CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Neo
[2020] VCC 1490
•17 September 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 20-00828
CR 20-00829
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| CHIN LENG (ALLEN) NEO ZHI KAI (KENNETH) NEO |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE McINERNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 17 September 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 17 September 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Neo & Anor |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 1490 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – Pleas of guilty – Application for sentence indication granted – Corrupting benefits given to Commonwealth public official – Aid and abet the commission of an offence
Legislation Cited: s.142.1(1), s. 11.2(1) Criminal Code (Cth) - s.207 Criminal Procedure Act - s.17A(1) Crimes Act
Cases Cited:DPP v Dalgleish [2017] VSCA 360 – DPP vBourke [2020] VSC 130
Sentence:Mr Chin Neo – Convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Order pursuant to s.20(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914 that he be released forthwith, upon entering a recognisance in the sum of $2,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years. In addition, convicted and ordered to a fine in the sum of $20,000 and granted a stay to 17 March 2021.
Mr Zhi Kai Neo – Convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment. Order pursuant to s.20(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914 that he be released forthwith, upon entering a recognisance in the sum of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 1 year.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr M. Keks | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For Accused Chin Leng Neo | Dr T. Alexander | Wyndham Partners |
| For Accused Zhi Kai Neo | Mr R. Alexander | Richmond Legal |
HIS HONOUR:
1In this indictment as to the first charge, Mr Chin Leng Neo, known as 'Allan', who is a florist wholesaler and is aged 63, having been born on 19 August 1958, pleads guilty to such charge.
2In the proceedings, that is both the sentencing indication application and today, Mr Keks has appeared on behalf of the Director and Dr Alexander has appeared on behalf of Mr Allan Neo.
3In regard to the indictment, Charge 2, relates to Mr Zhi Kai Neo, known as 'Kenneth'. Mr Neo is aged 33 having been born on 19 August 1987 and is a purchaser by occupation. In the proceedings Mr Kenneth Neo was represented and is still represented by Mr Alexander.
4Both parties have pleaded guilty, respectively, to one charge on the indictment. Such indictment being dated the 2nd of September 2020.
5As to Charge 1, to which Mr Allan Neo has pleaded guilty, such is a charge under s.142.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) of give bribe to a Commonwealth official, which would tend to influence a Commonwealth public official. In this case the particular official was Mr Erol Ibrahim whom, I have previously sentenced.
6The criminality in this matter occurred over a period of nearly six years from January 2011 to January 2017. The seriousness of such offence is demonstrated from the fact that the Commonwealth Parliament prescribed as a maximum penalty imprisonment of five years.
7Insofar as Charge 2 is concerned Mr Kenneth Neo has pleaded guilty to a charge under the same section. But pursuant to the provisions of s.11.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) he pleads guilty by way of aiding and abetting his father in the commission of such charge. In Mr Kenneth Neo’s instance the period of criminality is from 18 February 2014 to January 2017.
8As I said by way of background I sentenced the Commonwealth official,
Mr Ibrahim, for his part in such activities on 8 May last year to an aggregate three years' imprisonment for both of the charges he faced, and a fine of $10,000. Mr Ibrahim was then released immediately upon a recognisance in the sum of $10,000 to be of good behaviour for three years.9On 18 August of this year, I determined to grant an application made by both the Neo’s, pursuant respectively to Exhibit A1 and Exhibit K1, being applications under s.207 of the Criminal Procedure Act to give a sentence indication.
10I attach as part of this sentence such ruling, Annexure A, which was that as to each prisoner I would impose a period of imprisonment under three years and would forthwith release them upon a recognisance release order.
11Each party yesterday filed further submissions as to sentence, which I have identified as Exhibit D, Exhibit A5 and Exhibit K3. No counsel takes any issue with the fact that general deterrence in crimes of this sort must play a primary role.
12Insofar as the prosecution submission is concerned, that was to the effect that in regard to both prisoners a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate, having regard to the seriousness of the offending, its duration, parity, and the principal need in cases such as this for a sentence which effects general deterrence. Those factors were detailed in particular in [9] of Exhibit D.
13I should say all of the submissions as to sentence I found of assistance. But I do take into regard in particular the submission of Mr Keks, the total calculus that makes up both of these sentences, the comments as to comparable cases, [13], and the issue as to how one takes into account my sentence of Ibrahim, [14].
