On 9 December 2016, following a trial that commenced on 29 November 2016, the offender was found guilty by a jury of an offence that on 24 November 2015 at Canley Vale in the State of New South Wales, she wounded Mr Louis Casha [1] with the intention of murdering him, contrary to s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
On 24 February and 7 April 2017, I heard submissions as to sentence and received written submissions from the parties. I reserved my decision to this day.
[2]
FACTS
The background to this matter was that the offender and the victim, Mr Louis Casha, met at around 2013 at the Lansdowne Nursing Home. The offender was an assistant in nursing and the victim was a maintenance supervisor. The victim was a married man with four children. However, both he and the offender commenced a friendship which, from around September 2013, progressed into a romantic relationship. The evidence of the victim was that the two became intimate, met three to four times a week, and regularly exchanged phone and text messages. The relationship ceased in November 2014 in circumstances I will shortly come to. During the period of the relationship, the victim's wife, Ms Joanne Casha was unaware of its existence.
The evidence of the victim was that throughout the relationship, there were "ons" and "offs" and at one stage they had agreed to separate, but subsequently the offender, to use the words of the victim, would:-
"…feed me again and get all dressed up and seduce me with her looks and the way she acted." [2]
The evidence of the victim was that she was enticed by the offender.
Be that as it may, the victim conceded that at one point that there were discussions about marriage. The victim stated that he ultimately realised that he still loved his wife and that he was not prepared to give away his family. He also stated that there had been talks about their future together, he realised from July 2014, that it was not what he wanted and he did try to end the relationship with the offender.
On 11 November 2015, the victim and his wife went on a cruise from Sydney to New Zealand, and back. This had been organised by Mrs Casha some six months earlier. The victim stated that he informed the offender, and as it got closer to the date, the offender decided to come on the cruise and bought tickets. The cruise was of thirteen days duration.
The victim's evidence was that after sleeping one night on the cruise ship, he and the offender arranged to meet early in the morning and then thereafter, went to the offender's cabin where an argument ensued. During the course of that visit, the victim alleges that he informed the offender that he wanted to end the relationship and she did not accept this happening. Thereafter, the offender filmed the victim in the cabin, and the victim accused her of attempting to blackmail him.
According to the victim, on the fourth day of the cruise, he went into the offender's cabin. The victim thereafter stated that he informed his wife that he had been having an affair and tried to make up with her. The victim did not inform his wife that the offender was on the same cruise ship. He thereafter states that there is a sequence of text messages that he received from a different number, but he believed that they came from the offender, referring to their relationship. He deleted these messages. The victim asserted that the offender would be in the background at times when he was with his wife. One such occasion was when he was at a lighthouse and he was approached by the offender to take a photograph of her. Subsequent to this, the victim informed his wife that the offender was on the ship and stated that the offender nevertheless continued to shadow them, including catching public transport on the day that they went to outer regions and sitting opposite them in the dining room, where she signalled for the victim to come and talk to her.
Whilst in the dining room, the victim went to speak to the offender. The offender informed him that she "could [have] died on that night" [3] that the victim told his wife about their affair, and that the offender had considered jumping overboard but for the fact that she had her son. The victim told her to not do "anything silly" and thereafter they had a discussion about arrangements to get home at the conclusion of the cruise. [4]
Following the cruise, the evidence of the victim was that the offender messaged him to meet one more time at Fairfield Markets - a location where they would occasionally meet. The victim stated that in the afternoon of 24 November 2015 after they got home, his wife showed him a picture of the offender on her iPad, which although not sent to her she was able to access. This was a picture taken by the offender of the victim in her cabin. He stated that he was upset and said to his wife: "I need to go and sought [sic] this out straightaway, once and for all." [5] He thereafter went to the offender's house, after first calling her a couple of times and having those calls rejected. Subsequently, the offender sent a message that received no response. In these circumstances, the victim made his way to the offender's residence.
When the victim arrived at the offender's residence, he knocked on the door. The offender's former husband answered the door. The victim informed him that he wanted to talk with the offender, stating angrily:
"This slut opened her legs for me, and now she's trying to ruin my marriage." [6]
A tense exchange then followed. The offender ultimately slammed the door on the victim and the victim knocked again. The victim gave evidence that the offender requested him to come inside but he declined. He thereafter told the offender: "We need to end this", to which the offender replied: "I'll end this." [7] He stated that she then walked over to her car, opened the boot and proceeded to pull out a knife.
