R v GE AND SUN [2026] SADC 72

Prosecution: R Counsel: MR P SCHAEFER - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) First Defendant: JIAN GE Counsel: MR J HENDERSON - Solicitor: CASEY ISAACS Second Defendant: YU SUN Counsel: MR J WILSON - Solicitor: CASEY ISAACS Hearing Date/s: 13/04/2026 to 16/04/2026, 20/04/2026 to 22/04/2026, 27/04/2026 to 28/04/2026 File No/s: DCCRM-24-004911 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment 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 in which it was generated. R v GE AND SUN Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2026] SADC 72 Reasons for the Verdicts of his Honour Judge Durrant 23 June 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES - FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ASSAULT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF AGGRAVATION AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS The complainant is from China- he was a student living in Adelaide- he met the first defendant online in about September 2022- at around that time the husband of the first defendant had been in custody- the complainant moved in and lived with the first defendant and her children for a time at the marital home- that arrangement ended in about December 2022- contact between them ceased until about January 2023 when they reconnected- that led to the complainant moving into a house owned by the first defendant at Mitchell Park - in early May 2023 a dispute arose between them about that property- in the early hours of 26 May 2023 the complainant and the defendants were all at the Mitchell Park house- the prosecution charged five offences arising from events at that house- whether the defendants imprisoned and detained the complainant against his will- whether the defendants assaulted the complainant in the laundry of the house- whether the defendants threatened to kill or endanger the life of the complainant- whether the defendants menaced the complainant intending to get him to submit to a demand being the payment of a sum of money- whether the defendants further assaulted the complainant thereby causing him harm- defendants elected for a trial by judge alone- the complainant was the crucial witness- the evidence of the complainant about what had happened not accepted beyond reasonable doubt- defendants not guilty of each charge. -- 1 of 40 -- Verdict: (1) The first defendant is not guilty of all charges. (2) The second defendant is not guilty of all charges. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 19, 20, 172; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 79, referred to. Carter v The Queen [1994] SASC; Thomas v The King [2024] SASCA 51, considered. -- 2 of 40 -- R v GE AND SUN [2026] SADC 72 Introduction and Summary 1 The complainant (XL) is from China. 2 At the time of this alleged offending, he was a student living in Adelaide. 3 He met the first defendant Yu Sun online in about September 2022. 4 At around that time, the husband of Yu Sun had been in custody. 5 XL had moved in and lived with Yu Sun and her children for a time at the marital home at Appleby Rd, Morphettville. 6 That arrangement had ended in about December 2022. Contact between XL and Yu Sun had then ceased until about January 2023, when they reconnected. 7 That led to XL moving into a house owned by Yu Sun at Thirza Ave, Mitchell Park. In early May 2023, a dispute had arisen between them about that property. 8 In the early hours of 26 May 2023, XL and Yu Sun and the second defendant Jian Ge had all been at the Mitchell Park house. 9 As a result of that interaction, the prosecution on the Information dated 24 March 2026 charged each of the defendants with five offences, alleging that:1 • Yu Sun and Jian Ge had imprisoned and detained XL against his will (Count 1 False Imprisonment);2 • Yu Sun and Jian Ge had assaulted XL in the laundry of the house (Count 2 Aggravated Assault);3 • Yu Sun and Jian Ge had threatened to kill or endanger the life of XL (Count 3 Aggravated Threaten Life);4 • Jian Ge and Yu Sun had menaced XL intending to get him to submit to a demand, the payment of a sum of money (Count 4 Aggravated Blackmail);5 and • Jian Ge and Yu Sun had further assaulted XL thereby causing him harm (Count 5 Aggravated Assault Causing Harm).6 1 Information (Revision 1), 24 March 2026 (FDN 83). 2 At common law. 3 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20(3) (‘CLCA’). 4 Ibid s 19(1). 5 Ibid s 172(1)(b). 6 Ibid s 20(4)(a). -- 3 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 2 10 The defendants elected for a trial by judge alone.7 11 The defendants at trial did not have to prove anything. The onus rested entirely with the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12 The crucial witness was XL. The prosecution case relied upon acceptance of his evidence about what had happened beyond reasonable doubt.8 13 For the reasons which follow, I have not accepted the evidence of XL to that standard and have found the defendants not guilty of each charge. Elements of the Offences 14 I considered each defendant and each count separately, having regard only to the evidence admissible against that defendant. 15 I considered if the evidence admissible against each defendant proved each charge against that defendant, beyond reasonable doubt. Joint Enterprise 16 In respect of each count, the prosecution alleged and had to prove beyond reasonable doubt, a joint enterprise between the defendants. 17 There are four elements to joint enterprise. 18 First, that the defendants had entered into an agreement with each other to commit the relevant offence. 19 Second, that each defendant had participated in that joint agreement. 20 Third, that while that agreement was on foot one or both of them had done acts necessary to commit the charged offence. 21 Fourth, each defendant had the state of mind necessary to commit the charged offence. Count One- False Imprisonment 22 The prosecution had to prove for count one, three elements of false imprisonment beyond reasonable doubt. 23 First, that the defendant had deprived XL of his liberty without his consent or against his will. 24 Second, that the defendant had deliberately and intentionally deprived XL of his liberty. 