14Coming then to Exhibit A5, being the submission from Dr Alexander insofar as Mr Allan Neo is concerned. I take into account the matters in particular spoken to both by way of reference to the earlier sentencing submission, Exhibit A1, and the matters adopted in the further submission, Exhibit A5. Those being the circumstances of the plea at this particular time in which this community is going through virus issues and the utilitarian benefit as set out in Bourke [2020] VSC 130. And I should say that in regard to both sentences, I also take into account the relevant amendments to s.16A(2) of the Crimes Act, which apply to all sentences imposed from 20 July of this year.
15The second major matter relied upon was the question of remorse. I accept that such remorse is genuine and demonstrated by the letter from Mr Allan Neo, which not only encompasses what might be traditionally detailed as a letter of apology, but sets out many factors in regard to his background which lead to him feeling the shame that he does in being in this Court today. Much of that related to his own upbringing and the principles set down by his family, in particular his grandfather.
16The third matter of course is the excellent personal references, enhanced as they were by the additional matters today which simply confirm the fact that Mr Neo comes before this Court with an excellent prior good character, made up as I said in my ruling of a dedication to work, to making a contribution to the ‘flower’ community, making a contribution to his own employees and his local community.
17The fourth matter was of course that he comes before the Court without any priors whatsoever.
18The fifth matter was the issue of delay. Associated there to with the impact of COVID-19 and the interference with the normal running of cases and the adjournments that have been necessary because of that.
19And finally, the extra curial punishment that has been endured, as detailed in the submissions.
20I take in particular into account the submissions as to disposition, set out [76]-[83] of the original submission.
21In those circumstances, I ask you, Mr Allan Neo, if you would stand please.
22Mr Neo, you will be convicted of this offence. Insofar as your sentence is concerned, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment for 18 months.
23I order that that period of imprisonment be accompanied by immediate release on a recognisance release order for a period of two years. In addition to such recognisance release order you be fined the sum of $20,000. Insofar as that fine is concerned, I have done the maths based upon s.4B and the relevant penalty unit being one of $180 and the multiplications involved which eminent therefrom.
24Insofar as the recognisance is concerned, not only will it be for a period of two years but it will be based on your own recognisance in the sum of $2,000. And insofar as the fine is concerned, I grant you a stay of six months in regard to the payment of that fine.
25I would require you, should you seek any further stay, to have paid a considerable amount of that fine. And any application for such stay will be necessary to be heard in front of me.
26DR ALEXANDER: Yes. The fine will be paid in due course, Your Honour.
27HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.
28DR ALEXANDER: Thank you.
29HIS HONOUR: Coming then to Mr Kenneth Neo. As I say, Exhibit K3 was tendered by Mr Alexander today, insofar as Mr Kenneth's Neo's sentence.
30You can take a seat, Mr Allan Neo. You can take a seat, Mr Kenneth Neo, I will ask you to stand in due course.
31I refer in particular to [18] of that submission. And as I determined in the sentence indication ruling, clearly Mr Kenneth Neo comes before this Court, albeit for the same charge and facing the same penalty, in circumstances where his criminal culpability is much less than his father's, apart from the fact of the lesser time involved. However, I do still consider this crime a serious example of this type of crime.
32I note, in particular, the comparative cases and the submissions put to me in paragraphs [23]-[26]. While I take those cases into account, limited as they are, given this particular charge, those as relevant guideposts. In the end, as the High Court have set out, in DPP v Dalgleish [2017] VSCA 360, it is necessary for me to impose a just sentence upon Mr Kenneth Neo based upon the facts of this particular case.
33I consider Mr Neo, to be a principal offender, albeit by way of aiding and abetting. Clearly, he played a role in conveying the benefits personally. And as I stress, albeit not to the degree of culpability of his father and by way of aiding and abetting.
34As to disposition, I take into account Mr Alexander's submissions set out at [29]-[33]. However, in all the circumstances and in particular taking into account s.17A(1) of the Crimes Act relied upon Mr Alexander, I do not accept that in the totality of the circumstances, in particular due to my assessment of the seriousness and the time involved in such criminality, albeit that this is an aiding and abetting offence, that it is appropriate to impose a sentence which involves a fine only.
35If you would stand please, Mr Kenneth Neo.
