Director of Public Prosecutions v Kim
[2022] VCC 1130
•8 July 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Un-Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-20-00369
Indictment no K12010241
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BONG SUNG KIM |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF TRIAL: | 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24 February 2022 |
| DATE OF PLEA: | 24 June 2022 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 July 2022 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v KIM |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1130 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: SENTENCE - CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Jury verdict of guilty – one charge of abduction for a sexual purpose – three charges of rape – – multiple offences arising from same incident vulnerable and intoxicated victim – risk of deportation – standard sentencing scheme – serious sex offender
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016, s 38(1), s 47; Sentencing Act 1991 s 3(1), s 18
Cases Cited:El-Waly v R (2012) 46 VR 656
Sentence:8 years and 6 months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole of 5 years and 4 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | S. Thomas | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | M. O’Brien | H & H Lawyers Pty Ltd |
HIS HONOUR:
1Bong Sung Kim, on 24 February 2022, after a 7‑day trial, you were convicted by a jury of one charge of abduction for a sexual purpose and three charges of rape all arising from the one incident. The maximum penalty for rape is 25 years' imprisonment and for abduction, 10 years' imprisonment.
2Rape is a Category 1 offence pursuant to s 3(1) of the Sentencing Act and imprisonment is mandated. Rape is also a standard sentence offence. The standard sentence for rape is 10 years' imprisonment.
3You were born in May 1981 in South Korea. At the time of the offending, you were 38 years old and lived in Rose Street in Box Hill with your wife and young child. You were the owner of a tiling business called Noah Tiling Pty Ltd. You are now aged 41.
4The victim in this matter was born in September 1988. She was 30 years old when the offending took place.
Background
5The victim had lived in Australia for a few months when the offending occurred, on a working holiday visa. She was living in a CBD apartment with her younger sister and was looking for work.
6Your employee/assistant at that time was Mr Sungmin Lee. He had lived in Australia for about 12 months prior to these offences.
7Since this offending came to the attention of the police and you were charged, he has left Australia. You, Mr Lee and the victim are all of Korean background and speak Korean.
Circumstances of the offending
8After arriving in Australia in June 2019, the victim started looking for work on websites for Koreans in Melbourne which had employment advertisements. She came across an advertisement for tiling work at ‘Noah Tiling’, your company. The advertisement supplied a phone number so applicants could provide their personal details.
9The victim communicated via text message with Mr Lee and provided her personal details. Mr Lee and the victim met at a café at Southern Cross Station and the victim gave her résumé to Mr Lee.
10After that meeting, Mr Lee communicated with the victim via Kakao Talk, a Korean chat application. He added you to the chat group and there was discussion about the job.
11The victim said in her evidence at the trial that you suggested the three of you meet in person.[1] Mr Lee suggested the meeting take place near where you lived. An arrangement was made to go to Miss Korea BBQ restaurant in Box Hill.
[1] Transcript of trial, page 87, Question and Answer (‘Q & A’) 16
12In the late afternoon on Saturday, 29 June 2019, Mr Lee met the victim, again at Southern Cross station, and they caught a tram to Box Hill.
13The police informant in this case, Detective Ahern, made a video from the CCTV footage at the Miss Korea restaurant, which showed the victim and Mr Lee arriving and entering the restaurant at around 6.33pm on that day. Mr Lee and the victim ordered some food and you arrived soon after at 6.39pm. The victim gave evidence that all she had eaten that day was some cereal.
14The footage shows all three of you eating and drinking alcohol. The alcohol was Soju, a Korean liquor. The victim gave evidence at the trial that she drank ‘more than two or three bottles’[2] and was ‘drinking fast’[3] and became intoxicated. She may well have consumed more alcohol than she described in her evidence. You were topping each others’ glasses up. The victim asked Mr Lee if you usually drank that quickly and he said, ‘Yeah. The boss is very strong in alcohol’[4].
[2] Transcript of trial, page 94, Q & A 26
[3] Transcript of trial, page 96, Q & A 2
[4] Transcript of trial, page 96 Q & A 30
15The victim gave evidence that she felt you and Mr Lee did not want to discuss work at the restaurant, so she changed the topic. She recalled you saying to her she looked small and asking if she would be able to do the job, to which she responded, ‘I can do the job well’[5].
[5] Transcript of trial, page 97, Q & A 23
16The footage shows that by around 8.00pm the victim had become very intoxicated. On the video she can be seen touching, hugging, and kissing you and sitting on your lap. Soon after she appears to become ‘floppy’ in her body movements.
17
The footage obtained shows you carrying the victim from the restaurant. The waiter at the restaurant gave evidence of seeing you carrying her over your shoulder, holding her legs with her head hanging down your back. This accords with the video footage. The prosecution case was that at that time you had the intent to sexually penetrate the victim and you took away from the restaurant in circumstances where she was effectively unconscious. This is the basis of
Charge 1 – abduction for a sexual purpose. The jury accepted the prosecution case.
18You and Mr Lee took the victim to your black Nissan SUV which was parked in the nearby carpark. You placed the victim in the passenger seat. In your record of interview, you told police you brought her water and she vomited in the vehicle’s console. The victim was still unresponsive at that time.
19You remained in the vehicle with the victim, while Mr Lee walked across the road to Motel Maroondah at 780 Whitehorse Road. He tried to book a room at approximately 8.53pm, and that was captured on CCTV footage. He then returned to the vehicle. In your record of interview, you said that Mr Lee did not book this room because you did not want to provide details.[6]
[6] Transcript of Police Record of Interview conducted 29 July 2019 (‘ROI’), Q & A 485
20CCTV footage from 8.52pm from the undercover carpark of the Whitehorse Apartments Hotel, a few doors down from Motel Maroondah, shows you driving the vehicle and the victim sitting in the front of your vehicle. Mr Lee made a booking at the Whitehorse Apartments via Agoda.com using his own name. CCTV footage retrieved from the reception area shows Mr Lee checking in at approximately 9.10pm. At approximately 9.14pm, you can be seen holding the victim, followed by Mr Lee, heading towards the lift at the Whitehorse Apartments where a room had been booked. This is where the offending took place. Mr Lee left at 9.21pm.
21At 9.47pm you used your mobile phone to record yourself pulling down the victim’s pants. At 9.50pm you inserted your finger into the victim’s vagina. You recorded this on your mobile phone. The video of this penetration was played to the jury. It runs for around 20 seconds. In my view it is obvious that the victim was unconscious when this occurred. This is the basis of Charge 2 of rape. In your record of interview, you said ‘when I touch important part of her body, she was - didn’t move. So, I thought, you know, when I touch her body, it was agreed consent sex’[7]. Ms O’Brien argued to the jury that this was a reference to the digital penetration and that it took place in consensual circumstances. In my opinion it is difficult to know what exactly you are talking about in that answer. I agree with the submission that the Prosecutor made to the jury that you made no admission to a digital penetration or making a video of that penetration.
[7] ROI, Q & A 426
22What you did admit in your record of interview was that you penetrated the victim’s mouth with your penis which is the basis of Charge 3; and you also penetrated the victim’s vagina with your penis, which is the basis of Charge 4.
23The victim’s evidence was that the next thing she could remember after being in the restaurant was waking up on the bed naked. She said she was confused because she couldn’t understand what had happened.
24Your defence at the trial, based on the record of interview, was that the victim consented to all sexual activities and that you believed she was consenting. Your account in the record of interview was that sexual activity took place at around 10.30pm - 11.00pm and that the circumstances were consensual. You said the victim kissed you and you kissed her, and that she didn’t move, which at the time you thought was a weird action.[8] You were asked by police what type of sex you had and you said that you had ‘agreed consent sex’, ‘penis-vagina sex’ for less than one minute because you changed your mind and refused her.[9] You said she was very conscious, not drunk.[10] You also said you went to the toilet together and she vomited in the toilet.[11] You said that she performed oral sex on you and that she didn’t resist at all during sex.[12]
[8] ROI, Q & A 283
[9] ROI, Q & A 302
[10] ROI, Q & A 305
[11] ROI, Q & A 309
[12] ROI, Q & A 324
25The victim in her evidence said she remembered that after she woke up you appeared wearing a t-shirt and pants. She told you she needed to vomit. You carried her to the washstand in the room because she could not walk herself. She was still naked. She was not able to vomit. She asked for her clothes. She was unable to get dressed herself, so you helped her. She told you she wanted to go home.
