Director of Public Prosecutions v Paulus Ginting (a pseudonym)
[2023] VCC 55
•25 January 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PAULUS GINTING (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE RIDDELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 06, 07, 08, 09, 12, 13, 14 September 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 25 January 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Paulus Ginting (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 55 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW -- SENTENCE
Catchwords: Indecent Act with a Child Under 16 -- Sexual Penetration of a Child Under 16 -- Plea of Not Guilty -- Victim 13 year old girl -- Accused was victim’s uncle -- Position of Trust -- No prior criminal history -- Serious Sexual Offender -- Mandatory SORA Registration for life
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 -- Sex Offender Registration Act 2004
Cases Cited:Bromley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 329 -- Deacon v DPP [2018] VSCA 257 -- DPP v Dalgleish(a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360 -- DPP v Ellis [2005] VSCA 105 -- DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90 -- DPP v Watson [2019] VCC 1270 [96] -- EDM v The Queen [2010] VSCA 308 -- R v DCP [2006] VSCA 2 -- R v Rankin [2001] VSCA 158 -- R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 -- The Queen v DP [2007] VSCA 219 – The Queen v Khem [2008] VSCA 136.
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Alexander Albert | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Luke McPhie | Damian McNally & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1Paulus Ginting, on 14 September 2022 following a seven day trial, a jury found you guilty of one charge of Indecent Act With or in the Presence of a Child Under 16, and two charges of Sexual Penetration of a Child under 16.
2The victim in this case was Allegra Hartman.[1] Her father and your wife, Ellen Ginting,[2] are siblings. Ms Hartman was therefore your niece. She was between 13 and 14 years of age at the time you offended against her. She is now aged 25.
[1] A pseudonym
[2] A pseudonym
3You are now 65 years old and were in your mid-50s when the offences occurred.
Background
4Ms Hartman and her family moved from the Philippines to Australia in or around the year 2000 and settled in Denistone, New South Wales.
5You lived in Victoria with your wife, Ellen Ginting, but your two families would visit each other.
6On an occasion when you and your wife visited the Hartman family in Denistone in around 2009, you entered the victim's bedroom at night. She was sleeping in the same room as her sister and your granddaughter on mattresses on the floor. The other children were asleep. You lay beside the victim and pulled the doona off her. You rubbed her stomach and vagina over the top of her pyjamas. Allegra swatted your hand away but you proceeded to put your hand down her pants and rub her vagina. She recalled having pubic hair. She said after a short time you stopped what you were doing and left the room.
7A couple of days later during the same visit, Allegra was seated on her single bed. It was the early evening before dinner. You came into her room and sat beside her and touched her leg on the upper thigh towards her genital area. Someone called out for dinner and you got up and walked away.
8Those events are uncharged but were relied on by the prosecution as part of the tendency and context evidence in the trial. Those acts do not aggravate the specific charged offences. You are not to be sentenced for those acts. They provide a backdrop to the charged acts, meaning you cannot claim those offences were isolated incidents. I take those events into account only to that extent. [3]
[3] Deacon v DPP [2018] VSCA 257; DPP v Watson [2019] VCC 1270 [96]; R v Rankin [2001] VSCA 158.
9Ms Hartman did not tell anyone what you had done at that time. She described being a 'scared kid' whose boundaries were being violated and that she was afraid and anxious.
Summary of offending
10Sometime between the end of 2010 and the start of 2011, Allegra and her family moved to Melbourne and lived in Balwyn. At that time she was going into Year 8.
11Allegra visited you and Ellen at your home in Caroline Springs. She said she was close to her aunt. She said during 2011 and 2012 she stayed at your house between seven to 10 times. On some occasions she visited with her younger sister Lauren.[4]
[4] A pseudonym
12During that period your three-and-a-half-year-old granddaughter Amanda[5] lived with you. Her mother, your daughter Jasmine[6] would also stay from time to time. At that time you were working as a butcher and as such you were doing long hours which often involved you leaving for work in the middle of the night.
