Director of Public Prosecutions v Deng
[2018] VCC 1439
•29 August 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 16-01823
CR 16-01824
CR 16-01825
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| ACHAI MONYDHANG DENG KUOL DENG ROSA ALUEL RIAK |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE McINERNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 30 & 31 July 2018 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 29 August 2018 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Deng & Ors |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 1439 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: | CRIMINAL LAW |
Catchwords: | Sentence – Pleas of guilty – Conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss to the Commonwealth – Childcare claims |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Proceeds of Crime Act2002 (Cth); Sentencing Act1991 (Vic) |
Cases Cited: | DPP v Dahl [2017] VCC 600; DPP vKuol [2017] VCC 1516; DPP v Deng [2017] VCC 1783; DPP v Winpea [2018] VCC 898; DPP v Acieny [2018] VCC 1220; DPP v Arop [2018] VCC 1235; DPP v Iheng [2018] VCC 1261; Giretti v R (1986) 24 A Crim R 112; R v Sharma, (Unreported, District Court of Western Australia, 5 March 2009); R v Cornish [2012] VSCA 45; Keefe v R [2014] VSCA 201; R v Higgins, (Unreported, District Court of New South Wales, 26 May 2017); DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] ALJR 91; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119 |
| Sentence: | Achai Deng: Convicted and sentenced to a period of 18 months’ imprisonment to be released immediately on a recognisance release order to be of good behaviour Kuol Deng: Convicted and sentenced to a period of 4 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term to be served before being eligible for parole of 2 years’ imprisonment Rosa Riak: Convicted and sentenced to a period of 4 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term to be served before being eligible for parole of 2 years’ imprisonment |
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr J. Gullaci with Ms S. Holmes | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For Accused A. Deng | Ms C. Hollingworth | Paul Vale Criminal Law |
| For Accused K. Deng | Mr S. Ginsbourg | Dribben & Brown Criminal Lawyers |
| For Accused Riak | Mr K. McDonald | Slades & Parsons |
HIS HONOUR:
1Firstly in regard to Mrs Riak, Mr Deng and Ms Deng, you can remain seated. As you are aware, these proceedings have been somewhat lengthy, albeit pleas. There has been considerable material put before me which I have to consider in your interest and as such, these reasons will necessarily be of some length. What I will do at the end of the pronouncement of these reasons, is ask you each to stand up individually as I pronounce the sentence.
2This plea took place on the 30th day of July of this year. The history was, as I have just said, relatively lengthy. The matter was first mentioned before me as a trial involving each of the prisoners in November of last year. There were further directions hearings, in particular on 20 March 2018, and the Court was closely involved in the analysis and requirement for appropriate response to the Crown's opening, insofar as the numerous allegations, the phone conversations and the surveillance matters.
3There were further pre-trial matters on 16 and 19 April 2018. The matter was listed for trial on 23 April 2018, when the pleas were announced and entered in regard to each accused and the plea took place on the 30th day of July.
4On that day, Mr Gullaci and Ms Holmes appeared on behalf of the Director, Mr McDonald on behalf of Ms Riak and Mr Ginsbourg on behalf of Mr Kuol Deng and Ms Hollingworth on behalf of Ms Achai Deng.
5The potential of the trial, which otherwise would have occurred, is demonstrated by the fact that this Court had listed the trial to last some 12 weeks, and on the indictment itself, were listed 200 witnesses.
6I want to make some general comments in regard to these proceedings. I say "general", because some of those matters which I will detail, are not taken into account in regard to this sentence.
7As I said, each of the accused pleaded guilty on 23 April of this year. The indictment itself was signed on the 21st day of November 2017. Each prisoner is thereby able to claim a discount for such plea. As I indicated, the assistance to the Court, the assistance to the effecting of justice and the utilitarian benefits of such a plea are very prominent, given the alternate and the resources that would have been required in regard to a trial.
8Without in any way derogating from the utilitarian benefit of the plea, can I say that such pleas were inevitable. Each of the prisoners was, it seems to me, given appropriate legal advice, both from their solicitors and barristers, and it is appropriate to say that such was wise counsel.
9The inevitability of such pleas comes about from the work undertaken, firstly by the initial auditors, being locally in Victoria, the State Regulatory Authority and auditors utilised by the Department of Education and Training, that is, the DET. Secondly, this inevitability came about from the hard grinding work of the Federal Police and the investigators who were part of Operation Caulis.
10This operation was intense in the degree of surveillance required, the analysis of the numerous claims made by the Deng Group, the analysis of the 57 educators utilised by the Deng Group, the analysis of mobile phone calls and the requirement for translation of those calls, the need for authorised telephone intercepts and the utilisation of search warrants.
11On behalf of the community, I should congratulate both the Commonwealth DPP and the Australian Federal Police for the degree of professionalism involved in the extensive work required in order to protect the revenue of this community.
12The third matter I want to mention, as I say generally, arises from the matters put to me by Mr Ginsbourg in the plea of Mr Kuol Deng. Mr Ginsbourg said to the Court, in regard to such criminality, which involved directly the three prisoners, the ten educators that had been charged and indirectly the many other educators who were involved with the Deng Group.
13It would appear that, certainly as to all of the sentences I have read, the prisoners here and the materials disclosed, all were connected to the Sudanese-Australian community. The three prisoners, all of those sentenced to date, which I will detail, have been given refugee status in this country, having sought asylum from the terrors that were taking place in their own country.
14It seems to me that it should be said that to have so many people from that community, now Australian-Sudanese people, engaged in such a serious and sustained attack upon the revenue of the country, is most disappointing, given the many, many thousands, if not millions, of dollars spent in order to allay their plight.
15Mr Kuol Deng and his mother, Mrs Riak, expressed to the Court their shame. Their shame firstly as disappointing their fellow Sudanese-Australians in this country, their shame at committing these crimes in their adopted country, Australia, and their shame as to any impact that their crimes may have in compromising in any way the future of Sudanese refugees to this country.
16I accept Mr Ginsbourg's submission, that despite such disappointment that one may express on behalf of the community as to this criminality, all persons who come before this Court are equal. The Court cannot hold the prisoners to any higher standard than other members of the community. Nor do they suffer any additional punishment because of their failures to take up the opportunities offered by the country by way of humanitarian placement.