26The prosecution case for Charges 3 and 4 was that they could act on your admissions in respect of the acts of penetration but that on the evidence here there was no consent, and you were aware of that. The prosecution argued the victim was asleep or unconscious from alcohol when these acts occurred. Unsurprisingly, the jury accepted this argument and rejected the account you gave in the record of interview which was plainly implausible.
27The footage from the carpark at the motel shows that you and the victim left the motel carpark at around 12.54am. Footage at 12.52am shows you walking with your arm around the victim who was hunched over and swaying. You guided her into the passenger seat of the vehicle.
28In your car the victim noticed multiple missed calls and numerous text messages from her sister. She sent a text message to her sister that she was on her way home.
29As you got close to the victim’s address you began looking out for Mr Lee who materialised when you parked near the victim’s address. At about 1.00am you returned the victim to her sister who was waiting at the bottom of her apartment building. The victim still had trouble walking. You were helping her by holding one of her arms.[13]
[13] Transcript of trial, page 200 Q & A 14-21
30Either in the car or later when she got home the victim felt pain in her outer vagina and sensed she may have had sexual intercourse, but she had no memory of that occurring.[14]
[14] Transcript of trial, page 110 Q & A 23-25
31The victim told her sister that nothing had happened because she did not remember anything happening. She later told her sister that she had a pain in her vagina. Her sister called the police who attended. The victim declined a medical examination at that time. She was still feeling unwell. The victim and her sister provided police with information regarding your identification and that of Mr Lee. On 30 June 2019 the victim agreed to be medically examined and on examination a vaginal laceration was observed. The victim made a statement on 2 July 2019.
32You were interviewed on 29 July 2019. Your mobile phone was seized. It was later examined which revealed the footage of the digital penetration and other footage from the motel room.
Gravity
33Turning to the gravity of your offending.
34The offence of rape is an extremely serious offence with a maximum penalty of
25 years' imprisonment and a standard sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. You have been found guilty of three rapes involving introducing your finger and your penis into the victim’s vagina and your penis into her mouth.35Rape is an intensely personal crime involving the physical invasion of a person and their security. You showed complete disregard for the victim’s rights and preyed upon her when the opportunity arose.
36Ms O’Brien submitted that I should regard the offending as relatively short lived. It is difficult to assess the duration of Charges 3 and 4 given those two offences emanate from admissions in your interview where your version of the surrounding circumstances was false and rejected by the jury. I accept that the duration of the penetration in Charge 2 was relatively short.
37I could not make a finding in the overall offending was short lived or prolonged or that the three rapes necessarily occurred very close in time to each other. This is possible but I simply do not know. What is clear is that the victim was in the motel room with you for about 3 hours and therefore the three offences were part of one course of conduct over at most a few hours.
38Ms O’ Brien submitted that you made efforts to return the victim to her home address. She emphasised the absence of aggravating features such as the use of excessive force or for instance depositing the victim at some unknown location after the offending. It was submitted the offending was relatively unsophisticated and opportunistic rather than predatory, and that you did not attempt to conceal your identity.
39The prosecutor Ms Thomas submitted that there was planning and activity between the victim becoming intoxicated and you carrying her from the restaurant and the booking of the room at the Whitehorse apartments Ms Thomas submitted it was open to infer you made efforts to ensure there was no trace of your name in the booking process, by relying on Mr Lee and booking via a website service.
40In accordance with the guilty verdict on the abduction charge I find that at the time you carried the victim from the restaurant you had the intent to perform an act of sexual penetration on the grossly intoxicated victim and that thereafter there was planning in the form of deciding to book a motel and making arrangements with respect to that and that you did make an effort to conceal your identity by having Mr Lee book the room. It seems you also baulked at providing details at the Maroondah Motel.