The victim's evidence was that as soon as he saw the knife, he commenced to run away when he realised what she was doing. He stated that he ran through the gate, to his right, away from the car down the road and tripped, as he was wearing thongs. He then felt a stab wound to the back of his right leg. He stated that at this point he fell flat on his face and had his arms outstretched. He then got up, turned around and felt being stabbed "a couple of times in the chest" and then managed to get the knife out of her hands [8] and threw it at least three to four metres away.
An elderly Asian gentleman was next seen by the victim to be screaming and trying to stop the offender. The evidence was that after the victim threw the knife away, he got up, turned around and the offender went back, picked up the knife and stabbed the victim, again in the chest area. The victim said that this occurred a couple of times. The victim thereafter grabbed the knife with his right hand and threw it over a high fence to make sure that it would not be able to be accessed again. He stated that the offender was being held back by the Asian gentleman, who I accept was Mr Khy Chuua, and the offender managed to get back to her car as he was going in and out of consciousness.
The wounds sustained by the victim identified in the agreed facts pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) [9] were as follows:-
Drs at Liverpool Hospital noted that Mr Casha had the following injuries-
a) An 8mm full thickness laceration to his right chest;
b) A 15 mm full thickness laceration to his right chest;
c) A 30mm full thickness laceration to the right upper quarter of his abdomen;
d) A 40mm full thickness laceration to the back of his right leg; and
e) Multiple full thickness lacerations to his left hand.
I accept that the wounds sustained were potentially fatal in that they were directed towards locations of the victim's vital organs, although the Crown acknowledges that the victim has since made a good recovery.
The offender's former husband, Mr Rina Kim, came over the top of the victim with a towel to try to stem the bleeding, whilst the offender was struggling with Mr Chuua at the car. The victim stated that he believed that the offender got another knife and cut herself, but he could not state this with certainty as he did not see it occur. [10] While he was laying there bleeding, the victim recalled the offender stating to her former husband: "Let him die, let him die." [11] She was said to have said this twice and angrily. The offender's version was that she said: "Let me die, let me die." The victims' account was not supported by other witnesses [12] and I am not satisfied that they were said. The Crown did not submit that the jury's verdict entailed an acceptance of the victim's evidence on this aspect.
The offender's version of events was that she had planned to kill herself and to this end, she had made a new will on 24 November 2015 and bought and consumed pharmaceuticals to dull the pain of the cuts and put her to sleep. She asserted that the injury to the victim's leg was an accident, but could not be certain as to how the two chest wounds occurred, and the abdominal wounds occurred in the circumstances where the victim and the offender were wrestling over the knife. The offender stated that the victim grabbed the knife blade and when the offender released her grip, the knife penetrated the victim unintentionally.
The offender gave evidence in the trial her version of events as to the injury of the victim not being a voluntary or willed act was not accepted by the jury's finding of guilt. I accept that the jury's verdict was based on the nature and circumstances of the attack involving a pursuit, restraint by Mr Chuua following which the offender broke free and multiple stab wounds including wounds directed towards vital organs.
The offender's evidence at trial was that prior to stabbing the victim, she had consumed a mixture of approximately 400 mL of cough syrup and paracetamol in a cup which she subsequently threw away. She asserted that she did this when she was near the car. In cross-examination, she accepted that she had taken two paracetamol tablets earlier for a headache, but it was not more than two tablets. [13] She rejected the suggestion that she took more than that or that she took any of that medication in her house when she got home. [14] Her evidence was that the mixture that she used was 200 mL of liquid Panadol, [15] and 200 mL of Ryan's cough syrup. [16] She also bought some aspirin. [17]
The evidence in the trial from an expert pharmacologist, Mr John Farrar analysed a blood sample taken from the offender following her admission to Liverpool Hospital, on 7:45 pm on 24 November 2016. In Mr Farrar's opinion, the offender consumed an over dose of paracetamol and based on the information and assumptions provided, concluded that the extent of the over dosage appeared to be moderate. [18]
In the notes of the Liverpool Health Service, following her admission, the registrar, Dr McCool recorded that the offender had increased stress over the last month following the suicide of her uncle in Vietnam with whom she was very close. It also notes that the offender reported seeing her uncle in the mirror and when she closed her eyes, was asking him for strength to kill herself.
There are also notes in the hospital clinical records of 10 October 2016 that records that she was a suicide risk and had made three suicide attempts, although she asserted that she would not attempt suicide again. The notes record:-
"I want to suicide myself because we broke up and I want to suicide myself."
