R v Kannan (Ruling No 6)
[2019] VSC 843
•12 December 2019
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2018 0063
S CR 2018 0064
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| KUMUTHINI KANNAN |
| and |
| KANDASAMY KANNAN |
---
JUDGE: | CHAMPION J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 & 17 July 2019 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 12 December 2019 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Kannan & Anor (Ruling No 6) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 843 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Ruling – Charges of intentionally possessing a slave and intentionally exercising over a slave any of the powers attaching to the right of ownership, namely use – Video Audio Recordings of Evidence (VAREs) – Application for excise of passages – Defence allege answers irrelevant, of insufficient probative value, and some follow leading questions – Application partly granted – Evidence Act 2008.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms T. McDonald SC Ms K. Breckweg Ms C. Fitzgerald | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For Kumuthini Kannan | Dr G. Boas Mr P. Smallwood | Stary Norton Halphen |
| For Kandasamy Kannan | Mr P. Chadwick QC Ms M. Brown | Peter Lunt Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
This ruling relates to the content of six Video Audio Recordings of Evidence (VAREs), to be led by the prosecution as the evidence in chief of Rajalakshmi Natarajan (‘the complainant’). These VAREs were recorded on 8, 13, 22 and 28 October 2015; 23 December 2015; and 30 June 2016.
On 16 July 2019, I granted the prosecution leave to admit these six VAREs as evidence in chief of the complainant, pursuant to s 15YM(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).[1]
[1]R v Kannan & Anor (Ruling No 1) [2019] VSC 461R.
Kumuthini Kannan (‘Mrs Kannan’) now applies for the excise of 14 passages of questions and answers, contained in five of the six VAREs. Kandasamy Kannan (‘Mr Kannan’) joins in the application for the removal of one of the disputed passages, however, this application was predominantly argued by counsel for Mrs Kannan. In general, the grounds supporting the application include that the passages have little or no probative value, are irrelevant, and in some instances, involve answers being provided following leading questions by the interviewer.
I note there are further defence applications regarding different objections to aspects of the VAREs, but this ruling will only address the application for the excision of 14 passages, as above.
As each VARE was transcribed, I will refer to the question and answer numbers as set out in each relevant transcript. The disputed passages are annexed to this ruling as Annexure 1.
Background
The accused are each charged with the following offences, both contrary to s 270.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Code’):
(a) Charge 1: Between 5 July 2007 and 30 July 2015, Kumuthini Kannan and Kandasamy Kannan intentionally possessed a slave; and
(b) Charge 2: Between 5 July 2007 and 30 July 2015, Kumuthini Kannan and Kandasamy Kannan intentionally exercised over a slave any of the powers attaching to the right of ownership, namely use.
I have summarised the prosecution case regarding these charges in a previous ruling concerning the admissibility of the first two VAREs.[2]
[2]See R v Kannan & Anor (Ruling No 1) [2019] VSC 461R.
The applicable legislation
Part 3.1 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) (‘the Act’) outlines the requirement that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. In particular, s 55 of the Act states:
(1)The evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding.
(2)In particular, evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to—
(a) the credibility of a witness; or
(b) the admissibility of other evidence; or
(c) a failure to adduce evidence.
Section 56 addresses the admissibility of such evidence as follows:
(1)Except as otherwise provided by this Act, evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is admissible in the proceeding.
(2) Evidence that is not relevant in the proceeding is not admissible.
Additionally, the defence draws attention to s 137 of the Act, that provides:
In a criminal proceeding, the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.
VARE 1 – 8 October 2015
Questions and answers 50-51
The prosecution seeks to lead these passages to establish the complainant entered an agreement with the accused to perform domestic services for payment. The complainant alleges that when brought to Australia, she was told that she would be paid 7,000 Indian rupees for one month’s work. Is it alleged this was a verbal agreement, with nothing written. In this instance, the interpreter used the description ’when they brought you here’ in the questions asked, and the complainant responded by similarly using the words ‘ when they brought me here’. This part of the interview does not elucidate any distinction between either accused’s role or responsibility in an individual sense, as opposed to them being jointly part of an agreement to bring the complainant to Australia and pay her money.
Mrs Kannan seeks the exclusion of these questions and answers on the basis that the answers were obtained by leading questions. It is submitted these answers were preceded by a question that assumed payment for the complainant’s services had been agreed, being question 50. Mrs Kannan concedes she cannot point to any harm caused by the leading of this passage, but submits other evidence will be before the jury to establish the matters discussed in these questions and answers, and accordingly, this excerpt does not add to the prosecution case.
