District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v CN [2019] NSWDC 966 Hearing dates: Friday 29 March 2019 Date of orders: Tuesday 16 April 2019 Decision date: 16 April 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Tupman DCJ Decision: (1) The offender is convicted. (2) Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) of 4 years and 6 months, with an aggregate non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months with parole thereafter of 2 years and 3 months. Catchwords: CRIME — Money laundering — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime — 6 substantive offences with maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment — 4 Form 1 offences — Offending discovered following police strike force operation — Offender involved in money laundering syndicate involving other co-offenders — Early plea of guilty — No prior criminal record — Section 23 issues considered. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): ss 193B(3); Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): ss 23, 53A. Cases Cited: R v Thompson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWLR 383 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (The Crown) CN (The Offender) Representation: Mr. Belcher (The Crown) Mr. Jones (The Offender) File Number(s): 2017/00089864 Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: The offender is before the Court for sentence following pleas of guilty entered to six separate charges of recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime. Those proceeds are in fact Australian currency. 2. These are offences contrary to s 193B(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and as such each carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Each of these six separate offences is in fact a rolled-up offence covering one month for each of the six offences and each represents a number of different transactions conducted during that month. The Facts 1. The offences were committed in circumstances where in November 2015 New South Wales Police and the New South Wales Crime Commission established Strike Force Karson to investigate the activities, including money laundering activities, of a transnational crime group operating in Sydney. Those investigations identified the offender as a person of interest. The strike force employed telecommunications intercepts and physical surveillance and identified the offender's involvement in a money laundering system referred to in the Agreed Facts as a Hawala banking system. 2. Other offenders were also identified as a part of this money laundering syndicate as were others involved in other offending. In all, to date, about 38 people have been arrested following investigations as a part of this strike force. These include money laundering and the importation and supply of prohibited drugs by various criminal groups in Sydney. So far as the money laundering aspect is concerned, others involved and subsequently charged, included Bin Feng, Henry Cui, both of whom I sentenced for less serious money laundering offences on 20 April 2018, and Minh Ly Nguyen and Hai Tra Tran, who I sentenced on similar charges emanating from this same strike force on 11 December 2018. The sentence judgments for all of these co-offenders are tendered here. 3. The system of money laundering being used by this syndicate involved the offender before me collecting large quantities of cash from clients in Australia and then transferring the same value as those collected amounts to a representative of the client overseas but without physically moving the money, thus avoiding detection. The offender then disposed of the actual cash he had collected by conducting the same process in reverse, namely he delivered money to clients and a representative of that client provided the person who is referred to in the facts as the offender's controller with the equivalent amount of cash overseas. On eight occasions between October 2016 and December 2016, the offender before me participated in these transactions with the co-offender Minh Ly Nguyen. 4. In general, the system used is set out in paragraph 3 of the Agreed Facts. It is relatively sophisticated. The offender received instructions from a senior member of the criminal organisation based in Vietnam who is referred to as the controller. For the offences before me there were two identified controllers. The offender then provided the controller with a token which was a serial number from a $5 note. The controller would then inform the overseas client of this token number who then gave this token to the client in Australia wanting to dispose of monies. 5. That person would then contact the offender on a designated mobile phone number which had been provided to him as a part of this syndicate and arranged to meet him somewhere, often near his home in Campsie. The $5 note or token would be produced and usually handed over and the client would verify that number. They would then hand cash to the offender who returned to his home and counted the money. The offender would then contact his controller to confirm the amount, then over a period of time he would remit money in small portions to other clients using another mobile phone provided also as a part of the syndicate. At the end of each day the offender would send a message via an encrypted messaging service or call his controller confirming how much he had collected and disposed of that day. 6. As I have said the offender's phone services were lawfully intercepted as a part of this strike force. Between 2 June 2016 and 23 March 2017 he used nine different phone services to engage in this money