17The other point, of course, is that crimes such as these are committed by people from all sections of this community, unfortunately every day.
18I spoke of the shame expressed by each of the prisoners for the manner in which you have let down your Australian-Sudanese countrymen. In my view, it is quite appropriate that you should feel such shame. Your community has been subject to much unjustified vilification in recent times. By your actions, and the publicity that no doubt this sentence will attract, you have added to the trauma that your community must endure.
19In these sentencing remarks, when I come to the particulars of the criminality for which I have to sentence, I will refer to the fatal flaws in the system which were set in place by the Department of Education and Training. Those flaws come about, no doubt, because of the size and the complexity of providing such services to the whole of the Australian community. There were, in the provision of this care, clearly gaps in the control mechanism effected by the Department. However, the prisoners certainly utilised such gaps to the full in their flagrant and sustained attack on the revenue of this country.
20Given the serious nature of such criminality, general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and punishment must have prominent roles in this sentence.
21Because of the history of the Deng family and their refugee status, it is important to recite that history. It seems to me that the best way that can be done, is if I go to Exhibit R1, which was the written submission tendered on behalf of Mrs Riak, by Mr McDonald. Can I also thank Mr McDonald for attaching to that, what is known as the "World fact book as to Sudan", which has been of assistance in understanding the traumatic history of that country.
22At p.2 of his submissions, he notes that the prisoners and indeed the whole Deng family, became Australian citizens in 2006. By way of history, he refers to the country of Sudan being wracked by civil war from 1955 to 1972.
23The father of Mrs Riak, and father of her children, were in the army. There were rumours circulating about his role and as a result, the family fled and trekked, in fact on foot to Ethiopia. The journey took three months. Mrs Riak's eldest son was about two months old when they started that journey. The family settled in the Dimma refugee camp in Ethiopia, run by the United Nations. They stayed there from 1988 until 1990.
24Kuol Deng, or Francis as it is translated, as I understand, was born during such period. In 1990, the regime in Ethiopia was overthrown and the family fled back to South Sudan, just over the border. They stayed there for a short time, before making their way to Nairobi, Kenya, where they stayed from 1991 until 2004, when Mrs Riak came to Australia.
25There were thereafter times when her husband was in Australia, and back in Sudan. And further, insofar as this history is concerned, during Mr Ginsbourg's plea, he noted in particular in regard to Kuol, the displacements that I have spoken about, that the family had been displaced in Ethiopia when he was born. The fact that his father was a soldier, who was absent during his upbringing, the epithet as to his upbringing being tough, seems to be an understatement to say the least.
26The family spent 13 years in Kenya in refugee camps. They sustained, in that country, racial hatred. They sustained violence. There was some issue as a comparison of colour between the two countries. Mr Kuol Deng completed his Year 7 primary, prior to coming to Australia.
27They then came to Australia, as I said, and became Australian citizens and they lived in Point Cook from 2014 through to 2015, when the mother began to work as a day care operator and the family have all had the benefits of an education in Australia. The elder boy, who has been present in Court, has been, in particular, very successful. Ms Achai Deng, who I am to sentence today, is currently involved in a Masters course.
28Coming then generally to the overview of the conspiracy, I make this by way of an overview of the role of the three conspirators before me and after having read the seven pleas and sentences which have taken place within this Court to date. Those sentences have related to the educators that were part of the Deng Group. Each of them have, as I have said, come to this country as refugees and each of them had no priors, as is the position for each of the prisoners. The particular amounts involved can only be given by way of summary, as can the sentences.
29The first of those was heard by Judge Jordan in this Court in May of 2017, Mr Dhal, and the amount involved was $82,813. I point out that the offence of which they were sentenced, except for one proceeds matter, was a lesser offence than that which the prisoners are before this Court today. It was an offence under s.135(1)(3) of the Code of dishonestly causing a loss to a Commonwealth entity, for which the maximum penalty is five years.
30The second sentence in this Court was passed by Judge Carmody on Mr Kuol in October 2017. The amount involved by way of loss in that case was $119,657.
31The third sentence was passed by Judge Allen in the matter of Deng in November of 2017, the loss in that case was $295,945.
32The fourth sentence was passed against Mr Winpea by Judge Carmody in June of this year and that involved a loss of $48,844.
33The fifth case concerned a prisoner, Acieny. That was pronounced again by Judge Carmody in August of 2018 and is the proceeds matter and involved a sum of not less than $100,000, without being able to be precisely specified.
34The sixth sentence was passed again by Jude Carmody in August of 2018 against a prisoner called Arop. The loss in that case was $64,712.
35The most recent sentence passed is the matter of Iheng. The sum involved in that case was $134,000 and that is the only sentence whereby an immediate period of imprisonment has been imposed in regard to any of the educators. The immediate period being a period of six months, with a recognizance release order to take effect thereafter, after the service of the six months, for a period of two years.
36Again on the basis that I am generally describing the totality of the criminality in this matter, may I quote from the determination of Judge Carmody, made as I have said on 10 August 2018. In particular, he was referring to comments made by Mr Iheng as to his criminality. At [56] of the sentence, His Honour said this: "By way of explanation in the record of interview, you stated the following: 'When you do something, if you work and then the government just give you this much money, the government has to be responsible to know that this money are too much money to be given to a person. Because if that much money is given to an individual person, then they will actually - they will try to reduce their involvement because that much money is a lot of money to give to individuals.'"
37As pointed out by His Honour, that was a question from the record of interview of which the prisoner had partaken. His Honour went on at [57] to say this: "I interpret that answer from you to be trying to shift the blame from your offending to other persons, including the government for paying such large amounts of money to you. You go on in your record of interview, to describe the providers, that is, the providers being the Deng Group in this case, or at least one of the providers, as criminals.” As His Honour said, “you were right about that assessment.”
38One hesitates to try to understand the background of the criminality, especially when you have the complicated background that I have detailed, as to where these prisoners have come from, and indeed, where all of these prisoners have come. In the report to which I will refer, the forensic psychologist Ms Matthews talks about a “collective mindset.” Whether that came about, and was the basis for this sustained criminality by such a large group of persons, I do not know. But for whatever reason, clearly it is totally regrettable.
