R v Su

[2003] VSC 473

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1518 of 2002

THE QUEEN

v

ALEXANDER YANG SU

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF PLEA HEARING:	12 SEPTEMBER 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 NOVEMBER 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v SU
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 473

---

Sentence – Kidnapping for $1.5 million ransom (s.63A Crimes Act 1958) – Forcible abduction of victim who was held for 14 days – Great psychological trauma caused to victim and family – Serious offence requiring denunciation and general deterrence – Lack of any remorse – Capacity for rehabilitation – Offender already serving sentence for drug trafficking – Principle of totality applicable – Sentence of 16 years with a minimum of 11 years to commence as at date of sentence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kayser	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. O'Connell	Lethbridges

HIS HONOUR:

1           Alexander Yang Su, you have been found guilty by a jury of the kidnapping of John Chao Chou Lin on 3 March 2001 at Glen Waverley and of having done so with the intent to demand a payment of $1.5 million ransom for Mr Lin's return.  You have further been found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice on 23 March 2002.

2           In order to sentence you it is necessary to refer to the activities involved in the commission of each of those offences.  I do so on the basis of my view of the findings of fact which would have been made by the jury.

3           In the early morning of 3 March you were present in your former wife's blue Commodore car in Stanton Court, Glen Waverley.  Present with you were two others.  One was an Asian man who has never been identified.  The other was a tall powerfully built European who identified himself by his plea of guilty to common law kidnapping as Robert Fernandez, a person employed by you from time to time in your building enterprises.  Your presence in Stanton Court was no accident.  You were laying in wait to abduct John Lin, a 20 year old Melbourne University student.  The offence was premeditated and you had chosen Mr Lin from amongst several other possible targets you had considered.  You had familiarised yourself with his movements and, indeed, those of his relatives and girlfriend Cathy Hui.  Your accomplices on that early morning had not come on a joyride.  They were there to provide the muscle you required to grab and subdue your quarry.

4           Sometime after 1.00 a.m. John Lin parked his car outside his home and commenced to walk up the driveway.  He was then tackled by your associates who forced him to the ground and restrained his movements.  It was Mr Lin's perception that he was subjected to painful electric impulses from what he described as an electric spark gun.  He did not see any such weapon and, despite the genuineness of his belief, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that one was used.  What I do accept as accurate is his account of what occurred next, is that he was dragged to his feet and carried down the driveway to the car.  He was screaming out his sister's name and telling your accomplices to "fuck off".  At one stage when he asked these men what they wanted he was told to shut up.  Efforts were made to cover his face and eyes.  Mr Lin was eventually forced in the back of your vehicle where he continued to struggle and managed to open the rear offside passenger door.  One of your accomplices climbed over the top of him and endeavoured to close it.  Meanwhile you reversed the vehicle causing the door to strike a tree on the naturestrip and also struck a vehicle belonging to a neighbour which was parked on the opposite side of the roadway.

5           John Lin was then pushed down on to the back seat and told to be quiet.  Initially his hands were held behind his back.  Telephone contact was made between John Lin's mobile phone (which he had with him) and the house phone.  The jury would have been satisfied that you spoke to Vincent Lin, John's brother, in English telling him not to worry and that John would be brought back in 20 minutes.  You also directed John Lin to say that he was fine and he did so.  About ten minutes later another call was made by you in which you repeated your assurance and once again John Lin said he was okay.  However, according to Vincent Lin, this message was accompanied by the warning not to contact the police or he would not see his brother again.  I am satisfied that these empty promises to return John Lin were designed to facilitate your safe passage from the scene of the crime.

6           A third call was made by you (this time in Mandarin) in which you asked if John Lin's mother was Rachel Su and requested to speak to her.  Vincent Lin told you that she was overseas and not scheduled to arrive in Melbourne until 11 o'clock that morning.  You said you would ring back at 3 p.m.

7           After the phone call John Lin was pushed down on to the floor of the vehicle between the back seat and the back of the front seat and a plastic cable tie was fastened around his hands at the back.  He also believed his feet were tied.  His head was covered with a cloth hood.  He then drove to what appears to have been a residential garage dropping off your accomplice Fernandez en route.

