HIS HONOUR: Thi Mui Lieu stand for sentence as a consequence of having pleaded guilty to a charge that on 3 July 2014 at Mascot in this State, she did intentionally import goods, being Tier 1 goods, comprising pseudoephedrine, being reckless as to the fact that the goods were Tier 1 goods, being goods the importation of which was prohibited under the Customs Act 1901 without the approval of a particular person having been obtained and at the time of that importation that had not been obtained. That is an offence contrary to s 233BAA(4) of the Customs Act 1901. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for five years and/or a fine of $170,000.
On 3 July 2014 the offender arrived at Sydney International Airport on a Vietnam Airlines flight from Ho Chi Minh City. She was travelling on her Australian passport. The offender had as her baggage two suitcases which were selected by the Australian Border Force for examination. She was asked to complete a Vietnamese language incoming passenger card. On that she declared that her luggage did contain more than the allowable limit for alcohol, cigarettes or tobacco, that her luggage did not contain any food but in connection with a question as to whether she was bringing into Australia any goods that included any kind of illicit drug, she answered both yes and no. The offender confirmed that she herself had signed her incoming passenger card. She identified her suitcases and agreed that she packed them herself. When her suitcases were searched, the ABF found 16 bath salt sachets containing powder and one plastic tub labelled "Natural Care Mint Ice Hydro Treatment", which tub had a false bottom concealing a clip-seal bag of powder.
The offender then commenced to participate in an electronically recorded interview with officers of the ABF. She told the ABF officers that she had bought the goods at a market in Saigon and that she bought the powders were because she had a skin problem. She told the officers that she had gone to Vietnam for about 15 days to organise the building of graves for her late husband and other deceased family members in rural areas of Vietnam. She then pointed out that her recollection was unreliable because she had mental problems caused by various vicissitudes of life to which I shall, in due course, refer. She then declined to participate any further in the interview.
R v Lieu [2019] NSWDC 555 | Case summary | Zoe
Of significance is the fact that official Australian records showed the offender's age as being 69 years but she was in fact 75 years old, because when she was a child, her family had reduced her official age in order to be able to send her to school to be educated. It appears that she was actually born in 1940 but does not know the exact date of her birth.
Analysis of the powder recovered from the 16 bath salt sachets and from the bottom of the tub of cosmetic material amounted to 4.146 kilograms of pseudoephedrine with an average purity of 68.9% giving a pure weight of pseudoephedrine of 2.856 kilos.
The offender was interviewed at either the airport or the Mascot Police Station but was released without charge. On 16 April 2018, almost four years later, the offender was served with a Court Attendance Notice. The original of the court attendance notice was filed in the Local Court at the Downing Centre on 20 April 2018. The Court Attendance Notice was first returned on 1 May 2018. The offender's matter was also mentioned on 22 June 2018 and on 7 August 2018 the offender pleaded guilty to the charge and was committed for sentence in this Court. The matter was mentioned on 31 August 2018 in this court and today's hearing date was fixed. The curial history of the offender's matter indicates that it was dealt with swiftly and promptly by the courts. However, the delay of almost four years between the offender's being apprehended in possession of the pseudoephedrine and her being charged with the offence is completely unexplained.
The offender stands today for sentence at the age of 79 years. The offender has one prior conviction. On 9 March 2003 she imported into Australia 270.4 grams of heroin concealed in her sandals on flight from Vietnam. She was sentenced by this Court to imprisonment for six years commencing on 9 March 2003 and the court fixed a non-parole period of three years, which expired on 8 March 2006. The offender does not have any other criminal conviction. However the conviction that she has is significant because it points to her attempting to bring into Australia a prohibited substance. On the first occasion heroin, on this occasion pseudoephedrine, a Tier 1 drug, or to use the terminology of the New South Wales equivalent statute, a precursor drug. Pseudoephedrine is necessary for the manufacture of crystal methylamphetamine.
The Crown has made these submissions:
"What is clear from the facts is that the offender took active and concrete steps in the commission of the offence, including:
a) agreeing or deciding to take the substance to Australia;
b) obtaining the packets and container within which the substance was
concealed;
c) receiving instructions or formulating a plan about what to do with the
substance once she arrived in Australia;
d) booking or receiving tickets to Australia;
e) taking the substance on-board a flight and remaining on the flight with it;
f) disembarking with the substance and attempting to take it through
customs."