It was noted that she had passive suicidal ideation and would not care if she died, but had no plans of suicide.
The offender has been examined by Dr Gerald Chew, forensic psychiatrist, on 15 November 2016 and 11 January 2017. Dr Chew prepared a report for the Court, dated 4 February 2017. [19] Dr Chew's opinion was as follows:-
OPINION
[39] It is my opinion that Ms Huynh has a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. She has presented with low mood, suicidal ideation, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and increased worry for a number of months. She now is in early remission on treatment.
[40] I think that Ms Huynh was significantly depressed at the time of the incident. She had planned to suicide that day which is why she was in possession of multiple pills and a knife. She felt scared and threatened when the victim was shouting at her at very close proximity in her personal space and she panicked and stabbed him before stabbing herself.
[41] Although her depression has improved in custody, ongoing treatment in the community would be more beneficial. She should continue to seek treatment from her General Practitioner and culturally appropriate psychologists/counsellors if available. Her prospects of psychiatric rehabilitation are good if she continues to engage and take her medication.
[42] It is difficult to estimate probability of reoffending however I note that there are many positive prognostic factors - in particular this is her first offence at a relatively late age. She has no previous history of violence. Her risk would appear to be elevated in an intimate relationship however she is not currently in one and has no immediate intention to form same [sic].
I accept that the offender intended to end her life using a second knife which was not located by police. So much is clear from the evidence that she signed a will earlier that day and made purchases that I accept involved included the knife she used and the pharmaceuticals that I accept she came to consume. I bear this in mind in accordance with the principles in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [20] and subsequent cases.
No submission was made on behalf of the offender that her self-harm constituted extra-curial punishment to which the Court is entitled to take into account on sentence. [21] Nevertheless, it was argued by both the Crown and the offender, that the offender's mental health reduced her moral culpability. I will discuss this below.
[3]
OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS
On behalf of the offender it is submitted that the case falls within the lower range of objective seriousness. [22]
The Crown submitted that the case fell within the low to medium range.
In this instance the victim was stabbed in two separate sequences and had to be restrained by her neighbour, Mr Chuua. I accept that the offender was provoked by the victim in circumstances that I have earlier outlined and that her actions were also the product of her vulnerable mental state.
The Crown concedes that there is evidence of major depression and emotional distress at the time of the offending. Both parties accepted that this is an appropriate to take into account in assessing objective seriousness of the matter. [23] I accept that the offender's state of mind at the time diminishes the moral culpability and objective seriousness of the offence.
So far as the question of provocation [24] is concerned, both parties accepted that this is an appropriate matter take account in terms of objective seriousness. In Williams v R [2012] NSWCCA 172, Price J stated:-
[42] The objective seriousness of an offence is to be determined wholly by reference to the "nature of the offending". I do not think that the nature of the offending is to be confined to the ingredients of the crime, but may be taken to mean the fundamental qualities of the offence. In my view, where provocation is established such that it is a mitigating factor under s 21A(3)(c) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, it is a fundamental quality of the offending which may reduce its objective seriousness. It seems to me, that in those circumstances, there cannot be a realistic assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence unless the provocation is taken into account. The absence of provocation is not a factor of aggravation and does not increase the objective seriousness of the offence. [25]
The Crown drew attention to the fact that the psychiatric report of Dr Chew suggests that the offender stabbed the victim when he raised his hand to hit her and kept pushing him because she felt scared and frightened. It submits that her account of this event is inconsistent with her evidence given at trial. I accept that this issue was not raised in the trial and is to be disregarded.
The Crown concedes that there is no evidence that the attack on the victim was premeditated. The knife was sharp being an object the offender had purchased earlier that day. [26] The injuries suffered by the victim were clearly life threatening.
The fact that the victim was in a prior relationship with the offender does not operate to mitigate the offence. [27] Nor does jealousy or strong emotion connected with extra-marital affairs explain the offending behaviour. [28] How people chose to conduct themselves in their personal lives is a matter for them provided they do so lawfully.
Taking into account the matters I have referred to, I find that the matter falls within the lower range of objective seriousness.