36Mr Neo you will be sentenced to a period of seven months imprisonment. In regard to that you will be released immediately by way of a recognisance release order. Such recognisance being for a period of one year. The recognisance will be in your own recognisance of $1,000 and the condition that you will have to comply with, which I assume will not be difficult for you after the experience of what you have been through, Mr Neo, will be the same of your father. That is, during the term of your recognisance to be of good behaviour. I do not impose any fine.
37Mr Alexander, any concerns about any of those matters?
38MR ALEXANDER: Nothing further. No concerns, Your Honour.
39HIS HONOUR: Yes, take a seat, Mr Neo. Can I thank all counsel in this matter, both for their assistance in the application for sentence indication and indeed in the matter given to me by way of sentencing submissions.
40DR ALEXANDER: If it please the Court, thank you.
41MR ALEXANDER: As the Court pleases.
42HIS HONOUR: As I indicated I will - I am not quite sure how yet but I will combine both matters in the one. Have we - Madame Associate, have you worked out - I think I just annex the indication ruling ‑ ‑ ‑
43DR ALEXANDER: Yes.
44HIS HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ to the sentence from today.
45DR ALEXANDER: Yes, we're content, thank you.
46HIS HONOUR: That is probably the easiest. How I actually do it, I think my associate's looking into it.
47DR ALEXANDER: Right.
48HIS HONOUR: Probably be simply document headed 'A' as they do across the road, but we will see. Yes, good luck Mr and Mr Neo. I am sure, in particular Mr Neo senior as you indicated, the Court can have much confidence you will continue to act in the honourable way that you have throughout your life until you allowed yourself to make this mistake in these proceedings, and I am sure that applies for your son as well. There is no reason why either of you, once you enter into your particular recognisance, cannot come out of the dock. How do we do this?
49Mr Keks, I understand your instructor sends the forms through, is that right? Cannot hear you, Mr - yes?
50MR KEKS: Yes, I'm sure I can - yes, Your Honour, can send a draft recognisance for each offender to your associate immediately.
51HIS HONOUR: Yes.
52MR KEKS: And the usual course would be for those to be signed before the offender's leave the Courtroom.
53HIS HONOUR: Yes, we will in fact ‑ ‑ ‑
54MR KEKS: But obviously ‑ ‑ ‑
55HIS HONOUR: In fact, before they leave the dock. So you both take a seat, we have just got to get the paperwork and I will stand down while that is all done. I will come back then.
56DR ALEXANDER: Your Honour, might I beg Your Honour's indulgence to be excused.
57HIS HONOUR: Yes, I understand you have got other issues.
58DR ALEXANDER: Justice McDonald has an 11 o'clock start, I'd be grateful.
59HIS HONOUR: Not a problem.
60DR ALEXANDER: Please the Court, thank you, Your Honour.
61HIS HONOUR: You are happy perhaps if Mr Alexander - I am going to ask him to get both documents, if he assists in those circumstances in the sign ‑ ‑ ‑
62MR ALEXANDER: Certainly, Your Honour.
63HIS HONOUR: You happy with that?
64DR ALEXANDER: I'm happy, thank you, Your Honour.
65HIS HONOUR: Yes.
(Short adjournment.)
66Thank you, Mr Alexander, if you would be good enough.
67MR ALEXANDER: Thank you, Your Honour.
68MR KEKS: I apologise for the delay, Your Honour.
69HIS HONOUR: No, not a problem. Patience is a bit of a virtue at the moment, Mr Keks.
70MR KEKS: Yes, Your Honour, and technology is never quite as seamless as one hopes.
71HIS HONOUR: Well, I do not know where the law profession, certainly the barristers and judges, would be without technology.
72MR KEKS: No.
73HIS HONOUR: We would be all sitting at home doing nothing, I think.
74MR KEKS: That's very true.
75HIS HONOUR: So we are ‑ ‑ ‑
76MR ALEXANDER: Most likely, Your Honour, certainly.
77HIS HONOUR: We are very lucky. I mean, I know - do not get me wrong, I know the Bar's doing it hard but without technology there would be no work, I do not think.
78MR ALEXANDER: I think Your Honour's right about that.
79MR KEKS: If this had happened a few years ago it would have been much worse.
80HIS HONOUR: Yes.
81MR ALEXANDER: Your Honour, if I may just go to my client and get this signed, thank you.
