Director of Public Prosecutions v Vo

[2024] VCC 788

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 23-00190

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

SI RO VO

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE KARAPANAGIOTIDIS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 February 2024, 2 May 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	31 May 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Vo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 788

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing.

Catchwords:           Trafficking in not less than large commercial quantity - possess drug of 

Dependence - sentence indication - guilty plea - standard sentence.

Legislation Cited:     The Sentencing Act1991 (Vic).

Cases Cited:            R v Pidotto (2006) 14 VR 269; Trajkovski v The Queen [2011] VSCA  

170; Ross v The Queen [2022] VSCA 149; Worboyes v The Queen

[2021] VSCA 169.

Sentence:                 TES 10 years, 5 months imprisonment, NPP 6 years, 7 months. 

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr P. Pickering	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms N. Freijah	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HER HONOUR: 

1Si Ro Vo, have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine and diacetylmorphine in a quantity that was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to those drugs of dependence.  You have also pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing a drug of dependence, namely cocaine.  Further, you have agreed to this court hearing and have pleaded guilty to the summary rolled-up charge of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.

Circumstances of the offending

2The first circumstances of your offending are outlined in the prosecution opening marked as Exhibit A on the plea, and this is the basis upon which I sentence you. In brief, Operation Achilles 2020 was an investigation undertaken by Victoria Police Drug Task force to investigate your drug trafficking activities. You were identified as trafficking methylamphetamine and heroin with the assistance of a number of a co-accused, including Ngoc Thi Pham, Diep Hoang, Duc Pham and Bich Ngoc Diep Nguyen.  Ms Pham and Ms Nguyen were also identified as being your intimate partners.

3You, together with your co-accused, utilised three residential addresses to prepare, store and distribute methylamphetamine and heroin, namely the addresses at Shamrock Street, Abbotsford, Goldsmith Avenue, Delahey, and Disraeli Street, St Albans.  Police also identified several phones and vehicles used by you and your co-accused.  Your activities were investigated through lawfully obtained telecommunication intercept warrants, physical surveillance and the use of undercover operatives.

4On Charge 1 you admit to trafficking in methylamphetamine and heroin between 16 March 21 and 28 May 2021 in quantities not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to those drugs.  A summary of all drug transactions during this period is annexed to the prosecution summary and marked A.  You engaged in the following exchanges with undercover operatives:

(a) 15 and 16 March 2021 you indicate you had access to heroin, methylamphetamine.  You offered the operatives a glass pipe to try which was analysed and found to contain 0.1 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 80 per cent. The next day you supplied drugs in exchange for $550, later analysed to be 3.5 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 83 per cent.

(b) On 22 March 2021 in exchange for $4000 you supplied drugs analysed as 27.8 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 86 per cent.  The compressed white powder you had offered as a sample was found to be 0.9 grams of heroin with a purity of 72 per cent.

(c) On 6 April 2021 you supplied three vacuum sealed bags containing a crystalline substance in exchange for $11,700, together with one Ziploc bag containing compressed white powder in exchange for $7200.  The drugs were later analysed to be 83.9 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 85 per cent and 14 grams of heroin with a purity of 68 per cent.

(d) On 22 April 2021, you supplied five bags of drugs through co-accused Nguyen in exchange for $19,500, later analysed to be 139 grams of methylamphetamine, purity of 81 per cent.

5Further, a number of calls as extracted in the prosecution opening are relied upon that showed you were operating a business in drug trafficking in significant amounts, conducting drugs transactions and directing your co-accused to conduct transactions and collect money. 

6There are a number of messages with co-accused Pham, including discussions about financial matters such as the payment for drugs, money owed (7/4/21; 13/4/21; 19/4/21; 24/4/21; 30/4/21; 1/5/21).  Further, the collection of money, directing Pham to get different quantities of methylamphetamine ready and to meet suppliers of drugs (3/4/21, 7/4/21; 14/4/21).

