"· Nguyen was the only purchaser who actually received heroin from the business during the offence period (consignments one and two). * Nguyen was the only prospective purchaser who had actually provided pre-payment for delivery of part of the third consignment and had placed an order for supply. * Nguyen's profit was to be derived from his personal on-selling of a portion of the delivered heroin, whilst the remainder of the heroin was provided to others, unknown, who had provided capital to him for its purchase. The particular features of the core relationship elevated the position of Nguyen vis à vis Tong and others beyond being merely a remote and disjunctive commercial buyer. There was evidence that established that Nguyen had, by his conduct, been taken into the trafficking group as the preferred buyer - a loose group in which each individual intended to make personal commission profit, and where each individual acknowledged a potential financial liability and risk associated with their involvement. On several occasions, the parties (Ong, Vuong, Nguyen, Tran) remarked that their joint involvement was akin to a brotherhood - with a level of fraternal trust and commitment founded thereon. The disjoined 'buyer' characterisation was considerably modified by the reality of the evidence before the jury. Tong once characterised it thus: 'It's inside people delivering to inside people'. Nguyen's receipt of poor quality heroin from the first consignment resulted in complaints to him from third parties, and returns of the product to Nguyen. Nguyen reported these developments to Ong describing the heroin as 'ours' being 'out', in contrast to higher grade heroin supplied by others. Nguyen did not, however, demand a refund of monies previously advanced. On the contrary, in the same conversation Ong asked Nguyen to provide additional capital ($10,000) and Nguyen undertook to do so, if he was able. The pure independent 'buyer/seller' dichotomy was subordinate to a more consensual and co-operative on-going criminal association. Evidence established that Nguyen was prepared - on several occasions - to provide substantial capital to Ong and Tong at short notice at all hours of the day. Nguyen thereby provided a cash lifeline to those involved in the business - reference never being made to repayment, assuredly in consequence of the expectation that preferred buyer status would result in priority access to the heroin when it eventually became available. Nguyen was aware of the involvement of persons with whom Tong must deal in order to supply heroin into Melbourne. The numerous reported delays in the expected delivery of heroin throughout June until early August made it self-evident that Tong was not in ultimate control of the timeframe for supply. For example, on 6th June at 11.43 p.m., Ong in conversation with Nguyen claimed to have just met with Tong. Heroin that had been expected to arrive on 5th June had failed to appear. Ong told Nguyen that he had told Tong to 'hurry up the other side ... to see what's happening.' Nguyen replied 'Try your best man, otherwise we'll be dead'. When the second consignment of heroin did finally arrive on 12th June, physical delivery of the whole consignment was made to Nguyen by Ong and Vuong at a home in Footscray. Nguyen had previously indicated a preparedness to take delivery of 'the lot' or at least 'ten'. The price ultimately paid by Nguyen was close to one million dollars - but only $35,000 was said to have been received from him in advance of delivery. There was evidence before the jury which revealed Nguyen as being part of the group of Tong and others, rather than being separate and remote therefrom. On 8th July, Ong spoke with Tran (the individual who ultimately played a role in the receipt of the third heroin consignment). Within the context of discussing the continuing indebtedness of Nguyen, Ong remarked 'our work is done on trust ... nobody else except us as brothers.' Previously, Vuong had informed Tong that, in consequence of their arrest on 12th June 1999, she had instructed 'them' to put it away where it was said to be safe. There was evidence that the applicant, Nguyen, was the individual who had taken custody of the whole consignment of heroin from Vuong and Ong, and who had, by the time of Vuong's comment to Tong spoken to Vuong. Tong, in a telephone conversation on 14th June, informed an unidentified caller about the events of 12th June and described the individual who had taken custody of the heroin as only 'the junior worker'. Tong continued, saying that 'the junior worker (a Vietnamese guy) came (yesterday)'. (Tong