82HIS HONOUR: Yes, certainly. Both, with the permission of the good doctor.
83MR ALEXANDER: Yes, certainly, Your Honour.
84HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Allan Neo, if you would be good enough to stand. You will be formerly convicted of the charge under s.142.1(1) of the Criminal Code. As I indicated, the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment be imposed upon you. You will be subject to an immediate recognisance release order, on the basis that you enter into your own recognisance in the sum of $2,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The conditions are set out therein. They have been explained to you in this case by Mr Alexander and you have signed the document.
85As I have said, I have no hesitation that you will resume your otherwise fine record in this country and I wish you well.
86OFFENDER CHIN NEO: Thank you, Your Honour.
87HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
88Yes, Mr Kenneth Neo, if you would stand please. Just one second.
89Yes, equally, Mr Kenneth Neo, you will be convicted of the offence aid and abet as indicated in the indictment, in the charge of which your father has been convicted. You will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for seven months. And insofar as that period of imprisonment as indicated in the ruling as to indication, you will be released forthwith on the basis of a recognisance release order, upon your own recognisance in the sum of $1,000 for a period of one year on the basis that you are of good behaviour in that time. You have signed this recognisance.
90As I have said to your father, I am sure that with this aberration out of your life that both of you and your father will resume making the contribution that you have to this community and I wish you well.
91MR ALEXANDER: As Your Honour pleases.
92HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Yes, I thank counsel again for their assistance in the matter.
93MR ALEXANDER: Thank you, Your Honour.
‑ ‑ ‑
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 20-00828
CR 20-00829
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| CHIN LENG (ALLEN) NEO ZHI KAI (KENNETH) NEO |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE McINERNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 13 July 2020 (Sentencing Indication Hearing) |
| DATE OF RULING: | 18 August 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Neo & Anor (Ruling No.1) |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 1515 |
REASONS FOR RULING NO.1
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr M. Keks | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For Accused Chin Leng Neo | Dr T. Alexander | Wyndham Partners |
| For Accused Zhi Kai Neo | Mr R. Alexander | Richmond Legal |
HIS HONOUR:
1
Yes, good morning all. Mr Keks and Dr Alexander and
Mr Alexander.
2COUNSEL: Good morning, Your Honour.
3HIS HONOUR: Mr and Mr Neo together with relevant instructors, and I don't want to be rude by not going through them all. But I should say, yes, Ms Forell and Mr Nisiforou. Yes, does either party want to say any more in regard to this application?
4DR ALEXANDER: Not from Mr Allen Neo, thank you, Your Honour.
5HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
6MR ALEXANDER: Neither from Mr Kenneth Neo, Your Honour.
7HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.
8MR KEKS: Not from the Crown, Your Honour.
9HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Keks.
10(RULING FOLLOWS)
HIS HONOUR:
11This is an application by both Mr Allen and Mr Kenneth Neo, under s.207of the Criminal Procedure Act. As I have just said, for the Crown in this matter, Mr Keks appeared, for Mr Allen Neo, Dr Alexander appeared and for Mr Kenneth Neo, Mr Ray Alexander appeared. The matter was heard on 13 July 2020.
12In regard to the application, the prosecution tendered Exhibit A, a summary of prosecution opening for trial, Exhibit B, the Crown submissions in regard to the sentence indication hearing, and Exhibit C, the Crown table of comparative cases.
13On behalf of Mr Allen Neo was tendered the application for sentencing indication and the written submissions. On his behalf, A2 was the medical references and A3 was 21 character or employment and/or business references.
14In regard to Mr Kenneth Neo was tendered the application for sentencing indication and the written submissions, together with the three character references identified and tendered as Exhibit K2.
15The application was consented to by the prosecutor pursuant to the provisions of s.208(2) of the Act. Such consent was specifically given on the basis that it should not be recognised as being of consent to the application for a non-immediate gaol sentence.
16There was, the Court was advised, agreement between the prosecution and the defence that if I grant the application, then the matter would proceed with Charges 1 and 3 being removed from the indictment. There would subsequently then be a new indictment in which the current Charges 2 and 4 would be pleaded to.