[5] A pseudonym
[6] A pseudonym
13Allegra stated that on an occasion in 2011 she stayed at your house on her own. She could not recall whether she stayed for a single or multiple nights. She was sleeping in Amanda’s bedroom and preparing for bed you entered the room. She was seated on the bed and you were standing. You didn’t say anything, but 'forcefully' guided her to touch your crotch. That is the basis of Charge 1 – Indecent Act with a child under 16. Immediately after, you pulled your pants down and put your penis into her mouth. That is the basis of Charge 2 – Sexual Penetration of a child under 16. She could not say how long that continued, nor how that event ended.
14On another night you, Ellen and Allegra were watching television in the master bedroom. Allegra could not say whether this was the same visit as the events constituting Charges 1 and 2, or a separate visit. You were all in the main bed, with Allegra in the middle. It was not intended that Allegra would sleep in the bed with you and your wife Ellen. Your wife was dozing off and eventually went to sleep.
15Ms Hartman was wearing pyjamas. You began to touch her on her legs, stomach and then her vagina, initially over her clothing but then under her clothing. She described you rubbing her vagina in very vigorous circular motion and then putting your fingers inside her vagina. She said that went for 'probably 5 minutes' at which point she described having an orgasm. That act of penetration is the subject of Charge 3 – Sexual penetration of a child under 16.
16When you stopped touching her she got out of the bed. She took her aunt's phone from the bedside table and went into Amanda’s bedroom where she messaged her then boyfriend, Liam Christensen,[7] about what had just happened. She told him, 'I could still feel his hands all over me.' She said she told Mr Christensen as he was removed from family and as such was a 'safe' option. She stated she was conscious of the disruption any disclosure would mean to her family.
[7] A pseudonym
17The following morning, however, Ellen Ginting saw that message or messages on her phone. She gave evidence that the message said something to the effect of, 'my uncle touched me or tried to touch me. I felt uncomfortable.' She said it, 'stopped her in her tracks.'
18Ellen told Allegra she wanted to talk about the message she had sent to Mr Christensen. Allegra did not want to talk to her about it, and so did not disclose anything. Ellen said she would talk to you about it.
19Ellen Ginting did speak to you about what she had seen on her phone. She asked you 'did anything happen with Allegra last night?' to which you responded, 'No.' She told you that Allegra felt uncomfortable about something which had occurred. You said you did not know what she was talking about and denied any wrongdoing.
20Following that occasion, Ms Hartman continued to visit your home and on occasions stayed the night, although the frequency of visits declined over time. You did not offend against her again.
21When she was approximately 15 years old, Allegra told her then boyfriend Harrison Campos[8] about what you had done to her. She said by then she had more understanding that your behaviour constituted sexual assault. She described Mr Campos as being angry and wanting to tell her parents, but she told him not to do so.
[8] A pseudonym
22Mr Campos and Mr Christensen both gave evidence at the trial confirming Allegra's complaint to them about sexual assault of her by her uncle.
23Ms Hartman reported the matter to police in December 2019.
24On 9 March 2020, you were arrested and interviewed. You denied that anything occurred.
25You agreed that you and Ellen discussed a message that Ellen had found, sent from Allegra but you only recalled this, 'vaguely.' In other words, you confirmed the conversation with your wife about a message she had observed on her phone sent by Allegra Hartman.
26You were charged in May 2020.
Trial
27You pleaded not guilty to the charges. Your matter proceeded to a contested committal hearing in March 2021, and then ultimately a trial in September 2022. Allegra Hartman, Harrison Campos, Liam Christensen and Ellen Ginting all gave evidence and were cross-examined at both the committal and trial.
Maximum Penalties
28In relation to the two penetration offences, the jury found you guilty of the additional element of the offences charged, namely that at the time of the offences occurring Allegra was under your care, supervision or authority. The impact of that finding is that the maximum penalty for Charges 2 and 3 is increased from 10 years' to 15 years' imprisonment. As has been stated by the Victorian Court of Appeal, Parliament has made it clear that the essential purpose of the applicable statutory provisions is to protect children and young persons from sexual exploitation, particularly by those who are in positions of care, supervision and authority in relation to them.[9]
[9]R v DCP [2006] VSCA 2, [24]; DPP v Ellis [2005] VSCA 105.