had already been visited by Nguyen by the time of this call, and had by then received in excess of $300,000 in cash from 'the junior worker'). Both Vuong and Tong's evaluation of Nguyen's role and responsibilities - receiving directions from Vuong as to storage, and being described merely as a 'junior worker' for Tong - serves to illuminate the reality of the more fraternal and contributory criminal role played by Nguyen. Whilst he was a preferred buyer collecting and delivering large amounts of cash, he was also actively involved in the business in which Tong and others were engaged. This was to continue. Ultimately, he was to receive a key to the Crown Tower's lifts to enable easier access to Tong. The commercial relationship involving Nguyen and Tong and others is further illuminated by evidence of later conversations that make clear that this was not merely an arm's length commercial transaction between persons unpossessed of a common design to traffic, as alleged. Two weeks after the delivery of heroin on 12th June, very substantial amounts of money had been received by Tong from Nguyen (in excess of $900,000). However, some monies remained outstanding and Vuong and Ong spoke with Nguyen regarding the overdue balance. Whilst Nguyen acknowledged the debt, he sought a reduction in price saying 'Okay, as brother and sister, let's sit down to have a talk. I've helped him. In turn, he'd help me back.' Shortly afterwards, Vuong said 'You haven't known me for a long time, but you know I love you as a brother, then you have to love me as a return, right?' Vuong ultimately resignedly remarked 'If you don't want to pay, we've to put up with it.' Vuong and Nguyen then spoke about the need for greater organization on the next occasion. Vuong stated, among other things, that in addition to safeguarding the boss (Tong) she needed to take care for Nguyen's safety so that 'nothing will happen.' If this was done, 'everyone will become rich, you understand'. Nguyen suggested that, in future, a storage place for the heroin should be found with restricted access thereto. Ong agreed and Vuong remarked that no one would know of the location, 'except you who go there'. The conversation continued in this vein over some time, providing evidence from which the jury could properly conclude that this was a joint criminal venture, founded upon mutual friendship and trust with shared expectations of ongoing profit. Vuong referred to them being 'in business together' with the need to replan - a sentiment endorsed by Nguyen. There was evidence before the jury that tended to confirm that Nguyen's continuing trafficking involvement with Tong and others had relevance to the speed, and extent to which that business could continue to develop. On 4th July a long conversation was monitored by listening device in Tong's room. Ong, Vuong and Nguyen spoke for some time. Referring to Tong, Ong observed that 'he trusted in us with one million dollars ... In return, we've to trust him'. Vuong, referring to Nguyen still owing some money, stated that Tong should have already departed that night 'to have a talk about another round, if you'd settled with him. He's waiting, waiting, waiting.' Later, in response to Nguyen's enquiry as to the price of the next consignment, Vuong replied that Tong would let Nguyen know 'after he's had a talk'. In his defensive reply, Nguyen stated that 'in the end, among us, I was left to take care of handling the stuff and collecting money on my own'. Vuong later remarked, 'If I could turn up physically, I'd do the same job as you're doing. I'd make the same profit as you.' And so, within this conversation, * Nguyen's financial liability in respect of receipt of the second consignment of heroin was merged with that of both Ong and Vuong. * Nguyen's failure to provide funds was linked to Tong's delay in returning to Hong Kong to negotiate a further importation. * The price to be charged by Tong to Nguyen was said to be dependent upon Tong's discussions with others. * Nguyen's role was explainable in terms of Vuong being unable to perform it. There was evidence before the jury that established the ongoing interdependence between Nguyen and Tong and others engaged in trafficking. On 12th July, Nguyen spoke with Ong, Vuong and Tong. Upon Tong enquiring whether Nguyen was then 'working', Nguyen replied 'Yeah. I work, if you work'. Vuong stressed the need for Nguyen to keep them advised regarding his whereabouts, irrespective of whether he was in debt, or whether he was in possession of money. Nguyen stressed the need for them to be very careful - or 'we'll be fucking dead meat'."