17As to the circumstances of the offending, I have a unique understanding having sentenced Mr Ibrahim on 8 May last year. There is of course a point to be made about that sentence being that Mr Ibrahim was before the Court on a more serious charge being a charge under s.141.1(3) of a Commonwealth officer receiving benefits as a bribe. That as was indicated during this hearing over a six year period and brings with it by way of an indication of the seriousness with which Parliament views these offences, a 10 year maximum. The benefits involved were identified by me in the sentencing remarks and in this hearing and involved a constellation of benefits.
18The immediate comparison with the Mr Ibrahim’s charge, of course if one is looking only at Charge 2 and 4 in this indictment, is of course the maximum provided by Parliament is one of five years.
19Insofar as this hearing, there was no issue from either counsel that such behaviour tended to influence a Commonwealth officer, nor that in looking at culpability, the Court is entitled to look at the consequences of such tendency to influence.
20Also, albeit the actual benefits were of a low order the offence, as put by both counsel, is committed irrespective of whether the benefits are received ultimately or not.
21I accept as between the Neo's themselves that R v Ball [2009] ACTSC 45, [42] is important. That is, the culpability of Kenneth must be lesser given Allen's:
a.Longer association with Mr Ibrahim
b.His influence over Kenneth as a father
c.His influence in the circumstances of this case as the head of the corporation or the business
d.The longer period of offending involved
22However, as pointed out by the Court in Ball, those discriminations do not mean that the deterrent response primary to sentencing in this matter is not still needed.
23It is clear that the Crown by the charges, that is two and four, and by [13](b) of its submissions, accepts the discrimination in culpability between father and son.
24The gravamen of this application concerns the father, Allen. That is, if I granted this application by Allen, it would mean, as a matter of justice, if not parity, I would have to do so in regard to Kenneth.
25I do not lose sight, as part of Mr Keks' submission, that providing corruption benefits to a Commonwealth official calls for a sentence which:
a.effects deterrence
b.recognises the objective seriousness of such behaviour
c.notes the period over which such behaviour occurred, recognise that Mr Ibrahim was in fact influenced.
26While there was no proof that the bio security of the country was threatened, the inspections clearly were done, to use a term, in a favourable manner. Provision were made on at least five occasions of commercial in confidence information. I have no doubt albeit in part, the motivation of both of the Neo's was commercial advantage. The benefit to be received for this criminality was clearly one that can be classified as financial. All of those matters clearly have to be taken into account in this application.
27
Coming then to the issue of parity, that is, parity as between the sentence of
Mr Ibrahim and the Neo's. As put to me by counsel, this is a complex matter. It is recognised that in dealing with the Neo's, I do not take into account, as I did with Mr Ibrahim, the provisions of s.16AC Crimes Act 1914.
28Also, as I have already pointed out, insofar as a plea to Counts 2 and 4, we see a significantly less serious charge in the sense of there being a significantly lesser maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament.
29
Coming then to the submission on behalf of Mr Allen Neo presented by
Dr Alexander. He relied upon the following:
a.Firstly, Mr Allen Neo's age. He is now 62. He comes before the Court without any priors. It has always been the practice of this Court, where a person comes before a Court without any priors into the latter part of their lives, to exercise leniency if possible.
b.The second matter Dr Alexander spoke to was insofar as Mr Ibrahim this was, to use his phrase, 'a genuine relationship.' That is, in regard to the aspects, for example, of him working for the company, this was not a situation where a Commonwealth official was simply paid ghost wages as a way of hiding corruption. He did work for the company, whether it was morally correct to do so or not is another point. The point was made that it appears that there was a genuine friendship between Mr Ibrahim and Mr Neo.
c.The third matter was Mr Neo senior's long history of successful business operation in Australia and his contribution to employment in this country.
d.The fourth matter was the reliance on the extensive character evidence and associated industry references, which I have detailed, indicating a person who has contributed not only to the community generally, but to individual employees, individual organisations such as schools, and is clearly held in high regard in the industry.
e.Five, as I have already remarked, that he has no priors.
f.Six, that he has made a substantial contribution by way of his business operations in Australia since he has been here. His company is seen by all as a leader in the field or was. From 2003 to 2009, by hard work, not only did he increase turnover from approximately 2 million per year to a figure of 10 million but was employing some 15 staff. From all the references, clearly he was not only a good employer but an employer who worked very hard.
g.The seventh matter relied on was the guilty plea, and that there has been no need for a contested committal. Further, at the time when the suggestion of a plea should be entered into if this application is granted, then it is not only utilitarian in the general sense, but utilitarian in the sense spoken of in Bourke [2020] VSC 130, [32].
h.The eighth matter relied on was the issue of Mr Allen Neo's health. In analysing that, it seems to me that his prostate issue is no different probably to thousands of men in this community. Clearly it is a matter that, while inconvenient, could be treated while in gaol.
i.The final matter was Mr Neo’s prospects of rehabilitation. I accept the proposition put, given his background and the manner in which he has conducted himself since being in Australia, that I should be confident that he as a person, once he gets over the circumstances of these charges, charges which are well known about in the industry, for which there's been some suffering endured, that he will effect appropriate rehabilitation.
30Coming therefore to a consideration of the authorities, and submissions of Mr Keks, by each counsel on behalf of the Neo's, I have concluded that, I do accept the submissions put that a term of imprisonment under three years is appropriate, with an immediate recognisance release being provided. The effect thereof being that there would be no immediate imprisonment imposed, such of course is provisional upon appropriate pleas being made, and that there is no difference from what has been put to me in this application.
31
As I have said, essentially this determination is all about the application of
Mr Allen Neo. But given the determination in his favour, equally it seems to me there is no alternative but to make a similar determination, as to the application by his son.
32I might say that, certainly insofar as Mr Allen Neo, is concerned, I am considering the imposition, in addition to any such sentence indicated, of a fine. I will have to check where we are in regard to totality on those matters and I have not finally decided that matter, but I want that to be clear insofar as this sentence indication is concerned.
33I therefore grant both applications.
‑ ‑ ‑
34DR ALEXANDER: Please the Court. Thank you, Your Honour, for the granting application and for the indication. On that basis, we've of course discussed the options that Your Honour might come back with and I have instructions that the matter would therefore resolve on the basis of the indication.
35HIS HONOUR: Yes. As I understand the position, Mr Keks, once the Commonwealth have considered its position, the next step if it was going to proceed on the basis that has been indicated to me, is that it'd be appropriate to list the matter for plea and sentence which I would effect on the same day. That is, you'll have to draw up a further indictment and as I receive the matter, I would do the plea and the sentence on the same day. If that's how counsel are envisaging it?
36MR KEKS: Yes, Your Honour. Indeed the Crown will withdraw the two bribery charges and file a fresh indictment containing the corrupting benefit charges on the basis that those pleas will be entered. That can be dealt with when it's convenient to the Court.
37HIS HONOUR: Well what we were contemplating was 17 September, which coincidentally I think is the end of the current lockdown period, and that will allow for the presence in Court of the Neo's on that day. I think that's ‑ ‑ ‑
38MR KEKS: That's suitable to the Crown, Your Honour.
39HIS HONOUR: That's the date, Madam Associate, isn't it?
40ASSOCIATE: Yes, Your Honour.
41HIS HONOUR: All right. Providing the restrictions aren't extended, we understand there'll be no issue with the Neo's in Court on that day, is that correct?
42ASSOCIATE: That's correct, Your Honour.
43DR ALEXANDER: Your Honour ‑ ‑ ‑
44HIS HONOUR: All right. Yes?
45DR ALEXANDER: Sorry. Apologise, Your Honour. I have a trial in the Supreme Court commencing next week for a week. It's then being adjourned until 17 and 18 September and then adjourned again for the final instalment. Depending on what time the matter's listed, Your Honour, I'm happy to do both. I have a junior in the other matter, but I wouldn't want to leave him alone too long.
46HIS HONOUR: I'm happy to list it at 10 o'clock if it suits.
47DR ALEXANDER: That would be fine, thank you, Your Honour.
48HIS HONOUR: I don't normally sit simply because of the mechanics of how the Court runs. I normally sit at 10.30. But I'm happy if it assists you if we list the matter at 10, Dr Alexander.
49DR ALEXANDER: I'd be indebted. Thank you, Your Honour, and I'm content with that.
50HIS HONOUR: Are they all the matters we need, Madam Associate?
51ASSOCIATE: Yes, Your Honour.
52HIS HONOUR: I thank everyone for their assistance and for their submissions.
53DR ALEXANDER: Thank you, Your Honour. Please the Court.
54HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well we'll adjourn the Court, Mr Tipstaff.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
3
0