39I make the point that as against those sentences, the maximum penalty in regard to the offence of which I am dealing, that is, the offence of conspiracy, is ten years. By way of background to the offences for which I have to sentence, I do so upon the prosecution summary set out in Exhibit A, in regard to which each counsel, who appeared on behalf of the prisoners, accepted that those facts set out in that summary were the facts upon which I am to sentence. I point out that the period of criminality involving these prisoners was from 1 May 2015 to 16 December 2015, a period of seven months and two weeks.
40As I said, the charge, for which the maximum penalty prescribed by the Commonwealth Parliament, under s.135(4)(3) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, is of dishonestly causing a loss to the Commonwealth by submitting false claims, in this case for childcare. Each of the parties in this matter pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit such offence. The totality of the conspiracy, and the operation that was set into place by these conspirators, involves not only themselves, which I will hereinafter call the Deng Group as the providers, but in this instance, 57 other educators, who they employed, ten of whom have been charged, seven of whom have now been sentenced, as I have detailed.
41In trying to understand the extent of the attack on the revenue and as I say, generally, in reading the sentences of the seven other educators, I note that they not only worked for the Deng Group as providers, but there are as many as seven other providers, for whom they worked. One hesitates to contemplate how broad this attack on the revenue was in the community. One would hope that the diligence that led to the prosecution of these three prisoners, will be maintained to root out the totality of those involved in this attack.
42The prisoners were the providers of what is known as family day care. They conducted family day care centres which facilitated the provision of childcare services during business hours, and after hours, at the educator's private homes, that is, educators employed by them. The providers role in such a scheme is to provide administrative support to those educators and to submit claims to the Department of Education and Training, that is, the DET on behalf of those educators.
43Mrs Riak and Mr Deng both undertook appropriate training when they were originally registered by the Department, and fully understood their obligations insofar as submitting claims. The Australian Commonwealth Government provides a childcare program. That childcare program, from what I have just detailed, has clearly been comprehensively ripped off. The providers in this case, the Deng Group, have submitted false claims for educators, who sought and have been provided the benefits for childcare or family day childcare.
44In fact, many of such educators have submitted claims for services which were (a), never actually performed; (b), as to children to whom services were never provided for; (c), as to children for whom services allegedly occurred while such educators were in fact interstate, or overseas, or in regard to claims which overlap in regard to the same child.
45Further, the claims were particularly inflated by the Deng Group, especially as to the benefit described as the grandparent childcare benefit, or the GCCB. The Deng Group concentrated on this, as by claiming such a benefit, they could charge $30 to $35 an hour for the full cost of an approved child for up to 50 hours per week. In circumstances that such a benefit was provided, the Commonwealth would pay a 100 per cent of such payment by way of subsidy. If one just does the maths, that provides for a payment in regard to one child, in the sum on $1,750 per week.
46Of course, the educators who I have already referred to, a number of which have been sentenced, were prepared to submit and sign claims to that effect. In understanding the breadth of this criminality in the broad, I am only talking in general here, I do accept the comments and submissions made to the Court by Mr Ginsbourg.
47In trying to understand the losses caused to the Commonwealth, one has to understand that such attack took place in the context of there also being lodged valid claims. This complicates the understanding of the criminality in this matter. It also complicates the Giretti v R, (1986) 24 A Crim R 112, type analysis put by the prosecution because it is clear that there are, and were submitted to the Department, valid claims for child care. What I am dealing with are those that can be identified as invalid. I now want to come to the dimensions of the actual conspiracy charge in this matter, which involves two FDC Pty Ltd companies conducted by the Deng Group.
48The first of which is, "Hello Children FDC Pty Ltd". It is necessary however, to give a background to the operation of that company. The Deng Group had previously worked as providers in the industry. From 2014, Mrs Riak and Kuol Deng were approved operators, that is approved by the relevant Department, to operate a company known as Rosa FDC Pty Ltd. The Department of Education had approved that company as an FDC operator on 31 March 2014. Mr Kuol Deng was recorded as an approved user of the Harmony software program utilised by the Department, in order to lodge claims and Mr Deng and his mother were both approved by the Department. Mr Deng as the sole director, in this instance.
49Further, Mr Deng was approved as the main contact person. In the period 14/04/2014 to 10/11/2014, that is a period of seven months in which Rosa FDC Pty Ltd conducted such operation, it received rebates of $6,563,304. Twenty-two per cent of such claims, which were claims in regard to the grandparent claim or allowance. Not surprisingly one would think, by June of 2014, that is within two months of the period that I have just identified, there were compliance reviews being undertaken in regard to this company.
50This company was ultimately suspended as an approved supplier on 23 October 2014. In fact, not for any of the breaches of which were searched for or alleged, but for what is known as discriminatory pricing. We then come to the conspiracy to which the prisoners have pleaded.
51Despite the earlier company, Rosa FDC of which Mr Deng was the sole director, having its status cancelled by the DET, and no longer being able to be a provider, the Deng Group in May 2015 simply purchased another company. That is Manhal FDC, and changed the name of that company to Hello Children FDC. Significantly of course, as Mr Deng was known for the Rosa FDC performance, if I call it that, he was not in this instance registered as a director or a shareholder. Indeed the facts would show that his role was concealed. Subsequently, on the 5th day of September 2015 Ms Deng, that is the daughter, was added as the authorised person to use the software approved by the Department, that is the CCMS software.
52I said that I would mention in detailing this conspiracy, the fatal flaw which was involved in the structure of this Commonwealth Scheme. In the system contrived by the Department of Education and Training it would appear, as is obvious from what I have described, that there was no check of the operators of a propriety limited company. There does not appear to be any cross checking of the directors or the shareholders of the business operation seeking to be registered under the Scheme. There seems to be obviously no cross-checking of surnames, because albeit that Mr Deng and his role was hidden from the Department, subsequently his sister, with the same surname, is blithely registered, apparently without bringing forward any questions whatsoever.
53The potential of this business conducted by the conspirators, is set out in the paragraphs of the prosecution opening and I just want to go to two of them.
54At [84], it is detailed that the Hello Children FDC Pty Ltd employed 57 educators. At one stage they were submitting claims, at the height of this conspiracy, of $880,000 per fortnight, that is claims for payment. If we go to [96], in the four month period from 27 May 2015 to 14 September 2015, Hello Children submitted claims for $6.16m to the Department, 99 per cent of which involved the grandparent claim, charging out at $35.00 per hour.