[4]
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT
The victim, Mr Casha, has submitted a victim impact statement. In it he identifies that he has suffered the following effects:
(1) No feeling to his left thumb which has been operated on twice to gain full feeing and movement;
(2) A scar approximately 40 cm down the chest and abdomen together with two hernias that will require surgery;
(3) A scar down the back of the right leg at the top of the thigh approximately 10 cm long;
(4) Smaller stab wound scars on the abdomen;
(5) Psychological injury described as post-traumatic stress disorder; and
(6) Sleep disturbance;
Mr Casha also describes how his injuries have impacted on his ordinary day to day life. To the extent that the impact flows directly from his decision to have an affair with the offender I put that to one side.
The Crown nonetheless accepts that the victim made a good recovery and no submission was made that the injury, emotional harm, loss or damage sustained by the victim from the offence amounted to aggravating circumstances. [29] Even so it is important that the Court is reminded of the impact of such offending and acknowledges it by having regard to the victim impact statement in the way the law permits. [30]
[5]
Offender's background
The offender is a 45 year old female and was one of six children born and raised in Vietnam. According to the Pre-Sentence Report, she experienced numerous difficulties in her formative years within her family home, detailing that her adolescence had been destructively impacted by her parents' marital difficulties. It was noted that her parents had often argued and that she was a witness to frequent domestic violence allegedly perpetrated by her father. The offender also revealed that she had been physically and verbally abused by her father in circumstances where she made numerous attempts in defence of her mother.
The offender migrated to Australia in 1994 at the age of 23 years following a spousal sponsorship initiated by her husband with whom she married that same year. There is one child, a son, being Aaron Kim, who continues to reside at the family home. The offender divorced her husband in 2002, attributing the breakup of her marriage to the frequent domestic violence. According to the offender's son Aaron, he and the offender enjoyed a stable and mutually supportive relationship.
According to the Pre-Sentence Report, the family and social circumstances were verified by the offender's sisters and the offender's son.
The Pre-Sentence Report records that the offender's unresolved mental health condition coupled with her inability to deal with her relationship breakup and the emotional adversity she suffered had significantly impacted on her offending behaviour.
The Pre-Sentence Report notes that the offender had completed her secondary education to the equivalent of Year 12 prior to her migration to Australia. Thereafter she completed numerous courses at her local Technical and Further Education College (TAFE) including an English language course, Certificate III and IV in Aged Care, Certificate III in Home Care and a Certificate III in Disability.
The offender had been employed part-time at a local butcher shop from 2002 - 2007 before moving to work for another butcher from 2007 - 2012. Following this, the offender commenced employment with a local home based community care agency for a 12 month period, before commencing with the Lansdowne Nursing Home in 2013.
[6]
The offender was a person of good character
The Crown accepts the offender is a person of prior good character, [31] that she has been a hard worker throughout her life and that there was other positive evidence of her good character.
The Crown bundle on sentence reveals no prior convictions. [32]
[7]
Prospects of rehabilitation and likelihood of re-offending
During the course of the trial, evidence was heard from Mrs Nam Do Pham, who gave evidence that she observed the offender in her employment at the Lansdowne Nursing Home through education, staff meetings and through forums. She observed that the offender often worked back beyond her shifts, and that she was honest with her, polite and noticed to be polite by her peers, and endeavoured to make her colleagues happy. She stated that the offender had a giving nature, was very kind with her time and a very generous person. [33]
These thoughts were replicated by Ms Margaret Wiseman, a Chaplain at the Silverwater Women's Correctional Centre. In a testimonial dated 30 March 2017, Ms Wiseman stated that the offender:-
"… has been exemplary in her attitude to me and to other inmates and staff. I have never heard anybody speak ill of her, nor have I seen her show anything but warmth towards another person. She is respectful and polite and always welcoming when I see her." [34]
Ms Lyn Duong, the offender's former sister in law, also provided a testimonial dated 15 December 2016. In the testimonial, she states that she has known the offender for 22 years and can say that the offender has always lived a positive lifestyle despite occasional set backs. As a single parent, Ms Duong notes that the offender always sought the best for her son in his educational pursuits and in her endeavours to support him financially, emotionally and socially. She notes that she is confident that the incident remains "one off" and that the offender is highly committed to starting over again and is focused on the future. On behalf of her family, she expressed continuing support for the offender. [35]
The offender's uncle, Mr Yoeun Kim, in a reference dated 15 December 2016 refers to the offender as a hard-working mother with benevolent qualities, and that this could be attested to by all their family members. He expresses continuing support for the offender. [36]
Mr Robert Odgers has known the offender for four years, and in a testimonial dated 19 December 2016, states that he has formed the opinion that the offender was a person of honour and high integrity and a selfless person who displayed a generous nature and showed kindness towards other. He adds that the offender is "extremely lonely, fragile and vulnerable [lady]." [37]
Based on the material before me, I am satisfied that the offender has excellent prospects of rehabilitation and a low-likelihood of re-offending. [38] The Pre-Sentence Report identifies her criminogenic needs as "family/marital" and "emotional/personal." Otherwise, it accords with my assessment.