laundering. During this period the offender engaged in approximately 329 separate transactions of this type, namely accepting and counting proceeds of crime and then redistributing those to other people. The six substantive charges to which he has pleaded guilty, together with four additional offences encompass this overall offending. Sequence 44 1. Sequence 44 is the first substantive offence, and it was committed during the month of June 2016. Specifically, the offender has pleaded guilty to recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime in the sum of approximately $3,246,040 in Australian currency during that month. Paragraphs 6 to 41 inclusive of the Agreed Facts set out the details of the particular transactions and how they were carried out. 2. On one particular day during that period, namely 15 June 2016, he collected one amount of $200,000 at about 4pm and a further sum of $299,900 at around the same time. He later gave out $10,000 to one person and $99,000 to another later that day after counting it, recording it, and reporting to his controller. This offence, sequence 44, represents 42 different occasions during the month of June 2016 when the offender either disposed of or collected cash as a part of this money laundering syndicate all together in the sum, as I have said, of $3,246,040. Form 1 Offences attached to Sequence 44 1. The offender asks that when sentencing him for this offence I take into account four additional offences also being offences of recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime committed in exactly the same way. They are also rolled up offences as follows: Sequence 45: Committed during the month of July 2016 in a total amount of $1,510,500 involving about 32 separate transactions during that month; Sequence 46: Committed during the month of August 2016 in a total amount of $1,754,590 involving 28 separate transactions during that month; Sequence 50: Committed during the month of December 2016 in a total amount of $1,578,300 involving 17 separate transactions during that month; Sequence 53: Committed during the month of March 2017 in a total amount of $1,494,700 involving 26 separate transactions during that month. 2. Each of these additional form 1 offences is serious in its own terms, each of them involving multiple occasions of separate offending over a period of a month and each separate form 1 offence represents well over $1,000,000. They must be taken into account in a meaningful way when sentencing for the substantive offence, which is sequence 44. Overall, the offending represented by the substantive offence, and the four Form 1 offences, covers a period of 5 months with a total amount of the proceeds of crime laundered through this criminal syndicate in the sum of $9,584,090. 3. The remaining substantive offences are as follows: Sequence 49 1. The second substantive offence is sequence 49 and was committed in exactly the same way during the month of September 2016, in the total amount of $2,278,424 involving 48 separate transactions during that month. Sequence 48 1. The third substantive offence, sequence 48, was also committed in identical circumstances during the month of October 2016, in the total amount of $1,981,730 involving 29 separate transactions during that month. Sequence 49 1. The fourth substantive offence, sequence 49, was committed during the month of November 2016 in a total amount of $2,079,240 involving 24 separate transactions during that month. Sequence 51 1. The fifth substantive offence, sequence 51, was committed during the month of January 2017 in a total amount of $2,054,500 involving 31 separate offences during that month. Sequence 52 1. The sixth substantive offence, sequence 52, was committed during the month of February 2017 in a total amount of $2,588,825 involving 40 separate transactions during that month. 2. Thus, these six offences, plus the four Form 1 offences, represent identical money laundering activities undertaken by the offender between 1 June 2016 and 23 May 2017, thus just under 10 months, and involved transactions in which he has dealt with the proceeds of crime in a total amount of $20,566,849 involving 329 separate transactions. Some of these transactions involved collecting cash, some involved disposing of cash and two involved attempting to collect cash. The details of these 329 separate transactions are set out in a schedule forming a part of the Agreed Facts which I have read. 3. The offender, as I have said, was arrested on 23 March 2017 and charged with offences which have ultimately come before the Court for sentence in the way they now are. He was bail refused initially for 14 days but was released to bail on 5 April 2017 and has remained on bail ever since. As I understand it that has involved daily reporting which I accept is relatively onerous but not of the onerous type of bail conditions that the Court is likely to take into account as a form of semi custody. It does not fall into that category. 4. On his arrest the offender engaged in a record of interview and admitted his guilt in relation to these offences. In particular, he told police that he had been contacted by a Vietnamese female controller in February 2016 who asked him to collect and deliver money in exchange for a commission for each $100,000 he dealt with. He gave police the details of the method that he used which I have set out in the finding of facts but which he told police involved his sending the controller a photograph of the $5 note serial number which was to be used as a token and then passed on by the controller to the person who had dropped the cash to the offender. He confirmed that that person would then make arrangements to meet with the offender and hand over money once the token had been identified. He told police that initially he was paid $300 per $100,000 he dealt with but that that was increased to $500 per each $100,000 subsequently. 