In my opinion, this passage must be evaluated in the wider context of the whole conversation, and the six VARES in their combined form. For example, in questions and answers 37‑48, the complainant stated it was Mrs Kannan who she met in India and made an employment agreement with. There is no evidence Mr Kannan was in India at the time, nor that he was part of the alleged agreement at the relevant time. Responding to question 48, the complainant said, ‘she told me that my job would be to look after children’. In this excerpt, the evidence of the complainant is clear that she attributed the arrangement she entered into and the corresponding payment, to Mrs Kannan.
Given the context of the questions and answers immediately before this disputed passage, the question asked by the interviewer is not leading to the point where it represents an objectionable question. In the context of the earlier interview, the interviewer was entitled to approach the latter questions with the knowledge there was an alleged arrangement or agreement that had been entered into between Mrs Kannan and the complainant. In my opinion, the questions and answers are permissible and should not be excluded from the jury’s consideration.
Question and answer 188
The prosecution seeks to lead this question and answer as part of the circumstantial case establishing control by the accused over the complainant.
Mrs Kannan submits the questioner invited an answer that was not relevant, and the answer provided was not logical. It is further submitted that in any event, it cannot be rationally said that this answer demonstrates the accused had any degree of control over the complainant.
In my view this question and answer should not be excluded from the jury’s consideration. The answer is capable of being accepted by the jury to demonstrate that when the accused returned from holidays, in the broader context of the allegation made that the complainant was locked in the house during their absence, the accused would ask ‘hundreds of questions’ about who came and what happened while they were away. If accepted, this evidence, along with other pieces of evidence in the prosecution case, is capable of contributing to the argument that the accused asserted controlling behaviour over the complainant.
Questions and answers 195-196
The prosecution seeks to lead questions and answers 195–196 to establish the complainant came to Australia for the purpose of receiving payment for work she would perform. The prosecution submits that in this passage, the complainant explains her financial motivations and that due to her family circumstances, she was struggling with her life in India. In answering these questions, the complainant emphasises that her motive for travelling to work for the accused was financial gain.
Mrs Kannan objects to this evidence being adduced and submits the answers were elicited by leading propositions being put to the complainant. Mrs Kannan argues the complainant’s answers were elicited in an improper manner, in which the interviewer was using her own interpretation of the complainant’s previous answers. It is also submitted that the complainant’s answers appear somewhat unresponsive to the questions asked.
In my opinion, these questions and answers can be led in evidence. The preceding exchange in question and answer 194 also elicited information relevant to the complainant’s motive for travelling to Australia. In that response, the complainant refers to her desire to earn income, put money in the bank, pay back loans and previous debts, and wanting to stand on her own two feet. The complainant makes it plain as to the significance of her financial motivation in deciding to travel to Australia. In question 195, the interviewer expresses a proposition that financial gain was important for the complainant, but in my opinion, this was a natural question to ask after the previous answer. I acknowledge that it is a leading question to some degree, but believe it did not elicit an unfair or improper answer in all the circumstances. Accordingly, the leading nature is of such little consequence that I refuse the application for this evidence to be excluded.
VARE 2 – 13 October 2015
Questions and answers 60-62
The prosecution seeks to lead questions and answers 60-62 to demonstrate that when the complainant travelled to Australia, she required assistance from other travellers, was a woman of limited and unsophisticated capacity, and that she had problems navigating international travel.
The prosecution argues this passage amounts to circumstantial evidence capable of adding to the overall circumstantial case that the complainant was unworldly and vulnerable. The prosecution argues that in combination with other evidence to be put before the jury, this evidence is capable of demonstrating the complainant was an individual who could easily be subjugated, and was not well‑equipped to respond to her situation by seeking assistance from the wider community.
Mrs Kannan argues this passage is unresponsive and should be excluded from the jury’s consideration, albeit, conceding it does no particular harm to her case. Essentially, it is argued the material contained within these questions and answers is irrelevant, and should not be led.
Mr Kannan also objects to the admission of this excerpt, similarly submitting the answers to questions 60-61 are not responsive the questions asked and are therefore irrelevant.
In my opinion, the questions and answers are admissible and I accept the prosecution’s submission that they are relevant to the case that the complainant was more easily the subject of control, compared to a person who is well‑educated, worldly and has the capability to resist the control allegedly exercised.