7There are messages with co-accused Nguyen, including directing her to weigh and prepare drugs in various amounts,

a)    '7 grams of the new cold one for AJ and to give it to AJ for $1000' (10/4/21);

b)    'one bag of cold one, 28 grams' and then a further sale of 3.5 to a man waiting, with you saying that 2.2, alleged to be 2,200, is not enough for that amount (10/4/21); 

c)    Texting Nguyen about Lee, whom you had just directed to no.30, and saying the prices were ‘14,000 for hot, cold 3,600’ (17/4/21); 

d)    Calling C. Pham to go to Nguyen and collect three ‘teabags’ alleged to be 84 grams of methylamphetamine 'that you did yesterday' and then contacting Nguyen to prepare the teabags for C. Pham (17/4/21); and

e)    calling Nguyen to weigh the ice for the ‘lad’ AJ, 'it's one quarter' alleged to be 7 grams (3/5/21). 

8There are other examples referred to in the prosecution opening. 

9There are also many messages with Duc Pham where both a delivery and supply of drugs are discussed, including

a)Duc Pham asking for five or six ‘pieces’ alleged to five to six ounces of ‘cold one’, which you said you would bring over (7/5/21);

b)Duc Pham calling to see if the ‘Malaysian cold one’ was still available, with you telling him that you could sell the two or three ‘pieces’ you had left, and then he calls again saying that he had someone who needed the ‘three pieces of cold’ and you told him you will call (7/5/21); 

c)Duc Pham calling you to ask if you had the ‘cold’, that he will pay more paper for it and asked the price and you replied that you would supply it at ‘195 for a quarter’ (8/5/21);

d)Duc Pham ordering ‘three pieces of cold’ (10/5/21);

e)A conversation where it is agreed that Duc Pham had bought 13 ‘pieces’ alleged to be ounces of ‘cold’, one ‘piece of hot’, alleged to be heroin, and one ‘piece’ of cocaine from you and had paid $35,000 to you and had also paid $15,000 to Nguyen and $20,000 to Hoang (14/5/21); and

f)There are others also that will be referred to in my written reasons (e.g. 16/5/21; 17/5/21; 8/5/21).

10Moving on, conversations with associates placing orders for drugs with you, including

a)Tran for 3.5 of heroin (1/4/21); and

b)later for 14 grams of heroin and 28 grams of methylamphetamine (4/21).

c)Lieu for 7 grams of 'top', that is methylamphetamine; 

d)Don Hearne asking to pick up 'a bag of cold, 28 grams of methylamphetamine';

e)an unknown female asking to purchase hot, 'the whole one' (23/4/21);

f)Kay Lee saying she needs 'the piece of seven' and discussing the payment of outstanding money (25/4/21);

g)later discussing the quality of the gear with you, and complaining that her buyers did not like the current quality and you tell her that there is different gear (3/5/21); 

h)Several calls with Hearne, coupled with attendances at the Disraeli Street address relating to purchases of half an ounce (4/5/21);

i)14 grams ‘cold’ for the amount of $4200, ‘cold’ for 300 (7/5/21);

j)‘pure’, alleged to be methylamphetamine, for $2500 (14/5/21);

k)associate Lieu asking for the ‘top one’ alleged to be methylamphetamine and you saying it was 3400 and to come to 30, alleged to be Goldsmith Avenue, and CCTV showing Lieu later arriving at the address and departing with a small white package;

l)an unknown female asking for a ‘big piece’ and a ‘bull’, alleged to be ice from your stock, 'as the other didn't give me any profit' (25/5/21).  She asked for 'the top one' and you agree to come in 20 minutes, arriving at the Disraeli Street address, followed soon after by an unknown female (26/5/21). 

11Again, that is a summary of the matters referred to and it does not exhaustively deal with what is in the prosecution opening which is the basis upon which I sentence you.