7 Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7 (‘Juries Act’). 8 Transcript of Trial, T225.1-2; The prosecution opened its case on the basis the primary issue was the credibility and reliability of XL. -- 4 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 3 25 Third, that the acts of the defendant had been unlawful. Count Two Aggravated Assault 26 The prosecution had to prove for count two, four elements of aggravated assault beyond reasonable doubt. 27 First, that the defendant had applied force (directly or indirectly) to XL. 28 Second, that the act had been voluntary and deliberate. 29 Third, that the act had been unlawful. 30 Fourth, that the defendant had committed the offence in the company of the other defendant or one of the unknowns. Count Three Aggravated Threaten Life 31 The prosecution had to prove for count three, five elements of aggravated threaten life beyond reasonable doubt. 32 First, that the defendant had made a threat to XL.9 33 Second, that threat had been a threat to kill or endanger life. 34 Third, the defendant had intended to cause XL to fear that the threat would or was likely to be carried out or had been recklessly indifferent to whether XL would fear the threat would or was likely to be carried out. 35 Fourth, the act had been performed without lawful excuse. 36 Fifth, the defendant had committed the offence in the company of one or more others or had used or threatened to use an offensive weapon to commit or when committing the offence; namely a firearm. Count Four Aggravated Blackmail 37 The prosecution had to prove for count four, six elements of aggravated blackmail beyond reasonable doubt. 38 First, that the defendant had made a demand to XL.10 39 Second, the defendant had made a threat to harm XL.11 40 Third, that the threat had been unwarranted.12 9 A threat can be communicated directly or indirectly by words written or spoken or by conduct or partially by words and conduct: CLCA (n 3) s 19(3); see Carter v The Queen (1994) 176 LSJS 112. 10 That can include an implied demand: CLCA (n 3) s 171(1). 11 That can include an implied threat: Ibid. 12 Ibid. -- 5 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 4 41 Fourth, that either a reasonable person of normal stability and courage would take the threat seriously, or XL took the threat seriously because of a vulnerability known the defendant. 42 Fifth, the defendant had intended to get XL to submit to a demand. 43 Sixth, the defendant committed the offence in the company of one or more or had used or threatened to use an offensive weapon to commit or when committing the offence; namely a firearm. Count Five Aggravated Assault Causing Harm 44 The prosecution had to prove for count five or, five elements of aggravated assault causing harm beyond reasonable doubt. 45 First, that the defendant had applied force (directly or indirectly) to XL. 46 Second, that the act had been voluntary and deliberate. 47 Third, that the act had been unlawful. 48 Fourth, that the act had caused harm.13 49 Fifth, that the defendant had committed the offence in the company of the other defendant or one of the unknowns or had used or threatened to use an offensive weapon to commit or when committing the offence; namely a firearm. Voir Dire- Exclusion of Evidence 50 By several applications the defendants had sought orders pre-trial to exclude evidence.14 Only two ultimately required adjudication. 51 I refused the application of Jian Ge to exclude evidence that a police dog had positively indicated the presence of a firearm in his car.15 52 Second, I refused defence applications to exclude evidence derived from use of a mobile phone PIN that Yu Sun had provided police. 53 In relation to those applications, I heard evidence on a voir dire from a detective and the investigating officer as follows. 54 On 29 May 2023, at about 7.15pm, Detective Briggs had attended at the home of Yu Sun to arrest her and seize any relevant evidence. 13 At common law, harm is an ordinary word and carries its ordinary meaning. For an assault to cause harm, some injury must be sustained. 14 Interlocutory Application, 10 April 2026 (FDN 95); Supplementary Interlocutory Application, 10 April 2026 (FDN 96); Supplementary Interlocutory Application, 10 April 2026 (FDN 97); Written Submissions of Second Defendant, 13 April 2026 (FDN 98). 15 Interlocutory Application, 10 April 2026 (FDN 95); Transcript of Trial, T19.32-33. -- 6 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 5 55 Yu Sun had not been there. Her husband had phoned her and had spoken to her in Mandarin. Briggs had considered Yu Sun’s husband’s English quite limited. 56 A short time later Yu Sun had arrived home in a BMW. Her interaction with police had thereafter been captured on video. She had confirmed her identity, had been placed under arrest and had been given her arrest rights, including a caution.16 57 Yu Sun had exercised her right to have a solicitor, relative or friend present during any interrogation or investigation in custody. In response, DBS Briggs had said he would provide her an opportunity to call such a person. 58 No interrogation had occurred at that time. A mobile phone had been seized from Yu Sun along with the car keys to the BMW she had arrived in. An opportunity had been provided to Yu Sun to remove any personal belongings in the car to avoid undue inconvenience to her or her family the following day. 59 Yu Sun had not been handcuffed and had been told she would return home that night. The video had been deactivated during the trip to the Watch House. 60 Some conversation had occurred during the ride. Yu Sun had stated the name of her solicitor and police had requested their phone number. 61 The camera had been re-activated at the City Watch House at 8.02pm. Briggs had repeated to Yu Sun her request that he contact a solicitor called ‘Lin’. He asked if that solicitor’s number was in the phone he had seized from her. Yu Sun said no. 62 When asked by Briggs how he could get the phone number for her solicitor, Yu Sun had said she would need to contact her husband. When asked if she would be content to receive advice from a different solicitor, Yu Sun had said no. 63 Briggs had explained to Yu Sun that presented a dilemma and it would take them some time to determine a solution. Briggs had then cautioned Yu Sun for a second time and asked her for the PIN to the mobile that he had seized from her. 64 Yu Sun told Briggs the PIN. Briggs had then asked Yu Sun again whether she was sure the number for the solicitor was not in her mobile phone. 