41You left the restaurant at around 8.10pm and entered the apartment at around 9.20pm, so you had over an hour to contemplate what you intended to do to the victim and the circumstances of where it was to happen. You had assistance from Mr Lee in this process. The planning was basic and reactive, but the charged acts cannot be considered spontaneous given the preparation involved.
42I do not find that you had any plan to get the victim drunk at the restaurant for sexual purposes; rather, I find that once the victim became intoxicated and physically affectionate because of the effects of the alcohol, you opportunistically took advantage of the situation. Aware she was unconscious from alcohol you decided to take her from the restaurant intending to have sex with her. Although there was some planning over a few hours I accept your offending falls within the description of opportunistic criminality. You exploited the situation that arose in the restaurant.
43The victim was extremely vulnerable. She was severely intoxicated and completely reliant on you and Mr Lee to look after her. She had only been in a new country for a short time. She spoke no English. She was in a city she could not have known well in a suburb she didn’t know at all. Throughout the night she was unconscious, ill, and disorientated.
44She suffered some discomfort and injury from the penetration of her vagina.
45You did not use a condom[15] which is an aggravating factor particularly in respect of Charge 4 because of the risk of pregnancy and disease.
[15] ROI Q&A 306
46As submitted by your counsel, your offending was not accompanied by excessive violence beyond that inherent in the offences. Here however, the victim was, by virtue of her state of intoxication, essentially powerless to prevent your offending.
47The filming of the offending was a degrading act committed for your own gratification. This relates obviously to Charge 2.
48The victim did not make a victim impact statement in this matter but is accepted that your offending would have been a traumatic and humiliating experience for her. She returned to Korea after this incident at some time. It is well recognised that sexual offending in this nature causes significant harm.
49You maintained a plea of not guilty which is your right, but you cannot rely on the benefit of remorse or insight in mitigation of your offending or the significant utilitarian benefit arising from a guilty plea.
50Whilst you were not truthful in your record of interview, I accept you made admissions and provided your mobile phone freely to police when requested. Your admissions were the basis of the actus reus of the penile and oral penetration charges at the trial; however, I am told there was DNA evidence that was not led. Your counsel submitted I should give weight to your cooperation in what was a lengthy interview in circumstances where the victim has no recollection of the events. I give that some weight subject to the obvious limitation that your account of a consensual encounter was found by the jury to be untrue.
51At the time of the offending, you were a mature married man running your own business. The victim was seeking employment from you and in that context became intoxicated at the dinner you had organised. As a recent arrival in the country from Korea, no doubt she felt more comfortable to meet you in those circumstances because you and Mr Lee were part of the Korean community in Melbourne. To book an apartment for the purpose of sexual penetration and to then commit these offences, including making a video of one of the rapes, against a grossly intoxicated woman, involved substantial moral culpability on your part.
Personal circumstances
52I turn to your personal circumstances which were outlined in the submissions by Ms O'Brien.
53You were raised and educated in South Korea. You came to Australia in your early 20s. You are now aged 41. You have lived in Melbourne for over a decade, and you have spent that time in the Eastern suburbs, remaining immersed in the Korean community. You established a small tiling business, Noah Tiling Pty Ltd.
54You were renting in Box Hill with your wife Hye Joen Lii and six-month old daughter at the time of your offending. Her name is Olivia, and she is now 3 years old. Both your wife and daughter returned to Korea following your imprisonment after the jury verdict.
55I am told you have no physical or mental health conditions.
56Your counsel submitted that your wife has experienced great emotional anguish and financial hardship as a result of your incarceration. Your wife linked into the plea hearing from Korea via WebEx and was available to give evidence at the plea.
57She was pregnant at the time of your trial but, after the verdict, made the difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy and return to Korea with your young daughter for family support. I am told your wife was deeply shocked at the verdict, and you were unable to say goodbye to your daughter before you went into custody. It is not submitted that these circumstances amount to exceptional hardship, but, as submitted, I have taken these matters into account as increasing the burden on you of the period of imprisonment you must serve.