8           John Lin was in great fear for his safety.  He thought the kidnapping must have had something to do with his mother because you obviously knew her name.  He described himself as being in shock.  It seems that in the garage the Asian man, (who later became known as the minder), remained with John Lin in the car.  Mr Lin was obviously experiencing physical discomfort and was having difficulty breathing.  This resulted in the hood being raised above his nose and held in position with some silver tape which was also placed across his mouth.  Subsequently you reappeared on the scene.  Mr Lin told you his arm was hurting and the cable tie was too tight.  You queried him, "If I take this off you are not going to do anything silly?"  you then placed what John Lin believed to be a gun barrel in his hand and told him that he could not run faster than a bullet.  Whether or not this was an actual weapon, (and John Lin could not see it), the object of the exercise was to engender the belief in him that he would be shot if he tried to run off.  Not surprisingly he described himself as terrified.  You cut the cable tie replacing it with rope and Mr Lin was laid on the back seat.  He was unsure whether his hands were tied in front or behind him at this stage.  John Lin estimated that he remained there at least for that night and the next day.  Throughout the period another person remained with him in the motor vehicle.  On Mr Lin's estimate it was the following night when you told him he was to be taken home.  You and your assistant removed him from the original kidnap vehicle and placed him in the boot of another car also housed within the garage.  The claim to be taking him home was quite false, but no doubt designed to ensure his compliant transfer to the other vehicle.

9           You then took Mr Lin to a suburban house where he was placed in a bare room with a mattress on the floor.  He remained there for some days in the custody of the minder.  At some stage his legs were untied and his arms retied at the front.  The hood remained in position.  The tape was removed from his mouth.

10         You visited the premises once, sometimes twice, each day with food.  During the time spent at this unknown house you had a number of conversations with your captive, but on those occasions his hood and the rope on his hands were temporarily removed.  Eventually the hood was replaced with a cotton bandage.  For the whole period of your contact with John Lin he used the name Tai Tzi (meaning prince).  Mr Lin also noticed your penchant for wearing black clothes.

11         It is not necessary to detail the conversations you had with him.  It is sufficient to note that you made it quite clear that you had details about the movements of his girlfriend Cathy Hui and also of various friends and relatives.  You claimed to be from Sydney and working for a gang who were paying you $200,000 and who wanted $1.5 million from the Lin family.  You cast yourself in the role of protector from members of the gang who wanted to kill Mr Lin.  You advised him to co-operate and warned him against trying to escape.  In that event, you said the gang would exact revenge against Mr Lin and if he could not be found, against his family and friends.  You stressed the power of the gang and that if Mr Lin ran he would have to keep running for the rest of his life.  You mentioned adverse repercussions if the police were notified of what was going on.  John Lin described his reaction as initially one of fear which was transformed over time into dependence upon you.

12         Amongst the other bits of information you imparted to John Lin was that 80 per cent of kidnap victims were killed rather than released.  You remarked on his good fortune being with you, as you were in the 20 per cent who would not kill anyone.  You told Mr Lin that you had contacted his mother (Rachel Su) and you asked him a personal question she wished answered so as to know he was still alive.  Further, you said you were negotiating between his mother and your boss to get the amount of ransom down to $800,000. 

13         The telephone contact with Rachel Su, to which you referred, commenced at 11.51 p.m. on 3 March 2001, (not the 3 p.m. that you had previously indicated to her). 

14         You called from a pay phone in Dandenong and told Mrs Su that you would not harm her son and that you would call her later.  Your next contact was in the early morning of 5 March from a pay phone in Ashwood.  On that occasion you told her, in effect, that her son would be safe if she co-operated.  You also said that before anything could be done your big brother, (a term meaning gangster in Asian culture), had to check out whether she had reported the kidnapping to the police.

15         Despite your earlier warning to Vincent Lin about police involvement, the family had reported the kidnapping to the police on the evening of 3 March and unbeknown to you the investigating police recorded your subsequent telephone calls.