With respect, that appears to be somewhat overstating the mark. It is clear that the offender agreed to bring a substance to Australia. The evidence does not suggest that she knew what the substance was, but she knew it to be something illegal and she knew that she was doing the wrong thing in bringing the substance to Australia. The necessary element of recklessness has been made out. However there is nothing to suggest that the offender obtained the packets and the container in which the substance was concealed. They may merely have been given to her and she may have been directed to place them in her luggage. She must have been given some details as to how she was to deliver the substance if she landed with it in Australia. However the instructions need not have been very complex or sophisticated. She may only have been asked to meet with another Vietnamese person who might meet her at the airport or at her home.
There is no evidence that the offender booked her passage from Australia to Vietnam and a return voyage with the intention of bringing this material into Australia. That is possible but the offender has consistently stated that she returned to Vietnam to erect monuments for deceased members of her family and it may be that she voluntarily went to Vietnam but when she was in Vietnam agreed to take material back into Australia. It is clear however that she did bring the pseudoephedrine with her on her flight to Sydney and she did so with the intention of taking it through the customs barrier.
The Crown submits that the offender was a "drug courier", a person low in some significant hierarchy. I accept that she was merely a courier. She was not carrying a prohibited drug as such but a prohibited chemical which could not be bought into Australia without permission. Pseudoephedrine is an active ingredient in many proprietary medicines sold in this country. It is because of its ability to be used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine that it is made a tier 1 drug under the Customs Act and a precursor drug under the New South Wales legislation. The Crown submitted that the offender probably knew she was bringing something unlawful into Australia having ticked her incoming passenger card with both yes and no in answer to the question which involved, inter alia, illicit drugs. However, one does not need to infer that when the offender told a psychiatrist who interviewed her recently that "she understood that her actions were wrong".
The offender was interviewed by Dr Sharon Reutens, a consultant psychiatrist, at the request of her solicitor on 6 November 2018. That interview was conducted with the use of an interpreter. Dr Reutens had available to her the offender's medical records from a medical centre dating back to 2006. Those notes record a history of anaemia, arthritis, hypercholesterolaemia, depression, hypothyroidism, osteoporosis and hypertension. That list of maladies sounds impressive but the suffering by a person in his or her seventh decade of osteoarthritis, high cholesterol and high blood pressure is extremely common. The same can be said of anaemia. The suffering by a lady in her seventh decade of osteoporosis is also very common. The offender's hypothyroidism is "subclinical" and has been treated with a thyroid hormone replacement drug.
The suffering by the offender of depression is otherwise. According to Dr Reutens' report the offender presented to the medical centre in question in 2006 with low mood and had presented in subsequent years with depression and anxiety on an intermittent basis. It must be acknowledged that the year 2006 is when the offender was released from prison. On 6 March 2008 the offender reported poor sleep with early morning wakening and depressed mood, together with feelings of guilt and anxiety. She told the general practitioner that she was worried about her relatives in Vietnam. She was then commenced on antidepressant medication. The most recent entry available to Dr Reutens in the general practitioner's records was on 18 October 2018 when it was noted that the offender was suffering from depression and anxiety with disturbed sleep and fatigue due to lack of sleep. The fact that a lady aged 78 was charged with an offence carrying a potential full time custodial sentence would itself be adequate to cause anxiety or depression. However, it is clear that the offender's mental condition dates back a long time, back to her days in Vietnam.
The offender told Dr Reutens that she came from a small town in the middle of Vietnam. She had either five or six siblings who died of different conditions. She has one living sibling, a sister, but she is very unwell. The offender is one of the younger children of her family. Her father died on the day that she was born. That caused her mother to have to bring up a large number of children. They had a large parcel of land which they farmed. However, when the Vietcong occupied the town they confiscated the land and took the offender's mother and the rest of the family into detention. The offender thought she was seven or eight years old at the time. She was in a re education camp for approximately two years. She described her childhood to Dr Reutens as "very, very hard", in particular, she stressed the circumstances of the re-education camp. She was constantly hungry and scavenged for food that had been dropped in the kitchen. Although she was not physically abused herself, her grandmother, who was also interned, suffered physical abuse. The South Vietnamese forces reoccupied the area in which the offender had been born and lived and where she had been interned. However, the offender's family did not obtain a return of their land. The offender's mother went out to work and the offender went to live with others and worked on her grandmother's farm. She did chores in return for food and lodging and she lived in such circumstances for about four years. She was then sent to school at about the age of 14 but she was unsure of her age at that time. She had to pretend to be five years younger than her real age. She only had a primary school level of education. She then did clerical work in a small office.
