Director of Public Prosecutions v Wenting Lu
[2021] VCC 1148
•18 August 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
GENERAL LIST
Case No. CR-20-01574
Indictment No. L11334733
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| WENTING LU |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HOGAN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 5 July and 4 August 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 August 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Wenting Lu | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1148 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: One charge of kidnapping – 22-year-old female offender whose role was to lure the victim so that he could be kidnapped by the principal offenders – financial motive for offending – offender is a Chinese national who had been in Australia for approximately five years on a student visa – no prior offending – plea of guilty – assistance by offender to law enforcement authorities – risk of deportation.
Sentence: 18 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 months.
s.6AAA: 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years, noting that such declaration does not reflect the discount on the sentence by reason of assistance to law enforcement authorities.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr D Plummer | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Dr T Alexander | Nicodemus Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Wenting Lu, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.
2The circumstances of your offending are detailed in the Summary of Prosecution Opening (amended), Exhibit “A”, which I append to these sentencing remarks.
3Your offending occurred on 24 May 2020.
4In or about September 2018, you commenced working as a receptionist for an escort agency. You continued to work two or three days per week and were apparently still undertaking that employment at the time of commission of this offence. It was an online escort agency, and your job was to arrange meetings between the sex workers and their male clients, including how long such meetings should take and what services were to be offered. For this purpose, you used an application called LINE messaging, an anonymous messaging service, which enabled you to communicate with potential clients of the business. You also used WeChat, which was not anonymous. It was in your capacity as a receptionist at the escort agency that you became acquainted with your co-accused, Mr Ka Chong, also known as Joel Chong (“Chong”), who ran an import/export business. Chong used WeChat to communicate in Mandarin with you in order to arrange meetings with sex workers at the escort agency.
5The victim in this matter, Yu-wen Chen (known as “Tom”), was a Taiwanese national who had come to Melbourne in 2016. He was on a student visa and was undertaking a business course at Barton International, while also working as a delivery driver as a subcontractor for AGL Logistics (“AGL”). He also used WeChat to obtain delivery jobs other than those for AGL.
6On 23 April 2020, your victim had delivered a container to Chong, who expected it to contain illegal cigarettes with a street value of $500,000. When Chong and an unknown associate checked the container, they discovered that the cigarettes were missing and decided that the victim was responsible. Subsequently, you were contacted by Chong and, at his request, you went about luring the victim into the delivery of a bed frame for you to an address nominated by Chong. You and Chong communicated on WeChat. On 18 May 2020, Chong informed you that he was going to choose between a team of “blacks” or “Arabs” to do “this job”. He explained that it was necessary to “capture and kidnap [the victim] for a few days until he confesses who is the instructor. Quite brutal”.[1] He asked whether you had tried calling the victim and whether he had a Taiwanese accent, and you stated that he was definitely Taiwanese. You had rung the victim on WeChat the previous day, using the name of “Cindy”, stating that you needed a bedframe and other furniture moved.
[1]Exhibit “E”, pages 1-2
7You then followed up the victim by calling him on WeChat on 20 May 2020. You asked if he could move a bedframe for you the following Monday, and indicated that you had furniture for two bedrooms requiring to be moved to another apartment. When he stated that your request required two people to do the move, you asked that he come alone. He stated that he would arrange another driver to come because he was not available on Monday. You then asked him if he could do it on a Sunday. You stated that you would have the bed frame brought down from the apartment to collect at 60 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne, but did not reveal the delivery address. The victim advised that the delivery would cost $120 and agreed to collect the bedframe at 1.00pm on Sunday, 24 May 2020. You then contacted Chong and advised him of the date and time that the victim would be attending. Chong asked you to confirm the victim’s car registration and to ensure that the bedframe was moved downstairs before the victim arrived to collect it.
8On 22 May 2020, Chong and yourself had another discussion on WeChat, where he revealed that the destination to which the victim was to take the bedframe was 23 Banksia Street, Meadow Heights. Chong indicated that, as you were the customer, he should follow your orders if you asked him to go somewhere, and you agreed that the victim “shouldn’t feel sceptical about me now”. You expressed your hope that Chong would recover what belonged to him and enquired as to what kind of cigarettes they were.
9On 24 May 2020, at approximately 12.45pm, you and your boyfriend, Xie, arrived at 60 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne, and unloaded a timber bedframe from a van. Your boyfriend then drove away while you waited outside the property. At 1.00pm the victim arrived at that address, driving his truck from AGL. You directed him to the laneway, where the bedframe was leaning against a wall, and assisted the victim to put it in the back of the truck. Then, via WeChat, you sent the victim a different address in Meadow Heights to which the bedframe was to be delivered, namely, 4 Weemala Court, Meadow Heights. The change of address was an instruction from Chong, which had been sent to you a short time beforehand via a WeChat message.[2]
[2]Exhibit “E”, pages 20-21
10CCTV footage showed that Chong arrived at Weemala Court in a black BMW at approximately 1.16pm. At about 1.45pm, the victim arrived, and an Asian man standing near the delivery address waved at his truck. The victim noticed a silver Toyota hatchback, with three people inside it, parked near the Asian man. The victim parked his truck near the driveway of 4 Weemala Court and an Asian man told him to leave the bedframe outside the front door, which he did. As the victim returned to the back of his truck, the Toyota hatchback parked directly behind him and all three men got out of the Toyota. The three men approached the victim, who was hit with a baseball bat. When he fell to the ground and covered his head with his hands, he was punched, kicked and hit with the bat twenty to thirty times. When he resisted, he was hit with more force, so he gave up protecting himself, and felt dizzy and thought he was going to die. The three men then grabbed him by his arms and legs and put him into the back of his truck. Chong’s black BMW remained parked nearby. White plastic cables were used to tie together the victim’s hands and also his ankles. When he asked why they were doing this to him he was told to shut up, and he was left alone in the back of the truck as the truck began to move. He became aware that the silver car was following the truck. He managed to loosen his hands and feet from the cable ties and, once the truck was on a main road, he squeezed his body through a gap in the door and jumped out of it. The silver car, which was following, was tooting its horn.