16         A series of calls to Rachel Su at the Lin home were made by you from various pay phones between 5 and 10 March.  Initially you spoke cryptically in terms of an IOU, but the clear impression you imparted to Mr Su was that you wanted money from her.  This was subsequently quantified on 6 March as $1.5 million.  She responded in effect that she did not have that sort of money.  Reference was again made by you to big brother and that because of John's safety she must co-operate.  It was asserted by you that Europeans were involved, but that a Taiwanese was in control behind the scenes.  Next, you told Mrs Su that the amount sought could not be less than $800,000 and that the matter had to be finished quickly.  It was during a call on 7 March that Mrs Su requested the personal question be asked of John to establish if he was still alive.  In this call you also increased the pressure on Rachel Su by stating that your period of hire by your boss, big brother, had expired the day before.  In the immediately following calls, you were told by Rachel Su of her efforts to arrange with her bank to provide the money and, on 10 March, you were offered $12,500 if you could return John to her.

17         While these negotiations were proceeding, John Lin remand a prisoner in the suburban house.  You provided him with some new clothes and on at least one occasion allowed him to shower.  You also permitted him to ring his girlfriend Cathy Hui who he had said he was missing.  This call was made on 9 March on a mobile phone with the screen covered by you to conceal any evidence of location.

18         Mr Lin gave evidence that during this time he believed he observed the minder with a firearm.  This would accord with his evidence that you told him not to run away because that guy was really fast and you could not guarantee that he would not shoot him.  Mr Lin also gave evidence of you showing him a small pistol you claimed to have obtained from a Hong Kong policeman and inviting him to hold it.  It is not asserted that you threatened him with it, but the revelation of its existence was at least a psychological weapon in your armory.

19         By this stage you were very concerned that the police had become involved.  You had sat off public phone boxes after calling the family home and on one occasion told John Lin that you believed that you had seen people searching the phone box for fingerprints.

20         As a result of this on 9 March you instructed Mr Lin to ring his uncle Alexander Lin.  Mr Lin told him he was still safe and that he should tell the family not to get the police involved in the matter.  John Lin complied in making this telephone call in the hope that if his family co-operated he would not be killed.

21         By 11 March, just over a week after the seizing of John Lin, you had not made any progress in obtaining the money that you had demanded.  You were also concerned at remaining too long at your present location and you decided to change venues.  During that evening you removed the bandages from John Lin's head, replacing these with a cap.  You told him to look down and took him through the darkened house to a waiting car.  By this stage his hands were no longer tied.  He was told to get into the boot through the access area in the rear seat of the vehicle.  This he did.  You and the minder also got in the vehicle which was being driven by another man.  There would be several occasions in the ensuing days when you recruited other persons to drive you around.  The evidence indicates they were employees of yours in the building industry.  This trip took you to the Jika Motor Inn where you were previously known as Tai Tzi Young.  You escorted John Lin to room 54.  After you left the room that evening the minder reapplied the blindfold.  You returned the next day with food.  It was John Lin's recollection that you removed the blindfold and from that time onwards it was not reapplied.

22         At one point during this period a man wearing a hooded jacket came to the room.  He told Mr Lin in English he was lucky to be alive and that without you he would have been dead.  John Lin described himself as being shocked, and, not knowing where the man had come from, he did not know whether what he said was true.  I regard this episode as a little bit of theatre stage by you to reinforce your control over Mr Lin.

23         About 12 March you discussed with John Lin how to contact his family without police knowledge.  On the basis of his evidence it may well have been he who suggested to you the passing of a SIM card to his uncle Alex or girlfriend Cathy.  In any event, it was a proposal you embraced.  You took a SIM card to the Wheelers Hill address of Alexander Lin, dropping it inside a folder over the back fence.  You subsequently left a message on Alex Lin's answering machine that there was an object for him in the backyard.  Alexander Lin immediately called the police who retrieved a purple folder tied with tape.  It contained a SIM card which was accompanied by a letter from John Lin indicating that he was safe and asking for co-operation with the kidnapper.

24         At 3.40 a.m. on 12 March shortly after placing the SIM card in his mobile phone Alexander Lin received a call from you.  You said you were sorry for the kidnapping and expressed the hope that he would pass the SIM card to Vincent Lin, as you wanted to talk to him.  You mentioned your suspicions that police had already been to John Lin's house and you told Alexander Lin not to inform the police of what had occurred.  Of course unbeknown to you the police were in control of the operation.