She met her husband in Vietnam when she was 18 and they married. They moved to the highlands in Vietnam. The offender has not had paid employment since that time. She told Dr Reutens that her husband was highly intelligent and had been selected to study in the United States of America. She had two children of her relationship with her husband but one of those died in 1986 in Vietnam. When recounting that the offender fell into tears and wished to discuss the issue no further with Dr Reutens. The offender's husband managed to get out of Vietnam and to come to Australia before the offender did. He settled in Melbourne and sponsored the offender to come to Australia in 1990. However, in the following year he fell unwell. He was unwell for about ten years prior to his death. It appears that she moved from Melbourne in about 2000: she could merely describe it to Dr Reutens as the time of the Sydney Olympics.
The following paragraph of the history indicates that there had been conflict between the offender and her daughter-in-law. The offender's remaining child is a son who was obviously married to that daughter in law. About the time that the offender moved to Sydney her husband had been moved into a nursing home and it would appear that the offender may have gone to live with her son and daughter in law but because of the conflict she moved to Sydney. Albeit that she moved to Sydney, the offender was still occasionally visiting her husband in a nursing home until she was imprisoned in March of 2003. The history does not exactly tell me when the offender's husband died.
Dr Reutens took this history of the offending conduct:
"When asked about the circumstances of her arrest she said that she needed money. She had visited Vietnam to prepare graves for ten members of her family. She could not date this visit. She said that her family in Vietnam were very poor. The cost of monuments was very expensive and she felt it was her responsibility to pay for the monuments because she was in a relatively better financial position. She later added that she also wanted to help a brother (not a biological brother) with mental health issues. She said that her adopted brother had 'something stuck in his brain when the North Vietnamese Army came'. She sent him money regularly. She denied having gambling debts when asked directly.
Ms Lieu said she tried to get a loan from the Commonwealth Bank and tried to borrow money from community lenders. She was
loaned [sic] $12,000 and travelled to Vietnam. She said that she went to the market to buy rash cream as she had a rash and someone gave her the cream. She said that several people visited her over the next few days and ensured that she went to the airport catching the taxi with her.
Ms Lieu told me she did not specifically know what was in the goods she brought to Australia. Ms Lieu said that she knew that what she did was wrong. She reiterated that she wanted to pay her personal loan and her Mastercard. She remained in debt and was slowly paying it off from her pension. Ms Lieu told me that she felt stupid that she had listened to the people who had given her the drugs."
The last piece of information in that history clearly indicates that the "cream" that she obtained in the market was in fact pseudoephedrine. It is clear that the offender was promised money to reduce the debt which she for making the trip to Vietnam.
When examined by Dr Reutens the doctor noted that she cried frequently and intermittently throughout the interview. The interpreter told the doctor that the offender's speech in her native language was disorganised. The doctor noted that the offender tended to evade some questions that were upsetting and she thought, as an instance of that, the evasion by the offender talking about her dead child. The doctor also noted that the offender was easily distracted when being interviewed. Testing showed that the offender's memory was impaired. She was able to recall only two of four shopping list items after ten minutes. She could not identify her left hand from her right hand and gave the wrong answer consistently. She was unable to draw a three-dimensional box. Her judgment was impaired. Dr Reutens continued thus in her report:
"She told an anecdote about she had recently crossed the road without looking and fallen down and was taken to Bankstown hospital. She was given a scenario and asked how to cross the
road safely. Ms Lieu told me that she would never cross the road, in the scenario provided it would be too scary, she would just sit still. She would not give any advice as to how one could cross a road safely".
