R v Foo; R v Ah; R v Chen; R v Ng

[2017] NSWDC 395

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Foo; R v Ah; R v Chen; R v Ng [2017] NSWDC 395

Hearing dates:

21, 24 July 2017

Date of orders:

24 July 2017

Decision date:

24 July 2017

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Neilson DCJ

Decision:

Foo: I sentence you to imprisonment for 16 months commencing on 6 July 2016 and expiring on 6 November 2017. You are to be released on a recognisance in the sum of $500 today, 24 July 2017.

 

Ah: I sentence you to imprisonment for 18 months commencing on 7 July 2016 and expiring on 6 January 2018. You are to be released on cognisance in the sum of $500 today, 24 July 2017.

 

Chen: I sentence you to imprisonment for 21 months commencing on 7 July 2016 and expiring on 6 April 2018. You are to be released on recognisance in the sum of $500 on 6 September 2017.

 Ng: I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of one year and 17 days.

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE – Commonwealth offenders – Criminal Code s 400.9(1) – Four non-principals in money-laundering scheme – Ng and Foo drivers, Ah courier, Chen management at a low level – A principal previously sentenced to imprisonment for 22 months with release after 14 months on recognizance

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
Kok Meng Foo (Offender)
Kim Choy Ah (Offender)
Wei Bin Chen (Offender)
Kok Chun Ng (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr S Grodzicki (Crown)
Mr H Ainsworth (Foo)
Mr J Leaver (Ah)
Mr P Lange (Ng)
Mr R McCrudden (Chen)

File Number(s):

2016/206437; 2016/206576; 2016/206589; 2016/206594

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Four Malaysian Nationals stand before me for sentence. Two of the four men, Kim Choy Ah and Wei Bin Chen have pleaded guilty to one charge contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth of Australia. The other two men, Kok Meng Foo and Kok Chun Ng have pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the commission of an offence contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code. Under the s 11.2(1) of that Code Foo and Ng are liable to the same penalty as the principals who committed the offence, namely Ah and Chen.

2. The relevant parts of s 400.9 are these:

“(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person deals with money or other property; and

(b) it is reasonable to suspect that the money or property is proceeds of crime; and

(c) at the time of the dealing, the value of the money and other property is $100,000 or more.

Penalty: improvement for three years, or 180 penalty units, or both.”

In subs (2) there is material which deems conduct involving a number of transactions to be taken into account in assessing the total amount of the monies required by subs (1)(c). The final two subsections are these:

“(4) Absolute liability applies to (1)(b) and (c) and (1A)(b) and (c).

(5) This section does not apply if the defendant proves that he or she had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the money or property was derived or realised, directly or indirectly, from some form of unlawful activity.”

It follows that all that the Crown need prove is that on an objective basis the offenders had reason to suspect that the money was illegally obtained.

Facts

3. The facts are these. At about 2.35pm on 7 July 2016 police were conducting observations of the activities of Foo and Ah. They were detected driving a blue Mazda 3 sedan on Shoreline Drive at Rhodes. The driver was Foo and Ah was in the front passenger seat. They drove into Blaxland Road and parked nose to kerb outside the Rhodes Railway Station. About three minutes later a white Toyota Corolla driven by Ng and in which Chen was the passenger, arrived and parked next to the blue Mazda. Ah alighted from the blue Mazda and walked to the rear passenger door of the white Toyota and got into that vehicle. Shortly afterwards he left the vehicle carrying a black bag which appeared to contain a substantial weight. Ah walked back to the blue Mazda and placed the black bag in the boot. The blue Mazda was then driven to Brays Bay Reserve car park which is located a short distance away in Mary Street, Rhodes.

4. Foo parked the blue Mazda and Foo and Ah waited in the car park in their vehicle. Shortly afterwards a silver Toyota Camry, driven by Yiu Lam Chan entered the Brays Bay Reserve car park and was parked. Chan left the Camry and walked over to the blue Mazda and entered the rear left passenger side of the vehicle in which Foo and Ah had remained seated. Chan then left the blue Mazda with the black bag. Chan was followed for a short distance at which time he was apprehended by the police.

5. The black bag was found to contain five vacuum sealed plastic bags each containing a large quantity of cash which was subsequently counted and determined to amount to $500,170. At the time that Chan was apprehended by the police he was in possession of three mobile telephones. The police stopped the blue Mazda before it left the car park and Foo and Ah were then arrested on the charge of dealing with the proceeds of crime.

6. At about that time the white Corolla was driven into the Brays Bay Reserve and its occupants, Ng and Chen, were arrested. They were also charged with dealing with the proceeds of crime. Chen was found to be in possession of $7,830 in Australian currency at the time of his arrest. Both the four men before me and Chan were taken to Burwood police station and introduced to the custody manager and their rights were explained to them in the presence of an interpreter. Each of the five men spoke either Cantonese or Mandarin or both.

7. During an interview conducted at the police station Chen made an admission of dropping off two bags of money on 7 July 2016, one for approximately a half million dollars and another for approximately $200,000. At the time he was interviewed Mr Ah admitted that he had delivered two bags of money to two different persons on that day. Accordingly, both Chen and Foo were charged under s 400.9(1) with dealing with $700,170 suspected to be the proceeds of crime.

8. The offender, Foo, was charged with aiding and abetting the commission of dealing with $700,170 in cash and pleaded guilty to that charge. However, the offender, Ng, was only charged with aiding and abetting the commission of an offence of dealing with $500,170. Accordingly, Foo by his plea of guilty admitted to driving twice on that day delivering two parcels of money whereas Ng only admitted one offence of driving the white Toyota Corolla to the Rhodes railway station with Chen as his passenger.

9. Each of the offenders has been in custody since his arrest on 7 July 2016, a period of one year and 17 days. The offender Chan was sentenced by his Honour, Craigie DCJ, on 5 May 2017. His Honour’s remarks on sentence form part of exhibit 1. His Honour sentenced Chan to a head term of 22 months imprisonment and directed that that offender be released on recognisance after serving 14 months in prison. Fourteen months in prison expires on 6 September 2017.

Criminality

10. As is commonly the case and as the authorities tell me, the beneficial owners of the money in question are unknown. Where those beneficial owners might be is also unknown. How the money was derived is also unknown, but it is highly likely that it is derived from criminal undertakings such as the supply and/or distribution of illicit drugs, the supply and/or distribution of pornography or illegal gambling earnings or some other nefarious practice contrary to the laws of this nation.

11. The statutory scheme has a cascading number of offences. For example, an offence contrary to s 400.4(1) requires a belief that the money is the proceeds of crime; an offence contrary to s 400.4(2) is one in which the offender is reckless as to whether the property is the proceeds of crime; an offence contrary to s 400.4(3) requires that the offender be negligent as to the fact that the property is the proceeds of crime. Accordingly, the current offenders are to be sentenced only on the basis that there is a reasonable suspicion that the money is the proceeds of crime. A suspicion, of course, is much less than a belief.

12. Although the offenders only had a suspicion and, perhaps with the exception of the Offender Chen, did not know how much money was being conveyed, the participation of people such as the current offenders in a money laundering scheme enables that scheme to be successful for those who ultimately “earnt” the money to receive the benefit of it by taking the money offshore where those who “earned” the money are usually based. In other words, although their criminality may be relatively small compared to the criminality of the principals in a money laundering operation, their role is still essential to its operation. That is why the Parliament has prescribed a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment.

Kok Chun Ng

13. Mr Ng was born on 29 October 1992. He is 24 years old. He was interviewed by a forensic psychologist, Mr Patrick Sheehan, for two hours on or about 8 June 2017 which is the date of Mr Sheehan’s report. Under the heading “Family History” Mr Sheehan records this:

“Mr Ng was born and raised in a Malaysian village to Chinese-Malaysian parents. His family remained intact throughout his childhood. He is the eldest of three children, having two younger sisters. His father worked as a lorry driver and his mother cared for the children. He described a reasonably harmonious family life and positive relationships with parents. The family had no criminal involvement or associations. He reported no substance use or mental health issues within the family. He was never exposed to trauma or domestic violence. He recalled persistent financial pressure, aggravated by a two year period when his father was unable to operate his business due to a sudden increase in fuel prices. He reported feeling early pressure to be a provider for the family which is culturally normative for the eldest son, saying: ‘My father and I are the pillars of the family’. Mr Ng has never moved from the family home. He travelled to Australia in May 2016 on a tourist visa with the intention to find cash paying employment with which to support his family.”