25         On the evening of 12 March and the early morning of 13 March, you made another series of phone calls to Vincent Lin, moving around from call boxes as far apart as Mordialloc, Doncaster West and Noble Park.  Initially you were endeavouring to get Vincent Lin to make up an excuse to leave the Stanton Court premises and you suggested he go to a shopping centre where you would call him.  This did not occur and ultimately you spoke again to Rachel Su who by this time was in ill-health.  To emphasise the professional and well organised nature of the persons the Lin family were facing; how they had detected the recording of the home phone calls with equipment imported from Russia; and their desire to kill John Lin who you referred to as the hostage.  As for yourself, you professed not to want a cent from the family.

26         It was put that your dealings with Mr Su were characterised by cruel psychological warfare involving a cycle of reassurance, delay and terror.  I do not think your approach had that level of subtlety.  It was, however, specifically designed to exert maximum pressure on Mrs Su to accommodate your demands and it exhibited a callous disregard for her feelings.

27         The latter calls to which I have just referred suggest a period of indecisiveness on your part at a time when your scheme may well have appeared to be unraveling.  Nonetheless, you persisted.  By this stage John Lin was dependent upon you to resolve the matter in a manner which spared him and his family from the vengeful activities of your purported gang leaders.  You felt sufficiently confident that he would not attempt to escape or try to obtain help that you took him into public places.

28         In the days that followed you utilised a number of persons employed by you in the building industry to chauffeur you around and to fetch food to your motel rooms.  You visited a coffee shop and pizza parlour with John Lin and on the evening of 13 March and the early morning of 14 March you had John Lin make phone calls to Vincent Lin.  These were short guarded calls made from pay phones in the Ivanhoe, Alphington and Reservoir areas, designed to have Vincent Lin leave the house in order to communicate further.  You also told John Lin to tell his brother that he would be home within days.  Indeed you told Mr Lin himself that, on the morning of 14 March, a car would take him and drop him off at a supermarket near his home.

29         A car did indeed arrive, but it drove you, Mr Lin and the minder to the Bell Motor Inn in Preston where you registered under the name of Mr W.t. Tzi and paid cash for a room.  You told Mr Lin that you had not felt secure at the Jika Motor Inn.  John Lin was kept in the motel room throughout that day and when you returned in the evening with food, you informed him that your boss wanted his sister Julia to deliver the money.  The reason given was that she was a girl and would be easier to control. 

30         On 15 March you again changed motels being chauffeured back to the Jika Motor Inn.  Lunch was obtained and your driver then took you and John Lin to a pay phone in Box Hill where in the early afternoon you directed him to ring his brother, querying if the money was ready.  He was informed that the family had over $800,000.

31         After a short sojourn in the motel you were again driven out, this time to the Alphington and Fairfield areas, where phone calls were made at 10.56 p.m. and 11.17 p.m.  In the first of these you had John Lin inform his brother Vincent of the requirement that Julia bring the money, placing it in the rear luggage compartment of her car before meeting a man in black (which I take to be you) in the street outside the house of Ling Yuan, (Ling being a friend of John Lin).  Vincent Lin, however, told his brother that the money had not been drawn out of the bank.  This was clearly a setback and John Lin needed to obtain further instructions from you.  In the second call Vincent Lin was urged to obtain the $800,000 as soon as possible.  He was warned against any "juggling" of it (being tampering) and told that Julia was to be made ready.  Further contact will be made the next afternoon.  In the early hours of 16 March you permitted Mr Lin to ring his girlfriend Cathy Hui from a 7 -Eleven store in Fairfield.  Amongst other things, he assured her that he was all right and that he missed her.  Shortly thereafter at 1.04 and 1.08 a.m. you directed John Lin to further contact his brother, urging him to draw out as much cash as possible, but raising the possibility of a cash cheque which could be converted into betting chips at the Casino.  In the second call the importance of solving the problem for the sake of the future well-being of the family was stressed.