11The victim ultimately managed to flag down the driver of another car in order to get assistance and that driver called police. As the victim was waiting for police, the driver of a car yelled out to him “fuck you”, and the victim recognised the driver from a previous job which had involved him delivering a container to Chong. Police arrived and found the victim injured and in extreme distress. He was taken by ambulance to Royal Melbourne Hospital. There, he was found to have a fractured elbow, displaced fractures of two fingers, defensive wounds to the back of the left forearm, bruising to the head and arms, and swelling and pain to the spinal region. Police subsequently located the AGL truck which had been driven by the victim, and located some white cable ties in the rear of the truck. The victim’s mobile phone had been stolen from the truck.
12On 3 June 2020, you were arrested. When interviewed, you told police that you had sold your bed to “Joel” for $500 and stated that he wanted it delivered by someone named “Tom”. You claimed that you only knew that Joel wanted to see Tom, but did not realise that Tom would be kidnapped. You agreed that Joel asked you to photograph Tom and his truck, and to send the photographs to him. You also stated that Joel had asked you to delete any conversations and photographs related to you having organised Tom to carry out the delivery.
13You were charged with the offence of kidnapping and remanded in custody on 3 June 2020. You served nine days in custody before being granted bail on 12 June 2020. You are presently aged 23 years, having been born on 8 April 1998. You come before the court with no prior convictions.
14Since the commission of this offence on 24 May 2020, the matter has had something of a protracted course. The initial filing hearing was on 3 June 2020, and, thereafter, there was the bail application on 12 June 2020, an application to vary bail on 30 July 2020, a committal case conference on 25 August 2020 and a further committal case conference and bail variation on 20 October 2020.
15Ultimately, on 19 November 2020, at a committal mention date, the matter proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief. Thereafter, there were four initial directions hearings which were all adjourned administratively, which took place on 17 December 2020, 28 January 2021, 11 February 2021 and 23 February 2021. On 15 June 2021, an application for a sentence indication came before me. This was adjourned part-heard to 18 June 2021. At the conclusion of the hearing of the application, I indicated, pursuant to s207 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, that if you pleaded guilty to the charge of kidnapping on the indictment at that time, the court would be likely to impose a sentence of imprisonment that would commence immediately. Thereafter, you indicated your intention to plead guilty to the charge and were arraigned and pleaded guilty to it on 18 June 2021. The matter was adjourned for a plea hearing to 5 July 2021.
16On 5 July 2021, the plea hearing was adjourned to 4 August 2021 as you had indicated a willingness to cooperate with police by providing a statement in relation to your co-offender, Chong.
In a plea in mitigation on your behalf, Dr Alexander focused on your youth (22 years at the time of offending), submitting that between February 2020 and early May 2020, you had only had “infrequent social discussions”[3] with Chong and had never met him in person, and that you were “… not certain that Chong was being entirely serious as the communication was by WeChat, no money had actually exchanged hands and Chong’s plan was somewhat fanciful: a description of ‘catching’ and ‘tying the victim up’ until he revealed his secret employer. [You] did not believe that any actual harm or violence was to be inflicted on Chen during the kidnapping … .”[4] He stated that you had argued with Chong that he would pay you $10,000 for your assistance. You “… thought that the offer of $10,000 was ‘pie in the sky’ but would have accepted that money if actually given”.[5] He submitted that your “… naivety almost to the point of stupidity, about what may happen to the victim, coupled with [your] desire to maintain Chong’s confidences to maximize [your] prospect of future bookings, were at the heart of [your] offending.”[6]
[3] Written Submissions on plea, “MFI-2”, paragraph 8(c)
[4] Ibid, paragraph 8(h)
[5] Ibid, paragraph 8(i)
[6] Ibid, paragraph 9
17The impression given to the Court on your behalf was that you had had minimal personal interaction with Chong before this offending. I note that, in your record of interview, you did not tell police that you knew him through working as a receptionist at the online escort agency. Rather, you referred to him as being “my boss”, stating that you had applied for a job as personal assistant to Chong’s international trading company known as Bruvvers Trading.[7] You gave an addled and misleading description of what you had discussed with Chong in conveying that the victim had had some business association with Chong before, but the victim did not want to see Chong and you “thought it was just nothing”.[8]
[7]Q&A 55-61 in the record of interview
[8]Q&A 96-100 in the record of interview
18You claimed in your record of interview that you deleted all of the records concerning what contact details Chong had given you for the victim, as Chong “was my boss, I just did what he asked me to do”, notwithstanding that he, in fact, was not your boss at that stage. You were asked what delivery address you had given to the victim, and claimed that you only remembered “Heidelberg” when in fact it had been Meadow Heights, which is quite some distance from Heidelberg.[9]
[9]Q&A 120-123 in the record of interview
19You agreed with police that you never told the victim that it was Chong who had asked for him to deliver the bed.[10] Further, notwithstanding that, after the victim collected the bedframe, you had observed a car actually follow his truck[11] and you told police that you “felt really unsafe after that”,[12] you still met up with Chong later that day and collected $500 for the bedframe from him.
[10]Q&A 143 in the record of interview
[11]Q&A 210, 213, 214 and 225 in the record of interview
[12]Q&A 230 in the record of interview
20You told a lie to police when you stated “I only know that Joel wants to see Tom but I never realised he would kidnap him”,[13] and that you did not know he would kidnap and hurt him.[14] You further lied in stating that Chong had never told you what he needed to talk to the victim about.[15]
[13]Q&A 260 in the record of interview
[14]Q&A 264-268 in the record of interview
[15]Q&A 272 in the record of interview
21Further, notwithstanding that your boyfriend had been arrested and had told you that the victim had been kidnapped and assaulted, you then admitted to police that you had called Chong’s wife on 2 June 2020, the night before you were arrested. This was not apparently out of concern for what might have happened to the victim but, rather, to discuss that you would like to take a part-time position in their office and, indeed, they offered you an interview.[16]
[16]Q&A 178-180 in the record of interview
22Ms Lu, you should be in no doubt as to the terrible impact that this offending has had upon your victim. He was obviously so terrified about the vicious beating he had been given by 3 unknown men and being tied up and held captive in the back of the AGL truck that he committed the desperate act of jumping from the truck, even though he could see that the 3 men who had attacked him were inside the car following the truck.