According to the same report the offender worked in a games parlour, a snooker parlour and as a salesman in a furniture store, and then as a labourer in a furniture assembly plant for two years before saving enough money to purchase an airline ticket to come to Australia in May 2016. The offender was unable to obtain employment in Australia when he arrived in May 2016. He had no English and his only plan for finding work as to doorknock restaurants. As Mr Sheehan pointed out, that was naïve.

14. According to Mr Sheehan’s report the offender accepted a role as a driver for the current offences for which he was paid $400. As I pointed out he has admitted to only driving once and the remuneration for his role in that offence was to be paid $400.

15. Since his incarceration the offender has worked in the prison laundry. According to the pre-sentence report Corrective Services believe the offender to be a hard worker who could be left to work unsupervised and has not been the subject of any internal misconduct charge whilst in custody.

16. According to the pre-sentence report the offender admitted his involvement in these crimes. The pre-sentence report says this:

“Mr Ng agreed with the police facts pertaining to the offences. He appeared to accept some responsibility for his offending behaviour in agreeing that his actions were unlawful and ‘illegal’. He stated that he committed the offences in order to support his family’s financial hardship overseas. Whilst Mr Ng demonstrated insight into the impact of his actions upon himself and his family, he appeared to somewhat justify his offending in reporting that ‘my family needed money, I had no option’, due to an outstanding family debt.”

The same issue has been addressed by Mr Sheehan in his report. He said this:

“Mr Ng acknowledged his role in the offences and expressed regret and shame for his behaviour. He said that he came to meet the organisers of the offence whilst he was unsuccessfully searching for employment in May 2016. He had no understanding of the specific details of the operation but was aware that the activities were clandestine and illegal. He explained that at the time of the offence he was driven by a strong desire to earn money to support his family in Malaysia and could find no work. He said that at the time he felt that he had ‘no choice’ but can see now that his decisions were ‘wrong’.”

17. Mr Sheehan believed that the offender’s actions were influenced by a number of factors including immaturity, naivety and lack of sophistication. He was also thrown into milieu where he had no family and no friends and was vulnerable.

18. The role of Mr Ng in these activities was at the bottom of the range of criminality for those engaged in money laundering. He was merely contracted to be a driver and drove on one occasion on the evidence before me. Quite frankly had the offender not served one year and 17 days in custody I would not have imposed a full-time custodial sentence.

19. Kok Chun Ng, I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of one year and 17 days. As far as this Court is concerned you are discharged. You are a free man. However, you will have to wait a little while because the Corrective Services officers will have to process the paperwork. You may be seated.

Kok Meng Foo.

20. Mr Foo was born on 19 May 1971. He is currently 46 years old. Mr Foo came to Australia in March 2015 on a holiday visa. Mr Foo married in 2011 a lady from Vietnam. He and his wife have a five year old daughter. The offender’s wife and child returned to Vietnam in 2015 as a result of the offender’s business’ failing. The offender left school when he was 15 years old. He then obtained work in a printing company and did a course which enabled him to become a supervisor in the printing company.

21. In 2009 after working for the printing company for 22 years he left that company and purchased his own printing business in Kuala Lumpur. To purchase that money he borrowed $200,000. Unfortunately the business was not profitable and he was unable to make his loan repayments. In September, 2014 he sold the business as well as his flat and his motor vehicle. He still owes a bank $170,000. His wife and child then returned to Vietnam and he came to Australia in the pious expectation that he would make money living here.

22. According to a history given by Mr Foo to Mr Philip Gorrell, a psychologist who interviewed him on 16 July 2017, when the offender arrived in Australia he commenced to live at Rhodes with the offender Ah who was also involved in the printing industry in Malaysia. The offender started looking for jobs as soon as he arrived in Australia. He went to Chinatown and obtained employment cleaning restaurants. He went to hotels and offered to drive intoxicated people home. At times he worked in the building industry as a labourer. He would do whatever job was offered to him. In his job cleaning restaurants he was earning $10 per hour and sometimes he could earn $700 a week. He charged persons whom he drove home because of their intoxication $50. Most of what he was earning was used to repay his debt in Malaysia.