VARE 3 – 22 October 2015
Question and answer 26
The prosecution seeks to lead this question and answer to establish an agreement existed for the complainant to return to Australia and engage in work for 7000 Indian rupees each month.
Mrs Kannan submits question 26 is a leading question and should be excluded on that basis. It is argued the interviewer introduced the concept of an agreement existing between the complainant and the accused.
In my opinion, the passage can be led in evidence. In the previous question, the interviewer reminded the complainant that there had been an earlier conversation about the arrangements made to return to Australia and that they were made with Mrs Kannan. Question 26 simply appears to be an attempt to focus the complainant’s attention to a previously discussed topic, and does not offend any rule that a leading question should not be asked. This question and answer should be evaluated in the context of previous questions and answers which established there was an agreement reached. In my view, the passage is not unfair to the accused and can be led.
Questions and answers 33-35
The prosecution seeks to lead these passages to establish the complainant needed assistance during her travel to Australia. This topic is discussed in previous questions and answers. As above, the prosecution seeks to establish the complainant was someone who was more easily able to be controlled than if she had been someone who was well‑educated, had a strong mind and was highly capable.
Mrs Kannan submits these questions and answers do not meet the requirements of s 55 of the Act, as they are irrelevant and do not contain information that could rationally affect the consideration of an issue in the trial.
In my opinion, for the same reasons outlined in respect of earlier similar passages, I accept the prosecution’s submission that these passages are capable of contributing to the prosecution case and can be led in evidence as proposed.
Questions and answers 43-46
The prosecution seeks to lead these passages for the same reason as immediately above, as advanced in respect of questions and answers 33-35, being that they involve the complainant alleging she needed assistance whilst travelling to Australia. Mrs Kannan maintains the same objection as outlined in [27] above.
For the reasons previously identified, I am of the view that these passages are capable of contributing to the prosecution case and, accordingly, can be led in evidence.
Question and answer 224
This passage is sought to be led by the prosecution to demonstrate that when the accused left on holidays, the complainant was locked in their home, and provided with leftover food, along with some bread, milk, sugar and rice. The prosecution alleges this evidence is part of a broader circumstantial case that establishes that, on occasions, the complainant was abused and/or neglected by the two accused.
Mrs Kannan argues the question asked is objectionable and carries a degree of prejudice due to its leading nature.
In my opinion, the question and answer can be led. The passage is not so leading in character such as to have created unfairness towards Mrs Kannan, and has elicited information consistent with other similar references throughout the VAREs.
Question and answer 289
It has been agreed between parties that the question and the first five responses in this passage will be excised from the jury’s consideration. The prosecution submits the remaining excerpt simply follows on from question 288, in which the interviewer asks the complainant how she felt when Mrs Kannan was allegedly mistreating her.
Mrs Kannan submits that without the first half of the passage, the remaining excerpt is objectionable, making such little sense that it appears non-responsive to any question, and appears to be a statement made by the complainant in the absence of any context.
In my opinion, due to the significant excision agreed to, the remaining passage lacks responsiveness and does not follow a logical question being asked. Due to its isolated nature, it appears to be a simple statement without evidentiary value. In these circumstances, I accept Mrs Kannan’s submission that the passage should be excluded from the jury’s consideration.
VARE 4 – 28 October 2015
Questions and answers 59-60
The prosecution seeks to lead these questions and answers to demonstrate how the complainant was treated by the accused. I note it was agreed amongst parties to remove question 59 and the subsequent six lines shown in the relevant transcript. The prosecution alleges the remaining passage is relevant as it describes events that are alleged. Additionally, the prosecution submits question and answer 58 provides satisfactory context to the complainant’s response to question 60 concerning her leg healing.
In response, Mrs Kannan argues this evidence contains a prejudicial level of unfairness that outweighs its probative value. Further, it is argued the two questions are leading to a degree that results in the subsequent responses being unfair.
In my opinion, following the agreed deletion, the remainder of questions and answers 59-60 is admissible and can be led before the jury. It is apparent from previous passages in the VARE, namely questions and answers 12-13, 17, 24, and 28, that the condition of the complainant’s leg and the allegation she was kicked and hit by Mrs Kannan, are matters previously discussed. In light of the earlier questions and answers, those set out in 59 and 60 are capable of being used by the prosecution as evidence supporting the allegation that the complainant suffered physical abuse at the hands of Mrs Kannan. If these allegations are accepted by a jury, they are capable of supporting the indicia of slavery asserted by the prosecution.
Question and answer 113
By agreement of the parties, only the latter part of the answer to question 113 is disputed, commencing ‘she - sometimes she will push me out of the house…’. The prosecution argues that although the passage proposed to be led is a piece of conversation without a question, it amounts to evidence of conduct engaged in by Mrs Kannan towards the complainant.
As above, Mrs Kannan submits that once the agreed excisions are made, the remaining passage is without requisite context and should not be led before the jury.
In light of the substantial deletion of questions and answers 111 and 112, and part of question 113, in my opinion the remaining content lacks sufficient contextual value to justify its admission into evidence. In all the circumstances, the disputed passage should not be led before the jury. I agree with Mrs Kannan’s submission that the jury are likely to speculate about the context in which the statement was made. There is no question linked to the statement and in its present state, it appears to be an unresponsive comment.
Question and answer 127
During argument, I was informed that question 127 and the majority of the response were agreed not to be led, only leaving the final two lines in dispute.
Similar to previous passages, these last two lines now lack sufficient context to justify the passage being adduced in evidence. There is inadequate context in the preceding questions and answers to provide this response with enough meaning to justify its admission into evidence. It now presents as an unresponsive comment, rather than an answer to a question. This evidence may not be led before the jury.
Question and answer 134
The prosecution seeks to lead this question and answer on the basis it is relevant to show the complainant was asking and waiting for Mrs Kannan to send her home. The prosecution argues the refusal of that request is relevant to establishing the control by the accused over the complainant.
For Mrs Kannan it is argued the interviewer used a leading proposition to ask the question, and to a significant extent, was rewarded with a non-responsive answer.
In this regard, it can be observed that the issue of whether Mrs Kannan was intending to send the complainant home at any stage, was directly referred to at questions and answers 129-131. Question 134 was posed in the context of previous questions regarding this particular topic. In those circumstances, I do not regard this particular question as sufficiently leading to be unfair.
VARE 6 – 13 June 2016
Question and answer 72
The prosecution seeks to lead question and answer 72 as it allegedly clarifies the previous question and answer. The interviewer asked questions about the signing of papers associated with the visa application for the complainant to come to Australia. In question and answer 64, the complainant confirms the question asked was about what happened in 2005. The complainant referred to Mrs Kannan as the person who signed the paperwork on her behalf.
Mrs Kannan objects to this excerpt on the basis that the question is allegedly leading, and reflects the interviewer’s own interpretation of previous evidence given. It is submitted that the answer to question 71 was not particularly clear, and while the interviewer was entitled to clarify this, the question went beyond clarification and was inappropriately leading.
In my opinion, question and answer 72 is relevant to the issue of the involvement of Mrs Kannan in the complainant’s travel to Australia, acknowledging the passage appears directed towards activity that occurred in 2005. Nevertheless, the passage assumes relevance in respect of the overall case concerning the relationship between Mrs Kannan and the complainant, and the facilitation of the complainant’s travel to Australia by virtue of the alleged agreement between the parties.
In my opinion question and answer 72 should be read in the context of question and answer 54, and following. In her responses, the complainant described her lack of knowledge of the various forms and her inability to read. In this context, question 72 was not impermissible, inappropriate, or leading to unfairness. The disputed passage has probative value warranting it being led in evidence.
ANNEXURE 1:[3]
[3]This Annexure replicates transcript of the relevant excerpts of the VAREs, as contained in a transcript provided by the prosecution to the Court. I note that any grammatical or spelling errors contained within this evidence have not been corrected.
VARE 1 dated 8 October 2015
Questions and answers 50-51
| Question 50 | What was the agreed payment, or what would you receive? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: When they brought you here, how much money did they say they would pay you? NATARAJAN: Er…Er…Eight…when they brought me here…Er…seven thousand. INTERPRETER: Seven thousand? NATARAJAN: Indian money. INTERPRETER: For a month? NATARAJAN: For one month? INTERPRETER: Seven thousand, seven thousand Indian rupees for one month. |
| Question 51 | Can you tell me any more about that agreement? Was there anything written? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: No, nothing written. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: There was no agreement. Just orally. |
Question and answer 188
| Question 188 | Did you look forward to the times when they would go away back to India? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: No, no, I not look forward to they're going away because when they return they will ask me hundreds of questions, "Who came? What happened?" This and that. |
Questions and answers 195-196
| Question 195 | So what I'm hearing is that the money was very important for you and you felt there was pressure to make money. Is that right? |
| Answer | NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken} INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: (indistinct) the things I (indistinct) I want to have some savings in the bank and I want to pay back the debts. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken} INTERPRETER: My husband passed away when my daughter was just thirteen. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: In India I struggled a lot. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Yeah (indistinct) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: The labour - physical labour of going to the fields to work (indistinct) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: But (indistinct) is hard. Yeah, the money is not much there. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: The reason I came here is I wanted more money. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: (indistinct) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: (indistinct) the whole family, so I could not live with them forever - - - NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: So I don't have to go (indistinct) I want to buy a small house NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: And she said that she wants to buy a place of her own. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: And she wanted to have someone look after her as she is looking after them now. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: (indistinct) a person look after me. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: So, you know, I was told that, ah - I hear that - I hear that they have to keep this catheter until I die. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: So I have to - I have to have a person to look after me, do all these things for me (indistinct) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: I think they want to, I thought of buying a house for my own (indistinct) rupees. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Or maybe - or maybe rent a house and keep some money in the bank. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: If I have some savings in the bank I would get some interest and I will use that interest to go for the health checks (indistinct) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: If you hire- if you hire someone to look after you in India, the money - the payment fs not much (indistinct) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Mm. So I have to pay the person who is going t0 look after me. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: I - I want to have someone near me to look after me. |
| Question 196 | Yeah, and just looking forward to have money to do these things. |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: In India without money you can't do anything. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: And even if you go to a doctor you have to pay there, yeah, or you will not be seen. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Without money you can't see a doctor. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: The thing is that here you can - here - people are affluent here. Affluence is not there, no. People are not - don't have much money there. |
VARE 2 dated 13 October 2015
Questions and answers 60-62
| Question 60 | Okay. So when you got on - got off the plane in Australia, in Melbourne, who met you there? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Okay the one here, you mean from Madras - - - NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: - - - but from Madras, I had to take a plane to Malaysia - - - NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: - - - and then from Malaysia I have to come here to take two planes. |
| Question 61 | Yeah. |
| Answer | NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: I would ask them, like, which plane goes to Australia, like, where are other people who speak Tamil like us, and then I will get into the plane with them and come here. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: And then get off the plane, I would ask them, like, how to go out, and they ask - telling me, like, all this way, and then when I come there they will ask me, like, "Have you brought anything?" What's in the - what's there, and all that. And, um, because they check everything what I bring, and then yes, they will say "Okay, go this way," and when I come out they will be there waiting for me. |
| Question 62 | Who are they? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: KANNAN. |
VARE 3 dated 22 October 2015
Question and answer 26
| Question 26 | So I'm asking if you can remember, to tell me what was agreed - the agreement made for you to come back again? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: She is asking you under what agreement did you come back here. NATARAJAN: She [invited/brought me] she needed a person, told son-in-law, told someone. INTERPRETER: She only call me, ah, told my, ah, son-in-law, and then to those people she invited. |
Questions and answers 33-35
| Question 33 | Who do you mean by "them"? |
| Answer | NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: What did you ask? |
| Question 34 | When you said you got friendly with them, who are they? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken} INTERPRETER: I don't who who they are. Like you, they came and sat there - - - NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: And they spoke in Tamil, so yeah - - - NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: I was so scared: We had to get in there to get off, and so if I see someone - a Tamil person like you, I will go and ask them, and then they will say, "Okay. Come, I'll show you." And then they - they will tell me where to get in, where to get off, and they will write everything for me. |
| Question 35 | Are we talking about at the airport? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: After - yeah, after the plane, you know, after I got into the plane, mm. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Mm, inside the plane l would ask, and get it. |
Questions and answers 43-46
| Question 43 | Okay. So you stopped over in Singapore? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Yeah, I - I went to Singapore, got off, stayed there, and then I got in again and came here. |
| Question 44 | How long did you stay in Singapore? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: I waited until the Australian plane came, maybe one hour. |
| Question 45 | One hour? |