65 In doing so, he had repeated to her the statement she had made during the trip to the effect she had the number in her phone. She agreed and confirmed she had said that to him by her response; ‘Yeah, I thought it was’. 66 Yu Sun’s right to a solicitor was given effect to. In an interview at 8.59pm, following contact with a solicitor, Yu Sun had declined to answer questions. 16 Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 79A (‘Summary Offences Act’). -- 7 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 6 67 DBS Briggs said on the voir dire he had asked Yu Sun for the PIN to locate the solicitor’s number. He said he had not thought it appropriate to permit her to speak to her husband in a language he did not understand, given the investigation. 68 DBS Briggs had accessed the phone using the PIN. He had tried to find the solicitor’s number but could not, as the phone content was in Chinese. Nothing of evidentiary value had been located then and nor was anything else looked at. 69 The following day Gledhill had examined the seized BMW at the police impounds yard. He had found a mobile phone in the centre console and had accessed that phone by using the PIN Yu Sun had provided to Briggs. 70 Content from that phone had been relevant. DBS Gledhill had photographed several deleted images of XL consistent with his report to police. Those deleted images had been taken at about the time XL had said the offences had occurred.17 71 The phone found in the BMW had later been submitted for extraction to the SA Police Digital Evidence Section. Absent the PIN, it could not be accessed. 72 The application for exclusion of those photographs raised several issues. 73 First, whether it had been appropriate for police to question Yu Sun in relation to the PIN, when she had not yet been afforded her right to a solicitor.18 74 The defendants argued if an accused person indicated they did not wish to answer questions or asked to see a solicitor before answering a question, no further questioning should occur, and any statements thereafter should be excluded.19 75 Further, it was submitted, advice from a solicitor in these circumstances would likely not only have been to the effect Yu Sun had the right to refuse to provide the PIN but would also likely have extended to advice she not do so. 76 The failure to give Yu Sun a reasonable opportunity to exercise her right to have a solicitor present during any interrogation, it was submitted, had the capacity to alter the manifest power imbalance arising in the circumstances and had in this case resulted in significant practical unfairness to her. 77 Second, whether fairness to Yu Sun had required a word specific caution be given that emphasised she did not have to provide her PIN, and if she did choose to do so, any evidence found may be used against her. 78 Third, whether the exchange between Briggs and Yu Sun following her arrest had been consistent with Briggs’ evidence he had asked Yu Sun for the PIN to enable him to locate her solicitor’s number. 17 Voir Dire Exhibit List, Photos from BMW (VDP 3). 18 Summary Offences Act (n 15) s 79A(1)(b)(i). 19 Thomas v The King [2024] SASCA 51 [49]-[54]. -- 8 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 7 79 That request, the defendants submitted, had constituted a deliberate interrogation designed to facilitate the gathering of incriminatory evidence against her at a time where she had not been afforded her right to a solicitor. 80 The relevance and admissibility of the impugned evidence against each defendant was not otherwise contested. It was accepted it would be relevant against each defendant as going to the offences charged. 81 When I refused to exclude that evidence, I indicated to the parties I would provide reasons when delivering my verdict following the trial. 82 As already mentioned, I have found the defendants not guilty, as I have not accepted the evidence of XL to the requisite standard such that the prosecution has proved each element of each offence beyond reasonable doubt. 83 I have returned verdicts of not guilty in respect of each defendant for each of the charged offences, having had regard to that impugned evidence. 84 Given that, I have set out only briefly my reasons for declining the applications to exclude the derivative evidence of the second mobile. 85 Sun Yu gave up the PIN for her own phone and was the owner of the car in which the second phone was located. She had exercised her right to a solicitor. 86 That factual scenario was said by Yu Sun’s counsel to have breached her statutory rights and to have caused her practical unfairness. 87 The derivative evidence obtained from the second phone, it was submitted, should have been excluded against her, based on that illegality and impropriety by police, and because it would have been otherwise unfair to allow its admission. 88 The position with respect to Jian Ge had been different. 89 There was no evidence he had any interest in either phone and nor had his statutory rights been transduced by that police conduct. 90 As I understood it, he relied upon the impugned conduct against Yu Sun as a basis upon which I should exercise my discretion to exclude the evidence derived consequently against him, because it would have been unfair to him. 91 As I understood it, Jian Ge submitted that unfairness to him, arose because of the conduct of police toward Yu Sun and the asserted unfairness against her. 92 When Yu Sun provided her PIN, she had been under arrest and in a cell pending a formal interview. Briggs had properly administered her arrest rights and had known she had wanted to speak to a lawyer. -- 9 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 8 93 Consistent with that, Briggs had revisited that topic to facilitate that right to a solicitor at the watch house. He cautioned Yu Sun prior to making a request for her PIN, as part of a conversation about getting her a lawyer. 