5. He told police that he realised that he was dealing with what he called "Black market money" and that what he was doing was illegal. He told police that he would count the money at home, divide it into bundles of $5,000 and then distribute the money to people at the direction of the controller. He used multiple mobile phones and SIM cards to do so in order to avoid detection. He understood that this system was being used because the people delivering cash were not able to use a legitimate banking system because they could not explain the origin of the money. 6. The offender comes to be sentenced for the offences of recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime following his pleas of guilty to these offences in the Local Court at an early opportunity, presumably after some negotiation. He is fortunate to have been charged with these particular offences rather than the more serious offences of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime which would have carried a higher maximum penalty. 7. As offences of dealing recklessly with the proceeds of crime, these offences are objectively serious. The level of recklessness is high, almost approaching knowledge. The objective seriousness of each offence is high because of the very large amount involved in each offence and the number of occasions over each month that the offender engaged in individual transactions to make up each rolled-up offence. There is significant and sophisticated planning, and it is a part of a criminal group. The offender's role is far from principal however, albeit he is an essential participant in this overall criminal syndicate. 8. The Crown submits that he can be seen as something similar to a courier in a drug syndicate and that seems to be a rough description of his role. It is not a minimal role that he played however, particularly given the number of occasions in each month on which he participated in this money laundering syndicate. Further, in assessing the objective criminality, the offender clearly committed the offences for financial gain. On the information that he provided to the police, it is likely that he earned at least $60,000 over 10 months, possibly more, if in fact he were earning a commission of $300 to $500 for each $100,000 he dealt with. There is no specific evidence about exactly how much he earned. 9. I do not accept the submission on behalf of the offender however that money laundering of itself presupposes the commission of the offence for financial gain. That is not an essential part of the commission of the offence of recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime and in this case, it is a separate aggravating factor, as is the fact that this is a well organised, sophisticated, and planned criminal syndicate in which he involved himself. 10. As I found in sentencing all of the co offenders I accept that money laundering of any type is a serious offence. It allows criminals and criminal groups to continue their criminal conduct without being discovered, by allowing them to dispose of cash obtained as a result of their criminal conduct without alerting banking and other authorities. The offender in fact told police that he understood this to be the case and that he understood that he was involving himself in such a syndicate. 11. Also, as I have found in the other sentences, whilst there is no evidence specifically for this sentence about the origin of these funds, criminal groups engaged in this money laundering in Australia almost invariably have obtained those funds from a significant involvement in drug supply. There is no evidence here to establish that as a fact, but it is difficult to envisage any other source in Australia for large sums like this. 12. The offender, by his pleas, clearly admits that he turned his mind to the fact that these monies were from serious criminal behaviour but went ahead anyway and acted as he did. Again, as I have said when sentencing the co-offender Minh Nguyen, the community is entitled to be disgusted by this criminal activity and outraged by the huge sums of money that were laundered here. The community is seriously injured by offences such as this in circumstances where often community groups struggle to raise a few thousand dollars to support social, artistic and sporting groups or to fund worthy research in health and to attempt to cure medical conditions. To realise that the syndicate in which this offender involved himself has been involved in laundering over $20,000,000, being the proceeds of crime, is particularly galling. 