R v Foo
[2017] VCC 889
•14 June 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR-19-00258
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| JENG YONG FOO |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 4 June 2019 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 June 2019 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v FOO |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VCC 889 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Attempt to possess a commercial quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drug. Between dates rolled up charge re attempt to possess 4 consignments, 6.323 grams pure methamphetamine. Early guilty plea; Foreign national.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms A. Carlander | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr Habib (For Plea) Mr A. Lewin (For Sentence) | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Jeng Yong FOO, on Tuesday 4th June, you pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug. The drug involved was methamphetamine. The charge covers the four consignments in the period of about a month last year. The amount you attempted to possess was 6,323.7 grams pure. The commercial quantity is
750 grams pure.
2 You are a 28 year old Malaysian national who came to this country in late 2017. You have no criminal history and undoubtedly you will be deported at the end of the sentence I will impose.
3 The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for life.
Facts
4 The circumstances of your offending are set out in the revised summary dated 24 May which was read to the court by the prosecutor Ms Carlander and marked as Exhibit A. Your counsel Mr Habib told me that exhibit A was an agreed summary. I really see no need then to describe the full factual basis of sentencing as it is contained within that agreed summary. I will sentence in accordance with the agreed facts and not stray beyond them or the terms of the indictment. That is important here for as you know, there are some references in the opening to earlier events. In your interview for instance you refer to actually receiving parcels pursuant to the arrangement that was in place. I am not sentencing you for those events.
5 I am sentencing you for the 4 postal items sent to this country in the between dates period specified on the indictment. Those parcels did not get through hence the charge is one of attempting to possess. The boxes contained amongst other things books and some of those books had been impregnated with methamphetamine. Border force detected the irregularity and referred it off to the AFP who investigated and established a link to you from the consignee phone numbers.
6 A warrant was executed on your premises in Clayton on 28 August of last year. You were arrested and made admissions to being earlier recruited to receive these boxes. You were not merely receiving parcels. It was more complicated than that with SIM cards being provided to you. I will say more about your role in due course. You were tasked with finding addresses to provide to the overseas principal so that the boxes could be sent to those addresses and for you then to receive them there and then take the relevant books elsewhere. That is what was arranged. You were being paid. Your phone was analysed and disclosed some telling communications.
7 You have been in custody since 28 August 2018. The quantity of pure methamphetamine was 6,323 grams. There is a valuation statement served by way of a notice of additional evidence. Now I do not want to get caught up too heavily on that document or those valuations. It makes a number of assumptions about what might have happened in the extraction process and then what may have happened down the track to the extracted methamphetamine, how it may have been sold and at what level of purity and at what price. So there are all these assumptions upon assumptions. No one is suggesting it is a precise calculation. Clearly it is not. No one is suggesting that you were some large stakeholder or destined to reap some massive reward here. You have provided at least two versions of your expected reward, one in the interview (where you said you were getting $200 per package) and one by way of instructions to your counsel (being $2,000 per package). Those two figures appear to be less than the figures being discussed in the earlier communications set out in the opening. Who knows where the truth lies. I do not need a valuation statement though to know that drugs such as these are highly valuable. It is why they are imported. It is why people such as you are paid by others to involve yourself in these dealings. What is plain is that the drugs were worth a small fortune though as I say, I am not satisfied that you were going to reap any large financial reward.
Matters raised in mitigation
8 Mr Habib had prepared a written outline which was marked as Exhibit 1 on the plea. He took me to your background. It was an excellent plea and refreshingly there was the complete absence of the almost obligatory expert opinion from a psychologist as to all the ills in your mental health predicament or the many and complex psychological reasons as to why you had offended. There was nothing difficult to understand here. You wanted or needed money. You took the risk and did what you did for money and now of course you are paying dearly. The written outline on the plea contained the matters in mitigation relied upon by your counsel.
9 They included:
· Your early guilty plea;
· The existence of some remorse;
· The lack of criminal history;
· An increased custodial burden as you were to serve the sentence in Australia isolated from family and friends;
· He took me to your role and he asserted that you were no vital, no critical and no key player and you were doing what you were doing for a relatively small reward. You were motivated by the desire to support your wife and mother;
· He suggested that you had decent or significant prospects of rehabilitation and a low risk of re-offending in this way.