23In a Victim Impact Statement made on 16 June 2021,[17] Mr Chen describes how he came to Australia wishing to be a truck driver. He was working as a delivery driver and spent four years studying to get his heavy combination licence with a view to obtaining work as a heavy combination driver. He stated that this crime has destroyed his dream and his life. As he suffered fractured fingers, he could not lift heavy items anymore and, as a result, he lost his job and had no income. He was on a student visa but his fear, anger, flashbacks to being kidnapped and hurt, trouble sleeping and general feelings of insecurity made him afraid to go outside anymore to the point where he even had to have food delivered. As a consequence, he was not able to continue his study, had his enrolment cancelled, could not pay his outstanding school fees, and, then, his student visa expired on 9 June 2021. Had he not been kidnapped and brutally treated, he says he would have graduated, applied for a two-year working visa, and then hopefully found a sponsor so that he could stay in Australia and obtain work as a driver of a heavy combination vehicle. Instead, he finds that his life is without purpose, and he feels angry and afraid and has lost connection with people, including friends. He says he is in a desperate situation, still owing some $2,000 towards his hospital expenses, unable to work or study, and having to endure the long drawn-out process of remaining in Australia for the trial. These are the terrible consequences suffered by Mr Chen following your deception of him which enabled the kidnapping to be effected.
[17]Exhibit “B”
24You are not someone who was ignorant or devoid of support. You were born and grew up in China, where your parents owned a car transportation business. You came to Australia in 2015, aged 17 years. You lived with your sister, who owned a bar in Bundoora, which she had been operating for some 8-10 years. After arriving in Australia, you had accommodation with your sister, to whom you are apparently close. Once you turned 18, in April 2016, you commenced work as a waitress at her bar for some three to four days a week. Ultimately, you moved in with a partner, who was from a wealthy Chinese family. You lived with him in a townhouse, which was owned by his parents. Whilst you were together, he paid your tuition fees, but the relationship ultimately faltered because of his gambling, and he returned to China. Thereafter, your sister took over payment of your tuition fees and made a loan of some $16,000 to you, which you were paying back in small amounts. You were earning significant commissions while working as a receptionist at the online escort agency and, having completed two tertiary qualifications at RMIT, life was going well for you, and you entered into a new relationship with Xie in March 2019.
25In addition to the close relationship and support of your older sister (now aged 35 years), your mother moved to live in Australia in 2018 after she and your father separated following the demise of their business in China. Hence, at the time of offending, you were a tertiary educated person with a supportive sister, mother and partner. In spite of this, for what I find to be your own financial betterment, you were callously prepared to put in jeopardy the welfare of the victim.
26On your behalf, a report was tendered by Mr Cummins, forensic psychologist.[18] He mentions that you had some counselling after coming to Australia as you felt unsettled about the breakdown of your parents’ marriage and the collapse of their business and, for a time, your older sister was in China for six months. However, it seems that you did not continue with such counselling beyond 2016 and, as previously mentioned, your life seemed to be moving along successfully in terms of your study, being financial comfortable, having family support and entering into relationships without difficulty.
[18] Exhibit “1”
27Mr Cummins described you as speaking good English and probably of high average intelligence but, perhaps, relatively immature and naïve. He diagnosed you as feeling depressed concerning your current legal situation, that is suffering symptoms of reactive depression, but not such that you had required any medication. You gave him the impression that you would not wish to be prescribed any mood stabilising medication. He described you as a psychologically vulnerable person who would have considerable difficulty coping with an extended period of imprisonment. Your counsel made it plain that he did not rely on this report in support of the application of the principles in R v Verdins.[19]
[19] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 169
28At the plea hearing on 4 August 2021, two statements made by you to police at 12.56pm and 12.58pm on 19 July 2021, were tendered as Exhibit C(a) and (b) respectively. The first statement had apparently been prepared in a prewritten form with the assistance of your solicitor, without having been sworn and without any jurat particulars. Accordingly, it was sworn before Senior Constable Ricky Edge at the time and date to which I have previously referred. The second statement was made by way of elaboration on some of the details in the first statement and sworn at the time and date to which I have previously referred.
29As the charge of kidnapping is a Category 2 offence, prior to making the Statement to assist law enforcement authorities in the investigation and prosecution of the offence against your co-accused Chong, s5(2H) of the Sentencing Act applied in making it mandatory for a court to impose a sentence by way of a term of imprisonment (other than in combination with a Community Correction Order), unless one of the exceptions under that section applied. Accordingly, submissions filed in support of the application for a sentencing indication, as well as for the plea hearing on 5 July 2021, had focused, to some extent, on factors which, in combination, were said to constitute substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare in accordance with s5(2H)(e). However, both prosecution and defence are in agreement that s5(2H) now has no application to your case since you made the statement to police, bringing you within the exception in subparagraph (a) of that section.
30Dr Alexander variously described your role as being “meaningful but indirect” or “peripheral”, in that you were not responsible for planning or carrying out the kidnapping, or injuring the victim, but, rather, displayed “a juvenile recklessness or disregard for the potential consequences of [your] actions for Chong’s victim”.
31I made it plain in engaging with your counsel at the plea hearing that I did not accept his characterisation of your involvement in this very serious crime as being naïve or with a mindset that you did not really believe that any actual harm would come to the victim. As I have already stated, Mr Cummins assessed you as “most probably of high average intelligence”[20] You have two tertiary qualifications obtained here in Australia from RMIT, namely, a Diploma in Business Entrepreneurship in 2017 and a Bachelor of Information Systems in 2019. Indeed, you were enrolled to pursue a third tertiary qualification by way of a Masters of Education at Victoria University in mid-2020 but as you were arrested for this offending, you did not commence that degree.
[20] Exhibit “1”, p. 5 at [37]
32I have previously referred to the fact that, in your Record of Interview, you were not frank with police about the extent of your relationship with Chong. You claimed that you had met him “Online while I was looking for a job”.[21] It is plain from your statement, Exhibit “C(b)”, that from February 2020, when you first encountered Chong via the Messenger service used by Jing Jing dating agency, you spoke “a lot” on the Jing Jing account until May 2020, when he asked to add you on WeChat and you used a friend’s WeChat account, which had a screen name of “Cindy”.[22] You went on to state “CHONG and I spoke everyday (sic) and he was comfortable enough to mention that he had an issue with someone who had stolen some of his things.”[23]
[21]Question and answer 337 in Record of Interview, Exhibit F.
[22]Paragraph [6] of Exhibit C(b)
[23]Paragraph [9] ibid
33You made no mention of this regular contact to police in your Record of Interview, or via your counsel at the commencement of the plea hearing on 5 July 2021. Thus, although you had not met Chong in person, the tenor of the messaging between you indicates a familiarity in which he refers to you as “darling” and you refer to him as “baby”, you exchange messages and photos about your respective pets, discuss share investments, possible real estate investments, and exchange rates on currency. There is no suggestion that you were pressured by him to become involved in this offending, or that, had you not agreed to help him, there would have been some adverse impact upon your employment as a receptionist at the escort agency.
34On 18 May 2020, in a message to you, Chong made it plain that he was in discussion about who to use for the job involving the victim with which you were helping him. He referred to two “teams of people” being interested, one of which was “blacks” and the other of which was “Arabs”, and that this was “necessary”, and that the reason was “Because need to capture and kidnap him for a few days until he confesses who is the instructor. Quite brutal”.[24] To my mind, there is no ambiguity about what was conveyed to you by Chong. You admit in your statement to police that, when you asked him why he had not gone to police about the supposed wrongful taking of his property, he told you “it was something he couldn‘t let the Police know about” and further mentioned that what had been stolen from him was “worth around $400,000”.[25] These matters would have indicated to any person a red flag of illegality associated with thuggish methods of recovering what had been lost. Rather than express your concern about Chong taking the law into his own hands, you messaged him back and asked him “How much do the blacks and Arabs charge?” and he responded “They all want a portion of that $400,000”. This was followed up by you asking him “What about me” and he responded “Haven’t we agreed already? You’ll get 10,000 afterwards. Don’t worry. I’ll look after you well.”[26]
[24]Exhibit E, pages 1-2
[25]Paragraphs [9] and [10] of Exhibit C(b)
[26]Exhibit E, page 2
35The tenor of your messages exchanged with Chong reveal no hesitation on your part about being involved in what he asked you to do so that the victim could be kidnapped. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you had three financial incentives to assist him.
(a) The first incentive was to ensure that he kept using the services of the escort agency, “Jing Jing”, by which you were employed, where you earned 10 to 15 per cent commission of all booking fees.[27] Chong was a regular client who used the escort agency services approximately once a week for an amount of $500 to $1,000 for each booking.[28] You added Chong to your friend’s account under the screen name of ‘Cindy’ “so he could contact [you] directly when he wanted to book with ‘Jing Jing’ so [you] could get the commissions for the bookings”.[29] Indeed, you told Mr Cummins, that by working two or three full days per week you could earn between $1,000 and $2,000 per week in booking fees and that you continued to do this until you got arrested and charged in June 2020.[30]
(b) The second incentive was that you were offered $10,000 to do the job of luring Mr Chen into Chong’s hands, although there is no evidence that you ever ultimately received this sum. You stated in your message to Chong when he asked if it was too much trouble to do what he was asking, “No trouble. You’re my friend, also give me money. I just do what I can for you”.[31]
(c) The third incentive was that you were hoping to get employment with Chong. I have previously referred to you having told police in your Record of Interview that you had applied for a job as his personal assistant at his business, which was an international trading company known as Bruvvers Trading,[32] and that, after the offending had occurred, you met up with Chong and received $500 in cash just for the bedframe (which was probably worth $200 or $300)[33] and even attended an interview or did some work at his business premises, and had called Chong’s wife the night before you were interviewed to tell her you would like to take the part-time position in their office.[34]
[27]Paragraph [9] of Exhibit C(a)
[28]Paragraph [5] of Exhibit C(b)
[29]Paragraph [7] of Exhibit C(b)
[30]Exhibit 1, paragraph [22], page 4
[31]Exhibit E, page 7
[32]Questions and answers 54-60 of the Record of Interview
[33]Questions and answers 77-88 and 140 of the Record of Interview
[34]Questions and answers 176-180 of the Record of Interview
36Not only did you do what Chong asked of you, but you were proactive in making suggestions about how he could ensure that he had access to the victim, who would be by himself. The messages between yourself and Chong show that you suggested changing the day of delivery to a Sunday because the suggested delivery date was not one upon which the victim would be working. You suggested that Chong might like to make use of the fact that the victim had a warehouse (although Chong decided not to take up that suggestion). You took the initiative of ensuring that the victim messaged you with a photograph of his licence, which was something that Chong had not asked you to do. You also told the victim that you would move the bedframe downstairs to have it ready for him because, as you told Chong, this “Sounds more reliable”,[35] and ensured him that the victim “shouldn’t feel sceptical about [you] now … I’ve been in contact with him for so long.”[36] In my view, these are not the actions of someone naively helping out someone you barely knew, but enthusiastically warming to the task and periodically joking about it with communications like “ha ha”, including a wish that Mr Chong would hopefully recover what belonged to him.[37]
[35]Exhibit E, page 11
[36]Exhibit E, page 13
[37]Exhibit E, page 14
37I sentence you on the basis that you played a crucial role in enticing the unsuspecting victim to be dealt with by Mr Chong, who was employing a team to kidnap him for a few days in circumstances which would be quite brutal. At no stage did you express any moral qualms about your involvement in this serious crime or think it appropriate to alert police. This was despite the fact that, as you told police in the Record of Interview, once you saw the victim’s truck was being followed by people in a car and your boyfriend had said that someone had been watching you and the victim and taking photos, you felt really weird[38] and were scared that this may have been the mafia who was following the victim,[39] and, also, had been told to delete all contact that you had had with yourself and the victim.
[38]Questions and answers 210-218 of the Record of Interview
[39]Question and answer 333 of the Record of Interview
38Although there is no evidence that you were aware of the precise details of how the victim was to be bashed and bound and shoved into his own delivery truck as a captive, I have found that there is no room for doubt from the messages Chong sent you that he was to be kidnapped and quite brutally treated. The tenor of those messages is very plainly that of a thuggish nature, recruiting teams of other people in what smacked of someone brazenly taking the law into his own hands. Not only were you unconcerned about this, but you still pursued your quest for employment by Chong after it had occurred.