12Conversations involving you ordering drugs, including:

a)with an unknown male where you order 'the powder just like the old one but it's no good’.  140, 280, very high though' alleged to be 140,000, 280,000; receiving a call from an unknown male who said he wants to sell a block for 182 and 183, alleged to be 182, 183, 183,000.  He tells you it is ‘tea’ and that he will give you a sample and you tell him to drive over (19/4/21).

b)Several discussions with ‘Tim’ and/or ‘Tim the Chinese guy’, including: about the quality of the latest drugs, with the ‘quarter’ being delicious and seller Tim saying he wants to continue doing business with you (15/4/21).

c)In respect of Tim there are several conversations, a further one with him discussing the cost of drugs, with Tim saying it was a piece, alleged to be 28 grams, for 380, alleged to be 3800, and the other one for 50 and you arranging for Tim to come to you (1/5/21); and

d)exchanging messages with him about sourcing a further quarter block of heroin and the next day CCTV showing Tim attending Shamrock Street with you and then later him returning after receiving messages from you, saying 'This is no good, I need to give back' (26/5/21).

13On 28 May 21 simultaneous search warrants were executed on the three addresses.  At the time you occupied the Goldsmith Avene address along with co-accused Nguyen and Hoang and the three of you were arrested by police.  A clandestine laboratory was also located used for the production and refining of drugs. 

14The prosecution outlines the items seized at the addresses, including the drugs.  A summary of weights and purities of drugs seized by police on 28 May 21 is attached to the prosecution opening marked annexure B.  Police also located 19 grams of cocaine which is alleged to be possessed by you for the purpose of trafficking and also cocaine in your possession at the time of your arrest which is the basis of Charge 2.

15The prosecution also allege that the following property seized by police were suspected of being proceeds of crime: the Camry; $11,750 cash; Toyota Yaris seized from the Shamrock Street address; $2000 cash from the same address, and $1080 cash seized at the Disraeli Street address.

Gravity of offending

16Having summarised the offending I will turn to its gravity.  The seriousness of your offending on Charge 1 is reflected by the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and the standard sentence of 16 years.  The Prosecution submit and I accept that your offending on Charge 1 is serious.

17As is often noted in cases of trafficking drugs of dependence, it is quantity-based sentencing regime[1]. That is, the legislature has fixed the maximum penalties by reference to specific quantitative thresholds.  While quantity is not the only or determinative factor, it is a highly relevant consideration to be taken into account and synthesised for the purpose of arriving at an appropriate sentence in an individual case.

[1]R v Pidotto (2006) 14 VR 269.

18The threshold for trafficking heroin and methylamphetamine as a mixed substance is 750 grams.  It is the agreed position between the parties that between the relevant dates, based on the prosecution opening, you trafficked in at least 2.49 times the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and in 3.75 times the large commercial quantity of heroin[2].  It is clear that the amounts trafficked were significant even if each call referred to by the prosecution in the tables did not necessarily result in a transaction.

[2] See defence submissions, 29 April 2024 at [9].

19Other important indicators of offence seriousness include your role in the trafficking, the duration of the offending, and your motivation. The transactions and the conversations as outlined in the prosecution opening indicate the scale of your operation and the prolific nature of your activities for the charged period.  Your counsel submits that your business was a small one when compared to other largescale and more sophisticated operations.  Also, it is clear from the intercepted material that you were having cashflow problems.  Further, the photographs of the state of the relevant properties and the conditions in which you were preparing drugs for sale reflect the nature and scale of the operation.

20While you were apparently experiencing cashflow problems and there are no lavish signs of enrichment and no doubt larger and more sophisticated operations, I do accept the prosecution submission that this does not mean that your operation was unsophisticated. You had regular suppliers, distributors and clients and operated across multiple properties. Your offending involved a large amount of transactions for significant quantities of the different drugs referred to and large amounts of money.  The prosecution also submit that you had conversations with the undercover operatives about sales and deliveries interstate and larger amounts of drugs and that this reflects upon the nature of your business.

21In this regard I am unable to make a positive finding and you are not to be sentenced on the basis that you intended to expand your business.  Also, you will not be sentenced for trafficking in other drugs such as cocaine as this is not the subject of a trafficking charge.

22I accept that you were in control of this operation in issuing directions and instructions to others and in being involved and concerned about the financial aspect of the business.  In assessing the gravity of your offending and your moral culpability I take into account, Mr Vo, that your role was a prominent and active one. 