10 He conceded that this was very serious offending carrying with it the inevitability of a large prison sentence and one requiring the fixing of a non parole period. He suggested that you were awake to the likelihood that you would not see your 5 year old daughter until she was a teenager. Mr Habib took me to the prosecution’s chart of comparable cases and he pointed out some distinguishing features. Though he suggested that deportation was a certainty in this case, he was not relying on the mitigatory considerations to be found in the various cases such as Guden. You have never had any expectation of permanently settling in this country. You had planned to return to Malaysia in September 2018. You now looked forward to the day that you would be deported. The sooner the better from your perspective.
Prosecution submissions
11 The prosecutor Ms Carlander made some sentencing submissions. She had prepared some very detailed written submissions which were marked as Exhibit B on the plea. I am not going to set them out in full. Your counsel accepted that most of the written submissions were uncontroversial going as they did to matters of firmly established legal principle. The only issues flagged by your counsel were paragraphs 14 and 15, not the matters raised in paragraph 14 but rather the conclusion as to your role in paragraph 15. Finally paragraphs 34 and 37 and the weight to give to your lack of history before the courts and your isolation in custody. The prosecutor placed before me a selection of comparable cases and a chart. I was also directed to the case of Wan [2019] VSCA 81, a decision of our Court of Appeal, in relation to the fixing of a non-parole period and the impact of deportation in that exercise. See paragraphs 32 to 35 of that decision. It was not a matter of any great moment in this case as your counsel made plain.
Background
12 I turn now to your background. Now I have no reason not to accept the family and personal background that has been briefly placed before me by your counsel in his written and oral submissions so I will set it out only very briefly here. You are 28 years of age born in Malaysia on 26 June 1990. So, you are soon to be 29. Your parents separated when you were young and you were raised by your mother. You had no contact with your father from a very young age. You left school at the age of 16 and worked as a waiter. You moved to Kuala Lumpur when you were 20 and met your wife to be in that city. You two then married. You have a 5 year old daughter. You came to Australia in November 2017 on a tourist visa and did so to work and make money and send some of that money home to assist your mother and wife and child. I certainly do not find against you that you have come to Australia intent upon committing this or any other crime though plainly enough from the summary of plea opening you were having discussions about this enterprise by March of 2018. You lived in a shared house in Clayton and had found work as a delivery driver and also as a kitchen hand. The delivery driving followed on from the work as a kitchen hand which had finished by February 2018. The driving job started in April 2018. You were remitting money from each of those jobs back to Malaysia. There is really little by way of material suggesting that you mother or wife were in any diabolical financial position such that you had to take dire steps. You had presumably purchased a ticket to come out to Australia in the hope of finding employment and you had been working here probably illegally which is entirely unimportant to my task but you were being paid. You were sending back funds. Why did you need more?
13 Since your apprehension you are receiving no visitors. You have phone contact with your mother and wife but no contact really with your daughter. You are held in a unit up at Fulham with no other Mandarin speaker in your unit. You receive no visits and you feel and you are isolated. Your visa has expired and obviously enough you will be deported eventually. The question is when? As I say, from your perspective, the sooner the better.
Role
14Mr Habib made submissions as to your role. He argued that it was not a vital role, that you were not a critical or key intermediary but that you were obviously more involved than for instance a “mere” courier. The Crown set out what you actually did in paragraph 14 and suggested that you were, in managing the importations, involving yourself in a high degree of planning and organisation. They submitted that you played an active and significant role. That is obviously correct. I reject the suggestion of your role not being vital or important.