Risk of deportation
58You are a permanent resident of Australia but you are not a citizen. You have been here for over a decade. A sentence of 12 months or more, which is inevitable, triggers the automatic cancellation of your visa pursuant to the Migration Act. You will have appeal rights against any such cancellation, but the spectre of deportation would loom very large following a sentence of that duration. I accept the risk of deportation and the anxiety and uncertainty accompanying that risk operates to increase the burden on you of the period of imprisonment I will impose, although this is less significant than it might have otherwise been given there is little left for you in this country, your wife and child having left.
59You had made a life for yourself and your family in this country over a decade. You wanted to bring your child up here. You had established a business. You are now alone in this country. I take into account that potential loss of opportunity to settle permanently in Australia with your family as an additional punitive consequence in accordance with the authorities.
60Further, I am told, and I accept that you have a belief that further proceedings in Korea over this incident are a possibility if you are deported, and I accept this perception will add to the burden of your prison sentence.
Time in custody
61In formulating the sentence in this matter, I have taken into account the restrictive conditions in the prison which prevail in response to the pandemic. This is a matter that will increase the burden of your imprisonment for at least some time into the future.
62In your situation, with your wife and child having moved back to Korea, your time in prison will be a very isolated experience. You do not receive any visits as your family are overseas. Your English is limited. In Australia you have remained immersed in the Korean community in Melbourne. You will be isolated both by language and culture within the prison system.
63In my opinion for many reasons this, your first experience of imprisonment, will weigh very heavily on you and I have moderated the periods of imprisonment to be imposed to reflect this and I have regard to this matter in fixing the non-parole period in this case.
Delay
64The filing hearing is this matter was on 2 August 2019. You were then committed for trial on 2 March 2020. The trial did not start until 15 February this year. The trial would have proceeded in June 2021 were it not for the pandemic and the suspension of trials. Therefore, you spent almost two years waiting for this case to be determined after committal. I take into account the uncertainty over your future and the anxiety such a delay must have caused. I take that into account as a mitigating matter.
Prospects of rehabilitation
65You have no prior criminal history and I sentence you as a person of good character prior to this offending. You enjoyed a stable relationship and family life and contributed to the community through the business you established. It seems your wife is standing by you. I have found the offending to be fundamentally opportunistic albeit with some planning.
66Given the absence of any criminal history and the salutary effect of the prison sentence to be imposed in this case I have some optimism about your prospects of rehabilitation. Of course, the circumstances and the gravity of these offences and the fact you have not shown any remorse or insight tempers the view I take of your rehabilitative prospects.
Standard sentence
67The standard sentence of 10 years for an offence of rape operates as a yardstick only and is applicable to an offence in the mid-range of seriousness having regard only to its objective features. The standard sentence is not a mandatory sentence or the primary sentencing consideration, or the starting point from which to add or subtract time. It is only one of the many matters to be considered by a court in the instinctive synthesis of all matters relevant to sentencing.
68The law requires me to fully identify the facts, matters, and circumstances relevant to my decision as to the appropriate sentence, including an assessment of the seriousness of the offending not limited only to its objective features. In these remarks, I have endeavoured to do that in some detail. The sentences that I will impose in this case are lower than the standard sentence. In arriving at the sentences in this case I have taken into account all matters I am required to consider under the Sentencing Act, including the standard sentence.
69In fixing the non-parole period with respect to the standard sentence I am precluded from fixing a period lower than 60% of the head sentence unless I consider it is in the interest of justice to do so.
70In respect of current sentencing practices, I can only take into account sentences imposed where the standard sentencing scheme applies.
71I have been provided with a list of cases by the prosecution which were discussed on the plea with both counsel. These cases are indicative of current sentencing practices for rape charges since the introduction of the standard sentencing scheme. I have had regard to these cases. Of course, none are on all fours with the facts of this case. Current sentencing practices are one factor to consider in the instinctive synthesis of sentencing; they are a guide but not a controlling factor in deciding the sentence.
72In this case you have been convicted of four offences all of which are sexual offences under the Sentencing Act. Each requires a sentence of imprisonment. You therefore fall to be sentenced as serious sexual offender on Charges 3 and 4.
73The consequences of the serious offender provisions are that I am required to consider protection of the community as the principle sentencing purpose in sentencing for Charges 3 and 4, and the totality principle is modified but not excluded by the statutory presumption of cumulation that applies in sentencing a serious sexual offender for a sexual offence.