13. Money laundering offences are difficult and expensive to detect, and this is no exception. As such, sentences for these sorts of offences, particularly with such large sums involved as here, must send a serious message of general deterrence to the community that offences of this magnitude will almost invariably give rise to terms of fulltime imprisonment. There is no doubt that the s 5 threshold has been reached here. 14. Each of the offences before me for these reasons it seems to me is at least at the middle of the range in terms of objective seriousness for offences capable of being charged as recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime. I specifically reject the submission on behalf of the offender that they should be viewed as less than the middle of the range for such offences. The Offenders Subjective Case 1. I now turn to the subjective case put forward by the offender. As was expressed by Dr Lennings, who has provided a psychological report to the Court, he provides something of a dilemma and dichotomy to the Court given the serious criminality represented by the offending. He is now aged 44 and was 42 or 43 when he committed the offences. He comes to court with no criminal record at all. 2. There is a sentencing assessment report before the Court together with Dr Lenning's report, a letter from the offender to the Court, and references and letters from friends and others in relation to the offender, all of which I have read. 3. I accept from this combination of material that the offender was born in North Vietnam in a rural environment and has two younger sisters. His family including his siblings and his parents remain living in Vietnam. He came to Australia in 1998, aged 24, on a student visa and has subsequently become an Australian citizen. He married his wife in December 2011. She is also originally from Vietnam and also came to Australia on a student visa and has since become an Australian citizen. They have two daughters now aged seven and three. He has a positive and supportive relationship with his wife and children. It would appear that he had a good upbringing in Vietnam and finished the equivalent of year 12 there. 4. He came to Australia to study English and then studied accounting in Australia. He passed the course but was not able to obtain employment in that field so started working as a kitchen hand and learned on the job to become a chef, which is his current employment. He has a very stable work history as attested by the references from the owner and manager of the café where he currently works as the kitchen manager. They speak highly of him including his work ethic. They also indicate that they are prepared to have him back to work in the café in due course. They expressed the opinion that his commission of these offences appears very much out of character for the person they know, who was a hard worker and devoted family man. I accept these opinions on the basis of all of the evidence before the Court. 5. His motivation for committing the offences appears to be financial. He has told the psychiatrist and the author of the sentencing assessment report that he was suffering from some financial stress at the time he started committing the offences because his wife had just given birth to their second child and was not working. I accept more probably than not that he initially did not understand the significant criminality of his behaviour, but it would not have taken him long to realise that. He admits this to be the case and quite properly acknowledges that it became obvious to him given the circumstances and the large sums involved that he was engaged in serious criminality and that his behaviour was helping criminals. He did not stop, however, because he was motivated by a desire to earn money to keep himself and his family. 6. He has written a letter of remorse to the Court which I accept is genuine. He recognises that he will face further time in gaol because he was released to bail after only 14 days following his arrest. He is very concerned about the welfare of his wife and daughters. The family has no extended family in Australia, and he has been the main wage earner up until now. His wife works in a nail salon but also has responsibilities for the care of their two daughters, only one of whom is of school age. There will be an adverse impact on his family by his return to gaol but not of the exceptional character that would be required to reduce the sentence to a non-custodial sentence. That is perhaps even more the case in this particular matter, given some of the involvement of his wife as the instigator of his offending. 7. He pleaded guilty to these offences in the Local Court at an early opportunity and thus is entitled to a discount of the top of the range to represent the utilitarian value of the plea. I accept pursuant to the dicta of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Thompson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWLR 383 that a 25% discount for the utilitarian value is appropriate. The utilitarian value is significant. It is unlikely that the matters could have been dealt with as rolled up charges if they had gone to trial. It is almost impossible to contemplate a trial involving 329 separate offences under this section. The trial would have been in any event lengthy and required the calling of surveillance evidence and telephone intercepts. The Court is only too aware of the length of trials of this type. That has been avoided and the discount reflects the utilitarian value represented by the early plea. 8. The offender has undertaken financial counselling with the Salvation Army in recent times recognizing the connection between his offending and his financial circumstances. His financial position is not strong, but I accept that he accepts and understands the connection between his criminal offending and his need for money. I do accept that this offending is out of character for him and brought about in large part by a desire to provide for his family. There is no evidence that he had any form of addiction to gambling, drugs, alcohol or anything similar. He found it difficult to make ends meet in Sydney. There is no suggestion that he lived a lavish lifestyle, and it would not appear that he has any money left from that which he made committing these offences. It would appear I accept from the ledger attached to the Salvation Army report that these funds have already been confiscated from him and went towards the payment of his legal fees. In fact, far from exhibiting a lavish lifestyle, he appears to lead a very basic life even to the extent that he and his children do not have beds and sleep on mattresses on the floor. 