55In the period from 5 May 2015 until they were suspended in mid-September 2015, the Department paid Hello Children FDC, that is in a period of four months, $6.2m. By stark contrast the company of which they had blithely bought, after Rosa had been cancelled and suspended, so that they could continue in the industry, that is the company that they renamed Hello Children, in the 12 months prior to when they took over this company, that business had received rebates of a total of $45,000. I know there may be many, many explanations for this however, receipts of $45,000 in 12 months, and after the company is taken over and rebranded, in four months receipts of $6.2m, however the comparison is marked.
56Can I say, something should have appeared on the radar in Canberra, or wherever the Department of Education and Training was operating. Clearly because of the audacity of this scheme, the amounts being paid in this scheme, audits soon began and suspension was effected on this company within four months from when it began, after compliance visits to the premises, firstly by the State Regulation Authority on 17 September 2015. However, of course, that did not end the conspiracy.
57Thereafter the Deng Group continued blithely along submitting claims on behalf of their educators, by utilising various other companies. In the first instance, companies in which they had no interest. Simply like provider companies who were prepared to facilitate the Deng Group lodging claims. And then, despite being aware because of audits, visits to their own premises, and of government scrutiny, in November 2015 they simply purchased a further company. That company was called Dorcey's FDC Pty Ltd. Installed as the director in this company was the sister, who is before the Court today. She was placed in as director and also as the approved person, by the DET, and from 29 November 2015 as the authorised key personnel person for Dorcey's FDC Pty Ltd, and the person to lodge claims and be contacted by the Department.
58Suffice to say, in that period a further $500,000 dollars was claimed by the Deng Group. Insofar as the dishonesty of this scheme is concerned, or the dishonesty of the prisoners, it can be no better summarised than has been done in Exhibit A by the prosecutor at [161] of the opening, described as "evidence of dishonest scheme":-
1) The following witnesses have stated that FDC educators are claimed to be providing care for their children through FDC Services, controlled by the Deng Group: have not undertaken the care at all, have not undertaken care to the level claimed, the children have not been cared by the FDC educator claimed, children have been recorded in claims for care provided by nine educators when this care did not take place. The total cost of alleged care which did not take place was $245,287 dollars.
2) In some instances, claims were made by persons of whom the parent had no knowledge and claims in the name of those educators in this instance as an example, not by the company during the period of the conspiracy but by an earlier company.
3) In regard to a woman called Monica Majak, her evidence disclosed that only a provider Abuit Deng provided care for her child, the eight other additional FDC educators again, in that instance, provided through Rosa FDC, did not provide such care.
4) And finally, a Monica Aleu, her evidence showed that four educators from Rosa FDC and then subsequently four educators in the period of which I am considering through Hello Children were paid in circumstances where such care was not given.
59It is obviously important to acknowledge the evidence that was to be given in this trial of Adut Deng. She was an educator, she had provided a statement and was prepared to give evidence, which clearly was vital evidence in regard to this conspiracy. She has been sentenced and was given an appropriate discount for the information supplied which would have been vital in the running of this case, in my view, had the matter not changed to a plea.
60The payments to the various educators involved in this scheme are set out at [256] of the opening, as I say they were charged by the various Deng Group entities and I have also already detailed those amounts, but they vary from payments to educators from $26,900 to Ms Ater, to $209,165.86 to Kuwal.
61Insofar as the prisoners are concerned, their roles were detailed at [319] of the opening and it seems to me that this is an appropriate way to describe them. The various transcriptions of phone calls, and other communications obtained, demonstrate the Deng Group discussed with each other, and with their educators, the operation of their FDC businesses. These conversations revealed the primary role undertaken by each member of the Deng Group: Kuol Deng was the controller of finances for the group, Achai Deng collected timesheets from educators, submitted timesheets via Harmony and provided advice to FDC educators, Ms Riak advised the FDC educators and allocated various tasks to her son and daughter in regard to fixing various problems.
62Insofar as the gravity of this criminality, I refer to the prosecution submission, Exhibit D, as to sentencing and it seems to me there can be no dispute with this. [18] is as follows:
“By way of overview the offending should be viewed at the higher end of the scale for such an offence for the following reasons:
·The conspiracy occurred over a prolonged and protracted period of time.
·It involved specific and designated attack on the public revenue.
·The offenders used their prior experience with the child care system to carry out the conspiracy.
·The offending involved significant premeditation and planning.
·The offending was sophisticated.
·Steps were taken to actively deceive the Commonwealth, as to who was truly running the FDC businesses used by the Deng Group to effect the conspiracy.
·Educators were recruited by the prisoners, because they were prepared to submit or allow to be submitted on their behalf, false claims for child care.
·The prisoners counselled and directed the educators about the best way to submit false claims, which minimised the chances of detection by the authorities.
·The prisoners continued to carry out acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, albeit becoming aware of the authorities investigating the conduct.”
(His Honour’s words) Indeed there is a classic recording of Mr Deng referring to the stupidity of the Department and the investigators, and indicating that they would not be smart enough to catch them.
·“After the FDC businesses had been closed by the Commonwealth (as I have, I hope, pointedly demonstrated) the prisoners simply continued to submit false claims by either buying or utilising alternate FDC business.
·A substantial loss was caused to the Commonwealth as a direct consequence of such conspiracy.”
63While quantum in regard to this charge is not an element, this Court is required to take into account, if it can, the loss occasioned by way of a crime pursuant to the provisions of s.16(A) of the Crimes Act.
64Despite the dimension of the receipts, and again I make the point that Mr Ginsbourg has appropriately stressed, a large proportion of those receipts must be seen to relate to valid claims. However, despite the totality of this operation, the minimum amount which the prosecution puts before the Court as paid as a result of false submissions and fraudulent actions by the Deng Group is a figure of $955,438 dollars.
65As set out in the opening, the gravamen, of course, of this offence is the agreement of the three prisoners to pursue this unlawful pursuit, not the results. Insofar as Ms Deng is concerned, it is also important to point out that the receipts in the relevant period to which she was liable for the conspiracy, was a figure of $149,434.
66I would hope from the exposition that I have given to date of the scheme, both generally and specifically, I have fully described and understood the nature and circumstances of this conspiracy, as required by sub-paragraph (a) of the section I have just referred to.