| Answer | NATARAJAN: Mm. Yeah (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: And again there I had to ask people, and came here. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Like, I just met with the other people and (indistinct) then I had to go. I just have to ask them and go. And also I have to put signatures wherever I got off, got in and all this, they asked me to put signature. So I have to as the other- - - |
| Question 46 | Signatures? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: --- other people. And then the Tamil people will say, "Okay, do this, do that.” |
Question and answer 224
| Question 224 | Mm. And also the only food you had is what was already in the house? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Whatever leftovers were in the fridge, and also they would put bread, milk, sugar, rice. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: And she will close the stove and put the steel. |
Question and answer 289
| Question 289 | Did she ever hit you in the head so hard that you fell over? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Yeah, that's - - - NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: I will fall down, and then she will ask me to get up quickly and then start doing it. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: My legs will be this big, and I will - like, I can't get up. I will be like, "Oh, very hard, very hard." But she will say, "Where are you going to go? Just get up and work. If you die, that's okay. I will just bury you in the backyard there is no one going to take you.” And then she will just push me out and then close – um, close the door. I’ll be very cold. I’ll be like. |
VARE 4 dated 28 October 2015
Questions and answers 59-60
| Question 59 | Is that how you got the scar on your leg, from hot water? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Yes, yeah. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: That’s from hot water. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: And she’ll be drinking hot coffee and then she will just you know pour it on my face, and then some (indistinct) she will just do it to my face, and then she will be grab the gravy and pour it on my head. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: She will say curries not nice and then she will just throw it on me, and I can’t take a shower every day, I can’t clean myself once a week, once a week I take a shower. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Just one day. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: She will say, “ Water is, um, you know you’re wasting the water,” so I will bathe once a - once a week, and your hair will be all dirty and all that, but now every day I take a shower, yeah, also hospital I know that we take a shower every day. Here I don’t. |
| Question 60 | How did your leg take to heal, how long was it sore? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: The day after I went to the hospital, perhaps two months. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Pain was there, like the pain only I had to walk. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Only now like after going to the hospital because she - because she brought me to the hospital now, and, ah, my legs are better, otherwise I would have died in her house and she told me that she would bury me in the back yard, and she said, “No one’s going to ask me here, why you come (indistinct) no point, no one’s going to question. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: “No one would know if I bury you here.” NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Even to my son in law she said, “That I will put her in the coffin and send NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: “You’re going to die, I will put you in the coffin and send you back. |
Question and answer 113
| Question 113 | So when she threatened to send you home in a coffin, did you think that was serious? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: If I die, no, she’s not going to send me - put me in a coffin and send me back, because even with this leg, she said, well we can’t put you in the plane because you can’t walk and all that, no, she’s not going to do that, if I die here, she will just bury me there because I’m alone, then she will say, “I hadn’t taken her there, she’s over there, she’s staying with so and so.” NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: No, she will try and change the story, but still son in law, “How did he know he let you know, like that you know, he will tell how can he, how can she just say that you know, she’s gone missing, I don’t know,” he will make sure that - - - NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: She can - she can bury me, but you know we will make sure that everyone knows about it, she - sometimes she will push me out of the house and then close the door, and throw my clothes. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: She will put me in the back yard and then she will go and see, but the kids will be back and I had to cook soon, she won’t let me in, only when she go to pick them up, she will let me in, and I have to do the cooking very quickly. |
Question and answer 127
| Question 127 | So you think you lost weight because you weren’t eating a lot and also because you were very busy? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Yeah work, and it’s my destiny that I’ll come here and that I have to work like this, if I have stayed back home, they would have given me some food and wherever I stay that I thought that I’ll make some money, and this is what has happened to me. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: It’s all because of money, money. Because I was greedy. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: I never thought that it’ll come down to this, but that’s why I have never had this - I have never had this (indistinct). NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: She told me that I’m not going to send you back. |
Question and answer 134
| Question 134 | Each year when they - when the family went back for a holiday, did you ask then to go with them? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Two three years I waited, I thought she will send me back, let them go and come back. I was - I thought that she - - - NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: I thought if she will send me back, but last four years I was, um, with more, um, then I told them, like, “Now you’re going but you’re not taking me, how,” and all that, and she said, “No, no, the ticket for you.” She said, “I didn’t book the ticket.” NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: She didn’t book. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Who can I - who can I tell about this. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: I’d open the door and you know she will close it. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: One month I would have plenty of work, I can’t even watch the TV, I can’t put the cassette, I can’t go on the TV, but if I want the TV, like cricket or something like that, you know. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: The other things she will stick, and I have to cook the dinner in the microwave, she will buy milk, bread. |
VARE 6 dated 13 June 2016
Question and answer 72
| Question 72 | Okay. All right, I’m not completely sure I understand, but from what you’re saying, you signed the form but you didn’t know what – what the form was? |
| Answer | INTERPRETER: (Foreign language spoken) NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: No one else would fill there. It’s all filled there. It’s all Kumuthini who would fill everything, pay the money and send it. It’s all her. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) INTERPRETER: Agent is the one who is organise things, so from here she will send it. NATARAJAN: (Foreign language spoken) |
1
1
0