23In respect of your trafficking in heroin your Counsel submits that 92 per cent of the heroin located at the various addresses and in the vehicles was of low grade, 7 per cent or less, and that this is a significant factor in sentencing.  She referred to the Court of Appeal in the case of Trajkovski[3] where the following was stated:

'There is no reason, in principle, why the fact that the mixture contains what is plainly only the most miniscule quantity of a drug of dependence, and is therefore unlikely to produce the deleterious effects normally associated with a much larger amount of that particular drugs, albeit in a mixture, should not be regarded as a significant factor to be taken into account in assessing the gravity of the offending.'

[3]  Trajkovski v The Queen [2011] VSCA 170 [124]; see also Kapkidis v The Queen [2013] VSCA 35.

24The Prosecution submit that with respect to Trajkovski the reference to the relevance of purity was in the context of what Weinberg JA referred to as a miniscule amount of the drug methylamphetamine.  In that case the appellant was in possession of a total of 3.924 kilograms of methylamphetamine mixed and the level of purity was approximately 0.05 per cent, meaning that he was in possession of only approximately 1.96 grams of pure methylamphetamine.

25While clearly the heroin was of low grade, which is also consistent with the various telephone intercepts where complaints are made about the quality of your products, I do not accept in your case that the purity levels are miniscule or extraordinarily low such as to constitute a mitigating factor or to bear upon the objective gravity of the offending. 

26Your Counsel also submitted that your offending was motivated by payment to support your own drug habits.  She relied on a combination of circumstances, including your history of drug use since 1998; that you were affected by drugs at the time of your arrest; the bong located at the Disraeli Street address; the position of your co-accused Pham in relation to your drug use; and intercepted communications relating to people owing money and you not having money.

27The Prosecution does not accept, unless it can be proved on the balance of probabilities as a matter in mitigation, that the motivation for the trafficking was to support your own habit.  Instead, the Prosecution submits that your behaviour over the number of months of investigation shows that this was your business, that you bought and sold stock like any other merchant, that you were always concerned about cashflow and that it was a lack of cashflow which was harming the business.

28As indicated at the sentence indication hearing, in all the circumstances I accept that you were a user of drugs and that this may have provided some motivation for your offending; however, on balance I do not accept that your offending was solely or primarily to support your own habit, nor do I consider this to be consistent with the scale of your offending.

Plea of guilty

29Your case proceeded by way of straight hand-up-brief and no witnesses have been cross-examined.  I accept that there have been ongoing resolution discussions from the outset with the principal issue being the quantum of drugs involved.  In all the circumstances your plea of guilty does entitle you to an important sentencing discount.  It has avoided the need for what would have been a lengthy criminal trial and has saved considerable resources and spared a number of witnesses from giving evidence.  Your plea of guilty has utilitarian value and I accept that in your case some weight, even if only limited, should be given to the Worboyes principles[4].  I also accept, Mr Vo, that your plea demonstrates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and is indicative of some remorse.

[4]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.

Personal circumstances

30Your personal background was canvassed by your Counsel, Ms Freijah.  In summary, you are now approximately 60 years of age and you were 57 at the time.  You were born in a coastal town in Vietnam in 1963.  You were one of seven siblings.  Both your parents have passed away from cancer, your father in 75 and your mother later in 85.  You left school in year 2 due to financial struggles that your family experienced.  Your family could simply not afford an education and consequently you never learned how to read or write.  You started to work at 11 years of age to support your family, working as a fishermen doing as many hours as you could to help provide.

31In 1981 you were compelled to serve in the army in Cambodia for six months.  You experienced a significant amount of trauma witnessing and being exposed to horrific violence in both Vietnam and Cambodia as a result of the war and your time serving in the army.  You ended up fleeing Cambodia in an attempt to avoid further conscription.  You struggle with the trauma and memories associated with your experiences.

32You fled Vietnam as a refugee in the early 80s and came to Australia with your older brother.  You are now an Australian citizen. 

33Your longest past relationship was with the mother of your four children.  You were together from approximately 1986 to 1997 and your children are now aged between 28 and 37 years.  Over the years you have had a fractured relationship with your family and children.  You have spent long periods away from them, largely due to your drug use and associated shame.  At the most recent plea hearing the court was informed that there have been some positive developments and that you have reconnected with family, which was evidenced by their attendance at court in support of you.

