilities. I was stupid, silly and very wrong for what I have done. I clearly didn’t think about what I was doing. I only thought that I could make easy money.
Going through the trial process, I was in deep pain and stress. Not only I let down myself but I had disappointed my family and friends. I am pleading guilty to the charges and recognise that my actions posed a significant risk to our community. I deeply regret not considering the broader consequences of my decisions and the harm they could cause.
I was driven by the allure of quick financial gain through wrongful means, and facing the consequences of that decisions has been an intense and challenging experience.”
The letter goes on at some length, but that is the substance of it, expressing regret and contrition. The offender has not given any oral evidence before me, but I do know that he gave evidence at trial. A transcript of his oral evidence is Exhibit 6 and it consists of some 54 pages of transcript. Clearly, the jury empanelled in that case believed the offender and there is no reason for me to make any finding to the contrary. I accept that he is truly contrite and remorseful.
I accept that it is extremely unlikely that the offender will reoffend; that the prospects, therefore, of rehabilitation are very good. There is before me a Sentencing Assessment Report, which is consistent with the material that I have already referred to. The Community Corrections officer, the author of the report, indicates that the offender’s risk of reoffending is low.
She recommended that no condition other than supervision is required, if the offender is placed on any form of order which requires the intervention or involvement of Community Corrections. The offender has also been certified as suitable to undertake community service. The important point to know is that the offender is highly unlikely to reoffend. That is consistent with everything I have read in this case.
When the matter was before me on 28 November 2024, I was persuaded by the arguments put to me by counsel for the offender that I ought consider imposing an Intensive Corrections Order (‘ICO’) in respect of the offences against the law of the Commonwealth. However, it was necessary for me to adjourn the proceedings to await a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Vamadevan v R. I, again, announced this morning to counsel that I was intending to impose an ICO and no one wished to address me further.
In particular, it should be noted that in a supplementary submission on behalf of the Commonwealth, Mr Ng of counsel, on behalf of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, said this:
“If this Court is minded to impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than three years, the Crown submits that when regard is had to s 16A(1) of the Crimes Act [1914], it would be open to the Court to find that an ICO is a sentence of severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.”
Of course, an ICO can only be imposed for two years if there be one offence or if there be more than one offence, only if the total appropriate sentence for all the offences is three years or less. As far as the four Commonwealth offences are concerned, I intend to impose an aggregate sentence. As far as Count 1 is concerned, the head sentence ought be in my view six months. In respect of Count 3, it ought be 12 months. In respect of Count 5, it should be 18 months. And in respect of Count 6, it ought be three months.
The total of those sentences is three years and three months. But, as is usual with aggregate sentences, there is a discount involved when adding all the sentences together, that is, some partial accumulation. In my view, there ought be a sentence of three years imprisonment. In my view, that three years ought to be served by way of ICO. There is no reason not to impose an ICO.
Under ss 17D(1) and (2), an ICO is not available unless an assessment report has been obtained or the Court is satisfied that there is sufficient information to make the order without an assessment report. Clearly here, there is a Sentencing Assessment Report which clearly contemplates the imposition of an ICO. I would determine the same for myself in any event.
The remaining issue is the sentence to be imposed for the offence against s 192K of the Crimes Act 1900, the matter contained on the s 166 certificate. The facts of that case are, in my view, disturbing. However, I am confident that the same offence will not occur again. The offender has spent 17 days in custody, between the 20 September 2022 and 7 October 2022. The ICO, which I will impose for the Commonwealth offences, does not take that period of imprisonment into account.
Clearly, from what the offender himself said and what he told the psychologist, Ms Watson, that period of imprisonment was perhaps the worst experience that the offender has had in his life. It probably has caused him to behave lawfully ever since and he has had the appropriate response to his offending and to his remorse, contrition and future conduct. I intend, therefore, to sentence the offender to imprisonment for that period of time for the offence against the law of this State.
Dong Sun Chu, in respect of counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 of the indictment previously presented before Judge Coleman, you are convicted. I intend to impose an aggregate sentence. In respect of Count 1, I make an indicative sentence of six months' imprisonment. In respect of Count 3, I make an indicative sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. In respect of Count 5, I make an indicative sentence of one year and six months' imprisonment. In respect of Count 6, I make an indicative sentence of three months' imprisonment.
I fix a sentence of imprisonment of three years. That sentence of imprisonment of three years will commence today, and is to be served by way of intensive correction in the community. The terms of the order are:
You must not commit any offence;
You must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections officer;
You must complete community service work for 500 hours;
You must participate in rehabilitation or treatment program as directed by Community Corrections. You are to report to the Community Corrections office at Parramatta within seven days by telephone.
In respect of the charge that on 20 September 2022, at Rhodes in this State, you did possess identification information, namely five bank cards, with the intention of committing an indictable offence, namely dealing with the proceeds of general crime, intending to disguise features of the property, contrary to s 193BA of the Crimes Act 1900, I sentence you to imprisonment for 17 days, commencing on 20 September 2022 and expiring 7 October 2022.
By consent, I make an order in accordance with the agreed short minutes of order which I have executed and left with the papers.
**********
R
Chu [2025] NSWDC 309