29That maximum penalty acts as a guidepost in sentencing, however it follows from the increase that Parliament's view is that those in positions of care, supervision or authority over a child are to be dealt with more severely than those not entrusted with that responsibility.
30The maximum penalty in relation to Charge 1 of indecent act with a child under 16 is 10 years' imprisonment.
31In addition, in relation to Charge 3 you will fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender once I impose imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2.
32It was sensibly conceded by Mr McPhie on your behalf that a term of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence for this offending. That is so for the following reasons.
Sentencing principles
33Sexual crimes against children are inherently serious and abhorrent offences. They violate the basic norms of civilised behaviour and strike at the value the community places on the need for care of young children, in particular, by those in positions of power over them. That is especially so where the offending involves a breach by someone in a position of care or trust. As the High Court has said, 'sexual abuse of children by those in authority over them has been revealed as a most serious blight on society.'[10]
[10] DPP v Dalgleish(a pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 360.
34Courts and the community far better understand the immediate but also the potentially far-reaching consequences of this type of offending. Where, as here, offences are committed against a girl aged 13 and on the brink of puberty, sexual offending is likely to be confronting and confusing, impacting their identity, their self-confidence and their capacity for trust.
35Sentencing courts must send a strong message of denunciation. Sentences must deter others from offending in this way and must seek to protect the community and in particular, any other child from being abused by a person in a position of trust. The sentence I impose must demonstrate to others the grave consequences of violating such laws.[11] As the Court of Appeal said as long ago as 2007 in The Queen v DP,[12] ‘… putting it bluntly, those who exploit and abuse young children, must anticipate that the response of our society, which our courts represent, will be severe.’
[11] DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90 [14]; Bromley v The Queen [2018] VSCA 329 [70]-[71].
[12] [2007] VSCA 219.
Objective gravity
36In assessing the objective gravity of your offending, I take into account the following matters.
37First, your offending was against an adolescent girl, aged approximately 13 years. The age gap between you was substantial – approximately four decades. Those are significant aggravating features.
38Second, your offending occurred on two separate occasions. Although not pre-meditated, on both occasions you took the opportunity of having Allegra present in your home and accessible to you to offend against her for your own gratification. I take into account the fact that Charges 1 and 2 occurred within the same incident and in quick succession. That fact will be reflected in very limited cumulation in sentences for those offences.
39Third, your offences involved penetration in ways which were very invasive for a young girl. Allegra was unable to say how long you had your penis in her mouth but that act must have been very confronting and shocking for her. She said your fingers were in her vagina for about five minutes. The fact your touching in Charge 3 caused her to have an orgasm must have been very confusing for her. A physical pleasure response beyond her conscious control must have felt like a betrayal of her distress about what was occurring. It has no doubt left her with conflictual reactions in her ongoing sexual development and experiences.
40Your offending stopped of your own volition, but only upon learning that Allegra had made a complaint and being confronted with that fact by your wife. It matters little what the specific content of that conversation was. The significance is the child would no longer be silent. You denied any wrongdoing to your wife. No doubt she is left with feelings of guilt and sadness. It was clear to me that she has been very close to Allegra and a very loving aunt to her. Your offending threatened that relationship and is in no way the fault of Ellen Ginting.
41In addition to those aggravating features, you have been found guilty of the additional element of being in a position of care, supervision or authority in relation to Charges 2 and 3. That is, you were in a position of trust as Ms Hartman's uncle. You have breached that trust in a most egregious way. Ms Hartman was entitled to expect from your care and kindness. She was entitled to be safe with you. Instead, you offended against her in the home of her aunt where you were in loco parentis and where she was entitled to feel safe. I have been careful not to take that consideration into account twice. That is, it constitutes a serious aspect of your offending but is an element of the penetration offences, rather than an aggravating feature.[13]
[13] EDM v The Queen [2010] VSCA 308.
42However, that fact is aggravating in relation to Charge 1. In addition, in relation to all three offences, as well as breaching Allegra's trust you have also breached the trust of your wife Ellen Ginting and her family.[14] You were another trusted adult in the extended family. Sexual offences committed against a child in a family setting often have a ripple-effect reaching far beyond the primary victim. They disrupt relationships, create feelings of blame and guilt, and upset the fabric of families.