39There was approximately a week between the day upon which Chong first contacted you to enlist your services and the day upon which the victim turned up to collect your bedframe and be led into Chong’s trap. In none of that time did you reflect on the immorality or wrongdoing of your conduct or that of Chong. Your protracted messaging with the victim built up his trust in you as a genuine customer, and the very specific details of what he was to do, and to do it alone, were an essential prerequisite for Chong and his hired thugs in being able to commit this serious crime. Your role cannot be characterised as a peripheral one. You were a crucial line of communication with the hapless victim who knew nothing about Chong being the undisclosed organiser. You might claim now that you wondered whether you would ever get the $10,000, but, as I have stated, the messaging between yourself and Chong shows that you were clearly concerned to know what was in it for you. Your role was an active and important one in this planned serious offending, and your moral culpability is high. The seriousness of the offence which you have committed is indicated by the maximum penalty of 25 years assigned to it.
40Mr Cummins stated in his report that you were still struggling to believe that you had been charged with kidnapping and did not know how you could possibly have been implicated in the offending as alleged. He described you as relatively immature and naïve. Lots of people are immature and naïve, but they do not enter into agreements to accept $10,000 to lure someone to be kidnapped. It is concerning that you should think that you could take the relevant steps to make it possible for Chong to kidnap Mr Chen as planned, but anything that might happen thereafter was nothing to do with you. As I have stated, your motive was to improve your financial situation, even if it meant turning a blind eye to cruelty to be inflicted upon someone you had never met, or who had never caused you any harm. It is despicable behaviour.
41I have previously referred to the Victim Impact Statement and the serious adverse effects of this crime upon Mr Chen. He feels hopeless about the future, and his family in Taiwan think that there will be no justice in Australia. It is important that victims of offending of this type of gravity do feel vindicated by our justice system. Chong, in one of his messages to you, stated of Australia “…they reckon this place is ruled by law.”[40] Well, let me assure you that it is. In this country, the criminal justice system calls people to account for their actions. In our democracy, freedom and safety are values we hold dear. That is why so many migrants from other countries want to come to live here. When people like you and Chong infringe the laws that protect those values, it impacts upon the whole community’s sense of security and must be appropriately punished, otherwise our society will be a chaotic one in which people live in fear because of the unscrupulous behaviour of others.
[40] Exhibit “E”, page 14, message on 22 May 2020
42In your favour, I take into account that you have no prior criminal history and were relatively young, 22 years at the time. As I have already stated, Mr Cummins noted that you were suffering from depression which is reactive to your legal circumstances, but had not been prescribed any anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medication. I note that you were still managing to work as a receptionist with a sports equipment company in Dandenong at the time that he saw you, and were still in a relationship with your male partner, Xie. Mr Cummins did state that it would be appropriate for you to be receiving mental health treatment, as you presented as a psychologically vulnerable person who, in his opinion, would have considerable difficulty coping with an extended period of imprisonment. No material was put before the Court that you had received any mental health treatment since seeing Mr Cummins in December 2020.
43You pleaded guilty to this offence on 18 June 2021, following my having given a sentence indication that a term of imprisonment was likely. It is possible that you have some remorse about what you have done, but the incredulity that you expressed to Mr Cummins about how your actions could have implicated you in the offence of kidnapping does not suggest great insight. It may be that in the months that have elapsed since you saw Mr Cummins in December 2020 that time you have developed some remorse. You have recently written a letter of apology to the victim, and given to police a payment of $2,000 because, in the Victim Impact Statement, Mr Chen mentioned that he still had outstanding hospital expenses. This could be interpreted as a gesture of humanity, a feature which I have found to be lacking in your offending conduct.
44You have also made statements to police indicating a willingness to assist the investigation and prosecution of Chong. They were made only last month, well over a year after the offending. Dr Alexander stated that there appeared to have been some miscommunication between your solicitor and the prosecution, as discussions had been held last year about the possibility of you making a statement. However, the prosecutor, Mr Plummer, indicated that, in November 2020, when his instructor from the Director of Public Prosecutions enquired of your solicitor as to whether you wished to make a statement, the response from your solicitor was that you could really not add anything further to the content of the messages between yourself and Chong and what you had said in your Record of Interview.
45I consider that your recent statements are most likely prompted by wanting to assist yourself first and foremost, but nevertheless there is clear authority for the proposition that, even where that is so, you are entitled to a discount on your sentence because of such assistance. Mr Plummer, for the prosecution, stated that the indication from Chong that he proposed to plead guilty to the charge laid against him came in close proximity to his knowledge that you were making a statement to police, albeit that he had not yet been provided with that statement or statements. It was clear that Chong and his legal advisers were keeping a close eye on what was happening with your case, both during the sentence indication hearing and the plea hearing. It is possible that Chong was leaning towards a plea of guilty, and the knowledge that you were to make a statement implicating him and were prepared to give evidence to that effect may have given him the extra encouragement needed to make up his mind. Your statements were made on 19 July 2021 and the Court records show that Chong pleaded guilty to a charge of kidnapping on 23 July 2021.
46It is well acknowledged that those who inform on co‑offenders should be rewarded with a lesser sentence in order to encourage those who know about the activities of criminal offenders to come forward so that offenders might be brought to justice. Having said that, there is not a great deal in either of your statements that was not already known to police. I accept that in paragraph 6 of Exhibit “C(a)”, your statement that Chong admitted to you that the people in the white car following the victim’s truck were “my people”, together with the fact that he revealed to you that Tom had run away by jumping out of the truck and he knew this because he was there, are matters which, otherwise, would not have been known to police. Further, in paragraph 28 of that same statement, you mentioned that a couple of days after the offending, when you went into Chong’s office in Bourke Street to do some administrative tasks for him, he had indicated that he was going to meet “the people who did the job”. Although you had already alluded to this fact in your record of interview in the answers to Questions 301−305, the fact that you had indicated a preparedness, if necessary, to give evidence it and the other admissions by Chong, is something new.