94 That context is important. I accepted Briggs evidence he had not wanted Yu Sun to speak with her husband in a language foreign to him. 95 I have also accepted the evidence of Briggs that in his mind, at the time he had asked his question about the PIN, it had been directed in part to facilitate the right Yu Sun had exercised to have a solicitor present. 96 Credibly, Briggs accepted he had also thought there may have been evidence on the phone seized relevant to the case. That is unsurprising, he was an experienced police officer and the offending reported was very serious. 97 The question about the PIN had been directed to the phone he had seized. Briggs did not know there was a phone in the BMW, and I cannot conclude whether he had thought the PIN might open another device; he was not asked. 98 The timing and terms of the second caution was significant in that context. It was given after the exchange about a number for the solicitor. It facilitated the very right said to render the answer and its derivative use improper or unfair. 99 That caution was a sensible and reasonable approach by Briggs to facilitate the right exercised by Yu Sun to have a solicitor present. 100 There was a basis for Briggs, in all the circumstances, to consider the phone contained the number of lawyer Lin; Yu Sun had said it did. 101 I do not consider, as the defendants argued, those facts represented police trickery or deception to outflank the rights of the arrested person Yu Sun. I considered that was reasonable action by Briggs to get a lawyer for Yu Sun. 102 Alternatively, the second caution was criticised by Yu Sun as not having been specific enough. Her counsel submitted that caution should have been directed to her right to not answer questions about the PIN. 103 That caution also must be seen in context. 104 It had followed an exchange about the number being in her phone. 105 It had preceded a police question about the PIN. 106 It had reconciled the caution earlier given. 107 Yu Sun had not given evidence on the voir dire, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I was satisfied she had understood her right to silence. 108 The second caution had been temporal, directed, specific and sufficient. -- 10 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 9 109 Briggs had said he was going to ask some questions of Yu Sun, and she did not have to answer. The question then asked had been about her PIN. She had been told directly and immediately beforehand she did not have to answer. 110 No undue or unfair pressure or questioning had been exerted on Yu Sun. She had been treated fairly. Her rights had been given and attended to. 111 Any unfairness which arose had not been deliberate. 112 Briggs had of course got nothing of use from the phone seized from Yu Sun upon her arrest. 113 The impugned evidence had come from the subsequent use of the PIN by Gledhill on a different mobile phone, seized from her BMW, the following day. 114 The derivative nature of that evidence is a relevant consideration. The use of that PIN by Gledhill had been clever policing. 115 While it would not have been found without the information provided by Yu Sun, the derivative use of apparently legitimately gathered evidence to further the investigation, is what is to be expected of investigating police. 116 That weighed in favour of admitting the evidence even if there had otherwise been unfairness. 117 Relevant other considerations also favoured admission of the evidence. 118 These offences are very serious and there is a strong public interest in bringing them to trial and conviction. 119 The impugned evidence was cogent and corroborative of material aspects of XL’s expected account at trial. 120 Briggs had taken steps to ensure Yu Sun had understood her rights. She had been reminded a second time and cautioned in respect of the very question asked. General directions 121 While it was not necessary to have directed myself in the same way a jury would be directed, I reminded myself of the following general directions and have elsewhere in these reasons detailed some further specific relevant directions. 122 To decide this case, I must find facts and draw inferences from the evidence led at trial, as well as apply the law to the facts found. 123 I must bring an open and unbiased mind to bear, view the evidence clinically and dispassionately, and not let emotion enter my decision-making. -- 11 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 10 124 The prosecution and accused are entitled to verdicts free of partiality or prejudice, favour or ill-will and according to the evidence. 125 As in any criminal case, the prosecution always bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused. An accused does not have to prove anything. 126 The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. 127 Where I refer to something that must be or has been proved or established, or that I must be or have been satisfied of something; that thing must be or has been proved, or I must be or have been satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt. I have made my findings beyond reasonable doubt, unless specified otherwise. 128 The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until the evidence I accept satisfies each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 129 If the evidence fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of the offence charged, the accused remains presumed innocent. 130 The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. 131 The assessment of witnesses involves consideration of whether the witness is honest. If satisfied a witness is honest, that assessment must involve consideration of whether the evidence of the witness is reliable and accurate. 132 In the assessment of a witness's evidence, I am entitled to have regard to my experience of life, my dealings with other people and common sense. 133 I am not bound to accept all a witness's evidence or to reject all of it. I am entitled to reject some parts and to accept other parts. 134 I am entitled to consider the manner of a witness when they give evidence and how the witness stood up when being cross-examined. 