[14] Ibid [19].
43Considering the circumstances I have outlined, when viewed overall, your offending constitutes a serious example of these offences.
Victim Impact Statements
44In considering the lasting impact of sexual offending on child victims, the Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions v Toomey stated:
‘Frequently the damage will be profound and a long time will pass before it can be addressed at all. In the meantime, childhood will be destroyed, self-esteem damaged, educational and career opportunities lost and the capacity to form and maintain relationships seriously impaired.’'[15]
[15] DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90, [22] (‘Toomey’).
45The impact on Allegra Hartman has been significant. She is now aged 25 years old. She is obviously an intelligent and very articulate young woman. The jury found her to be honest and reliable. She provided a victim impact statement which I have taken into account in sentencing you. It bears out the type of impact over many aspects of her life which the Court of Appeal described. She says:
'I have suffered in incalculable ways because of your callous exploitation for moments of your own sick and selfish pleasure.
'Since your attacks, I have had trouble sleeping, often awoken by nightmares that take inspiration from the events. You broke the development of my self-image, causing a distinct lack of self-love, which culminated in bulimia and other forms of self-harm. Most confusingly are the strange trauma responses I still have to what would otherwise be an innocuous stimulus. I would never have imagined all the various triggers which would result in panic attacks.
'The physical impacts of your attacks on me as a little girl intertwine with the emotional ones. You took my sense of virginity and, with your cruel and self-serving actions, distorted how I would view every sexual relationship and intimate encounter I would go on to have. You not only violated my physical space as a child but caused in me a diminished capacity to find pleasure in physical and sexual intimacy. Instead of meeting pleasure with satisfaction, my body would react with a panic attack, perpetuating confusion within myself about what I truly want. You warped my sense of physical boundaries and the meaning of consent, which I have only recently begun to restore within myself.'
46She describes the impact on her interpersonal relationships and her fear of being alone, making her emotionally dependent. She has struggled to maintain steady academic and work life, requiring special consideration to allow extra time for her to complete her degree. The ripple effect involved focusing disproportionate time on her academic goals and missing social and family opportunities. There has been a financial impact including the delay in entering the work force, but also in seeking treatment from medical and mental health practitioners.
47Ultimately she says:
'You have caused me to feel profoundly unsafe and unloved; not just during your sick attacks on me, but throughout much of my life since. You took advantage of me as an innocent little girl and I cannot describe the disgust - the fervent disdain - I hold for you.'
Personal circumstances
48I turn now to your personal circumstances.
49I have read the psychological report prepared by Ms Marlese Bovenkerk, who assessed you on 12 and 20 December 2020.
50You were born and raised in West Timor in Indonesia and have four older siblings. Your father was a teacher and your mother was a nurse. You describe your upbringing and your family relationships as positive.
51You were in a long-term de facto partnership that commenced in 1980 when you were 20 and you have four children to that union. Your partner's relatives did not approve of you due to your different religious backgrounds and as a result your relationship was 'on-and-off.'
52Your children are now aged 40, 34, 30 and 25. Three followed you to Australia, and your other daughter lives in Abu Dhabi. You are regularly in contact with your children, and all have provided character references. In addition, I have seen a photograph of your grandchildren with posters containing messages to you.
53It is clear to me from the letters written by your adult children and tendered at the plea, that you have been a good father to them and remain close to them. Your offending stands in stark contrast to their experience of you.
54Your eldest daughter, Jasmine, describes you as a good father, noting that you have provided financially for all of your children until university. She characterises you as humble and responsible. There was evidence at the trial in relation to her mental health struggles and the fact that you and your wife Ellen provided accommodation and support for her and for her daughter Amanda. I was told at your plea that care for Jasmine not infrequently involved you dealing with the CAT team or police as a result of her mental health difficulties. You also liaised with medical practitioners to obtain medical and mental health treatment for her.
55Another daughter, Fay,[16] likewise describes you as her, 'best friend' and notes your ongoing support of your family. Your son echoes these sentiments regarding your work ethic and dedication to supporting your family.