32         There is no doubt that in making these calls John Lin believed your assertion that your boss would take revenge on the family if he did not get what he wanted.  Returning on foot from this excursion you and John Lin were almost intercepted by police in an unmarked car.  You ran and hid and at your behest so did John Lin.  By this stage you had convinced him that any police involvement spelt danger for him and his loved ones.  Such was his state of mind that he also feared that the vehicle may have contained your boss looking for him.  Subsequently you rang your current chauffeur and the minder who were waiting at the Jika Motel.  They picked you up and, after endeavouring to book into a number of other motels in the metropolitan area, you eventually secured a room in the early hours of the morning at the City Park Hotel in Kingsway.  John Lin remained compliant, convinced that you were the only salvation for he and his family.

33         The next morning you had to change rooms and that afternoon one of your employees was engaged to drive you to Kensington where at 7.36 p.m. You again had Vincent Lin contacted by his brother.

34         Details of the handover of the money involving Julia Lin, the use of Vincent Lin's vehicle as a decoy and your ultimate rendezvous with Julia Lin in the vicinity of Ling Yuan's house were imparted.  Vincent Lin, no doubt acting throughout on police instructions, spoke of logistical difficulties experienced in withdrawing the money from the bank and claimed that Julia was ill.  John Lin said he would call him back.  Clearly any chance of obtaining the ransom money that night had been frustrated.

35         Thereafter events moved relatively quickly.  After a visit to a restaurant you returned to the hotel and you decided to dispense with the minder.  Sometime after 10.00 p.m. Another of your workers, Xi Bing Ma, was recruited to do the driving.  The minder was dropped off near Dandenong station and played no further role in these events.  Mr Ma drove you to the Village Green Hotel where you told John Lin to wait and gave him $20 to buy something to drink.  He remained there for over an hour awaiting your return while you retrieved some clothes from a Glen Waverley address.  You next travelled by taxi to the Crown Casino, stopping off at the City Park Hotel where you told John Lin to put on some of the clothes you had brought.  This he did.  At the Casino you told Mr Lin first to wait outside a venue called Barcode and later inside the Heat Nightclub.  On each occasion you said you were looking for someone.  Eventually you appeared with a young woman and the three of you travelled back to the hotel.  You took the girl into the main bedroom while John Lin spent the night on a single bed in the living area.

36         It is not necessary to detail the various comings and goings during the day of 17 March.  It is sufficient to note that you indicated that you were concerned someone might be watching you and that you were going to look for somewhere else for you and John Lin to stay.  You recruited yet another employee (George Ahrondis) to drive you around.  You left John Lin at the motel telling him not to answer the door, or if the police came to give a false name.  Your last contact with him was 9.34 p.m. when you rang the hotel room to check if he was all right and to indicate that you would be moving out of the hotel.  About an hour later investigating police located John Lin in the hotel room.  You were arrested in Albert Road, Melbourne at about 6.00  a.m. the following morning.  You have been in custody since that date.

37         In your defence much emphasis was placed on the fact that John Lin made no attempt to seek help or to escape from you when he appeared to have the opportunity to do so.  It was suggested that he had somehow staged his own kidnapping.  The jury rightly rejected this preposterous suggestion.  Letters and notes written by John Lin to his family and girlfriend during the course of his ordeal and later retrieved by police clearly indicate his fear of death and his belief that only you could protect him from the depravations of the gang.

38         It is not necessary to have resort to what is known as the Stockholm Syndrome to account for John Lin's behaviour (although it is instructive).  I have no doubt that the jury accepted his explanation that not knowing who was behind the kidnapping and having been told that his escape without the matter being resolved to the satisfaction of the gang would inevitably bring harm, which the police would be powerless to prevent, to his family and loved ones, John Lin co-operated with you in trying to solve the problem.  In my view he presented as a young man of great resolve and courage.

39         You are not, of course, to be punished for the type of defence you mounted in this case, but what can be stated is that you have not exhibited the slightest remorse for your actions.

40         As for the existence of any gang to whom you were answerable, there is not a skerrick of credible evidence to suggest this was so.  Rather, the inference is compelling that, although you may have had the assistance of others, you created the gang in the same way as you created your Sydney residency as a psychological device to further your objectives.  In any event, you are to be punished for your own comprehensive role in this offence.

41         Insofar as motivation is concerned, perhaps it may be found in the money your construction business owed to workers it employed.  The witness Xi Bing Ma told the court that he alone was owed over $10,000 by you.  It was put by your counsel, on your instructions, that your company Suma Project Management Pty Ltd, would ultimately have been paid for its construction work and workers remunerated, although no evidence was called about this.  In this event, I am satisfied that the desire for money, and large amounts of it, was a motivating force behind this enterprise.  In this regard it has similarities with the offences to which you pleaded guilty before Judge Neesham earlier this year.  The first count involved the attempted trafficking by you and others in a commercial quantity of heroin between 6 July and 2 August 1999.  The amount involved constituted 449.2 grams of pure heroin.  The second count concerned trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely ephedrine (a constituent in the manufacture of amphetamine) between 7 August 1999 and 22 March 2000.  This count involved four separate importations totalling over 2 kilograms of pure ephedrine.  You were sentenced to seven and three years' in prison respectively for these offences, resulting in a total period of nine years after cumulation, and a non-parole period of seven years was fixed.  The fact that you are serving such a sentence must be taken into account in the sentence I must ultimately impose upon you.

42         The offence of kidnapping has always been regarded a very serious one in this community.  No doubt its capacity to create great psychological trauma, both for the victim and victim's loved ones, is a cogent reason for this.  Its commission would be every family's nightmare.  In your case the lengthy period of time you had detained John Lin, the fear you engendered in him and the trauma you occasioned his mother, siblings and other loved ones makes it a grave example of this type of offence.  In terms of the offence itself, about all that can be said in your favour is that you did not physically harm John Lin.

43         Whilst it may be argued that the offence of kidnapping is still relative rare in this country, it is important that the courts by the sentences they impose denounce its commission and seek to deter any persons within our community who might be minded to engage in it.

44         I now turn to the second offence of which you were found guilty by the jury, namely attempting to pervert the course of justice.  In the early months of 2002 you were served with a brief of evidence for the kidnapping charge.  It contained the statements of Crown witnesses such as John Lin and his girlfriend Cathy Hui.  On 23 March 2002 Ms Hui received a visit at her Wantirna home from an unknown Australian male.  He told her he wished to speak to her about John Lin's case.  He told her he had something he needed her to pass on to John.  The male produced a letter together with a pen and a jotter pad and told Ms Hui to copy the letter.  It purported to be a statement from John Lin in which mistakes in his police statement were corrected.  These were to the effect that the kidnapping was performed by the minder with Tarzi (being you) first appearing a week later and being told by John Lin that he had run away from home and that the minder was his relative.  It was also to contain the assertion that the minder had told John Lin to falsely make a statement implicating Tarzi.  (It is to be noted that the spelling of your name varied.)

45         Additionally, Ms Hui was given instructions by this male.  The copied letter was to be given to John Lin and John Lin was to later send one copy of the amended statement to Port Phillip Prison addressed to Tai Tzi and to send one copy to the police in five days.  This unknown man then showed Ms Hui a second letter signed "from the old man".  The assertions in that letter included that John Lin could not run and had nowhere to hide, that the old man would always find him and that the police could not help him.  The writer of the letter further told Mr Lin that if he did not do what he was told he, his family and his loved ones would get hurt.  John Lin was instructed to engage a lawyer while re-doing his statement and to have the lawyer witness it and give it to the police.  John Lin was also told to go into hiding for three months.  Significantly this would have had him absent from your committal proceedings.  Also of significance was what "the old man" told John Lin about running and hiding; the potential harm to his family; and the ineffectiveness of police protection.  All these bear the hallmarks of what you had been at pains to tell John Lin during the time he was your captive.  The letter also contained the names of members of Ms Hui's family.  When this information was passed on to police, your cell at Port Phillip Prison was searched pursuant to a warrant.  In it were found writing pads which, on examination, contained indentations recording the home and work addresses of Cathy Hui.  Additionally, there was a document in Chinese characters (except for the English word "minder") which  was essentially a precis of the letter Cathy Hui had been ordered to copy out.

46         Given the items found in your cell and the fact that you were the beneficiary of any altered statement, and given further, that the contents of the second statement were similar to your prior utterances to John Lin, and that the two documents were produced to Cathy Hui at the same time, I have no doubt that the jury were satisfied that you were the source of both documents.

47         This was a particularly vicious endeavour to intimidate the key witness against you by reviving the fears you had previously induced in him as to his safety and that of his family.  The inclusion of Cathy Hui's family and your demonstrated knowledge of Ms Hui's private home, added a further dimension to your threats.  It ruthlessly singled out a person who you knew from your dealings with John Lin who would be particularly anxious to protect from any harm.

48         The offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice strikes at the very basis of our legal system and the due administration of justice.  It is essential that witnesses in our courts are able to give their evidence honestly and frankly without interference and without fear of reprisal.  What you attempted to do in this instance to avoid your criminal liability is a grave example of this offence of warranting severe punishment.

49         The sentence for this offence must also reflect the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

50         In determining the appropriate sentence there are matters personal to you to which I must have regard.  However, before dealing with those matters I wish to refer to the victim impact statements. 

51         John Lin not only vividly remembers the fear of his own possible death during this ordeal, but also the great concern he felt for the safety of his family and loved ones.  That fear and concern was exacerbated after the episode in March 2002 when, as a result of the visit to Cathy Hui's Wantirna home, his life and hers, as well as those of his family, became subject to police protection.  This incident shattered the slow recovery of their lifestyle.  The fear of reprisal also caused the Lin family to leave their Glen Waverley home.

52         John Lin's university course has had to be extended from four to six years.  Even now such activities as walking the dog and going out of the house at night have become stressful occasions.  When driving his car Mr Lin consciously watches for vehicles which might be following him.  This ongoing feeling of insecurity has resulted in severely limited social outings into public areas.  As John Lin remarks in his victim impact statement: 

"I know this trauma will continue to live inside of us; such experience will just always be big scars that can never be healed."

53         For Cathy Hui the period that John was held captive was emotionally draining.  She felt like a zombie and cried frequently.  Later she experienced nightmares which lasted for months.  It is a matter of great distress for her to see the young man she loves change from a confident, talkative, socially active person, to one who has become reserved and often distant.  In this regard she perceives the March 2002 incident as having an extremely destructive impact on John Lin and began to feel guilt at the emotional turmoil that his kidnapping had unleased upon his family.  Cathy Hui's own family, especially her brother Albert, were adversely affected by the event of March 2002.  She and the family have experienced feelings of paranoia and she was prone to panic when approached by a stranger.  Ms Hui has also required psychological counselling.  She, like John Lin and his family, had to experience the restrictions of police protection in temporary accommodation.  The events of the past two years have robbed her of the motivation to plan for a better future.

54         Julia and Vincent Lin each describe the emotional trauma this event has had on their lives.  In her case her studies were also adversely affected and in his case his career.  He has required antidepressant medication. 

55         For Rachel Su, who was already widowed at the time of the kidnapping, the possible loss of her son John was psychologically devastating.  She describes the subsequent episode when her son was again threatened as the family's wounds "being rubbed with salt".  In the aftermath of this unexpected disaster her sense of security and that of her family have been destroyed.  As she puts it "they can no longer enjoy the free life as other ordinary people do".  Mrs Su also suffers from depression for which she receives medication.

56         I have merely given the flavour of these long and eloquent statements but what I have said is sufficient to demonstrate that these were offences from which those intimately affected will never fully recover.

57         Alexander Su, you are aged 34 years old, having been born in China.  Your father worked there with the State Prosecution Office and your mother as a hospital laboratory technician.  In Australia your parents live at Narre Warren and your father works on the production line of an automatic door factory.  You have a younger brother Victor who lives in Perth where he operates a coffee shop and a sister Christina who is a commerce graduate who is employed in a bank.