Material has also been placed before the Court, from Ms Anne Jordan from Cana Communities, who attests that she was writing to offer support for the offender after being referred to her by Margaret Wiseman, chaplain at Silverwater Women's Prison. She states that she is "happy to assist" the offender find a community placement. Ms Jordan further states that she is confident that they can support the offender in finding a suitable and support placement. [39]
[8]
Impact of the offender's incarceration on others
The offender has a son Aaron aged 21 years. At the time of the offence the Aaron resided with the offender. He suffers from depression having been diagnosed by his general practitioner in early 2015 and placed on a mental health plan. According to the report prepared by Dr Batty, psychologist following his mother's incarceration his father temporarily left to Vietnam and left him to deal with the emotional, legal and financial consequences of his mother's arrest on his own. Dr Batty found Aaron's isolation and lack of social connection has perpetuated his depression over the years. The report opines that Aaron's current depressive episode appears to have been precipitated by his feelings of loneliness and abandonment following his mother's suicide attempt, her mother's incarceration and the loss of his friendships. Apart from counselling, therapy, medication Dr Batty reports the need for family support. He further opines that having a sense of security regarding his mother's mental health can assist with alleviating the psychological pain.
Although these factors were mentioned in the submissions made on behalf of the offender no submission was advanced that they were exceptional justifying a mitigation of sentence. [40] I would have rejected any such submission in any event.
[9]
Remorse
In the Pre-Sentence Report, the offender:-
"… stated that she agreed with the content of the Police Facts and acknowledged the seriousness of her offending behaviour. She has accepted personal responsibility for her actions and the destructive impact of behaviour on the victim of her offences. She further displayed some significant insights into her offending behaviour and appeared to have demonstrated a willingness to address her behaviour by way of her ongoing maintenance and engagement in mental health treatment."
Ms Wiseman in her report of 30 March 2017 also records:-
"She is remorseful for what she has done and she has borne the mistake here in prison with patience. She has shared with me that she is also remorseful for the hurt that her situation has caused other people. She has worked hard in life to look after and provide for her son who she loves very much and I have had a long talk with her myself and she has shared her life situation with me. It is through these conversations that I am aware that she is looking within herself and gaining insights that will her return home a better woman."
Mr Kim in his testimonial dated 15 December 2016 states:-
"This is [the offender]'s first criminal charge and she is clearly worried by what this can do to her personal, familial and social reputation. During conversations with [the offender] at Silverwater Women's Corrective Services she expressed a deep regret at the shame she has brought upon herself and her family."
I accept that there was no evidence of remorse or acceptance of responsibility in the trial or in the psychiatric report of Dr Chew.
Nevertheless the other materials which I have referred to, do evidence remorse and I am satisfied that despite its timing it is appropriate to take this into consideration as a mitigating factor. [41]
[10]
SENTENCE
The offender has been in custody since 4 December 2015. Prior to that she was in hospital between 24 November and 3 December 2015 however no evidence was presented that the conditions amounted to circumstances of quasi-custody. [42] I propose to commence the sentence from 4 December 2015 pursuant to s 47(2)(a) of the 1999 Act.
I have regard to the maximum penalty offence of 25 years and a standard non parole of 10 years for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness. [43] As I have stated I have found the offence in the lower range of objective seriousness.
In considering the purposes of sentencing, [44] the offender needs to be punished and made accountable for her actions. The harm done to the victim also needs to be recognised notwithstanding the circumstances of provocation on his part.
I accept that the by reason of her condition at the time of the offence the offender is less of a vehicle for general and specific deterrence. I do not consider that the sentence requires a need to protect that community beyond the period of parole for which I propose to make potential provision. I also accept that whilst there is a need for denouncement is also lessened by reason of her condition as I have found it to be. [45]
[11]
Special circumstances
This is the offender's first term of imprisonment. I accept that although she has her excellent prospects of rehabilitation she may require a longer period of under supervision even though the Pre-Sentence Report suggests that it may be a low level supervision and intervention for the ongoing maintenance of her mental health. This will also assist in promoting the offender's rehabilitation in circumstances where she is somewhat isolated in her social relationships and to assist her to adjust to community living. Accordingly, I have made an adjustment to the relationship between the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. I also bear in mind the impact of incarceration on her condition in light of the matters raised in Dr Chew's report. The Crown conceded that a finding of special circumstances was justified [46] and I accept that this is so for the reasons I have provided.