[16] A pseudonym
56Your youngest daughter expresses that she was deeply shocked and saddened by your offending and imprisonment. She describes herself as financially, mentally and psychologically dependent on you.
57Separation from your children will be very difficult for you and I take that into account. That is particularly so given you financially support your youngest daughter, and emotionally support your other daughter Jasmine.
58You met your wife, Ellen Ginting, while she was on holiday in Bali in around 1994, and married in 1995. You have no children together. This relationship continued for some 25 years.
59Upon being charged with this offending, you and Ellen Ginting separated and you have no contact.
60Your work history is lengthy and very positive. Following school you left West Timor and moved to Bali for the sole purpose of finding employment. You were employed for 11 or 12 years as a tour guide in a leather shop. You then worked as a security guard for approximately four years.
61After immigrating to Australia, you obtained work in abattoirs, rising to the position of butcher and completing various OHS certificates along the way. You were in constant employment until your current period of remand. Ellen Ginting in evidence described you as a very hard worker in a very hard job. In prison, you have continued to demonstrate your work ethic, obtaining employment in the metal industries.
62From the time of your employment in Bali, right through until your remand you sent money home to your family every fortnight. Initially that was your aunt and uncle in West Timor, then growing to include your children in Bali and now your granddaughter in
Abu Dhabi and your grandchildren in Bali. You have taken that responsibility very seriously and it is commendable.63At some stage you developed a problem with gambling; however, you undertook counselling in 2020, after which time you successfully ceased gambling.
Medical and Mental Health
64You are now 65 years old. You are in reasonable health although you have some hip and lower back pain and you have inherited diabetes from your father. Two of your siblings have passed away from that condition. You took regular medication for a significant period of time but have come off the medication in the last couple of years apparently with no ill-effects, though prior to your remand you were having six-monthly check-ups with your GP.
65Your mental health has declined with your remand to custody. You report feeling depressed and stressed regarding your current predicament. You have also expressed a sense of hopelessness and helplessness. The responsibility of supporting your children and grandchildren is weighing on you. Your granddaughter Amanda apparently remains in the care of Ellen Ginting.
66You are having difficulty with sleep and concentration and are feeling isolated in the custodial setting. You have some difficulties with English, though you have lived and worked successfully in Australia for many years. According to Ms Bovenkerk you are experiencing a moderately severe level of depression and moderate symptoms of anxiety. She says you have an Adjustment Disorder with depressed and anxious mood.
67Although your Counsel submitted that the psychological report establishes a mental impairment which could enliven limb two R v Verdins[17], in my view that is not the case. The symptoms you are experiencing are reactive to your current situation. Although that might enliven principles in Verdins, there is nothing in the report of Ms Bovenkerk which establishes mental impairment at the time of the offending, such as to reduce your moral culpability for your deliberate, determined offending or to result in a significantly reduced sentence here.
[17] [2007] VSCA 102.
68Similarly, I do not find that your current mental state is such that limbs five or six of Verdins are enlivened. I accept that you are finding imprisonment difficult, but I do not find that you suffer any mental impairment which means your time in custody is significantly more burdensome, or that there is a significant risk of deterioration in your mental health. I take those matters into account generally, but they do not enliven Verdins in my view.
Prospects of rehabilitation
69In assessing your prospects of rehabilitation I take into account the following matters. You have no prior criminal convictions and have not committed any offences since 2011. You have a good work ethic and the support of your adult children, all of whom are aware of this offending. Those facts bode well for your successful rehabilitation and lower your risk of further offending.
70However, you continue to deny this offending and as such I cannot find any evidence of insight or remorse. Those factors are described by Ms Bovenkerk as representing a serious obstacle to your prospects of rehabilitation. Your denial made it difficult for her to explore potential factors relevant to the commission of the offending. She assessed you on the recognised tools as a low to moderate risk of sexual recidivism.
71Your ongoing denial will be a barrier to successful treatment in custody. You will be mandated to undertake sexual offender treatment in custody. Whether you engage will be a matter for you and will be a real marker towards your ultimate rehabilitation. If not for your denials I would have said your prospects of rehabilitation are very positive in circumstances where you stopped the offending and have not re-engaged in any similar offending for over a decade. However, given your ongoing denials I find your prospects of rehabilitation to be somewhat guarded.