23. According to Mr Gorrell’s history the offender met the offender Chen in a hotel four months before 7 July 2016. Mr Foo believed that Mr Chen was a rich man and he agreed to Mr Chen’s request that he assist him by delivering a bag to a friend. It was in those circumstances that he committed these offences. I should indicate that insofar as this history touches Mr Chen it is not evidence against him.

24. Before leaving Mr Gorrell’s report I should point out that Mr Gorrell did not believe that the offender was suffering from any mental illness, developmental disability or any other psychiatric or psychological condition. According to the pre-sentence report the offender was persuaded to come to Australia having received information that highly paid work was available to him in this country and that he made up his mind to come to Australia on that basis. The information was obviously incorrect and the fact that such work was not available to the offender ought to have been realised by him when he only obtained a holiday visa.

25. The pre-sentence report seems to indicate that the offender had no insight into his offending behaviour and indeed records a belief that the offender was innocent of any offence because he had not been paid for his driving task on 7 July 2016. However, the offender’s plea of guilty says otherwise and Mr Gorrell expressed the view, based on having an extended interview with the offender, that he had a sense of responsibility and a good work ethic. However, he pointed out that the offender was naïve and that clearly is shown by his plan to come to Australia to obtain well paid work when he only had a holiday visa. It is also clear from Mr Gorrell’s report that he believed that the offender was vulnerable to the influence of others and that led to his participation in the current offence. As I have earlier recited the offender admits driving Chen on two occasions when he dropped of bags that were objectively suspected of being the proceeds of crime.

26. I accept what has been put to me by Mr Ainsworth on behalf of Mr Foo that his criminality is somewhat above that of the offender Ng but clearly less than that of the offender Ah and also of the offender Chen. I have to bear in mind the fact that this offender is only guilty of aiding and abetting the offence rather than committing the principal offence.

27. The offender Chan committed the principal offence and received a sentence of imprisonment of 22 months. In my view the appropriate sentence for the offender Foo is 16 months. I am required by the Commonwealth sentencing regime to fix a period after which this offender ought be released on recognisance into the community after serving the minimum term required by law. I have come to the view, as has been submitted to me by Mr Ainsworth, that this offender ought be released on a recognisance today and that he will spend the balance of the 16 months bound by his recognisance to be of good behaviour, although it is likely that during that period he will be deported by the Commonwealth Immigration authorities.

Kim Choy Ah

28. Mr Ah was born on 26 October 1982 and is currently 34 years old. Mr Ah attended school in Kuala Lumpur until the age of 18 and completed the equivalent of the higher school certificate. Immediately after finishing school Mr Ah worked in Singapore as a salesman for approximately two years and he then worked for a printing company in Kuala Lumpur for 12 months before coming to Australia in mid-2015 on a holiday visa. Prior to coming to Australia Mr Ah had been living with his parents in Kuala Lumpur. He had no contact with the Malaysian police.

29. He came to Australia after friends in Malaysia had told him that wages in Australia were “generous” and that he would be able to return to Malaysia from Australia in a stronger economic position after working in Australia for some period of time, again the same form of advice that was given to Mr Foo which appears to have been erroneous.

30. After arriving in Australia Mr Ah had various “cash in hand jobs”. Because of only holding a holiday visa, he was unable to obtain any stable legal employment. He found employment through friends and other persons in the same position as himself.

31. Under the heading “Attitude to Offending” the pre-sentence report says this:

“Mr Ah reports that he was working as a driver at the time of the offence and that he was not aware that his actions were against the law. Mr Ah said that when the police arrested him, he initially believed it related to his immigration status, as his visa had expired.

Mr Ah reported he did not believe it to be unusual to carry around large amounts of money. He reports that in his job in Malaysia it was common to pay through ‘cash’, and that he had personally met with, and paid suppliers using this method. He noted that these amounts were not as large as the money outlined in the Statement of Facts, but he reported that he had paid amounts of 20,000 Malaysian Ringgit (equivalent to between $5,000 and $6,000 Australian) via this method.