135 I must keep in mind the different backgrounds, age, personal qualities and characteristics of witnesses and the impact on memory of the elapse of time. Prosecution Opening 136 The prosecution said these offences had been committed in the early hours of Friday 26 May 2023, at or near 35 Thirza Avenue, Mitchell Park, pursuant to a joint criminal enterprise involving the defendants and two unknowns.20 137 The scope of their common purpose was to: deprive XL of his liberty; assault and threaten and menace him; make unlawful demands of him; and to take his property by force or threat.21 20 Transcript of Trial, T216.13-34. 21 Ibid. -- 12 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 11 138 The prosecution said the false imprisonment marked the commencement of the offending, and each of counts 2–5 was committed while that was on foot.22 139 The principal chronological issues to be proved were identified as whether the encounter was coercive as alleged, whether a firearm was produced or threatened, whether the unknown persons participated as alleged, whether a contract was signed and photographs taken which were involuntary, and whether the medical evidence assisted in fixing the timing or mechanism of injury. 140 The prosecution said it would establish beyond reasonable doubt that: • both defendants had been present at Thirza Avenue early on 26 May 2023; • the Maserati of Jian Ge had been there between 12:57am and 1:01am; • Jian Ge had arrived in and had driven that car; • Yu Sun and Jian Ge, with others, had encountered XL; • their presence had not been at XL’s invitation and had been unexpected; • XL had been not free to leave from around the point immediately before or when Jian Ge had exited the car and Yu Sun had grabbed him by the arm; • rent had been said to have been owed by XL for Thirza Ave had been a topic of a conversation between XL and the defendants; • the first of several photographs of XL’s mobile phone had been taken by 1:16am by Yu Sun, on the phone which had later been located in the BMW; • by 1:35am XL had been photographed holding a handwritten contract which agreed he would pay money said to be owed to Yu Sun; • the contract signed by XL had been involuntary and against his will; • at 1:42am XL had been photographed kneeling in the laundry with three people standing closely around him including the photographer; • photographs taken of XL, including the kneeling photograph, had been involuntary and had been taken while he had not been free to depart; • at 2:16am images of his XL’s parents’ WeChat accounts or contacts had been taken; • by 3:43am XL had driven to hospital and self-presented as injured;23 and 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid T663.30-33. -- 13 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 12 • his injuries had been inflicted by the defendants. Summary of the evidence and further relevant directions 141 The prosecution called four witnesses to give oral evidence. 142 XL was the crucial witness for the alleged incident and its background. 143 He was subject to detailed and lengthy cross-examination.24 144 I have set out below his evidence and why I found him to be unreliable. 145 Dr Margarita Monzon gave medical evidence concerning XL’s RAH examination. She had recorded her findings and observations.25 I have accepted her evidence. She was a helpful and honest witness. 146 DBS Gledhill gave evidence about the investigation chronology, including his interactions with XL, the interview of Jian Ge and search of his Maserati and the images on the phone found in the BMW.26 I have accepted his evidence. 147 Detective Kelch gave evidence about taking XL’s first signed statement at the Arkaba Hotel. He was asked in cross- examination about omissions from that statement, who was present when it was taken, whether an interpreter was utilised, the length and nature of the process, whether XL went off-track, whether his statement had been read back to XL or had been approved by him and XL’s English competence.27 I accepted his evidence about those things. 148 Agreed facts recorded Constable Miller had attended on XL at the RAH and his observations of XL’s English competence during that interaction.28 149 Agreed facts recorded Detective Crossland had taken a statement from XL at the Arkaba with the limited assistance of an interpreter. 150 It was agreed he would have said XL was competent in English, that XL had referred to his online research and that he would have read back the draft statement to XL. Those facts also agreed the absence of any note made by Crossland that Jian Ge had been mentioned by XL as a possible perpetrator.29 151 Constable Patterson’s affidavit was tendered as Exhibit P13. 24 Ibid T395.33-634l.31; Trial Exhibit List, Defence Schedule of Inconsistent Statements (MFI D2-18) (‘Defence Schedule of Inconsistent Statements’). 25 Transcript of Trial, T248.18-261.12. 26 Ibid T636-642; Trial Exhibit List, Agreed Facts (P12) [6]-[14], [20]-[41] (‘Agreed Facts’). 27 Transcript of Trial, T645-656; Agreed Facts (n 25) [51]; Defence Schedule of Inconsistent Statements (n 23) [27]-[44.3]. 28 Agreed Facts (n 25) [50]. 29 Ibid [51]. -- 14 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 13 152 Officer Parish’s affidavits were also tendered as being relevant to the indication by his police dog of a firearm having been in the car of Jian Ge.30 153 In his record of interview Jian Ge told police he had been at the house with XL and Yu Sun. He denied any offending conduct.31 154 That interview was not sworn evidence tested by cross examination. I considered whether parts had been self-serving and whether to give the same weight to any self-serving or exculpatory statements as to any admissions made. 155 There were several pieces of discreditable conduct evidence in this case. 156 XL gave evidence concerned with purported deliveries of cash to the house of Yu Sun, a package he had picked up from the white man in the Hilux when out with her and about discussions he said he had with Yu Sun about the large amounts of cash involved in the cash exchange business with which she had been associated. 157 That evidence about Yu Sun was before me for specific purposes. 