Plea of Not Guilty
72You ran a trial as is your right. That fact however means I cannot find any evidence of remorse and you do not get a benefit from pleading guilty and saving the witnesses the additional stress of a criminal trial.
Impact of custody
73I take into account that the period of your remand has occurred while the COVID-19 pandemic is still at play in Victoria. You have had no in-person visits since your remand in September. You spent approximately 17 days in isolation at Port Phillip Prison and MRC at the start of your remand. That was your first experience of custody. You have been subject to additional lockdowns since arriving at Hopkins. I was told by your counsel that staff shortages at Hopkins have impacted negatively upon daily life there.
Deportation
74Your time in custody is also made more difficult by the fact you face deportation at the conclusion of any sentence. You are a permanent resident but not citizen despite your years in this country. Therefore any sentence over 12 months will result in automatic cancellation of your resident status and likely deportation. Case law establishes that that is a relevant consideration in sentence.[18] It means imprisonment will weigh more heavily on you. In your case that is particularly so given three of your children and one of your grandchildren live in Australia.
[18] The Queen v Khem [2008] VSCA 136.
75In addition I accept the submissions made by Mr McPhie that it is a particular issue for you as you came to Australia around 27 or 28 years ago and have made great efforts to establish yourself here. Your closest family members reside here and you have an established work record as a contributor to this community. You have not returned to West Timor and are unfamiliar with life in Indonesia, although you have some extended family still living there.
Current sentencing practices
76I take into account current sentencing practices for offences of this kind. I have been provided with various sentencing snapshots. Counsel agreed that there are limitations in considering those statistics, and limitations in considering other cases. There are always different facts of offending and different personal circumstances which affect an ultimate sentence. Ultimately I am required to impose a just sentence taking into account all the circumstances of your case and that is what I have endeavoured to do.
Sentence
77Mr Ginting, on Charge 1 of indecent act with or within the presence of a child under 16, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
78On Charge 2, of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and who was under your care, supervision or authority, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
79On Charge 3, of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and who was under your care, supervision or authority, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' and four months' imprisonment.
80I direct that the sentence on Charge 3 is the base sentence. I direct that 10 months of the sentence on Charge 2 and two months of the sentence on Charge 1, be served cumulatively on the base sentence and on each other. The total effective sentence therefore is five years and four months' imprisonment.
81I direct that you are to serve a minimum of three years and 10 months' imprisonment before you become eligible for parole.
82I declare that you have already served 133 days in custody excluding today, and that that period of time be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.
83I direct that in relation to Charge 3, you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender and that that matter should be entered into the records of the court.
Sex Offender Registration
84Further, under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 you have been found guilty of two Class 1 offences and one Class 2 offence. Accordingly, mandatory registration applies pursuant to s34(1)(a) of that Act, you must comply with reporting obligations for life.
85In relation to the Sex Offender Registration, paperwork will be provided to you Mr Ginting in custody, and you will be asked to sign a document indication that you have received that paperwork.
86Are there any matters to raise counsel?
87MR McPHIE: Your Honour, pre-sentence detention was 133 or 103?
88HER HONOUR: 133.
89MR McPHIE: Thank Your Honour, I misheard.
90HER HONOUR: I understand that was the agreed.
91MR McPHIE: That was agreed, Your Honour. I misheard 103, so my apologies, Your Honour. No, nothing further.
92HER HONOUR: Mr Albert.
93MR ALBERT: Nothing further, Your Honour.
94HER HONOUR: Thanks very much. Thank you counsel for your assistance, and thank you Mr Rachmat for your assistance. The phone seems to have dropped out, Mr Ginting. I will leave the Bench and I will leave you Mr McPhie and you Mr Rachmat if you would be good enough to stay on the link just to make sure Mr Ginting knows exactly what the ultimate outcome has been.
95INTERPRETER: Yes please, Your Honour.
96MR McPHIE: Thank Your Honour. If Your Honour pleases.
97HER HONOUR: Thanks counsel for your assistance with this matter.
98MR ALBERT: Thank you, Your Honour.
- - -
0
12
0