47It seems to me that the prosecution already had a substantial amount of evidence against Chong, including CCTV footage of him arriving in Meadow Heights and standing in a street on the footpath about 15 metres from Weemala Court where the victim was to deliver the bedframe, as well as the messages between you and he. However, you are entitled to a discount for your assistance, even though it now seems that you will not be required to give evidence against Chong at a trial. The prosecutor, Mr Plummer, described your assistance as being of a value “less than moderate”. In all of the circumstances known to me, this seems like a fair appraisal of its worth.
48Your plea of guilty has significant utilitarian value, and perhaps some remorse attached to it. I acknowledge that the utilitarian value is higher at this time of COVID‑19 restrictions, where it has been difficult, and at times impossible, to run criminal trials in the State of Victoria. I also take into account the restrictions occasioned by the pandemic in terms of making the time spent in custody more onerous. You would have been required to spend the 9 days of your initial remand, prior to entering into bail, in isolation, which would have been very confronting for a first offender. You would also be required to spend another 14 days in isolation after I remanded you in custody again on 4 August 2021. The restrictions are ongoing and the reduced out of cell time to facilitate social distancing, the diminished number of rehabilitative programs and activities available and the lack of contact visits from family and friends are matters which I take into account in sentencing as making a term of imprisonment more onerous. This is particularly so when you are a first offender who is suffering some depression.
49Finally, the Court acknowledges that you are not an Australian citizen, nor do you have a visa granting you permanent residency. In circumstances where the sentence which I propose to impose will apparently ensure that you fail the character test and lead to your deportation, I do take that into account in sentencing you.
50It is clear that the likelihood of your being deported will weigh heavily upon you while serving your time in custody. In addition, Dr Alexander has stated that your two closest relatives, your older sister and your mother, live in Australia, albeit that your mother is a Chinese national. Your father remains in China, but apparently you have had little contact with him since the marriage between he and your mother broke down in 2016. I accept that, although you have no entitlement to citizenship or permanent residential status in Australia, your deportation will deprive you of what opportunity you had to achieve such status. I also take into account that it will be emotionally difficult for you if your mother and sister remain in Australia whilst you are returned to your native country of China. However, I am also conscious that it would be highly improper of a court to inappropriately tailor a sentence in order to avoid the consequences of deportation of an offender.
51As far as your rehabilitation is concerned, I note that you have had no prior contact with the criminal justice system, and it is likely that your experience in having become involved in this serious offending will make you think very carefully before becoming involved in a criminal offence again.
52Dr Alexander stated that you have the support of your mother and sister and, indeed, they have been present at the plea hearing to support you, and that you have a proven work ethic, which is also true. These are generally protective factors when it comes to assessing prospects of rehabilitation, although, as I have previously mentioned, these factors were all present at the time of your offending. I must say I seriously wonder how strong a moral compass you have, given the careless attitude you exhibited towards the liberty and safety of Mr Chen and your inability as expressed to Mr Cummins to comprehend why you would be charged with this criminal offending. The fact that you would continue to pursue employment with Chong when you knew of his appalling behaviour towards Mr Chen is also cause for concern. However, as you have not previously offended, your prospects of rehabilitation are probably fairly good. Those prospects, coupled with your youth and lack of prior offending are the matters which I have taken into account in arriving at the sentence I intend to impose.
53Dr Alexander has urged that the appropriate sentencing objectives of denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and just punishment, can be served by you being ordered to serve a Community Correction Order.
54Following your provision of the two statements to police, the prosecution altered its sentencing submission from stating that the only appropriate sentence was a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and a non-parole period, to a submission that a combination sentence of one year’s imprisonment and a Community Correction Order is within range. I am somewhat puzzled by the latter submission of the prosecution, particularly in the light of the “less than moderate” value it placed upon your assistance to police, coupled with a submission that your offending is at least mid-range for this serious offence, where the messages indicate that you were clearly aware of the plan to kidnap and hold the victim and treat him quite brutally. Further, the prosecution described your role as an active and important one in enticing the victim to enable him to be kidnapped by gaining his trust and ensuring that he came alone and did not feel sceptical about you, and the fact that you were to be paid $10,000 for such assistance meant that your offending carried with it high moral culpability for this planned and serious criminal offence.
55It seems to me that there is some tension between the prosecution submissions about you having high moral culpability for your active and important role in a kidnapping offence which is, at least, of mid-range seriousness, and the submission that a combination sentence is within range, even allowing for a discount for your assistance of “less than moderate” value and plea of guilty, which was not at the earliest opportunity, but rather over a year after the offending occurred and after an application for a sentence indication had been made by you.
56As Dr Alexander has acknowledged, this court must denounce your conduct and place emphasis upon general deterrence so that others who may be minded to offend in the way you have will you have will know that they will meet with appropriate punishment.
57I consider that your offending, which shows a lack of moral standards and callousness for the suffering of another in the context of financial gain to yourself, is of a seriousness that only the sentence of last resort, imprisonment, is appropriate and that it should comprise a head sentence and a non-parole period.
58On one charge of kidnapping, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 18 months.
59I direct that you serve a period of nine months’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
60I declare a period of 23 days’ pre-sentence detention be reckoned as time already served under the sentence imposed this day.
61Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I state that had it not been for your plea of guilty the total effective sentence imposed would have been 2½ years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years. I make it plain that this declaration does not reflect the discount on your sentence by reason of your assistance to law enforcement authorities.
62Pursuant to s.5(2AB) of the Sentencing Act, I cause to be noted in the records of the Court hat the court has imposed a less severe sentence than it would otherwise have imposed because of an undertaking by you to assist, after sentencing, law enforcement authorities in the investigation or prosecution of an offence in accordance with your two statements to police on 19 July 2021 (Exhibits “C(a)” and “C(b)”).
---
Court Reference: CR-20-01574
Indictment No: L11334733
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
IN THE MATTER OF
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
WEITING LU
SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION OPENING (AMENDED)
Date of document: 6 April 2021 30 March 2021
Filed on behalf of: The Director of Public Prosecutions Prepared by:
Abbey Hogan
Solicitor
for Public Prosecutions 565 Lonsdale Street
Solicitor’s code: 7539
Telephone : (03) 9603 7666 Reference: L. Stevenson
Melbourne Vic 3000
Background
1. Weiting Lu (Lu), the Accused, born on 8 April 1998. She is a Chinese national. She lived with her boyfriend Zhuohong Xie (Xie) at 505/150 Dudley Street, West Melbourne. Lu used the social messaging service WeChat to communicate in Mandarin. She used the name Cindy Lu. Lu would sometimes stay at an apartment at 60 A’ Beckett Street Melbourne. The apartment was looked after by a friend of Lu’s. The keys to the apartment would be left in the letter box so that friends could use the apartment.