67As to the loss, I find beyond reasonable doubt that the loss occasioned to the Commonwealth was much greater than the figure of $955,000, which has been able to be identified. I accept, however, given the complications in trying to assess what such loss was, that the figure put must be accepted as the minimum figure of such loss. I give that finding appropriate weight in the determination of the sentencing in this matter.
68In Mr Ginsbourg's submission, he came to the question of enrichment. That is, what was the enrichment that each, in particular, his own client, but generally, what was the enrichment of the Deng Group? If we accept as the minimum amount obtained from the Commonwealth by way of this fraudulent operation of $955.438 and it as set out in the prosecution opening at [261], that the Deng Group kept a figure of $5 per hour and averaging the hourly rate charged by the educators at a figure of $30 to $35 and accepting that as the basis of the claims made, then the maths as put by Mr Ginsbourg as to the total enrichment to the Deng Group, based upon the minimum amount detailed, that is, the minimum loss occasioned to the Commonwealth by this conspiracy, is a figure of between $134,400 and $159,300. That is the maths.
69As I say, understanding the totality of this attack on the revenue, that analysis, I find, is unrealistic. I cannot from the materials, and certainly the prosecution has not been able to fully detail to me the enrichment which each of these prisoners have received from this scheme.
70I only make these points. Forfeited from Mr Deng was a Range Rover Discovery, which was purchased on the 28th day of August 2015, during the period of this criminality, for $165,000. In addition to that, recorded in the transcripts of recordings, is a conversation of the first day of December 2015, again within this period of criminality, of Mr Deng seeking his mother’s advice as to where he should place $80,000 cash that he had in his possession at the time.
71Just understanding those two facts shows how unrealistic the calculations as to the question of enrichment are. However, as I say, the materials put before the Court do not allow this Court to determine what enrichment each of these prisoners obtained.
72Insofar as the roles of each of the prisoners, on the basis of the manner in which the prosecution put the case, such was detailed at [38] of Exhibit D, being the sentencing submissions of the prosecution. The prosecution, submitted that Mr K Deng and Mrs Riak ought to be viewed as having played equal roles in the conspiracy, and that they sit at the top of the hierarchy in Operation Caulis, and further at [55], given those roles and the seriousness of such criminality, that each prisoner should be subjected to a head sentence of immediate imprisonment, with a non-parole period imposed.
73As to Ms Deng, the submission made at [38], is that she ought to be viewed as a rung down from the hierarchy of her mother and brother, given her more limited involvement in the conspiracy, in terms of time in which she was involved and the fact that she joined the conspiracy after it was formed. However, it is the Crown's submission that given the seriousness of this offending, she still be subject to a period of immediate imprisonment, as set out at [56].
74I was handed a number of comparator cases. Clearly a direct comparison case was not able to be found, probably because of the uniqueness of the totality of attack on the revenue, as evidenced by this conspiracy. However, I have, indeed, considered the cases put, as set out in Exhibit C.
75Firstly the case of R v Sherma, a decision of the District Court of Western Australia, 5 March 2009, the case of R v Cornish [2012] VSCA 45, and the connected case of Keefe v R [2014] VSCA 201, which
Mr McDonald, in particular, took me to. Although I do point out that the amounts which were involved in that case were considerably higher than the amounts in this. Further, the case of R v Higgins a determination of the District Court of New South Wales, however, that, of course, involved a different section.76As recently detailed by the High Court in DPP v Dalgliesh [2017] ALJR 91 at 1063, [80] – [83], such comparator cases are, of course, appropriate to be taken into account by the Court in the process of instinctive synthesis.
77As, however, the Court said, at [49] of that decision, the administration of the criminal law involves individualised justice, whereby that there is imposed, by way of a just system, on each of the prisoners, a sentence which takes regard of the particular circumstances of this case and the particular circumstances of each prisoner.
78I will now turn to the pleas of each of the prisoners, put forward by their counsel. As I have already referred to, Mr Ginsbourg on behalf of Mr Kuol Deng, tendered a written submission, Exhibit K1 to this Court, which have been fully taken into account by this Court, in addition to the oral submissions put to this Court.
79Mr Ginsbourg appropriately conceded the seriousness of his client's criminality and that the submission put by the prosecution that immediate imprisonment must be imposed must be conceded. He took me to the matters of the Crimes Act and the issues of enrichment to which I have already referred, and also submitted to the Court that despite the references to Giretti, and the analysis made by the prosecution, it is completely different here because a Giretti case involves a totality of unlawful conduct, whereas here we have, and the Court must be careful about conflating conspiracy crimes with lawful claims.
80As I said, he took me to the history of his client which I detailed generally and the only additional personal matter about him was the fact that he was subjected, during that period in Kenya, to particular personal hatred and violence. He was also teased at school, he was called a "blackie". There is, amazingly, apparently racial discrimination between Kenyans and Sudanese and because of the colour of Sudanese, he was subject to this epithet, "blackie". He was teased at school, he was racially vilified by both his teachers and pupils and as I said, he completed Year 7 primary, prior to coming to Australia.
81He has lived at Point Cook from 2014 to 2015. He became an Australian citizen with the rest of his family in 2006. He went to school at St Albans, where he did his VCE. He went to Victoria University, he did two units of the graduate diploma when he was 22. He has been back to Sudan to see his father, he assisted both his father and provided social works for the Sudanese community. He is described by way of character as a person of high character, of whom this criminality is not consistent.
82In this regard, Exhibit K3 involved a series of significant testimonials. First was from a Mr Riak, a social worker, second from Mr Biong, who I will come to, who gave oral evidence and was cross-examined, a worker from the Edmund Rice organisation. Thirdly, from Mr Kuat, from the South Sudanese Australian Youth organisation. From the lawyer, Mr Monah. Fifth one from Mr Deng. From his basketball friend, Mr Berheri, and from a member of the Royal Australian Navy, Mr Gormeisa.
83An analysis of those testimonials demonstrates surprise at Mr Deng's criminality, analysis of him as a person of high character, analysis of him as a person who had committed these crimes who could only be described as committing crimes which were out of character, and a person who is valued in the Sudanese-Australian community, the Australian community and indeed, in Sudan, as a person who has sponsored and been part of social and community events on behalf of the Sudanese Australian community.