Mr Ah agreed with the Statement of Facts, and maintained that he did not know what the large sum of money was for. In interview Mr Ah inferred he was naïve at the time of the offence and noted in hindsight, he believes he was ‘set up’. He expressed shame and disappointment at the situation he had placed himself in, and he said that he just wanted to return to Malaysia and ‘get on’ with his life.”

Later the pre-sentence report refers to a failure of the offender to admit his culpability but it appears that the writer of the pre-sentence report was unaware that culpability was only confirmed by the mere objective suspicion that the funds were it the proceeds of illegal activity. The offender believed that he was “used” being my understanding of what he meant by the words “set up”. He was used by those who had befriended him to participate in the illegal activity.

32. Mr Ah was interviewed by Dr Mark Milic, a clinical psychologist, on 20 June 2017 by audio-visual link between Mr Milic’s rooms in Surry Hills and the offender at Bathurst gaol. On the issue I have just discussed Dr Milic recorded this history:

“Mr Ah told me that because he was an illegal immigrant, he relied on friends for mutual support in finding work and accommodation. He said he lived with a friend in Rhodes who had also overstayed his visa [Mr Foo].

Mr Ah said that another one of his friends asked him for help delivering a bag of money. He said the man was on a student visa and they had met about a year earlier. Mr Ah said his friend gave him a blue mobile phone to make a telephone call to arrange the handover. Mr Ah said he and his friend were then arrested. He said that he needed to take responsibility for his offence and pleaded guilty.”

The latter history seems to implicate the offender Chen as having recruited the current offender but of course that is not evidence against Mr Chen.

33. As I have mentioned already Mr Ah admitted making two deliveries on 7 July 2016 and has admitted dealing with $700,170, being the proceeds of crime. There was only that admission by his plea of guilty which enables the Crown to prove two dealings against Mr Ah. The Crown could also rely upon the evidence of Chen to establish two dealings but one must have doubts as to whether a properly instructed jury would accept an allegation of offending behaviour by a co-accused against a person in Mr Ah’s position.

34. This issue raises a question of the discount to be given to this offender and theoretically to his co-offenders for his plea of guilty. The pleas of guilty were entered in the Local Court on 15 December 2016 prior to committal for sentence. Unlike the law of this State the law of the Commonwealth does not allow a discount for the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty. However, under s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) I am required to take into account that an offender has entered a plea of guilty and also I am required to take into account any contrition or remorse expressed by an offender.

35. The authorities make it clear that a federal offender can obtain a discount for a guilty plea if he establishes on the balance of probabilities or the Court and prosecution agree that the guilty plea demonstrates a subjective mitigation of genuine remorse, acceptance of responsibility and/or a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. Here I accept that the offender’s plea of guilty to the charge of dealing with $700,170 has facilitated the course of justice because the offender admitted to a second dealing with the sum of $200,000 which the Commonwealth would not be able to prove on the evidence then available to it. That is a matter that does call for a substantive discount, that facilitation of the course of justice.

36. As far as Mr Ah is concerned I commence with a theoretical head sentence of two years imprisonment. I give a discount of 25% for the offender’s facilitation of justice, his remorse and his plea of guilty. That reduces the head sentence to 18 months. I have come to the view that this offender should also be released on recognisance today because even if I allowed a minimum custodial period of two-thirds of the head sentence the offender has in fact served 17 days more than one year’s imprisonment.

Wei Bin Chen

37. Mr Chen was born on 19 June 1989. He is currently 28 years old. Mr Chen is one of five siblings. He has three sisters and a brother, all of whom are older than he. He was educated to the equivalent of year 12 in Kuala Lumpur and then obtained work as a sales assistant working with mobile phones for about three or four years. He then worked in a sushi restaurant for another four years before coming to Australia in 2015 on a student visa. However, the offender experienced difficulties of a financial nature. He had difficulty finding money for rent and money to pay his student fees. He was also seeking to send money back to his parents in Malaysia when he was able to do so. However, that led to economic vulnerability and that led him to become involved with one of the principals in the money laundering scheme. I take that history from a report of Mr Tim Watson-Munro dated 19 July 2017 following upon his interview with the offender on 13 July 2017. This principal is described in the pre-sentence report as “Big Brother”. Big brother provided the offender with free rental accommodation in exchange of his participating in the money laundering scheme. This appears to have persisted for about six months prior to the offender’s arrest.