2. Ka Chong (Chong) the Co-accused, is a Malaysian national. He lived with his wife Elysia Eui (Eui) at Bamburgh Street, Jacana. Chong operated a business with his
brother importing and exporting goods overseas. Chong also refers to himself as Joel. Chong used the social messaging service WeChat to communicate in Mandarin. He used the name Bruvver.
3. Yu-wen Chen (the Complainant), is a Taiwanese national. He uses the name Tom. He came to Australia on a student visa. He was studying business at Barton International. He had lived in Melbourne since 2016. The Complainant used the social messaging service WeChat to communicate in Mandarin. He worked as a delivery driver as a subcontractor for AGL logistics. The Complainant received jobs via WeChat. The Complainant also used his WeChat account to obtain delivery jobs when not working for AGL logistics.
4. On 23 April 2020, the Complainant delivered a container of what was expected to contain illegal cigarettes with a street value of $500,000 to Chong. When Chong and unknown associates checked the container they discovered that their shipment was missing. Chong and his associates considered the Complainant responsible for the missing shipment.
Summary of Circumstances
5. On 17 May 2020, Lu contacted the Complainant via WeChat. Lu said that her name was Cindy and that she needed a bed frame and other furniture moved.1
6. On 18 May 2020, Chong contacted Lu via WeChat. Chong and Lu had the following discussion:
Chong: “Two teams of people are interested in this job. But we need to choose an appropriate team. One is blacks and the other is Arabs. No reply until tomorrow”. Lu: “Just looking for a person. Is it really necessary?”
Chong: “Necessary”.
1 Exhibit 1, WeChat messages between Lu and the Complainant
Lu: “Let me know when you make a decision. They want three days notice.” Chong: “Because need to capture and kidnap him for a few days until he confesses who is the instructor. Quite brutal.”
Lu: “Mm.”
Chong: “Ok, We’ll know tomorrow.” Lu: “Mm.”
Chong: Did you try calling him? To check if he wears a Taiwanese accent.” Lu: “He definitely is. Taiwanese. I know.”2
7. On 20 May 2020, the Complainant received a call via WeChat from Lu. She asked if the Complainant could move the bed frame for her the following Monday. She said that she had furniture for two bedrooms that needed to be moved to another apartment. The Complainant said that it would take two people to do the move. She requested that the Complainant come alone. The Complainant said that he would arrange another driver to come because the Complainant was not available on Monday. Lu asked the Complainant if he could do it on Sunday.3
8. Lu told the Complainant that the bed frame was at 60 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne. She said that she would have the frame brought down from her apartment for the Complainant to collect. She did not tell the Complainant the delivery address. He told her that the deliver would cost $120. The Complainant agreed to collect the bed frame at 1pm on Sunday, 24 May 2020.4
9. Later the same day Lu contacted Chong to confirm the date and time that the Complainant would collect the bed frame. Chong asked Lu to confirm the Complainant’s car registration. He asked Lu to move the bed frame downstairs before the Complainant arrived to collect it.
2 Exhibit 2, WeChat messages between Lu and Chong
3 Yu-wen Chen statement, paras 8-11
4 Yu-wen Chen statement, paras 12-15
10. On 22 May 2020, Chong and Lu had the following discussion on WeChat:
Lu: “Where?”
Chong: “23 Banksia Place, Meadow Heights VIC 2048” Lu: “This not Bundoora”.
Chong: “No. But also a northern suburb”. Lu: “Ok. Let’s see how it goes”.
Chong: You’re customer. He should follow order if you ask him to go somewhere”. Lu: “That’s correct. Haha…”
Chong: “The principle is always the same”.
Lu: “He shouldn’t feel sceptical about me now”.
Chong: “He is not alone. But he knows inside information.” Lu: “How do you know he knows?”
Chong: “And people now act without proper thinking.”
Lu: (Nod of agreement) “That’s true. Ha ha…That’s me. I lost money in stock market recently. Crying out aloud. (Worried)”
Chong: “Because when I called him to negotiate with him he accidently spilled the beans”
Lu: “What did you offer him? Why didn’t he accept?”
Chong: “He said it was cigarettes, instead of cat scratch board as we claimed. He just denied it and later kept calling me names over the phone.”
Lu: “Why didn’t he accept?”
Chong: “He reckons you can’t call police, you can’t do anything to him.” Lu: “Yes.”
Chong: “Because they reckon this place is ruled by law.”
Lu: “Mm. Hopefully you can recover what belongs to you. Haha…What kinds of cigarettes are they?”