34As for work in Australia, in 1984 you worked for Ford as a factory worker for some two years; in 1988 you started a laundry business which shut down in 1994.  As a result of this failed business you lost money, found yourself in serious debt which you could not repay, and declared yourself bankrupt.  Your life then took a downhill spiral with you experiencing depression, mental health struggles, and turning to drugs as a coping mechanism.  You started using heroin in 1998 and methylamphetamine later in 2008 and it is in this context it was submitted that your criminal offending began.

35You do have a relevant prior criminal history, including for trafficking in drugs. On 14 November 2003 you were sentenced in this court for trafficking in heroin to four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and eight months.  On 17 July 2015 you were sentenced on three charges of trafficking drug of dependence to an aggregate term of 30 months' imprisonment along with a two-year community corrections order.

36Mr Vo, I accept your background as outlined by Ms Freijah is one of disadvantage and trauma and that you have suffered a degree of deprivation in your earlier years.  On the material before me it is unclear how this has all precisely impacted you.  To this end, I do note that it has previously been stated that the impact of disadvantage is complex, multilayered, non-linear and not easily diagnosed or measured[5].

[5]Ross v The Queen [2022] VSCA 149.

37Your background is relevant to the sentencing discretion and it is a matter that I have taken into account.  However, I am inclined to agree with the Prosecution that it is difficult to see how such deprivation might be said to explain the present offending such that it could lead to any meaningful reduction in your moral culpability as contended for by your counsel. 

Other mitigating factors

38In sentencing you, Mr Vo, I also take into account the delay in the finalisation of your case.  You have been on remand for what is now just over three years, waiting for your case to finalise.  You have experienced this period partly in more onerous and uncertain conditions arising from the COVID pandemic.  I am prepared to accept as submitted by Ms Freijah that you have experienced stress, anxiety and uncertainty during this lengthy period and I take this into account in sentencing you.

39I also take into account that on remand you have experienced more restrictive and onerous conditions as a result of COVID-19 and I take this matter into account. You spent approximately three months in 24-hour isolation.  Also, in December 23 you had Covid and spent eight days in isolation.  Further, I take into account that you experienced greater isolation in custody on account of the language barrier you face.  You are currently engaged in an English course but apparently have been unable to undertake any rehabilitative courses because of your difficulties in accessing them.

40Your Counsel also relied upon your mature age and submitted that each year of the sentence represents a substantial portion of the period of life which is left.  You are currently on medication for diabetes, hypertension and asthma and you have experienced episodes of dizziness and fainting in custody.  This has resulted in multiple hospital admissions throughout your remand period.  I take these matters into account as relevant to your personal circumstances and the challenges you face in custody.  Of course, these factors cannot justify the imposition of an unacceptably inappropriate sentence.

41Both Counsel refer to the principle of parity, with your Counsel submitting that while your co-offenders have been sentenced for offending less serious in nature, parity still has a role to play.  The Prosecution submit that parity has little if any role to play given with reference to co-accused Nguyen and Hoang they were associates or subordinates to you and were not charged as traffickers of large commercial quantities of drugs of dependence.

42The parity principle requires that there be consistency in the sentences imposed upon co-offenders unless there are such differences in their roles in the offending or personal circumstances that warrant disparity in sentences.  In all the circumstances, while the principle is relevant, I consider that it is open and necessary to differentiate between you and your co-accused.  In brief, you are pleading guilty to a more serious charge; the scale and magnitude of your offending is greater; importantly, your role was a prominent and controlling one and your moral culpability high.

43In summary, Mr Hoang was charged with two counts of trafficking in a drug of dependence simpliciter.  He was sentenced on the basis that he was working for you and was paid in the form of accommodation and drugs for use and he was likely to be subject to deportation. 