38. Under the heading “Attitude to Offending” the pre-sentence report says this:

“Mr Chen did not dispute the Police facts, however he denied that he was initially aware, that is, of committing any offence. That said, he admitted that he eventually recognised that his actions were illegal and admitted that he was motivated to continue due to experiencing financial pressure at the time. Mr Chen described himself as needing money to survive in Australia and also claimed that he felt a responsibility to provide financially for his mother in Malaysia.”

In the agreed facts it is stated specifically that Chen had been dropping bags of money to persons on behalf of “Big Brother” for six months prior to his arrest. Also recorded is the offender’s admission that he had made an earlier drop off on 7 July 2016 of a sum of $200,000.

39. The police executed a search warrant at the residential unit at Meadowbank that the offender Chen was living in at the time of his arrest. During a search the police found a quantity of heat seal bags, a money counter and numerous documents relating to the structuring of large amounts of money by bank deposit. Numerous $5 notes were also located and such notes are used as a verification tool by persons involved in money laundering offences.

40. I do not know what activities the offender has engaged in since being incarcerated but according to the pre-sentence report the offender did not present any management issues. However, on one occasion he committed a correctional offence by being in possession of prescribed medication which had not been prescribed to him. For that he was denied the privilege of buying goods for seven days. It may be that the offender used that prescribed medication to ease the existential pain of being in custody as a foreign national with little English in a situation which would have been quite alien to him.

41. I accept that the offender is remorseful. The pre-sentence report indicates that the records of the Corrective Services Department indicate that the offender described himself as being “very sorry” for his actions and that he verbalised the desire to be able to apologise to this country for his offending behaviour. When interviewed by Mr Watson-Munro this offender was found to be suffering from high levels of anxiety and depression but that is completely understandable in any one who is about to stand for sentence for an offence of this nature and is equally explicable by the circumstances in which the offender found himself at the time of interview, not only awaiting standing for sentence but being incarcerated in an Australian gaol in what would be a largely alien environment to him. Mr Watson-Munro expressed the view that the offender was “vulnerable to the solicitations to become involved in the scheme”, meaning the money laundering scheme, but financial necessity is no excuse for breaking the law, for committing crime.

42. Perhaps the offender, if he found himself unable to support himself in Australia, should have returned to his native land. However, I accept that he is remorseful, that he has insight into his crime, that he realises the wrong that he has done and that he would not be tempted to engage in that activity again. However it is obvious that this offender, like his co-offenders, will be deported from this country as soon as he is released from custody.

43. This offender’s criminality is, in my assessment, greater than that of Mr Chen and greater than that of his co-offenders before me. For six months this offender was working for Big Brother. Big Brother was paying his rent and the offender was making deliveries of what he obviously suspected was the proceeds of illegal activity. He occupied a level higher than being a mere courier, which was the role of Mr Ah, and certainly a role higher than that of those who aided and abetted these offences, the two drivers Ng and Foo.

44. I have come to the view that the starting point for this sentencing exercise is a head sentence of two years and four months. I discount that by a quarter because of the offender’s frank admission of his earlier offending and the facilitation that that has provided to the justice system, because we know that the Crown would be unable to prove that dealing in $200,000 had this offender not frankly admitted it. Accordingly the head sentence becomes one of 21 months’ imprisonment. I believe that this offender should be released on recognisance after the expiration of 14 months.

Sentences

45. Kok Meng Foo, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for 16 months commencing on 6 July 2016 and expiring on 6 November 2017. You are to be released on a recognisance in the sum of $500 today, 24 July 2017.

46. Kim Choy Ah, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for 18 months commencing on 7 July 2016 and expiring on 6 January 2018. You are to be released on cognisance in the sum of $500 today, 24 July 2017.

47. Wei Bin Chen, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for 21 months commencing on 7 July 2016 and expiring on 6 April 2018. You are to be released on recognisance in the sum of $500 on 6 September 2017.

**********

Decision last updated: 05 February 2018