3. There be no disclosure or publication (except in closed Court) of any information which discloses:
5. Any ASIO witness referred to in row 1 of the Table attached to the certificate issued on 2 March 2006 under subsection 28(2) of the
National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (the NSI Act) be screened from all persons other than:
Vo & Tran gave evidence at the trial of the other offenders, however, their evidence was unsatisfactory. Vo's evidence was contrary to the witness statement attached to her s.21E undertaking. It was also contrary to the objective evidence tendered at the trial, which was available from telephone intercepts & surveillance material. The judge concluded that Vo was an unfavourable witness, pursuant to s.38
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Although she continued to answer questions, she suggested that in many respects matters in her original statement were false insofar as the 3 accused may have been involved in the criminal enterprise. When asked about the true meaning of the telephone calls, Vo on occasions claimed she did not remember what was meant by the conversation & denied the meaning suggested to her by counsel. Vo gave evidence that she had not read her statement in its entirety before signing it. She also claimed she had given a false statement implicating others simply to obtain a reduced sentence. The trial judge criticised Vo during the course of her giving evidence & pointed out to her the difficulties she faced if she failed to give truthful evidence. Although she was offered the opportunity of seeking legal advice, Vo declined to do so. Tran's evidence revealed a number of problems & the trial judge found that he was an unfavourable witness. Although, like Vo, he continued to answer questions, his evidence was unsatisfactory & he appeared to avoid answering any question that would implicate the accused Nguyen. Many of the answers he gave were in direct contradiction with the statement he had provided (annexed to his s.21E undertaking) & were also inconsistent with the objective evidence.
Crown appeal allowed, respondents resentenced as follows:Vo: 10y with a NPP of 6*y.Tran: 6y 8m with a NPP of 2y 10m.
Grove J observed: