R v IL

The manufacture offence 6The offence charged in count one of the indictment is self-evidently an extremely serious offence. The precise role played in the commission of the offence by the offender is not clear. Plainly, the jury rejected the version of events provided by her in evidence. However certain aspects of the conduct are clear based on the undisputed evidence led by the Crown, from reasonable inferences arising from that evidence and from those parts of the offender's evidence which were not disputed or which I accept and are not inconsistent with the verdicts of the jury. 7The premises in Ryde were owned by the offender. The offender permitted the deceased man Lan to use those premises in the process of manufacture. 8That process is described more fully in my earlier judgment at [58]. It involved the final stage of manufacture whereby the purity level of the methylamphetamine was increased to a very marked degree by means of an evaporation process in which the raw product was placed in a solvent (acetone) and boiled to allow impurities to be extracted as the substance vaporised. The evidence showed that the process resulted in methylamphetamine with a purity level of less than 20% being refined or converted into methylamphetamine with a purity of well over 80%. Items found at the premises in the aftermath of the fire showed various quantities of methylamphetamine in varying degrees of purity. This indicated that in some instances the process had been completed whereas in other instances it had either just commenced or was in preparation. 9There was well in excess of 6 kg of methylamphetamine at the premises. The forensic chemist provided a calculation of the amount of solid methylamphetamine (salts, powder or crystal) found at the premises but in doing this calculation he took into account the purity level. Without any great precision, it is clear that if the admixture provision had been applied to the calculation, the amount of the drug was well in excess of 6 kg: see s 4 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). Whatever be the precise amount, it was far in excess of the large commercial quantity proscribed by the schedule to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (ie 1 kg). 10The raw product was not produced at the Ryde premises. The forensic chemist gave evidence that all that was occurring at the Ryde premises was the refining or evaporation process and that the raw methylamphetamine had produced being produced elsewhere (T 360). 11While the manufacturing process at Ryde was not particularly sophisticated, it was obviously a serious and commercial venture. There were pots and other items containing solids and liquids which tested positive for methylamphetamine throughout the house and in particular within the kitchen and bathroom of the premises. The bathroom had been set up with a gas burner, LPG gas bottle and large cooking pot for the purpose of using the bathroom as well as the kitchen to undertake the refining of methylamphetamine. The obvious purpose of this was to maximise the amount of methylamphetamine able to be produced in a short period of time. 12There were many items at the house plainly used or designed to be used in the process of manufacture and these included a number of large pots and other vessels used to heat or store the product at various stages of the purification process. There were items used to separate the solid from the liquid after the evaporation process including sieves, a Buchner funnel and associated vacuum flask and pump. There were plastic buckets, latex gloves, thermometers, the gas burner and gas bottle used to convert the suburban bathroom into an ad hoc meth lab. There were also chopsticks, which can be used to control the boiling process. There was nothing else in the house that suggested that it was being used for any purpose other than the manufacture of methylamphetamine. 13From that evidence it is clear that, at the very least, the offender was involved in the manufacture by permitting Lan to use her premises for the singular purpose of manufacturing methylamphetamines in very large quantities. 14But the offender's criminality and role was more extensive than that. Again, because her evidence was obviously rejected by the jury, the precise scope of her involvement is unclear. However the evidence at trial proved that she had purchased 8 litres of acetone on 1 January 2014 (see Ex W). The offender also gave evidence in the trial that she had taken two gas bottles to a service station and filled them. She said those gas bottles were similar to one found in the bathroom. The offender also gave evidence at the trial that at some time early in the morning on 4 January 2014 she stirred a pot in the kitchen which contained a substance which plainly was methylamphetamine in the process of extraction. While her account was that she did not know what she was stirring, the jury rejected that suggestion. 15Apart from the activities at Ryde, the police also located relevant evidence at the offender' home in South Hurstville. This included a sum of around $16,900 in cash along with around 15.1 grams of methylamphetamine. It is difficult to know precisely what is to be drawn from that but I think it is safe to assume that most of the $16,900 in cash was not innocently obtained as the offender told the jury in her evidence but was in some way connected with the criminal enterprise in which she was engaged in with Lan. A substantial portion is likely to have been payment for the use of the premises. Similarly, it is unclear precisely what to make of the relatively small quantity of methylamphetamine found at her premises, but it is safe to assume that the jury rejected her assertion that this was the property of Lan and that she did not know that the drugs were there. As the Crown Prosecutor put to the jury, the fact that her bedroom door at Hurstville was generally kept locked indicated that some form of illegal activity was taking place there. 16Precisely what was to happen to the 15.1 grams of methylamphetamine found at the offender's Hurstville home is unclear, but it provided further evidence of her criminal association with Lan and of her connection to the manufacturing process that was taking place at Ryde. 17In terms of the length of time during which the offender was involved in the manufacturing process, there is some evidence that she and Lan set up a safety deposit box on 2 December 2012. However, there is no evidence of its use and, while I accept that the safety deposit box was probably set up for the purpose of secretly storing money and perhaps drugs associated with the ultimate enterprise, I am unable to conclude that the manufacturing process itself commenced as early as the date that the safety deposit box was opened or that the offender was knowingly involved in the drug activity at that earlier date. There was other evidence in the trial that suggested that the offender and Lan had some legitimate plans to go into business together. 18An important piece of evidence on the subject of the length of time over which the process was occurring at the Ryde premises came from a defence witness called Allen Tang. The verdicts of the jury did not necessarily involve the rejection of Mr Tang's evidence and, while he was cross-examined, there was no suggestion that Mr Tang was lying. I found Mr Tang to be an impressive witness and I accept the submission made by counsel for the offender in his address to the jury that his evidence should be accepted in its entirety. 19Mr Tang gave evidence that on Boxing Day of 2012 the offender called him and asked him to assist her in moving a wardrobe and to look at the electrical wiring and lighting at the premises. Mr Tang attended the premises and observed that the premises were for the most part vacant. I accept that evidence. He was asked to move one or two pieces of furniture and to check the lighting and the wiring and he gave certain advice to the offender in that regard. 20Mr Tang's evidence gives rise to two inferences, one favourable to the offender and the other unfavourable to her. I am satisfied, based on Mr Tang's evidence that no manufacturing process had occurred or was occurring on or before 26 December 2012. Any activity that took place in the premises at Ryde for which the offender is to be a sentenced therefore occurred over a relatively short period, namely the seven or eight days between 26 December 2012 until 4 January 2013. However, I also draw the inference from Mr Tang's evidence that the offender was at that stage having the premises prepared for the manufacturing process that she knew was to occur in the following days or weeks. 21Apart from Mr Tang's evidence and the opening of the safety deposit box, the first clear evidence of the offender's involvement came with her purchasing the acetone at Bunnings on 1 January 2013. However based on Mr Tang's observations of the house being almost completely vacant on 26 December 2012, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on that date, or by that date, the offender had agreed to provide her premises to Lan for the criminal purpose of manufacturing a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and had taken steps to prepare the premises for that purpose. 22As the High Court pointed out in Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54 at [19] the relevant inquiry is to determine "what the offender did". To summarise, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that: (i)The offender agreed to allow Lan to use her premises at Ryde for the sole purpose of manufacturing a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. (ii)A quantity in excess of 6 kg of methylamphetamine was in fact refined at those premises in accordance with that agreement. (iii)The offender was to receive financial reward for her involvement and had received around $16,900 already. Precisely how much she would ultimately have received is not clear on the evidence but based on the finding of in excess of $300,000 at the Ryde premises I am satisfied that the profits to be made were substantial. (iv)The offender's involvement was more than simply providing the premises. She actively arranged for and purchased some of the solvent (acetone) which was used in the manufacturing process and refilled gas bottles which were used for the purpose of heating the items necessary to conduct the evaporation process. She was present at the premises for at least part of the time that the evaporation process was taking place and actively assisted Lan by stirring the mixture as it evaporated. 23The things that I have just set out other things that I am able to find on the evidence that the offender actually did. While the majority in Olbrich said that it is not always useful or possible to determine precisely where in a hierarchy an offender stands, there is evidence in the present case that leads me to the conclusion that the offender was less involved in the enterprise than Lan and was subordinate to him. In particular, the $328,000 in cash found at Ryde was located in circumstances that clearly indicate that it was Lan's money. The cash was found in three locations. LI's property (clothing, handbag etc) was found in a particular bedroom at the back of the house. None of the cash was found there. The first amount was found in a leather bag that also containd Lan's passport. The balance of the cash was found in two shopping bags found in a room in the house not connected with LI. Both of those bags were analysed and found to have DNA consistent with than of Lan. 24The fact that the offender had a substantially smaller amount of money in her premises at Hurstville persuades me that she was subordinate to Lan in this enterprise. She was being paid in consideration of her allowing the premises to be used and she undertook at least two errands (filling the gas bottle and purchasing some of the acetone) at Lan's request or direction. 25I am prepared to accept that part of the offender's evidence where she said that she and Lan were involved in some kind of a relationship and that she considered him to be her boyfriend. From that, I am also prepared to sentence her on the basis that her involvement in the criminal enterprise arose as a result of her relationship with Lan and that he somehow persuaded her, probably by the offer of substantial financial rewards, to allow him to use her residential premises at Ryde for the purpose of manufacturing the drug. 26By reference to the maximum penalties and standard non-parole period, and considering the amount of drugs involved and the offender's financial motivation and essential role in the enterprise, the criminality in this case is substantial. On the other hand her involvement was over a relatively short period of time and seems to have been the result of her unfortunate connection with Lan. That latter matter does not mitigate her criminality very much, but it places it in a different context to that of a person who is simply involved in a criminal organisation or activity. 27One of the reasons that I have come to that somewhat benign view of her involvement is the strong and uncontested evidence of her previous good character and work ethic. Whilst the jury was obviously not persuaded that her prior good character was such that it had a reasonable doubt about her involvement, the evidence remains relevant in a proper assessment of her level of involvement and the reasons that she may have become involved. Whilst the jury obviously rejected large parts of the offender's evidence, an acceptance of those parts of her evidence where she described her relationship with Lan is not inconsistent with the verdicts. 28The seriousness of the drug offence is also highlighted and exacerbated by two other factors. The first is the fact that there were three pistols present at the premises. As the Crown submitted to the jury, the presence of these pistols along with the large sum of cash, underscored the commercial and criminal nature of what was taking place. The other matter concerns the dangerousness of the activity itself. It is notorious that methylamphetamine is a extremely addictive drug which has dire consequences on end users and on their lives and the lives of their loved ones. This case also demonstrates in a graphic way the risks and dangers involved in the manufacturing process itself. It is fortuitous that the fire was contained within the bathroom and that it did not spread to surrounding premises where innocent members of the community were no doubt asleep in the early hours of the morning. The dangerous activity took the life of one of the perpetrators of this offence. Of course, the death of Mr Lan is not to be taken into account as some form of aggravating feature in assessing the offender's criminality or moral culpability, but it highlights the dangers involved in producing drugs in the method here employed. 29I was told by the Crown prosecutor in an application for a discharge of the jury after the directed verdict that there is an increase in prevalence of these kinds of clandestine laboratories. That is a matter that highlights the need for general deterrence. The sentence that will be imposed on the offender will take that matter into account in a meaningful way.

Firearms and weapons offences 30In relation to the pistol charges, there was a reverse onus of proof cast upon the offender by reference to s 4A of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). Because the guns were found in her premises and/or car she was required to establish on balance of probabilities that she was not in (joint) possession of the guns with Lan. Clearly, the jury were not so satisfied. While I may have come to a different conclusion in that regard, I am bound to give effect to the jury's verdict and the question that was asked in the course of the deliberations suggests that the jury saw the weapons as being an inherent part of the criminal enterprise in which Lan and the offender were involved. 31However, the location of the guns in each case satisfies me that they were Lan's guns, albeit that the offender was jointly in possession of them. The 9mm Luger (count 3) and associated 20 round magazine were found in Lan's leather bag along with a large sum of cash and Lan's passport. The .38 calibre Smith & Wesson was found in a homemade holster attached to a pair of men's trousers. The .45 calibre Norinco was in a car, registered in the offenders name, that I accept was used by Lan over the previous days or weeks and as part of the preparations for the manufacturing process. I am satisfied that the deceased owned the guns. However, the jury found that the offender was aware of the presence of the weapons on her premises and in her car and was in joint possession of them for the purpose of the criminal enterprise involving the drugs. 32The pistol involved in count 3 is a kind of automatic or semi automatic pistol and in my view should attract a slightly longer sentence than those appropriate for counts 5 and 6. The magazine in count 4 will attract a lesser sentence.

The relationship between the weapons and the drug manufacture: totality, concurrence and accumulation 33The connection between the weapons that were found in the premises and in the car and the drug manufacturing business highlights and exacerbates the criminality of the drug offences because it shows the degree to which the participants were prepared to act outside of the law to protect their plainly lucrative criminal business. On the other hand, the gun charges themselves are all individually very serious, reflected by the standard non-parole periods (three years) applicable to each. This gives rise to questions as to the operation of the principles of totality of the criminality and the appropriateness of cumulative and concurrent sentences. 34I accept the Crown Prosecutor's submission that there must be a degree of accumulation between the individual charges. I intend to invoke the provisions of s 53A and impose an aggregate sentence. In due course, and in accordance with s 53A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), I will indicate the sentence that would have been imposed in relation to each offence. For the sake of transparency, I indicate that I would have made the sentences for the gun charges predominantly concurrent because their existence has been taken into account in assessing the criminality of the drug offence. However I would have accumulated those gun charges to a degree because the offences are, in themselves, very serious and there must be a clear denunciation of conduct involved in possessing such dangerous and formidable weapons such as these. The one exception to this approach of partial accumulation concerns count 3 (the Lugar) and count 4 (the magazine). Those items were found together and the magazine is essentially part of the pistol. I would have made the sentences for those two offences wholly concurrent with one another. The criminality of those 2 offences can properly be reflected and encompassed by the imposition of an entirely concurrent sentence. 35I indicate that I would have accumulated counts 3, 5 and 6 by a period of six months but would have made the offences otherwise concurrent. I would have found special circumstances in the accumulation itself and adjusted the sentence (see s 44(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). There are also special circumstances justifying an adjustment of the non-parole period so that the balance of term of the aggregate sentence exceeds one third of the total sentence (see s 44(2B). This the offender's first gaol sentence and she will require a longer than usual period on parole to assist her in assimilating back into the community at the expiration of the inevitably lengthy non-parole period.

The offender's personal circumstances 36The offender is a 45 year old woman with no prior convictions. 37Evidence of her good character was given at the trial by Allen Tang and the offender's 22 year old son AL. I found both of these witnesses to be very impressive. 38On the basis of their evidence and the evidence given by the offender herself as to her personal history, I am satisfied that that since coming to Australia in 1990 that the offender has worked in a variety of jobs and has been a useful and valuable member of the community. 39She has no prior convictions of any kind. She gave uncontested evidence that she has never been in trouble with police. That may have been a reason that Lan and those with whom he was associated targeted her because her premises would be, from an outsider's point of view, beyond reproach or suspicion. The relevance of that fact has been emphasised in a number of cases where it has been said that the good character of an person involved, for example, in drug importation does not receive the same weight because such people are often used as mules to avoid detection. In my view the present case is not completely analogous to that and I propose to give the offender the full benefit of her good character in assessing an appropriate sentence. 40In spite of those matters, the seriousness of the offences is so grave and the requirement for general deterrence so great, that the sentence to be imposed on her must be one of real significance. 41However, I have found that her prior good character and lack of criminal record are significant mitigating features: see s 21A(3)(e) and 21A(3)(f). 42I also accept Mr Pontello's submission that her prior good character and lack of criminal convictions is sufficient foundation, along with the concept of the personal deterrence inherent in the sentence that I must impose on her, for a finding that she has good prospects of rehabilitation and is unlikely to re-offend. These are both mitigating features both at common law and under s 21A(3)(g) and (h). 43I accept that Mr Pontello has conducted the case with economy and efficiency and that the case has taken much less time than it might otherwise have. I accept that the offender has co-operated to some degree in the efficient conduct of the proceedings. However, I am unable to accept Mr Pontello's submission that she is entitled to receive a lesser sentence as a result of her co-operation and willingness to facilitate the course of justice: s 22A. The circumstances are far removed from those that prevailed in R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273 in which I reduced the sentence to take into account the manner in which the case had been conducted (see paragraphs [2]-[9]).

The standard non-parole period and an assessment of the objective gravity of the offences 44As I have said, there is a standard non-parole period of 15 years for the manufacturing offence and 3 years for each of the weapons charges: s 54A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW). The way in which this is to be taken into account received authoritative treatment in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39. 45I have taken into account the standard non-parole periods as one of the many diverse and relevant matters that must be synthesised to determine the appropriate sentence for this individual offender for these very serious offences. 46The standard non-parole period applies to cases "in the middle of the range of objective seriousness". The Crown Prosecutor has submitted that the manufacturing offence is "above the middle range of objective seriousness. The defence has submitted that it is "well below" the middle of the range. I accept neither of those categorisations. I have come to the view that that the offence falls below (but not "well below") the putative middle range in view of (i) the limited nature of the offender's involvement, (ii) the nature of her involvement suggests she was, as it was put by Mr Pontello, a "menial assistant or gopher" and (iii) the short period of time over which I can be satisfied that she was involved. In coming to that conclusion, I am conscious of the fact that the provision of the premises was essential to the process. 47I have taken into account the quantity and value of the drugs and accept that the offender knew generally how much drugs were involved: cf Wong and Leung v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584 at [31] (Gleeson CJ) and [64] (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ). 48However, a proper assessment of her role is at least as important as an identification of the quantity involved: Wong and Leung at [68]-[70]. In Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156 Price J (with whom Spigelman CJ and Hidden J agreed) at [33] cited with approval the following observations of Wood CJ at CL in R v MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44 at [33]: "It is also to be accepted that the mere quantity of the drugs is not the sole, or even the principal, determinant for sentencing in relation to drug offences. What is more important is the role of the offender, and the level of his or her participation in the offence; subject of course to the fact that, in relation to supply offences under State law, there is a gradation of seriousness reflected by an increase in penalty as the quantity of drug involved moves into those levels which answer the descriptions of a commercial quantity, or of a large commercial quantity." 49When considering an offence involving a large commercial quantity, it is to be remembered that there is no upper limit. There are a number of past cases (of manufacture, supply and importation) where the quantities of drugs involved (methylamphetamine, cocaine and MDMA/ecstasy) were enormous. 50As to the weapons charges, I am of the opinion that these offences fall well below the middle range of objective seriousness. As I have found, the weapons belonged to Lan and the offender's possession of them arose as result of her involvement with Lan and with the drug manufacture.

Aggravating features 51The Crown Prosecutor submitted that there are three aggravating features under s 21A(2) namely: (i) The offence was committed without regard for public safety. (ib) The offence involved a grave risk of death to another person or persons. (o) The offence was committed for financial gain. 52I accept that each of those matters is relevant to a proper assessment of the objective criminality of the offender's conduct. However, I am not persuaded that the evidence in this case allows for a finding that any constitutes an aggravating feature for the purpose of s 21A(2). The fact is that most offences of manufacturing a large commercial quantity of drugs involve processes that are risky and dangerous and pose some threat to life. Many such clandestine laboratories are set up in similar suburban environments. Most illegal drug manufacturers show a complete disregard for public safety and most commit the offence for financial gain. 53I have taken into account the fact that the offender acted without regard for the public safety and for financial reward in assessing the seriousness of her objective criminality. I have already commented on the fact that Lan's death highlights the risks involved in such clandestine laboratories and have taken those risks into account in assessing the objective criminality. I have considered the evidence of Mr Spouszta (T 230-231) as to the lack of proper safety standards in such labs generally and in this operation in particular. As I have said, the risk to life in this case was real and tragic with one of the perpetrators suffering what was no doubt a slow and painful death.

Statistics and past cases 54I accept the Crown's submissions that "the range of sentences indicated by other cases does not establish the bounds of permissible sentences" but rather "provides a yardstick against which to examine the proposed sentence". I also accept Mr Pontello's submission that the JIRS statistical database provides too small a selection of cases to derive any meaningful guidance as to an appropriate sentence. 55Neither counsel has taken me to any authority which is comparable in terms of the circumstances of offending or personal attributes of the offender. The Crown referred to R v Kalache [2000] NSWCCA 2 and R v Little and Walsh [2006] NSWCCA 406. Those cases assist in their consideration of relevant principles but they are all cases of extreme gravity when compared to the present case. They may be cases properly categorised at the very top end of criminality encompassed by the section. The sentencing outcomes, as I think the Crown concedes, have no bearing on a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion in this case. 56I have considered the outcomes in the following cases as a yardstick in determining whether the sentence that I have in mind accords with the requirements of consistency of punishment on the one hand and the necessity for individualised justice on the other: Eckersley v R [2013] NSWCCA 219; Lau v R [2010] NSWCCA 43; DW v R [2012] NSWCCA 66; DAB v R: NJB v R [2010] NSWCCA 275; Greenaway v R [2013] NSWCCA 270; Reardon v R [2012] NSWCCA 46. None of those cases are on all fours with the present case but they satisfy me that the sentence I propose is fair, just and consistent with sentences imposed in circumstances having some features in common with the present offence. I am conscious of the fact that some of those cases attracted greater sentences than the one that I consider to be appropriate, particular when one takes into account relevant discounts for the pleas of guilty. However, IL is to be sentenced on the basis of her particular and individual circumstances. It is particularly to be borne in mind the role that this offender played and the limited period of her involvement. In many of the cases to which I have referred, the offender was involved for many months and at a much higher level.

General sentencing principles 57I have taken into account the objectives of punishment set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). In particular, I have taken into account the need to adequately punish the offender, to denounce her conduct and to make her accountable for her involvement in the offences. I have considered the need to protect the community from such offences and the need to deter others from committing similar crimes. I have balanced the need to deter Ms IL from committing offences in the future against the desirability of imposing a sentence that fosters her ultimate rehabilitation so that she can return to be a useful member of our society as she was for the first forty or so years of her life. 58As has often been said, these various factors pull in different directions and, consequently, there is no single correct sentence.

Sentence 59No sentence other than a substantial full time gaol sentence can be imposed in the circumstances. The parties agree that the offender has spent a period of 1 year and 7 days in custody and that the sentence should commence on 2 December 2013. 60As I have said, I propose to impose an aggregate sentence under s 53A and I have set out in general terms the method by which I would arrive at that sentence in terms of partial concurrence and accumulation. I have also indicated that I have found special circumstances for the purpose of s 44(2B). The proper approach to the application of s 53A has been considered in a number of cases: see, for example, R v RD [2014] NSWCCA 103 at [62]-[66] (Hamill J), SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94 (Fullerton J); R v Nykolyn [2012] NSWCCA 291 at [56]-[60] and Brown v R [2012] NSWCCA 199 at [17] and [51] (Grove J). 61For the purpose of that section I indicate that I would have imposed the following individual sentences:

• Count 1 - 10 years
• Count 3 - 12 months
• Count 4 - 6 months
• Count 5 - 9 months
• Count 6 - 9 months 62The aggregate sentence that I will impose is 11½ years. With the finding of special circumstances there will be a non-parole period of 7½ years. 63IL, for the five offences of which you have been convicted, you are sentenced to an aggregate non-parole period of 7½ years commencing on 2 December 2013 and expiring on 1 June 2021. There will be a balance of term of 4 years commencing on 2 June 2021 and expiring on 1 June 2025. You will be eligible for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period. 64I order that the drugs and weapons involved in the five counts on the indictment be forfeited to the Crown for the purpose of destruction. 65As to the offences listed on a certificate pursuant to s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW):
• Sequence 3 (offender found on drug premises) is dismissed by consent.
• Sequence 4 (owner knowingly allow premises to be used as drug premises) is dismissed by consent.
• On the joint application of the parties, all remaining sequences (that is, sequences 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14) are remitted to the Local Court

Amendments 14 February 2017 - coversheet and paragraphs [1], [3], [56], [57] and [63] - replaced accused's name with "IL" 14 February 2017 - paragraph [23] - replaced accused's name with "IL" 21 February 2017 - paragraph [37] - replaced witness's name with "AL" 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: 21 February 2017