9. I accept that his prospects of rehabilitation are excellent. That is as a result of a combination of no prior convictions and the fact that he has been on bail since 5 April 2017 with daily reporting and no suggestion of any breaches committed during that period. As well as his fulltime work, and the time he devotes to the care of his daughter, he also volunteers with a charity called The Gift of Bread as a driver who collects surplus bread from bakeries at the end of the day and brings it back for distribution. There is a very positive reference from that organisation for him. All of this I accept allows for the finding that I have made that he has excellent prospects of rehabilitation. 10. I adopt the opinion offered by Dr Lennings in his report as follows "It is a shame he was engaged in such a serious offence given his otherwise prosocial manner". I also accept Dr Lennings' opinion that because of his otherwise prosocial attitudes he is likely to experience gaol more onerously than otherwise. I adopt Dr Lennings' opinion that "He will find the antisocial and brutal melee hard to negotiate. His pattern of avoiding aggression, impulsive behaviour and antisocial peers will make him a target for abuse in gaol", and further I accept that his concerns about the welfare of his wife and children outside gaol will add to his suffering whilst he remains in gaol. 11. There are two other issues that need to be addressed before finalising this sentence. One is the issue of parity and the other a consideration of s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). I accept that following his arrest the offender was cooperative with the police and made full admissions about his involvement in the money laundering syndicate at the request of a person he named as his controller in Vietnam. Following his arrest, he provided valuable information and assistance to police and also encouraged his wife to do the same. At his encouragement she provided police with an induced statement outlining her knowledge of and complicity in the money laundering activities of her husband and his female controller in Vietnam. 12. It would appear that she had in fact met the controller in Vietnam and in late 2015 that person approached her and asked her to receive and dispose of cash in New South Wales. She declined but recommended it to the offender who took up the offer. She gave information to police at the instigation of the offender about the identity of that person who confirmed details already known to them and continued to provide information implicating both her husband and this controller. 13. In May 2017 the offender confirmed this information provided by his wife including being able to identify conversations between himself and the controller and also provided intelligence identification of specific cash collections which have occurred, and which are separate to the arrests and cash seizures covered by the offences to be sentenced by me. I accept from material tendered, that police expect that in due course this will develop into evidence relating to other syndicates involved. 14. The offender has undertaken to give evidence against the controller or others in any future criminal proceedings. There is a lengthy signed statement outlining his involvement in these offences and the involvement of the controller and others. He has signed an undertaking to give evidence in accordance with that statement in any future proceedings. He declined to be involved in any controlled operations, however. 15. At present there are no pending proceedings against this controller or others in which he is likely to be called on to honour that undertaking and the named controller currently resides in Vietnam and is unlikely to come to Australia voluntarily. However, he has undertaken to give this evidence which is important and there is nothing to suggest that proceedings against her are out of the question. 16. There are bilateral extradition treaties between Australia and Vietnam. I accept in accordance with the provisions of s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 that this assistance is both significant and useful to the authorities and particularly I note the evidence is assessed as valuable by the police. It would appear to be truthful and reliable. It amounts to both past assistance and the offer of future assistance albeit that there is no offer to engage in a controlled operation, which in any event is unlikely to occur now. It was given immediately after arrest and concerned both the matters for which he is being sentenced but potentially other syndicates also involved. There is no evidence that the offender stands to gain anything other than a further discount on sentence as provided pursuant to s 23. 17. There is no evidence of any danger or risk to him as a result of this assistance, but the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that if it were to become known in the prison system that he had provided assistance he is likely to be targeted and in the light of Dr Lennings' comments it would seem prudent that the offender seeks to be placed in protection. There is no evidence however that he intends to do so, so no actual evidence that his time in custody would be likely more onerous because he will be in protection as a result of giving this assistance. 18. Overall taking these considerations into account I assess the additional discount for assistance at 20%, namely 10% for the past and 10% for the future. I will thus apply an overall discount of 45% to this sentence. 