158 First, to help my understanding and assessment of the direct evidence against Yu Sun. I could use it to show XL was not saying the offending by Yu Sun had occurred out of the blue. Without that evidence, I might have thought it implausible Yu Sun had carried out the alleged offending conduct with no lead-up. 159 Second, I could use that evidence to help explain why XL reacted as he said he had and why Yu Sun felt able to act as he said she had. 160 Those are the only ways I could use that evidence. 161 I did not use that evidence for any other purposes. 162 I did not use it to reason simplistically merely because Yu Sun had done bad things in the past, she is a bad person, and the sort of person more likely to have committed the crimes charged. 163 I did not allow it to distract me from the need to consider whether the prosecution had proved each charge beyond reasonable doubt. 164 I did not reason the defendants had done something similar before so that was enough to prove they committed these crimes. 165 The prosecution tendered several other exhibits, which had included the photographic evidence the subject of the voir dire.32 30 Transcript of Trial, T660; Trial Exhibit List, Affidavit of Lachlan Patterson, 30 June 2023 (P13); Trial Exhibit List, Affidavits of Detective Parish, 21 July 2023, 21 April 2026 (P14). 31 Trial Exhibit List, USB – ROI (P5); Agreed Facts (n 25) [8]-[10]. 32 Trial Exhibit List, Photographs of Detective Gledhill of Phone in BMW (P8). -- 15 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 14 166 Those photographs provided some support for the evidence given by XL about the interaction in the house. They provided support for his evidence that those dealings had not been friendly, had involved tension and that XL had been put under pressure by others present. 167 They also went to my consideration of whether Yu Sun and Jian Ge had not been invited to the house by XL and that their presence had been unexpected. 168 The photograph of XL holding the document said to be a contract also provided support for XL’s evidence he had not voluntarily signed that document. 169 Absent a certified translation though, I had been unable to conclude beyond reasonable doubt the sinister connotation contended by the prosecution. 170 There was no defence case.33 171 It was their right to not give evidence. Because that was their right, I have not used their silence against them. I have not treated their silence as an admission. I have not used it to fill gaps in the prosecution’s evidence. It did not make the prosecution’s evidence stronger, or more persuasive. Evidence of XL in chief 172 At the time of giving evidence, XL said he was 31 years old. 173 He told me he was from the People’s Republic of China, had lived in Shandong province and was a Chinese citizen. 174 XL said he had arrived in Australia in February 2022 on a subclass 500 student visa connected with graduate IT study. He had studied at the University of Newcastle about half of a postgraduate IT course, before moving to Adelaide. 175 XL said he came to Adelaide to study a Certificate III in Motor Mechanics at TAFE SA and rented a room in a share house at Woodville West. 176 XL said he had worked at a restaurant in Chinatown near Chinatown’s back gate and the market area. 177 XL said his parents lived in China and had helped pay for his accommodation and education; his father was the boss of a coastal caravan park. 178 XL said he had friends in Adelaide and had met Yu Sun through Soul, a social media and chat platform like Instagram. He said he and Yu Sun began speaking in the second half of 2022, roughly in about October. 33 Transcript of Trial, T662.9-16. -- 16 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 15 179 About three days later, he said, they had met in person at a playground near South Terrace for about one to two hours. XL described their initial rapport as moderate because they had only just met. 180 Later that same day, he and Yu Sun had met again at a McDonalds just outside the CBD. They discussed their backgrounds, why he was in Adelaide, why they had been using Soul, and where XL lived. 181 XL said Yu Sun had mentioned Morphettville to him and said she had two children but did not give much detail about her family. 182 At about 10.30 pm, XL said Yu Sun had texted and invited him to her house. XL said he had arrived at about 11 pm, went inside, drank wine with Yu Sun, went upstairs to her bedroom, stayed overnight and they began a personal relationship. 183 He said Yu Sun had told him her husband was not home because of domestic violence. After that night, XL said he had stayed over almost every night. He continued paying rent for his room for a time, but Yu Sun charged him no rent. 184 XL said he had helped Yu Sun’s household by cooking and assisting with the children, including taking them to school. 185 Yu Sun had initially told XL she had worked as a nurse in a nursing home. Later, he said, she told him about DaDa Currency Exchange, a foreign currency exchange business on Grote Street. XL said he had gone there once while he had been living with Yu Sun, in around November 2022. 186 XL said he had entered DaDa through the rear entrance into an office area with computers, bottles of wine and two or three staff. He said he had seen one person working at the front desk and another male staff member or manager who had appeared to be about 40 years old and about 170 centimetres tall. 187 XL said he understood Yu Sun to have a management or controlling role at DaDa as she had directed staff, including asking someone to get him water. 188 XL said he had been able to move around the shop freely. He linked Yu Sun’s role at DaDa with cash deliveries he said he had observed at her home. 189 The first delivery he described occurred around October at about 6 pm while he had been in the dining area at Yu Sun’s house. He said Yu Sun had directed him to collect bags from the front door and take them to the laundry. 