Chong: “Nanyang”.5
11. On 23 May 2020, the Complainant spoke to Lu to confirm the pick up time.
5 Exhibit 2, WeChat messages between Lu and Chong
12. On 24 May 2020 at about 12.45pm Lu is depicted on CCTV footage arriving at 60 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne with her boyfriend Xie. They arrived in a Renault Master Van. They parked in a laneway next to 60 A’Beckett Street and unloaded a timber bedframe from the Master Van. Xie drove the Van away. Lu waited outside 60 A’Beckett Street.6
13. At about 1pm the Complainant arrived at 60 A’Beckett Street in his truck from AGL Logistics. Lu approached the Complainant’s truck and directed him to the laneway. The bedframe was leaning against a wall next to the undercover car park. The Complainant reversed his truck. The Complainant put the bed frame into the back of the truck with the help of Lu. The Complainant asked Lu to send him the address where the bed frame was to be delivered. Lu sent the address via WeChat which was 4 Weemala Court, Meadow Heights. The Complainant put the address into google maps. He drove from A’Beckett Street.7
14. At about 1.16pm, Chong is depicted in CCTV footage arriving in Shankland Boulevard, Meadow Heights in a black BMW. Chong got out of the vehicle. He stood on the footpath about 15 metres from Weemala Court smoking cigarettes.8
15. At about 1.45pm the Complainant arrived at Weemala Court. An Asian man standing near the delivery address waved at the truck. The Complainant noticed a silver Toyota hatchback with three people inside it parked near the Asian man. The Complainant did a U-turn at the end of the street. The Toyota drove off and parked on the corner of Weemala Court. The Complainant parked his truck across the driveway of 4 Weemala Court. The Complainant got out of the truck. He asked the Asian man where he wanted the bed frame to go. The man told the Complainant to leave the bed frame outside the front door. The Complainant did
6 CCTV footage: 60 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne
7 Yu-wen Chen statement, paras 17-22
8 CCTV footage: Shankland Boulevard, meadow Heights
so. As he returned to the back of his truck the Toyota sped back into the street and parked directly behind him. All three men got out of the Toyota.9
16. The three men approached the Complainant who was hit with a baseball bat. The Complainant raised his arm to protect his head. The Complainant fell to the ground shortly after. He covered his head with his hands as he was punched, kicked and hit with the bat about twenty to thirty times. He was mostly hit to the upper body, arms and head. When the Complainant initially resisted he was hit with more force. He gave up protecting himself, he was very dizzy, he thought that he was going to die. The three man grabbed him by the arms and legs and put him into the back of the truck. Chong’s black BMW remained parked nearby in Shankland Boulevard throughout the attack on the Complainant.10
17. The Complainant’s hands were tied together and then his ankles were tied together with white plastic cable ties by two of the men. The Complainant asked “Why are you doing this to me?” One of the men got out of the truck. The man who remained in the truck said “Shut up, you will meet someone later”. The Complainant was then left alone in the back of the truck. The truck began to move. The Complainant put his hand through the back door of the truck to try to open it. A silver car following the truck started beeping its horn. The Complainant pulled his hand back inside. The Complainant began trying to loosen the cable ties. He could tell that his left hand fingers were broken because they were out of place. He slipped his fingers and hand out of the cable tie. As he pulled the cable tie off it hurt a lot. He took his boots off and slipped his feet out of the cable tie. He put his boots back on.11
18. The Complainant lay down and looked through a gap in the truck door. When he was sure the truck was on a main road he squeezed his body through a gap in the door and jumped out of the truck. The silver car was tooting the car horn. The
Complainant saw the truck and silver car drive away. The Complainant attempted to stop five or six cars before he was able to get help. He asked the driver of a car for help. The driver called police. As the Complainant waited for police at a bus terminal a driver of a car yelled out “Fuck you”. The Complainant recognised the driver from a previous job where parts of a delivery were missing.
19. Police arrived at the intersection of Somerton Road and Magnolia Boulevard, Meadow Heights. They spoke to the Complainant who was in extreme distress. Police observed that he had a broken finger and various bruises and scratches over his body. An ambulance arrived a short time later. As the Complainant was being treated by paramedics he saw the same car from which the driver had earlier yelled out from, drive past again.12
20. The Complainant was taken by ambulance to Royal Melbourne Hospital. Police took photographs of the Complainant’s injuries at the Hospital. The Complainant was examined. His injuries included:
· a fractured elbow;
· displaced fractures of two fingers;
· defensive wounds to the back of the left forearm;
· bruising to the head and arms and
· swelling and pain to the spinal region.13
21. At about 6pm police located the Complainant’s truck in Knights Crescent, Meadow Heights. Three white cable ties were found in the rear of the truck. The Complainant’s mobile phone was the only item stolen from the truck.
22. On 25 May 2020, the Complainant was released from hospital. He was still scared that the men would come after him.14 On 26 May 2020, police drove the
12 Constable Sam Courtin-Clark statement para 6
13 SC Dominic Tarquinio para 18; Exhibit 4, Medical records of Yu-wen Chen
Complainant to the Fawkner Police Station to obtain a statement. Police observed that he was fearful.15
23. Police obtained CCTV footage from the building manager of 60 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne and CCTV footage from Shankland Boulevard, Meadow Heights.
24. On 2 June 2020, police executed a search warrant at Lu’s Dudley Street premises. Clothing, a laptop, an iPad and other items were seized from the address.16
25. On 19 June 2020, police examined Lu’s iPad. Screenshots were taken of WeChat conversations between Lu and Chong and Lu and the Complainant. These were later translated into English.17
Arrest & Record of interview
26. On 3 June 2020, Lu was arrested at the Fawkner police station. She was interviewed by police.18 During the interview she said that she sold her bed to Joel for $500. Joel wanted it delivered by someone named Tom. She only knew that Joel wanted to see Tom. She never realised Tom would be kidnapped. Joel told her to photograph Tom and his truck and send these to Joel. He asked her to delete any conversations and photos about organising Tom.
Victim Impact Statement
27. To be confirmed.
15 SC Kate Bruzzaniti statement para 3
16 SC Dominic Tarquinio para 54
17 SC Dominic Tarquinio para 69/70
18 SC Tyson Fisher paras 2-5
Maximum Penalty
28. The maximum penalty is:
· Kidnapping
Crimes Act 1958, s.63A 25 years
Pre Sentence detention
29. Lu was charged and remanded on 3 June 2020. She was granted bail on 12 June 2020
30 July 2020. She has served 958days pre-sentence detention.
Applications
30. To be confirmed.
Application for sentence indication
31. The prosecution consents to a sentence indication hearing. Kidnapping is a category 2 offence.19. A custodial sentence is required (other than imprisonment in addition to a community correction order), unless there are a substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare.20
32. The prosecution submits that a sentence of immediate imprisonment is required.
19 Sentencing Act 1991, s.3(1)
20 Sentencing Act 1991, s.5(2H)(e)
Chronology
3 June 2020: Filing hearing
12 June 2020: Bail application. Bail granted 30 July 2020: Bail variation
25 August 2020: Committal case conference
20October 2020: Further committal case conference (adjourned by consent), and bail variation (granted on the papers)
19 November 2020: Committal mention (SHUB)
17 December 2020: Initial directions hearing (adjourned administratively) 28 January 2021: Initial directions hearing (adjourned administratively) 11 February 2021: Initial directions hearing (adjourned administratively) 23 February 2021: Initial directions hearing (adjourned administratively)
Damian Plummer
Counsel for the Prosecution 6 April 2021 30 March 2021