Dr Reutens diagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, a Persistent Depressive Disorder and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. It was the offender's experiences, in particular, in childhood in Vietnam during the unfortunate war in that country that are the source of her PTSD. Her depressive disorder is probably related to her PTSD.
Dr Reutens offered this opinion on her offending:
"Ms Lieu said that at the time of the commission of the crimes she was in debt and was hoping to pay off her debt. It appeared from the history she provided that she felt obliged to pay for some monuments for her family in Vietnam and was also sending money to an adopted brother. She indicted she felt obliged to provide the money despite not being financially able to. It is likely that she was vulnerable to acceding to those requests given her chronic depression, poor judgment and other cognitive impairments, and social isolation.
Ms Lieu understood that her actions were wrong. She described some remorse for her offending but given her impaired judgment and cognitive impairment it is possible that she did not fully appreciate the ramifications her actions would have on others and weigh the possible legal consequence for herself."
In another section of her report, Dr Reutens refers to the offender's vulnerability.
Those involved in criminal syndicates, in particular those running them, seek to bring into Australia pseudoephedrine in a way that is be least likely to be detected. Putting the drugs in the care of a lady who was 75 years old at the time would be a way of seeking to avoid customs scrutiny. One would not expect the Australian Border Force to be particularly concerned about a 75 year old grandmother being a drug smuggler. In my view it is highly likely that the offender was herself exploited because of her age and because of her poor judgment. For that reason, also for the reason advanced by Dr Reutens, the offender's moral culpability must be reduced because of her poor judgment and vulnerability.
The Crown submits that a custodial sentence ought be imposed. Based on the "comparable cases" put before me by the Crown, a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one and a half years might appear to be appropriate. However, those "comparable cases" do not envisage a case of the type now in question.
Dr Reutens' report contains this matter:
"If Ms Lieu receives a custodial sentence she is vulnerable given her age, depression and cognitive impairment. She is at risk of being stood over by younger inmates. There is a risk of exacerbation of depression given her experience of incarceration as a young child.
Ms Lieu's judgment is impaired, putting her at risk of being exploited by unscrupulous people. The impairment of judgment and the depression affects her ability to appraise risk to herself, generate possible actions she can undertake and weigh up the relevant merits of a course of action. She would, for example, be less likely to seek appropriate healthcare in prison as a system for obtaining healthcare in a custodial sentence is different to that in the community. She was used to presenting to her GP, and will probably require assistance to obtain and complete the form for requesting GP appointments in prison. The memory impairment would impact [sic] on her ability to receive regular medication, and she may not remember to present to the dispensing window. It is recommended that her medications be supervised if she is in a custodial setting."
The incongruity of the current offender being incarcerated given her current medical conditions is highlighted by Ms Bagot in her written submissions. The offender does not have any adequate English language skill. In [44] of her submissions, Ms Bagot said this:
"It is respectfully suggested that it is appropriate to reduce her sentence because of her physical health problems. It cannot be assumed that Corrective Services will be able to cater for her health
needs as there is evidence ... that her impaired judgment will affect her ability to access health facilities in gaol. In this context it is to be remembered that she does not speak English and that interpreters are not available to inmates unless they can speak to an officer and ask the officer to contact an interpreter. Asking an officer to arrange an interpreter so that she can have assistance in filling in a form to ask for a GP appointment would be a complicated process for someone with memory and judgment impairments."
I can readily accept that. Getting adequate care in a correctional facility for a lady of this age with her inability in English would be highly problematical. Equally others in the correctional facility might exploit the offender and use her to obtain material for themselves, thereby depriving the offender herself of that material, whether it be medication or food or the like.
The fact the offender has a prior conviction for bringing into Australia heroin is concerning. However that was some 15 years ago. This offending happened five years ago. The prospects of re-offending are low. The prospects of re-offending were assessed by Community Corrections and she is assessed being a T1 low risk of re-offending according to the level of Service Inventory-Revised. Given the offender's age, health and mental condition it is unlikely that she would be able to leave Australia again other than in the company of some close relative or friend. It is unlikely, in my view, that the offender would engage in the sort of conduct for which she now stands for sentence. Indeed when she was interviewed by Community Corrections, the offender acknowledged the impact of her offending on herself and how the current proceedings had also affected her health and said: "I don't want to continue my life in gaol". The offender must realise, and I am sure she does, that were she to re-offend with another crime of this nature, then she would undoubtedly be incarcerated if she avoids incarceration on this occasion.