74The totality principle requires me to ensure that the overall term imposed is just and proportionate to the total criminality of the offending. In this case where all charges arise from the one incident connected in time and circumstances, substantial concurrency is necessary to ensure the sentence remains proportionate.
75The serious offender provisions of course allow for a disproportionate sentence, but such a sentence is not necessary, and nor was one asked for by the prosecution.
76Your serious offender status will be noted in the records of the court.
77In sentencing for multiple offences arising from the same incident, there is a risk of double punishment. I have read and had regard to the case of El-Waly v R (2012) 46 VR 656 where the sentence for an offence of abduction for the purpose of sexual penetration was held to be manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal found that given the length of the sentence imposed for abduction, the sentencing judge must have used the rape which took place after the abduction as an aggravating factor in relation to the abduction, which was impermissible.
78On the other hand, the evidence that you engaged in planning for the rape offences from the time you formed the intention to sexually penetrate the victim and remove her from the restaurant is capable of being an aggravating circumstance in respect of the rapes. The planning involved goes beyond taking the victim away from the restaurant, which is the basis of the abduction charge.
79The prosecution relied on two cases[16] where the administration of a drug which was the subject of a charge prior to offences of rape was correctly regarded as an aggravating feature in respect of the rape offences.
[16] Balassis v The Queen [2010] VSCA 296; DPP v TJD [2009] VSCA 317
80Nonetheless, there is an overlap in criminality between the abduction and the rape charges and I have taken into account the abduction and the time you formed the intention to commit the rapes in assessing the gravity of the rape offences. In all the circumstances I have decided not to impose any cumulation for the abduction offence.
Sentencing principles
81I regard general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment as the most important factors in sentencing for this offending. The sentence I impose must send a message that substantial punishment will be the outcome for offenders convicted of an offence such as this involving the serious sexual abuse of a woman rendered helpless by alcohol. Further, I must denounce on behalf of the community the serious criminal conduct of which you have been found guilty. I must also take into account specific deterrence, but it has less importance here having regard to the absence of priors, my somewhat optimistic view of your prospects of rehabilitation and the heavy burden of the period of imprisonment I will impose. I am required where possible to facilitate your rehabilitation.
82The non-parole period is the minimum term that justice requires you to serve, in all the circumstances, before being eligible for release on parole. In fixing the non-parole period in this matter I have had regard to the gravity of the offending and all of the mitigating factors that apply as well as the statutory constraint that applies to non-parole periods in respect of standard sentence offences.
Sentence
83In relation to the charges on the Indictment:
84In respect of Charge 1 of abduction for a sexual purpose, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.
85In respect to Charge 2 of rape, this being the digital penetration, you are convicted and sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment, this is the base charge.
86In respect of Charge 3 of rape you are convicted and sentenced to 6 years and 6 months imprisonment. That is the oral penetration.
87In relation to Charge 4 being the penile vaginal rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 6 years' and 8 months' imprisonment.
888 months of the sentence on Charge 3 and 10 months of the sentence of Charge 4 are cumulative on each other and on the sentence for Charge 7.
89That makes a total effective sentence of 8 years and 6 months. I fix a minimum non-parole period in this matter of 5 years 4 months.
90Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act I declare 134 days of pre‑sentence detention is to be administratively deducted from the sentence that I have imposed.
91I make the ancillary orders for disposal for the clothing and other items which is being sought by the prosecution.
92So those are the orders. Any clarification required of those orders?
93MS THOMAS: Sorry, could you just repeat the number of months cumulation on Charge 4?
94HIS HONOUR: Eight on three and ten on four so that's eighteen on top of seven, making it eight and a half.
95MS THOMAS: Thank you Your Honour. If Your Honour pleases.
96HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you both for your assistance throughout the course of this matter. I'll now adjourn until Monday. Did you want to stay on the link to speak to your client?
97MS O'BRIEN: Yes Your Honour if I might have ten minutes or so with the interpreter and my client.
98HIS HONOUR: All right, that will be arranged.
99MS O'BRIEN: Thank you.
- - -
3
3
0