15 Your role was obviously critical or you would not have been asked to perform it and been paid to do so. It really is that simple. You were not just receiving a parcel. That would be serious enough by the way, in the same way that a courier just boarding a plane is serious. But sometimes that is the extent of activity, something very simple and yet critical. You were doing all the things set out in paragraph 14 of the prosecution submissions including liaising with the overseas player, scouting out local addresses, providing those addresses to the consignor, then agreeing to attend and receive the parcel either yourself or by liaising with others. You had dealings with people at the overseas end and at the Australian end and met people at this end and received the phones and the SIM cards for use in this unlawful activity. You understood that the package would contain books, that you would be expected to open the package, remove selected books and meet someone at this end to provide the books. You undoubtedly knew that drugs were being moved as part of a highly organised criminal business. That much is admitted. You were doing this for money and a good deal more than you described in the interview. Undoubtedly you were motivated by easy money. That is virtually always the position. Your role was critical. That is not to say that the drugs may not have arrived without your involvement. Maybe there would have been someone else who would have filled the role. Had there been such a person, that person’s role would have been vital. The ability to possibly find others to take on the task does not alter the essential character of the role. Here it was you doing these things and they were important. Nor does the relatively modest reward described actually spell out one way or another the importance of your role. I am not sure I will ever know the truth as to your true financial expectation, I certainly do not accept either of the figures you have provided here but as I have said, there is no reason for me to think you were in some sort of joint venture and taking a share of the profits down the track. You were likely receiving a relatively modest payment, at least when weighed up against the enormous potential value of the drug.
16 Why then did you do it? You were not, as far as I can see, in desperate financial straits at all. You were in this up to your neck and what you were up to your neck in was a serious crime as you well knew. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you must have known that, even though you may not have known the precise drug or drug quantities.
17 You knew what you were doing. It is true that I cannot find that you were involved in the process of placing the methamphetamine into the books or the books into the boxes. You were not operating in Malaysia. You were at the Australian end of what was undoubtedly a sophisticated enterprise given the manner in which the drug was secreted. Nor can I conclude that you were to be engaged in the actual extraction of the methamphetamine at this end. It seems clear that you were not. But you knew that you were engaged in serious offending. Of that I have no doubt. You after all come from a country which has taken a very strong stance indeed against the movement of illegal drugs.
18 You were clearly an important player. Not the kingpin, not the principal but a key or vital trusted intermediary who was providing valuable and critical assistance to others in the hierarchy in two countries.
19 You were doing what most who commit this crime do. You were taking a calculated risk. You must have weighed up the risks and the benefits. Of course the benefit was of easy money. The risk was of detection and prosecution and then imprisonment in this country. You were not someone labouring under any sort of clouded judgement owing to drug dependency. Nor some silly immature teenager behaving foolishly or perhaps under the influence of some conniving or manipulative adult. Nor someone with mental health issues impairing the decision making process. You made a calculated choice. These are rolled up transactions over about a month with evidence of ample time before then to consider and reflect upon the seriousness of your decision. You had every ability not to engage in this serious crime. Instead you chose to offend.
20 It is impossible for me to understand precisely why you did what you did other than to know that financial gain was at the heart of the decision as it almost always is. Was it greed or need or maybe a bit of each? It is impossible for me to say. There is really no material placed before spelling out the true financial position of your family. There is nothing touching upon any pressing or dire need. Maybe it was a shortcut to provide for your family for it should not be forgotten, and I do not forget, that what may appear to be a modest enough sum in Australian dollars spent in Australia may actually represent a far more significant amount in another country with a cheaper cost of living. The fact is though, this was your choice and there is nothing reducing your culpability for making that choice.
No prior criminal history
21 You have no prior history before the courts at all. That is of course relevant. I do take it into account. The issue is to what extent do I take it into account? There was some very minor debate on that topic in the course of the plea. Good character is very often afforded less weight in this area whether dealing with importations or attempts to possess in the aftermath of an importation. The Crown argued that less weight should be given to past good character owing to the authorities on this topic. That there was nothing unusual about lack of criminal history. See paragraph 34 of the submissions. That second point is undoubtedly true. It seems to me though that your good character was not a factor leading to your selection for involvement in the crime as it may well be for a courier, for instance. It was not a factor inextricably linked with your involvement in the crime. I do pay regard to your past good character but it does not alter the seriousness of the offending and the offending was not some momentary aberration. It was considered and it occurred over a period.
Guilty Plea
22 You have pleaded guilty and you have done that at the earliest stage. Earlier still you made very damaging admissions when interviewed and you
co-operated with the Australian Federal Police. You have consented to the forfeiture of the phones and SIM cards. I take your early guilty plea into account in mitigation of sentence. You have taken responsibility for your crime and the community has been spared the time, the cost and the effort of a trial in this court or a committal hearing in the Magistrates' Court. There is a utilitarian benefit. Witnesses have been spared the experience of giving evidence and the sentence I will impose is less than would have been imposed upon you had you been found guilty by a jury. You have facilitated the course of justice by pleading guilty and at the earliest stage. So too in your earlier co-operation and also in your consent to forfeiture. So, this is all deserving of a significant discount in sentence.