84In that regard, Mr Biong, from the Edmund Rice organisation, was called. He described Mr Deng as a mentor and an inspiration generally, to the Australian-Sudanese community. He noted that, like the other prisoners, he had no prior offences, that he is helpful to all in the community and was a particular mentor by way of social welfare to single mothers struggling in the community. He said that it was a big shock for him to understand that Mr Deng was involved in such serious fraud, that he believed that Mr Deng has expressed shame and regret, and he believed that somehow his judgment must have been affected.
85Mr Biong was subjected to strong cross-examination. He did not, it is clear, know the full detail of the criminality committed. He was not aware of certain aspects of that criminality. It was suggested that there were some questions about the reality of Mr Deng's remorse. He said, "I am sure he is genuine and I stand for his character." In re-examination, he maintained his support despite the strong attack. I, of course, take those matters into account.
86The reality of course is, as this plea demonstrates, that certainly during the period of this conspiracy, the picture of Mr Deng within the community was simply not correct.
87Insofar as background material, Mr Ginsbourg reminded the Court that the ultimate reason for Rosa FDC being cancelled was the failure to pay a civil penalty and that at the time, irrespective of the fees set by the Deng Group, there were no, in fact, set fees or maximum fees. He stressed the general view of his client of being a leader in the community, of being law-abiding, and a person who would assist anyone.
88Mr Ginsbourg took me to his post-offence actions or activities, his work as a storeman, that he suffered from depression, and his ongoing suffering from depression. He took me to the mitigatory factors, in particular, the plea of guilty to which I have referred. He noted the role played by his client, he noted the apology to his family, to the government, and submitted that I should accept that as genuine. He noted that his client has expressed shame, that he was sick to the stomach about what he had done, the losses that he caused to this country, and the potential of lost opportunity to other fellow Sudanese overseas.
89As I have said, and I accept, Mr Deng and the prisoners here, because of the disappointment that might be felt in the community of the extent of this criminality conducted by people from that community, should not as a criminal standard, be subject to any higher or greater standard for this criminality.
I accept that totally.90Mr Ginsbourg said that I should accept the remorse expressed as being genuine, given the strength of the testimonials. He submitted that such criminality with a man of such character, and no priors, should in fact be seen as out of character, and those matters should go to the totality of considerations. It is clear that Mr Deng is having current counselling for depression, and I accept that that counselling is likely to lead to difficulties in regard to any prison confinement. He referred me in particular to the report of the forensic psychologist, Ms Matthews, and I want to go to that report, in particular, in regard to the history.
91And the history told to Ms Matthews by Mr Deng, if I quote from the first page. "Of his offending, Mr Deng told the writer that given the low employment rate in his community, the childcare practice of swapping children had become popular, he estimated, 90 per cent of the women he knew in his community had been involved. The practice was not illegal, a check with the department revealed there was nothing to prevent it happening. That's where the deception comes in. There was also a financial advantage to the educators. It's fraudulent if you don't look after each other's children. I dragged my mother and sister into this. My mind was in a different place prior to all this happening. But in the aftermath, yes, I was involved. I came into a country that has given us almost everything…pain when I visualise where my mother was…I'd like to write an apology to the government."
92At p.7 of the report under "Diagnosis and opinion", and you might recall that I referred to this earlier. Ms Matthews, forensic psychologist, said this insofar as developed mental influences, "Regarding developmental influences to offending, Mr Deng has lived his early life on the fringes of the Sudanese war in Ethiopia and Kenya. Although he's not been exposed directly to war, he was exposed in Kenya to harsh survival living conditions and violence such as seeing people burned in bins for theft. In 2004, his mother sought asylum for herself and her children. Mr Deng arrived in Australia with his mother and siblings, and older brother and two sisters. He reports social struggles, but also successes settling into school in Australia."
93"In the writer's view", I go to p.8 now, "Mr Deng's mental health has been an impediment to his full participation in tertiary education and employment but that he has done better than many, at least a third, within the asylum seeking population. There is, in the writer's view, no direct link between Mr Deng's mental health and his offending, other than as a generalised background factor. However it is likely his childhood experiences of survival in harsh environments has taught him to seize on all opportunities without regard to consequences, unless they are life-threatening. It is the writer's opinion, it is this developmental experience which has had the greatest impact on his offending."
94Ms Matthews then said, as I referred to in my earlier comments. "Additionally, Mr Deng has taken legal advantage of the structure of government-funded childcare arrangements but has pushed the boundary, further into the realm of illegal. There has been long-standing research in the mechanisms of survival and it's generally now accepted that groups survive better than individuals alone. This matter before the Court involves not only Mr Deng, his mother and sister, but ten other individuals. It is likely therefore that a collective mindset has also been influential in this offending."
95Clearly, and I say this generally, given the advantages of a strong mother, Mrs Riak, without at this stage going to her criminality, the Riak family has done particularly well by way of education and employment opportunities, despite such background. I do however, as was put to me by Mr Ginsbourg, take into account the principles set out by the High Court in Bugmy [2013] HCA 37, [4], and also, the Victorian decision of Marra [2014] VSCA 119, [12].
96In response, Mr Gullaci referred to the forfeiture, and the provisions of s.320 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I do, in regard to both Ms Riak and Mr Deng note the manner in which they have cooperated which relates to them providing the forfeiture items. Of course, only part (a) can apply, part (d) of s.320 in so far as the Range Rover is concerned which, albeit purchased for $165,000, was thereafter sold for $86,000 and such losses or such circumstances given that it was seen as part of the proceeds obviously cannot be taken into account.
97I then come to the plea conducted by Mr McDonald on behalf of his client. I note and have referred already to his written submissions, the matters referred to by him and the chronology and history. In particular, it was of assistance to me. Mr McDonald referred generally to the referees for Mrs Riak and the bewilderment expressed that given her background and her contribution to the community, that she could be involved in such criminality.
98Mr McDonald pointed to the success, in particular, of her eldest son, Deng, in regards to both education and his employment, and Mr McDonald generally adopted the sentencing submissions put to me by Mr Ginsbourg but for one matter insofar as [137] of the opening, which I indicated to Mr McDonald I accepted totally.
99Mr McDonald detailed the background of Mrs Riak, which came about obviously from her own father being in the Sudanese army, the travails that I have already gone through and the circumstances. He took me to the report of Carla Lechner which is tendered as two reports, tendered as Exhibit R2. The diagnosis of Mrs Riak as having major depressive disorder and adjustment disorder, being primarily reactive to her current situation and the pending court hearing.