190 XL described those bags as insulated food-delivery bags. He said two tattooed Asian or Chinese men were involved. He said they had not spoken to him. 191 XL said he had seen a property certificate that indicated Yu Sun or her family lived 15 minutes from his parents in China. -- 17 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 16 192 On another occasion, he said, a man in a black suit had arrived at Yu Sun’s in a Mercedes with two zipped Coles-style shopping bags. 193 XL said those bags had contained Australian banknotes that looked old. He said they had not been aligned neatly and were bundled with rubber bands, were of mixed denomination, and the bags had been filled to about 80 per cent. 194 XL said he had been concerned by the amount and condition of the cash, the delivery men’s silence, and the movement of money to the laundry in the house. He said he had understood that to be dirty money or money laundering. 195 Around late October or early November, while making or changing bedding, XL said he had asked Yu Sun about that money. She told him, he said, that dirty or illegal money was hard to avoid in the currency exchange business. He said she had avoided eye contact with him and appeared nervous or withdrawn. 196 In late November, after one of Yu Sun’s children had been picked up, XL said he had collected two black bags from an Asian man in a black T-shirt. He said the man delivered the bags through a car window and drove a black Porsche SUV. 197 XL said he had thought one black bag felt like it had contained bundles of cash, but he could not be certain because he had not seen inside it. 198 He said Yu Sun told him the black bag related to a powdered milk importer. 199 XL said he had been concerned about those deliveries based on the repeated movements, the different men and vehicles involved, the movement of bags to the laundry, and Yu Sun’s explanation about money in the exchange business. 200 XL further described his time living with Yu Sun. He said she had given him a Bendigo Bank credit card for expenses relating to her children. 201 XL said he had moved out of Yu Sun’s home in January 2023 and returned to his share house. He said he moved out because he heard about domestic violence charges and did not want to become involved in Yu Sun’s family situation. 202 After moving out, XL said he and Yu Sun had blocked each other on social media. They had later unblocked each other on Snapchat, in about February 2023. 203 After contact resumed, XL described the relationship as friendly. He said Yu Sun had wanted the relationship to continue after her husband returned, including through Snapchat and WhatsApp. 204 XL said he had not wanted the relationship to continue because Yu Sun’s husband had returned and Yu Sun had children. 205 XL said he had moved into the Mitchell Park residence at the start of May 2023. He said Yu Sun had not initially charged him rent. -- 18 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 17 206 He said Yu Sun visited the residence two or three days after he had moved in. She had come at night, parked in the driveway unexpectedly, and had discussed her family and relationship with him. 207 XL said Yu Sun had wanted him to continue the relationship and suggested he would not need to pay rent. XL said he had rejected that because Yu Sun had two children and her husband had returned to the family home. 208 On another visit, XL said they had takeaway noodles from a nearby Chinese restaurant. XL told Yu Sun the stove had not been working and asked her to fix it. The stove was not fixed. 209 On a later visit, he said Yu Sun had brought her husband, Xu Zhang. XL said Xu Zhang said he did not care that XL and Yu Sun had been seeing each other. XL said he had still declined to continue the relationship. He said that, after that discussion, he and Yu Sun had agreed he would pay about $150 per week rent. 210 He said Yu Sun asked him (and he declined) to return to the family home. He said Yu Sun offered to buy him a bed, but he bought his own inflatable mattress. 211 XL said he moved his belongings into the Mitchell Park house, including three boxes of personal items, a tent, camping equipment, hiking gear, an inflatable mattress, a lamp, used textbooks or course materials, clothes, a MacBook Pro, a Nintendo Switch and identity documents. XL said he had a Volkswagen Tiguan. 212 After XL had been at Mitchell Park for two to three weeks, he said Yu Sun had asked him to pay for the stove and for money used on the Bendigo Bank card. 213 He said Yu Sun had then asked him to leave and said his belongings would be put on the street. XL said he had then gone to the Hindley Street police station at about 11 pm for advice because his belongings had still been at the residence. 214 He said Yu Sun had called while he was at the police station and had spoken briefly with the police officer. That call had not resolved the dispute. 215 After further calls, XL said he and Yu Sun had agreed he would pay $600. XL said Ms Sun had remained angry because she felt she had given him a lot. 216 XL said at that time he had been doing on-job training at Hyundai Stillwell for TAFE, which had affected his ability to move all his belongings out of the Mitchell Park house at once. He said he had found accommodation at Netley and he had paid a bond and rent so he could obtain access to that property. 217 XL said he had started to move belongings from Mitchell Park to Netley at about 6 pm on Thursday 23 May 2023 and had made one run but had not moved everything because he still had on the job training the next day. -- 19 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 18 218 XL said he had left some belongings at Mitchell Park including a tent, camping equipment, hiking boots, textbooks or course notes, and other items because he could not move everything at once. 219 XL said he had returned late that night to collect his blanket and other remaining belongings because the weather had been getting colder. 220 While reversing out of the driveway, after moving some belongings, he said he had seen a large white car, possibly Yu Sun’s BMW, pass by from west to east. It had stopped near the corner by the school oval. He said he had flashed his high beam because he had been surprised to see Yu Sun there late at night. 221 XL said he had driven near Yu Sun’s car and she had lowered the window. 