Remorse
23 Mr Habib argues that I should find the presence of some remorse. He relies upon your admissions and your early guilty plea as well as consent to forfeiture of the items. You were hardly fully frank in your interview. You were not truthful in terms of your reward. That much is conceded. I asked Mr Habib to take me to any evidence of actual remorse in the materials. He said that there was none. Ultimately, though I am prepared to find that your guilty plea is indicative of some remorse. I take that into account in your favour.
Increased burden
24 Your counsel raised your isolated prison experience in mitigation. You are serving a sentence in a foreign country separated from your loved ones. You have no visitors and only limited access by phone to your family. No contact at all with your young daughter. You will know that you have placed your wife and child and your mother in an invidious position. You cannot support them at all now. Prison is obviously an unfamiliar place to you. Serving a first sentence must be difficult at the best of times for any person. It will be harder for you because you are in a country remote from your friends and relatives and from people who speak your language and you are awake to the plight of your family. I do assign some weight to your increased custodial burden, more than would have been the case had I been positively satisfied that you had entered this country intending to commit crimes. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that is what happened.
25 However, I cannot give great weight to your increased burden.
26 It was an inescapable fact that if caught, you would end up serving a very lengthy term of imprisonment far removed from your loved ones. That was the risk, a risk that you must have considered and one that you chose to take in the hope of reaping a financial gain.
27 I am prepared to accept though that you will experience an increased custodial burden and I do take that into account in mitigation.
Rehabilitation
28 You are 28 years of age now with no criminal history. You have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and you are remorseful to a degree. You will undoubtedly be deported at the end of the sentence but that will be many years from now. You will have years to reflect on this serious crime. You will continue to learn a valuable but difficult lesson. You will be paying a high price indeed for your crime with the loss of your liberty in a difficult setting and the dislocation of the relationships with your family. You will lose a large slab of your life. It is very sad and I am confident that you will increasingly regret your terrible choice to commit this serious crime. I am confident that the process of being arrested, charged, remanded and now sentenced will have a very sizeable role in deterring you into the future. I am prepared to accept that you have significant prospects of rehabilitation though they will ultimately take shape in your homeland once you are deported. In the meantime, get what you can out of your experience in this country. Learn English. It cannot hurt you to do that. It would make your prison experience far less isolating. It might even be a skill that is valued in the future. Fluency in English may be a real benefit to you in the workforce upon your return home. Try to resume your education whilst in prison. Do anything really to assist your future prospects. Otherwise it will just be dead time and there will be plenty of it stretching out ahead in the years to come. I think your prospects of rehabilitation are good and I would be surprised if you offended in this way ever again.
Principles of sentence
29 The principles at play in this sort of case are not seriously in dispute. They are well known and they are set out in a variety of cases including many that are mentioned in the sentencing submissions marked as Exhibit B. I do not see the need to restate all of the principles in my reasons. They are not controversial. I am dealing with you for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug. Many of the same principles from the cases dealing with importation apply. Many of the decisions in fact involve attempts to possess following either removal of the drug with controlled deliveries taking place or for that matter the seizure of the drug with no controlled delivery at all, which is what occurred here.
30 This crime is punishable by life imprisonment and that is the same maximum as applies for importing a commercial quantity.
31 Attempting to possess is not in any less serious category than importing the drug.
32 Financial gain is the obvious motivation here as it almost always is and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it motivated this crime.
33 You had an active and critical role. You must have been trusted. Every drug importation or drug enterprise is different. But there is no reason at all for me to think you were some unimportant person to this venture at all. As I have said earlier when dealing with role, you were plainly a critical player in this crime. Drugs were being forwarded to this country. Parcels needed to be received and in a manner where they were not linked to a particular actual address. Your input was fundamental. You provided the addresses and a lot more besides. You knew drugs were involved.