[12]
Orders
For the offence of wounding with intent to murder:
1. The offender is convicted;
2. I impose a non-parole period of 4 years' imprisonment, to commence on 4 December 2015 and to expire on 3 December 2019, [47] at which time the offender will be eligible to be released on parole;
3. I impose an additional period of 4 years' imprisonment to date from 4 December 2019 and to expire on 3 December 2023; and
4. The offender is sentenced to serve an overall term of imprisonment of 8 years.
[13]
Endnotes
Hereinafter referred to as the "victim"
T 15.45 - .47
T 21.30 - .32
T 21.38 - .41
T 22.50 - 23.1
T 23.41 - .42
T 24.1 - .7
T 25.26 - .30
Exhibit Q in the trial
T 28.39 - .40
T 29.10 - .13
See T 100.15 - .16, T 110.49 - 111.1, T 136.39 - .42, T 207.5 - .8, cf T 199.25 - .27, T 209.18 - .46
T 327.9 - .21
T 326.10 - .11
T 325.47
T 326.2
T 326.5
Exhibit P in the trial at [27] - [29]
Exhibit 2 on sentence
(2010) 205 A Crim R 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177] - [178] (McClellan CJ at CL). See also: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114 at [33] - [34] (Simpson J (as her Honour then was) with whom Adams and McCallum JJ agreed); Alkanaan v R [2017] NSWCCA 56 at [102] - [107] (Harrison J with whom Payne JA and Schmidt J agreed); and Jeffree v R [2017] NSWCCA 72 at [30] - [33] (Beazley P with whom Walton and R A Hulme JJ agreed)
Christodoulou v R [2008] NSWCCA 102 at [37] - [42] (Grove J with whom Johnson J agreed) cf [2008] NSWCCA 102 at [5] (Campbell JA)
See McLaren v R [2012] NSWCCA 284 at [29] (McCallum J with whom McClellan CJ at CL and Bellew J agreed)
Elturk v R [2014] NSWCCA 61 at [33] - [34] (Beazley P with whom R A Hulme and Schmidt JJ agreed). See also: Shine v R [2016] NSWCCA 149 at [74] (Bathurst CJ with whom Davies and R S Hulme JJ agreed)
s 21A(3)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (hereinafter referred to as the "1999 Act")
[2012] NSWCCA 172 at [42] (Price J with whom Allsop P and Campbell J agreed)
T 267.28 - .39 and T 327.37 - .47
Raczkowski v R [2008] NSWCCA 152 at [46] (Grove J with whom Bell JA and Latham J agreed); and Walker v R [2006] NSWCCA 347 at [7] (Sully J with whom Spigelman CJ and Hislop J agreed)
R v Rae [2001] NSWCCA 545 at [21] (Sully J with whom Giles JA and Levine J agreed)
s 21A(2)(g) of the 1999 Act
s 28(a) of the 1999 Act
s 21A(3)(f) of the 1999 Act
Exhibit A on sentence
See T 305.5 - 306.26
Exhibit 1 on sentence, Statement of Ms Margaret Wiseman, dated 30 March 2017
Exhibit 1 on sentence, Statement of Ms Lyn Duong, dated 15 December 2016
Exhibit 1 on sentence, Statement of Mr Yoeun Kim, dated 15 December 2016
Exhibit 1 on sentence, Statement of Mr Robert Odgers, dated 19 December 2016
ss 21A(3)(g) and (h) of the 1999 Act
Exhibit 5 on sentence, Statement of Ms Anna Jordan, dated 4 May 2017
See Kremisis v R [2016] NSWCCA 257 at [92] - [94] (Button J with whom Hoeben CJ and Adams J agreed) in relation to state matters
s 21A(3)(j) of the 1999 Act
R v Delaney (2003) 59 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCCA 342
ss 54A(b) and Table of the 1999 Act
s 3A of the 1999 Act
(2010) 205 A Crim R 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177] (McClellan CJ at CL)
T 13.46 - 14.11 (proceedings after conviction on 7 April 2017)
s 44(1) of the 1999 Act
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 26 May 2017