The offender's role in the importation was as a courier. She was very low in the chain of the syndicate which sought to profit from the offender's actions. I know from conducting trials concerning illicit drugs, that the going rate at the moment for one kilo of pseudoephedrine in the underworld is $100,000. Those using the offender sought to bring into this country a Tier 1 drug which might be worth between $300,000 and $400,00. However it appears that the offender's reward for doing so was the repayment of part of a loan of $12,000. She clearly was exploited. Such is often the case. Again, her moral culpability for this offence is low.
The impact of a fulltime custodial sentence on this offender's health would in my view be grave. There is much in the case law about the effects of incarceration on ill-health for the aged. Generally ill-health will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment only when it appears that imprisonment will be a greater burden on the offender by reason of his or her state of health or when there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a gravely adverse effect on the offender's health: R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 per King CJ at 317; Bailey v DPP (1988) 62A LJR 319; R v Badanjak [2004] NSWCCA 395; R v Achurch (2011) 216 A Crim R 152 at [118]; Pfeiffer v R [2009] NSWCCA 145. Age is also relevant to the length of any sentence, but neither age nor ill-health of themselves would lead to a gaol sentence not being imposed if it were otherwise warranted: R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570 at 573. However the offender's age and ill-health are matters that I can take into account.
Of equal moment in this case is the question of delay. There has been a delay of almost four years between the detection of the offence and the charging of the offender. During that four years, the offender has led a life free of any crime. More importantly, she has aged from 75 to 79 years. She will turn 80 sometime in the current year. During that period the offender's physical and mental health must have deteriorated, but physical deterioration with age is natural. Mental deterioration with age is also natural. I accept the offender's current physical and mental condition are worse than they were in 2014. I accept that the offender's ability to cope in incarceration has deteriorated during that period of time. There is an English adage which I am loath to use, because it might be misinterpreted in Vietnamese, but it needs to be recognised: one cannot teach an old dog new tricks. The ability of a human to adapt to a new environment, new stressors and the like, deteriorates with increasing age. It would be much harder for this lady to cope with imprisonment than it would be for a lady within her 20's, 30's, 40's or 50's.
In R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121; (1999) 106 A Crim R 303, Wood CJ at CL said at [16]:
"The reason why delay is to be taken into account when sentencing an offender relates first to the fact of the uncertain suspense in which a person may be left; secondly to any demonstrated progress of the offender towards rehabilitation during the intervening period; and thirdly, to the fact that a sentence for a stale crime does call for a measure of understanding and flexibility of approach: see, in addition to R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 and Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59, the decisions in R v Harrison (1999) 48 A Crim R 197 at 198-199 and R v King (CCA NSW, 24 February 1998)."
In Scook v R [2008] 185 A Crim R 164, Buss JA made a number of observations about the effect of delay. At [63] his Honour said this:
"Sixthly, delay (not being delay of the kind described in a second, third and fourth guiding principles), will ordinarily be a mitigating factor if:
a) the delay has resulted in significant stress for the offender or left him or her, to a significant degree, in 'uncertain suspense'; or
b) during the period of delay the offender has adopted a
reasonable expectation that he or she would not be charged, or a pending prosecution would not proceed, and the offender has ordered his or her affairs on the faith of that expectation."
That dictum has been cited with approval by Bathurst CJ in Giourtalis v R [2013] NSW CCA 216, by Lathan J in R v Donald [2013] NSW CCA 238 at [45], and by Bellew J, in Sabra v R [2015] NSW CCA 38 at [37].
In R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649, Vincent AJA said commencing at 659:
"Delay which is not attributable to the offender, of course, constitutes 'a powerful mitigating factor': R v Liang and Li (1995) 124 FLR 350 at 356; 82 A Crim R 39 t 45. It can have relevance at a number of levels. In Duncan v R (1983) 47 ALR 746; 9 A Crim R 354, the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia stated at ALR 749; A Crim R 356-7:
'... where prior to sentence there has been a lengthy process of rehabilitation and the evidence does not indicate a need to protect society from the applicant, the punitive and deterrent aspects of the sentencing process should not be allowed to prevail so as to possibly destroy the results of that rehabilitation.