34 There can be a tendency for defence counsel to point to those higher up in the hierarchy and their role or their potential reward or to use adjectives to describe a so called lesser role such as courier or intermediary or gopher or distributor. Tags and labels are applied and that can actually be quite distracting. For instance people often enough refer to someone being a ‘mere’ courier without examining what the courier has actually done. A courier is often paid a small if not a pitiful sum to carry drugs into the country. Physical drug couriers take massive risks and they often do so as they truly are so desperate. Desperation in that style of offending is almost always apparent. It is not apparent here. What was your need? Why were you so desperate? I am not convinced that you were.
35 Your role was important to the success of the importation for the reasons I announced earlier. I am not going to repeat them all.
36 I turn now to the quantity. The amount of drug is not the only factor or necessarily even the most important factor but it is always an important consideration. That is because the sentencing regime is quantity based. Often the quantity is the only point of differentiation between various instances of the offending. Here it was more than 8 times the commercial quantity. There are obviously far larger quantities that come before the courts but yours was quite large enough. There are certainly very many that are smaller, even much smaller. I repeat, commercial quantity was 750 grams pure. This crime relates to over 6 kilograms pure.
37 I say now then what I have said in many cases since sitting as a Judge in this court. General deterrence is usually a very weighty sentencing factor in this sort of case and that is plainly the position here. It is the primary sentencing purpose. This court must send a loud and a clear message to any other like-minded persons engaged in or thinking of being engaged in this sort of serious criminal activity. There are enough of them out there both on these shores and beyond these shores. ‘Would be’ importers or those assisting in this process, including attempting to possess at this end, they need to know that they will pay a very heavy price for their offending if caught. That has been spelt out in case after case in our Court of Appeal. Do not take the risk. Do not be tempted by the lure of so called easy money. It is easy because of the massive risk in play.
38 Think long and hard before becoming involved in attempting to possess commercial quantities of drugs brought unlawfully into this country, for if you are apprehended, the consequences will be dire indeed. We must as Judges send that message. Life altering sentences await in a setting where, after all, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
39 This community has been greatly damaged by drugs. The sentences imposed by the Courts, they must signal to others that the potential financial rewards or gains on offer from such an activity are neutralised by the risk of severe punishment.
40 Consistency of sentencing is an important consideration. I have read the cases that are referred to in the chart marked as Exhibit B. My prediction that it would be of little use has proved correct. Still I can see the rationale in the way the chart has been put together in terms of the key matters such as lack of history and quantities. Mr Habib took me to aspects of the cases, to differences in your favour. Well, having read the cases, there were differences flowing in every direction here. Different offending, duration, quantity, reward, personal circumstances. Some in your favour and some not.
41 The case of Thomas has a very sizeable coverage of sentences for commercial quantity offending as well as a survey of sentences for offences concerned with the lesser offence of importing or attempting to possess a marketable quantity. The matter of Wang that I was referred to has some strong parallels but still there are differences including in that case a smaller quantity. I have looked also at the Judicial College of Victoria materials in this regard at 33.13.1.1 & 2.
42 I have to pass an appropriate sentence in your case. None of these other sentences passed in other cases dictate the outcome in this case. None are on all fours. They are not identical. They are not precedents and there is no such thing as one correct sentence.
43 Your offending was very serious indeed. That much is conceded. You were attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug.
44 Denunciation is an important consideration. You must also be justly punished.
45 The weight to be given to specific deterrence and future community protection from you I think can be significantly moderated. Specific deterrence will to a large extent have been achieved and your risk of doing something like this again is surely non-existent in this country and low elsewhere. So I moderate those two purposes.
46 General deterrence though is in a very different proposition. It is the paramount sentencing consideration.
Sentence
47 I have taken into account all of the submissions made on your behalf. I have taken into account the various relevant matters listed in s.16A(2) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914.
48 I have no option at all but to imprison you for a very substantial period as your counsel correctly concedes.
49 Would you stand up please, Mr Foo;
50 On the charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of unlawfully imported methamphetamine, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 ½ years' imprisonment. That sentence commences today
Non-Parole period
51 I direct that you serve a non-parole period of 7 years' imprisonment.
52 I will have you sit down now. There is something else I have to say to you but it takes some time so have a seat please.