19. I then turn to look at issues of parity. As I have said I have sentenced four others for their involvement in this money laundering syndicate. Two are not at all comparable because they were sentenced for less serious offences. Another two were sentenced together. One of those is in fact not strictly comparable to this offender. He was in fact facing more serious offences, namely of knowingly being involved with the proceeds of crime, but overall, the amount involved was much less and he had already spent two months in custody and had a very strong subjective case. Curiously even though charged with being knowingly involved with the proceeds of crime there is a finding in his sentence that in fact he was from time-to-time reporting to the offender before me. 20. The prosecutorial discretion does not appear to have been exercised entirely consistently in this case. The person who is closest to this offender was categorised as a cash dropper, although he was somewhat more involved than that because he kept a ledger, but it seems to me that the role of this offender is somewhat higher. 21. The offender before me is more actively involved than just a cash dropper. He sometimes collected cash, he sometime delivered cash. He was not a principal, and he took orders from others, but he was trusted and was involved in 329 separate occasions over ten months in a total amount of over $20,000,000. The co-offender who is most similar was involved on eight separate occasions with amounts in excess of $1,000,000 on each occasion and a total of over $11,000,000 and it seems to be in the circumstances that does not make his offending more serious and that the offending of this offender with 329 separate transactions over 10 months with a total of over $20,000,000 is extremely serious. 22. In the circumstances it seems to me that this offender must be regarded objectively as somewhat more involved or having been involved objectively more seriously than this co-offender. He did it for financial advantage. The amount for him is higher, almost twice as high as the amount charged overall for this co-offender. He does however present to the Court with a more positive subjective case and with demonstrated excellent prospects of rehabilitation. The co-offender came to court with a prior criminal offence involving the supply of drugs which had given rise to a prison term and there were some findings made in his sentence that he was not always entirely frank in his assertions of his understanding of offending. For the eight offences before the Court for that co-offender, there was an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years with an aggregate non-parole period of 4 years. The various individual sentences were indicated to give rise to that aggregate. 23. For the offender before me, the most serious offence is the first offence, being sequence 44. It was more than $9,000,000 when the Form 1 offences are taken into account. It represents a significant number of occasions over a period of 5 months. I have decided that the starting point should be 5 years without the discount and reducing that by 45% would give rise to 2 years and 9 months. 24. Each of the remaining five substantive counts are of about equal severity, each involving well over $1,000,000 and sometimes more than $2,000,000. There should be a starting point of 4 years for those less 45% giving rise to 2 years and 2 months. If these were all completely accumulated it would give rise to a sentence of over 13 years, which is excessive, and would not match any consideration of relativity with the most similar co-offender. Of course, there does not need to be strict parity for a number of reasons including the additional 20% discount and the more favourable subjective case presented by the offender before me. 25. I have ultimately concluded that there should be an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 of 4 years and 6 months, with an aggregate non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. There are special circumstances enabling the alteration of the statutory ratio in this way as follows: 1. This is effectively his first time in custody; 2. That he will find custody more onerous given the findings of Dr Lennings and his concern for the welfare of his family outside gaol; 3. The real possibility at least that he will need to seek protection as a result of s 23 considerations. 1. The indicative sentences are 2 years and 9 months for sequence 44, and 2 years and 2 months for sequences 47, 48, 49, 51 and 52. I indicate that I have taken into account form 1 offences, sequences 45, 46, 50 and 53 when sentencing for sequence 44. Formal Sentence Orders 1. I make the following formal orders: 1. The offender is convicted. 2. He is sentenced to an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 of 4 years and 6 months commencing 2 April 2019 and expiring 1 October 2023, with an aggregate non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months commencing 2 April 2019 and expiring 1 July 2021, with parole thereafter of 2 years and 3 months commencing 2 July 2021, expiring 1 October 2023. 3. Indicative sentences are as follows: Sequence 44: 2 years and 9 months; Sequence 47: 2 years and 2 months; Sequence 48: 2 years and 2 months; Sequence 49: 2 years and 2 months; Sequence 51: 2 years and 2 months; Sequence 52: 2 years and 2 months. 4. Form 1 offences (sequences 45, 46, 50 and 53), taken into account when sentencing for sequence 44. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 21 November 2022