58         You were educated in China to Year 9 level and your family emigrated to Australia in 1985 when you were aged 16.  At that time you could speak no English, but after attending language school in Noble Park for six months you enrolled in Year 10 at Pakenham High School and passed that year.  Your mother, who initially had a job at Adidas, had by this time stopped working as she was suffering acute depression due to the death of her brother.  Consequently you were required to cease your education and obtain employment to augment the family income.

59         You worked for two years at BHP Steel at Braeside as a forklift driver before you accompanied your mother back to China for some months.  You resumed work, this time as a carpentry labourer on various building sites.  In the ensuing 12 months you learned plastering.

60         You had met your future wife Eleanor Ma in Melbourne in 1985.  She accompanied you on your next trip to China and you married her there in 1992.  You separated from your wife in 1998.  You have a daughter from that marriage who is now aged eight years old and who is occasionally brought to visit you in prison.  Prior to your separation, when you travelled with your wife to China, you established a business together which involved importing cars into that country from Hong Kong.  Having made a significant amount of money from this venture, you both returned to Melbourne and in 1992 you established Oz Asia Trading and Construction Company, which contracted sheet plastering and carpentry work.  Over the following years it developed an annual turnover of $5 million.

61         A building project manager for the large building firm LU Simon, who had dealings with you at that time, gave evidence in your plea on the drug matters.  He spoke of your adept handling of your loyal and hardworking workforce (who were mainly Chinese) in two multi-million dollar projects, each of which spanned a number of months.  He praised your contribution towards enabling the company to finish the projects in a timely manner.

62         The development of a conflict between you and your wife as to your future country of residence saw you return to China in 1998 to pursue business interests.  Subsequently Oz Asia Trading and Construction was placed into liquidation after failing to pay outstanding taxes.

63         I am instructed that you then became involved in the redevelopment of a hotel complex in the city of Urumqi in north-western China.  Apparently you borrowed money for the project, but the failure of a business partner to contribute his share of the capital caused this venture to falter.  This happened in early 1999, and it was put that your drug dealings occurred in the wake of your commercial failure and your domestic problems.

64         A further effort to revivify the project was unsuccessful and you eventually returned to Melbourne in March 2000 where you established Suma Project Management Pty Ltd, employing subcontract plasterers and carpenters.  At the time of your arrest in March 2001 you were employing 30 such plasterers and carpenters on a 13 storey apartment block in Dorcas Street, South Melbourne.  Some three months after your arrest Suma Project Management went into liquidation.

65         During the days when your business enterprises were functioning successfully you apparently were a highly regarded employer.  Mr Guang Tao Tang, the President of the Melbourne Chinese Association of which you were a member, told the court of assistance you gave newly arrived Chinese migrants by providing them with employment.

66         In a report prepared for your earlier plea hearing, Mr Jeffrey Cummins, a forensic psychologist, expressed the view that you did not suffer from any psychiatric or psychological problems and that you are of reasonable intelligence.

67         In Port Phillip Prison you have endeavoured to improve your skills pursuing courses in computer and English through Kangan TAFE on virtually a full-time basis.  Additionally, you have been working as a cook in the new Borrowdale Unit within the prison.

68         Your past dedication to hard work, the level of business acumen and work place leadership, together with your lack of any criminal activity for the first 30 years of your life, as well as your activities while in prison, all indicate a capacity on your part for rehabilitation.  This must be accorded weight in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.  In this regard I also note the ongoing support you have from your immediate family.

69         In passing sentence I am obliged to observe the principle of totality.  This necessarily involves fashioning individual sentences and allowing for a significant measure of concurrency in arriving at an appropriate total effective sentence.  In doing so I have regard to, and make allowance for, the period of time you have already served under the sentence imposed by Judge Neesham, including the pre-sentence detention declared by him.

70         Accordingly, bearing these matters in mind and balancing as best I can the principles enunciated in the Sentencing Act, you are sentenced as follows:  On Count 1, the offence of kidnapping, you are sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment; on Count 2, the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, you are sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment.  I direct that 2 years of Count 2 be served cumulatively upon Count 1, making a total effective sentence of 16 years.  I fix a new non-parole period of 11 years.  Both the head sentence and the non-parole period are to commence from today's date.

---