... The very fact of the long delay in bringing the matter to court which led the applicant to have this matter hanging over his head for nearly four years is rightly prayed in aid on his behalf.'
Further, there is, in my opinion, a serious incongruity between the assertion that an offence is serious and that the courts must, through the sentences they impose, endeavour to limit its incidence on the one hand, and such a leisurely progression of the criminal justice proceedings which follow its commission that literally years pass before the matter comes before the court, on the other. For a number of reasons the investigation and prosecution of criminal conduct should be conducted as quickly as is reasonably practicable if the objectives of the system are to be attained. Additionally a legitimate sense of unfairness can develop when the criminal justice process proceeds in what can be perceived as a too leisurely fashion."
His Honour then went on to quote from Street CJ in R v Todd to which I have already referred. The decision in Schwabegger was cited with approval by Mason P, in R v Gay [2002] NSWCCA 6 at [16].
The offender has during the period of delay, not reoffended: she is showing rehabilitation. One would think that with the passage of time there would be increasing confidence on the part of the offender that the criminal law would not catch up with her. Furthermore, these four years were whilst the offender was in her seventh decade and now punishing her for a crime that is four years old does not smack of justice for a lady of her age.
The solicitor for the offender, Ms Bagot, asked me to consider imposing an intensive corrections order. She has referred me to a number of authorities of my colleagues, Judge Sweeney, Judge Tupman, Judge Flannery, Judge Frearson, Judge North, Acting Judge Armitage and Judge Hanley. Of the cases to which Ms Bagot referred me, the most similar case is one of R v Tran (NSWDC, 1 June 2018, unreported). The decision of Acting Judge Armitage. In that case the offender had imported 4.949 kilos of pseudoephedrine. The offender had pleaded guilty and received a 25% discount. The offender was age 63 and in receipt of a Disability Support Pension. She was born in Vietnam and had a difficult childhood due to the trauma of the Vietnamese war and her parent's separation and to injuries she received in an accident. She had adult children. She was diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety and depression. His Honour imposed an intensive corrections order for a period of two years.
The problem with an ICO is that it would appear to be an otiose order. The sentencing assessment report prepared by Community Corrections says this:
"Due to Miss Lieu's T1 low risk of reoffending, if the court makes a supervised order, Community Corrections will suspend Ms Lieu's supervision in accordance with clause 189I of the Crimes (Administration Sentences) Regulation 2014.
If the court directs that Ms Lieu serves a period of imprisonment by way of intensive correction, Community Corrections will not suspend supervision while the order has an electronic monitoring or home detention condition."
Home detention or electronic monitoring are completely inappropriate. Electronic monitoring may be required if a person is required to stay away from places and such as public schools or hotels or places of amusement for children. One of the problems our community faces with an aging population is that people should not stay at home and "rust", but rather should get out into the community and interact with others in order to avoid loneliness and lack of sense of purpose in the community. Our older citizens should get out as much as possible into life and interact with other members of the community. The idea in signing a 79 year old lady to home detention is completely inappropriate.
The Crown has stressed the need for both general deterrence and specific deterrence. For reasons which I have given, albeit the offender has a conviction and sentence for importing heroin, I believe that specific deterrence is no longer required. Equally given the offender's age and the delay and the offender's health, this is hardly an appropriate case for insisting on the offender being offered as a subject for general deterrence.
I have reached the view that in the circumstance of this case I should commence my sentencing exercise with a head sentence of two years imprisonment. I reduce that to eighteen months by discounting for 25% because of the offender's plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity and the utilitarian value of that plea in accordance with the recent decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4. I have determined that the sentence should be wholly suspended pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Thi Mui Lieu, on the charge that you intentionally imported a prohibited Tier 1 good into Australia without approval, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for one year and six months commencing today. Pursuant to the Crimes Act 1914 I order that you be released forthwith upon giving security by recognisance in the sum of $100 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.
Is that form of order satisfactory to the Crown, Mr Brummert?
CROWN PROSECUTOR: Yes it is your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Any other orders sought?
CROWN PROSECUTOR: No, your Honour, for the Crown.
[2]
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: 10 October 2019