53 I am required to explain to you the effect and the purpose of that parole order.
54 The purpose of such an order is to permit your possible release from prison, subject to certain conditions, at the expiry of the non-parole period. It follows that you will serve a sentence of 7 years in prison. A parole order may then be made but in the Federal domain, that is entirely in the hands of the Commonwealth Attorney General. See section 19AL of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914
55 If and when such an order is made, it envisages a period of service in the community called the ‘parole period’ to complete the service of that sentence. I think this is likely to be totally illusory in your case but I cannot have regard to the likelihood of deportation in either selecting the appropriate sentence, or in the fixing of the non-parole period or in declining to fix a non-parole period.
56 I have no idea at this point as to what will happen to you at the point when you have served the non parole period. Will you be deported there and then? I am sure you will hope that that is what occurs. Will you be held beyond that period and if so, for how long? Will you be paroled at some point before the expiry of the 10 ½ year term? I cannot speculate about any of this.
57 I have to proceed on the footing that you will serve every day of the 10 ½ year term I have announced which is exactly what I would be required to do without the deportation issue rearing its head.
58 As I am dealing with a Federal sentence, considerations of parole would not be vested in the hands of the State Adult Parole Board, but rather would be under the control of the Federal Offenders Unit of the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Office. It is entirely impossible for me to say what your position regarding release on parole might be. Any uncertainty in your mind would really not be too dissimilar to the uncertainties in the minds of very many prisoners who have for a variety of reasons anxieties, either real or imagined as to their prospects of being paroled either in a State or Federal setting. There is never any certainty in that regard so this does not in my view increase your custodial burden. Nor is there any evidence before me of an increased burden owing to this factor. See the case of Wan 2019 VSCA 81.
59 If a parole order is made, it would be subject to conditions which you would need to comply with and such an order can be amended or revoked. As I say I cannot know now in 2019 what those conditions could be. They would no doubt be informed by your needs some years from now. The consequences, if you failed without excuse to fulfil these conditions on parole, would be your being ordered to serve the balance of the sentence up to 10 ½ years.
60 Now, I have said all that I have said. I am required to fix a non parole period in this case even though there is, in my judgment, the certainty of deportation. But having fixed it I have to explain it in the way that I have.
Section 17A
61 I am obliged to state the reasons for proceeding to impose a term of imprisonment and quite simply, no other sentence was appropriate, given the nature and gravity of your crime as was explicitly conceded by your own counsel.
Pre-sentence detention
62 I make a declaration pursuant to s.16E of the Crimes Act 1914, as to the time that you have already served in custody. I declare that the period of 292 days pre-sentence detention is to be noted in the records of the court. You have already served that portion of the sentence.
6AAA
63 I have reduced your sentence because you have pleaded guilty and at the earliest stage. I am required to state the measure of that reduction. But for your guilty plea, I would have sentenced you to a term of 14 ½ years. I would have fixed a non-parole period of 11 years and that s.6AAA declaration is to be noted in the records of the court.
64 Let me see if there is anything else I need to attend to. Ms Carlander, are there any other matters that I need to attend to at all?
65 MS CARLANDER: Nothing else, Your Honour.
66 HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. Mr Lewin, from your perspective?
67 MR LEWIN: Nothing further, Your Honour.
68 HIS HONOUR: Are you going to have the opportunity of going down and seeing your client downstairs or not?
69 MR LEWIN: Yes. Or my colleague will who has (indistinct words) matters, yes.
70 HIS HONOUR: Or someone will anyway, all right. Well, thank you for that. Is that going to happen in the presence of the interpreter? How long do we have you for Madam Interpreter?
71 INTERPRETER: Till 3 o'clock.
72 HIS HONOUR: Three, all right. So, there will be a need I think for some conference. You will work out with the interpreter, Mr Lewin, the timing of that, will you?
73 MR LEWIN: I will, Your Honour.
74 HIS HONOUR: All right, well thank you for that. Well, that completes the matter then, Mr Foo. So, you will be removed from court now and someone from your legal team will come down and see you downstairs, all right? Yes, all right, thank you. Yes, all right, look I have signed that formal order. I have got some appeals that are listed at 12. I can see some people gathering around. I will leave the Bench just so appearances can be taken, then I will come back onto the Bench at midday. Yes, thank you.
- - -