100Mrs Riak’s personal history was fully detailed, which I will not go to again, but I do note in the summary and opinion the following: "In respect of this offence, whilst Mrs Riak claims to have not known that her actions were illegal, the telephone intercepts seem to suggest a different story; her attempt to minimise the extent of her guilt is no doubt due to a deep sense of shame. She understands that as a director of the company, responsibility ultimately rests with her and she is prepared to accept the consequences.”
101I state clearly that she is before this Court, whatever reticence she showed, albeit due to shame, she is before this Court having pleaded guilty to this serious offence.
102I note the cooperation in regard to the first vehicle seized. It was put by Mr McDonald that in particular, I should accept her contrition and general remorse shown and demonstrated by the references tendered. He referred to the very sentence I have just read from the Lechner report as to her personal difficulties in comprehending and accepting the extent of her criminality.
103Mr McDonald described her as having an outstanding character, with outstanding prospects who is not only shamed by her criminality, but shamed by the effects not only on her own family, by letting down her family and her broader community and the Australia-Sudanese community. Insofar as the submission of the Crown, that there should be an immediate gaol sentence, there was no resiling from the seriousness of the crime, however, the submission from Mr McDonald, was that this Court may well, as part of such a sentence, combine it with a recognizance release order.
104As part of the submission that despite the seriousness of this criminality, I should have confidence in his client effecting rehabilitation, Mr Deng Riak was called, a social worker. In addition were two additional personal references, one of Pastor Nono and her brother, Aguek. Each of those references, in addition to Mr Deng Riak's reference, were part of Exhibit R3. They spoke of Mrs Riak as a person of high character, as a contributor to the community.
105I must say that the evidence given by Mr Deng Riak was particularly impressive. He fled with Mrs Riak as a child. He noted the wide support given by her to the community. His description of her and her role in the Australian-Sudanese community was as follows: "She is my mother. She is a mother, auntie, grandmother in our family and in the community." He said he was aware of these crimes the day she was arrested; that she was, in his view, very ashamed and remorseful. He finds it very difficult to comprehend the disgrace from which she now sits. However, he stands up and comes before the Court to support her totally, because in his view, this criminality was totally out of character.
106Mr McDonald asked this Court to accept the remorse as being genuine. He asked this Court to take particular note of this being a valuable plea, of which I have also already referred and to which I will not repeat.
107I accept, given the circumstances, that a period of imprisonment for Mrs Riak will cause difficulties for her, given her current psychological state and issues with her younger daughter.
108Coming then to Ms Deng, the submissions of Ms Hollingworth, again were in writing and were tendered as Exhibit A1. In addition were tendered a bundle of character references, A3; her degree, A4; the family tree diagram, A5; and the current employment offer that she has, which is A6.
109It was noted that Ms Deng is to be sentenced as a youthful offender. Her history, in particular, was noted, she being born in Kenya. Insofar as the role played by Ms Deng, it was submitted that I should consider, because of that role, albeit conceding the seriousness, that a community corrections order might be appropriate in this case. It was referred to that she was involved for only three months of the seven months of this conspiracy and involved, essentially, in administrative terms, although as I point out without her involvement, her brother's continued role could not have occurred.
110Ms Hollingworth described her client as somewhat of a dupe. In particular she referred to the telephone conversation, between her mother and her brother as to how they would persuade her to do what they wanted in regard to the Dorcey operation. It was referred to the fact that she was only 11 when she arrived in Australia; that she has done very well; that she has completed university; that she has currently got an excellent job and is in the process of completing a Master's degree.
111It was pointed out that understanding her criminality is not only understanding the matters that I have referred to, insofar as the Bugmy principles, but in particular within the Australian-Sudanese society, a person in her position is a person who must be seen to respect the elders in the family and she was in such a position, and Ms Hollingworth referred to that conversation as to persuading her to do various things, as indicative of that.
112It was pointed out that she was not part of any purchase of an expensive car, nor is there any evidence of her actually sharing in enrichment. She was in receipt of a wage from the organisation of approximately $1,600 per fortnight, although it was accepted she received additional payments.
113It was submitted, as demonstrated by the references, again that her behaviour was totally out of character; that any sentence of imprisonment would impose issues upon her, as detailed in the psychological report of Dr Maynard, Exhibit A2. It was submitted that she has a good opportunity for rehabilitation; that I should be confident that she would be able to rehabilitate.
114Insofar as the issue as to her role, the learned prosecutor, while accepting, as I have already indicated, that her role is a lesser role than her mother and brother, that as given her age, that there would have been deference, and that her role is different by way of time.
115It was pointed out that she did indeed act as a manager, in particular at Dorcey's; that she was very much part of discussions with various educators; that she was very much part of recorded conversations with educators after the raids had taken place; that she in fact was part of the use of a false name to excuse the lack of records when the Department was seeking advice as to why the records were not at the premises and also she was part of setting up a false account in regard to that person to the Department.
116Ms Hollingworth, indeed conceded that her role was not just administrative, however, submitted again that the totality of the matters relevant to her, needed to be taken into account insofar as the submission was concerned.
117As I say, insofar as her education and background, she is a person who volunteers in the Sudanese community and still does today. She has completed her Bachelor of Politics, Economics and Philosophy at La Trobe University and is currently completing a Social Work Master's at the New England University.
118The psychologist Alison Maynard (Exhibit A2), who I said provided reports, has confirmed the remorse expressed, that she fully acknowledges that what she did was not right, and as she said and expressed to Dr Maynard, her and her family came to Australia with opportunities and did not utilise these in an ethical or a moral way. The references tendered confirm the genuine remorse. It was submitted that she was a person with good prospects of rehabilitation who had no prior criminal history, who had pleaded guilty and is entitled to the appropriate discounts from this Court.
119In those circumstances, as I say, a community corrections order was sought. The report has been provided to the Court and I thank the person who prepared that report. It was tendered today as Exhibit E. It is a positive report in regard to Ms Deng.