44Ms Nguyen was sentenced on one charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and one charge of trafficking in heroin simpliciter.  She was sentenced on the basis that she was in a relationship with and subservient to you and that her involvement in the offending was at your direction and on your behalf.  She had no prior criminal history and her prospects of rehabilitation were assessed as very good.  She had also spent six months on remand during COVID-19 restrictions and since her release on bail in December 2021 until her sentence and return to custody on 27 February 2023, she had made substantial efforts to progress her rehabilitation.

Prospects of rehabilitation

45In all the circumstances given the nature of the offending and your prior criminal history, your prospects of rehabilitation must be viewed as guarded.  While your time in custody has been challenging in some respects that I have already referred to, I do take into account that you are currently employed on a full time basis, you are employed as a rubbish collector and have been in that role for the past two and a half years, probably more if it still continuing.  I also take into account as I have already referred to that you appear to have ongoing family support.  The sentence I impose will allow for the possibility that on your eventual release into the community after having served a significant term of imprisonment you will have available support and supervision.

Sentencing purposes

46The purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. 

47The principles, particularly general deterrence and denunciation, loom large in offending of this nature and clearly there is weight that needs to be apportioned, given your prior history, to specific deterrence and protection of the community. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s 5 of Sentencing Act where relevant in your case and also to the maximum penalties that apply. 

48I take into account the principles of proportionality, parsimony and totality.  As you are to be sentenced for multiple separate offences within a similar period of time, the principle of totality applies and the court must ensure that the total effective sentence does not exceed that which is a just and appropriate measure of the criminality involved, that is the total criminality.

49Both Counsel accept quite properly that the only appropriate sentence in your case is a significant term of imprisonment.  Your Counsel submits that the matters relied upon in mitigation justify the setting of a longer than usual parole period.  As already noted, your matter resolved after provision of a sentence indication.  While a sentence indication has been provided and effectively sets a ceiling, I have again carefully reflected upon all matters on this plea hearing to arrive at what I consider to be the just and appropriate sentence.

50As agreed between Counsel, Charge 1 is a standard sentence offence which requires the court to take into account the standard sentence as one factor relevant to sentence.  Similar to the maximum penalty for an offence, this does not require or permit a two-stage sentencing process.  It is instead to be treated as a legislative guidepost only.  The court is only permitted to consider sentences where the relevant offence was also subject to the standard sentence scheme and I have had regard to such sentences and in particular to the cases provided by your counsel and also referred to by the prosecution.

51The sentence I am about to impose in respect of your charge is lower than the standard sentence.  I have considered all relevant factors, including the standard sentence, the objective seriousness of your offending and the matters available to you in mitigation and I have determined that the following sentence is appropriate.

Sentence

52Mr Vo, you are convicted and sentenced as follows. 

53On Charge 1, trafficking in a large commercial quantity, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 years and three months' imprisonment.

54On Charge 2, the possession of cocaine, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.

55On the summary offence, the rolled-up count, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

56Charge 1 is the base sentence.  Charge 2 I cumulate one month.  Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, the summary offence, I cumulate one month.

57That arrives at a total effective term of 10 years and five months' imprisonment and I consider having regard to all relevant sentencing purposes and the other matters that I have canvassed, along with the factors personal to you and advanced on your behalf, that the appropriate term and the term that justice requires that you serve before being eligible for parole is a period of six years and seven months' imprisonment.

58Mr Pickering, is it the case – as I understand it, it is – but pursuant to s 86D(i) of the Sentencing Act a serious drug offence includes a large commercial quantity trafficking, so am I to declare that Mr Vo is a serious drug offence pursuant to that section?

59MR PICKERING:  Yes, Your Honour.

60HER HONOUR:  All right.  I make that declaration. 

61Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act I declare that you have served 1099 days in custody.

62Pursuant to s 6AAA I can indicate that had you not entered a plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to some 13 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years.

63MR PICKERING:  If Your Honour pleases.

64MS FREIJAH:  If the court pleases.

65HER HONOUR:  Counsel, is there anything?  Ancillary orders?

66MR PICKERING:  No, there's no ancillary orders, there's no application to forfeit or the like because of the co-offender which is still unresolved.

67HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  We will adjourn the court.  Mr Vo will remain where he is and just allow Mr Pickering an opportunity to leave court.

---