120Insofar as reaching a conclusion, taking into account all of the matters that I have detailed, in particular the submissions made on behalf of all the prisoners by their counsel I take the view, and have concluded that the submission of the prosecution in regard to Mrs Riak and Mr Kuol Deng must be upheld. I do not see in the circumstances, that it is appropriate, as submitted by Mr McDonald, that a recognisance order should be made insofar as the sentence, in regard to his client.
121Insofar as Ms Deng is concerned, I must say I have had such anxious consideration because of the seriousness of the charge of which she has pleaded guilty to, which as I stress, is an offence attacking the revenue for which the Federal Parliament proscribes a maximum penalty of ten years. I have however concluded, that I should accept Ms Hollingworth's submission and not impose a period of immediate imprisonment, as submitted by the prosecution. I find that the particular circumstances relevant to her, are such that I should accept such submission.
122Firstly her age, her education status, the success she has made despite her background, her more limited role albeit not only administrative. However I accept in the circumstances of her background that she was indeed to some degree, under the influence of both her mother and brother due to the ways of her particular family society. I accept that there was no evidence of personal enrichment. It seems to me, that while the parity insofar as the educators is different, in the sense that it is a completely different offence with a lesser maximum penalty, when one is looking at it in the broad there seems to be, if there is any role for parity, a role insofar as Ms Deng's sentence given the amounts involved and the time of which she is involved.
123I also take into account the specific provisions set out in s.16A(1) requiring this Court not to impose a sentence that is inappropriate, after consideration of all the circumstances. I take into account the positive community corrections report, Exhibit E, and my acceptance of the proposition put by Ms Hollingworth, that she is a person who will successfully rehabilitate in this matter.
124Coming therefore to the sentences. Mrs Riak, if you would stand up please. You will be convicted of a breach of s.135.43 of the Criminal Code. You will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of four years' gaol. Pursuant to the provision of 19A(b)(1)(a), I order that the period that you must serve before being eligible for parole, is a period of two years. I accept the submission of the Crown that it is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case, given the seriousness of your criminality, for a consideration of a recognisance order. And I impose a sentence accordingly. You can take a seat for the moment. I am sorry, I should order under s.18, three days pre-sentence detention. Is that correct, Mr McDonald?
125Mr Kuol Deng, if you would stand, please. You, like your mother, will equally be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of four years. I order that the period that you must serve prior to being eligible for parole, is a period of two years. There is no pre-sentence detention, I do not think, in regard to Mr Deng, is there? No. You can take a seat.
126Ms Achai Deng, if you would stand, please. Insofar as your criminality is concerned, I think I have already indicated my view. However in the totality of the circumstances, I have determined to sentence you to a period of imprisonment of 18 months. I will order that you be released immediately on a recognisance release order. That recognisance will be to be of good behaviour and be on your own recognisance and be for a period of 18 months.
127Insofar as s.6AAA of the state Sentencing Act, assuming that it does as I understand, apply to Commonwealth sentences, can I indicate to both Mrs Riak and Mr Deng, the Parliament prescribes in this State that you are to be advised of the benefit of your plea of guilty. Both of you have been sentenced by me to a period of imprisonment of four years, with a minimum period of two years to serve before being eligible for parole. Can I indicate to you that had you not pleaded guilty, the period of imprisonment I would have imposed upon you, is a period of six and half years with a minimum of four. Hence the effect of your plea of guilty, to the extent that I am able to indicate this given the totality of the matters that I have to take into account in your sentence, but to the extent that I am required by Parliament and can comply with their requirements, there is the difference between what you would have got, that is six and a half years with a minimum of four, as against what you did get by way of sentence because you pleaded guilty, four years with a minimum period to serve of two.
128MR GINSBOURG: Your Honour, there was a pre-sentence detention, I am reminded. I think it was just a period of about three days?
129HIS HONOUR: Well I did that on Mrs Riak, but that is why I asked. There was three days for you as well, was there?
130MR GINSBOURG: I will just ‑ ‑ ‑
131MS HOLMES: That is not my understanding, Your Honour. My understanding is there is only pre-sentence detention in relation to Riak.
132HIS HONOUR: Well, I am happy to amend the order whenever.
133MR GINSBOURG: I might be wrong. I will just check that, Your Honour.
134HIS HONOUR: Yes.
135MR GINSBOURG: I was just about to approach the dock but, may I do that? I do not have an instructing ‑ ‑ ‑
136HIS HONOUR: Probably easier if your instructor does it, is it not?
137MR GINSBOURG: I do not have one at all.
138HIS HONOUR: I see. All right. Well say no more. Ms Achai Deng can come out. Well, perhaps wait until you have signed the document.
139MS HOLMES: Yes, Your Honour. Just in relation to the recognisance release order, Your Honour, has to impose an amount that applies to the recognisance.
140HIS HONOUR: I thought I could just make a recognisance in their own?
141MS HOLMES: No, an amount is required under the section.
142HIS HONOUR: All right, I will make an amount of $2,000.
143MS HOLMES: Thank you, Your Honour.
144HIS HONOUR: I am sorry, I should have asked counsel then, are there any matters that I need to attend to that I have not?
145COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
146HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
147MR GINSBOURG: Sorry, I am told that my client was held overnight, which when he's ‑ ‑ ‑
148HIS HONOUR: I know. Well I will declare, pursuant to s.18, one day, insofar as Mr Deng's sentence.
149MS HOLMES: As the court pleases.
150HIS HONOUR: I think, I if I have not said it already, can I thank counsel for their assistance in what was a difficult sentence for the Bench.
151Ms Deng, you can come out - no, has she signed? No.
152MS HOLMES: It is just being completed by my instructor, Your Honour. Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
153HIS HONOUR: Ms Hollingworth, you get your instructor to have this signed.
154MS HOLLINGWORTH: Thank you, Your Honour.
155MS HOLMES: He signs it first. Your Honour, were you intending to give a 6AAA for Ms Achai Deng?
156HIS HONOUR: Yes, sorry. In regard to Ms Achai Deng, all I can do to comply with the wishes of Parliament, is indicate that certainly there would have been a period of immediate imprisonment without the guilty plea.
157Ms Deng, it is obvious, you will be required for the next 18 months to be of good behaviour. I assume, given what has been told to me about you, that I can have total confidence in that. Yes, you can come out of the dock.
158Yes, the prisoners can be taken away, Mrs Riak and Mr Deng.
159Adjourn until 12 o'clock.
‑ ‑ ‑
9
0