222 He said no one had been in the front passenger seat although he could not tell whether anyone had been in the back seat. 223 XL said he had spoken with Yu Sun. He said she had looked nervous and had asked why he had been moving things late at night. XL said he told her he had too many belongings to move in one trip. 224 XL said he had then returned to his own car and initially intended to leave the suburb. He decided to return to the house because he had been concerned Yu Sun might enter without permission and take or interfere with his belongings. 225 When XL returned to the house, Yu Sun’s car had been parked on the street in front of the house, not in the driveway. He said he had parked his own car beside her car. He said the two cars together had substantially obstructed the road. 226 XL later accepted his car had not been exactly in the middle of the road, but more towards the middle or extended partly over the middle of the street. 227 XL said he had checked the front door first and then went to the back door. He said the back door had been open and Yu Sun was at or near the back door. 228 XL said he and Yu Sun discussed trying to resolve their outstanding issues concerned with the remaining conflict between them, money issues, what he owed her, and his use of the Bendigo Bank card for expenses relating to her children. 229 XL said he had wanted to remain on friendly terms and resolve the dispute without further escalation. He said he suggested going to the 24-hour Pancake Kitchen on Hindley Street to have food and talk through the dispute. 230 XL said that discussion had taken place before the arrival of the white Maserati and the man in the white jacket. XL said a white Maserati Ghibli arrived, reversed into a street sign, and parked about 10 to 20 metres from the house. -- 20 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 19 231 He said a man wearing a white baseball-style jacket got out of the driver’s side. XL described him as walking quickly and angrily towards him and Yu Sun while making direct eye contact. 232 XL said Yu Sun had grabbed him by his left forearm. He said the man had grabbed his right arm and directed him to go into the house to discuss business. 233 XL said he had asked why they could not speak in the street and that he did not want to go inside. XL said he believed he had previously seen the man near DaDa Currency Exchange in Chinatown or Grote Street. 234 XL had associated that man with the name, Jian Ge. He said the man had reached into his right pocket and exposed the grip and muzzle outline of a pistol. 235 The man, XL said, had asked for his car keys. XL said he had complied because he did not want to be hurt. XL said he told Yu Sun the keys were in his pocket and she either took them from his pocket or received them from him. 236 He said Yu Sun then left and moved his car towards the school oval parking area. He said XL and the man in the white jacket walked towards the house and while in the front yard, that man had let go of his hand. 237 XL said there had also been two other men present dressed in dark clothing in or around the house. 238 Once inside, XL said the man in the white jacket had checked three rooms and directed XL into the laundry. 239 XL described the man in the white jacket as Asian, about 30 to 40 years old, about 170 to 175 centimetres tall, of upper-medium build, who spoke Mandarin and had worn an expensive-looking jacket. He said he could not remember him having facial hair. He said he thought the man did not have any. 240 XL said in the laundry two other men had blocked the entrance and had directed him to the ground and to put his hands on his head. 241 XL said he had initially refused while the other two men had guarded or blocked access points, including the back door and kitchen door area. 242 He said when he had refused to get down, the man in the white jacket had punched him in the stomach or lower chest. XL said he had slumped against the wall and fell to the ground. 243 The two other men then, he said, had threatened him with a heroin injection and said to him no one would believe anything other than he had a drug overdose. -- 21 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 20 244 XL said the man in the white jacket had then asked for his phone and he refused. He said the man in the white jacket then pulled out a pistol and aimed it between his chest and neck, from about half a metre away. 245 XL said he did not think the pistol was cocked and that based on his familiarity with video games, he believed it resembled a Beretta 92, though the barrel had appeared larger and shinier than expected and may have been painted. 246 XL said the man in the white jacket had said he wanted to ask XL questions and had threatened to inject him with heroin if he did not tell the truth. 247 XL described the other two men as wearing black jackets, black pants, semi- transparent black gloves and blue masks. He said he believed the gloves were silicon. He said one of the men had been tall and skinny; the other was heavier set. 248 Yu Sun returned at some point. XL said that she and the man in the white jacket had left for a period and he had heard them speaking. 249 XL said that man had later returned and asked him to empty his pockets and provide his phone password. XL said he had initially refused, had been punched again, and had then complied. 250 XL said he had the seen Yu Sun holding his phone. 251 XL said he was had been asked whether he had called police, why he had parked in the middle of the street, and if he had brought anyone else to the house. 252 XL said he had said he had gone to police only about the earlier rental dispute and had not brought anyone else. 253 XL said the man in the white jacket had then left him with the two other men for about 20 minutes before returning with Yu Sun. 254 XL said the man in the white jacket had later returned with Yu Sun and they had appeared tense and angry. The man, he said, had asked him about several calls he had made in the preceding days and for his parents’ names and phone numbers. 255 XL said he had been forced into an oral arrangement and had been required to handwrite a contract into a TAFE exercise book. XL said photographs had been taken of him holding his passport, his Chinese identification card and the handwritten contract, while he had been in the laundry. 256 XL described the photographs showed him kneeling in the laundry holding the handwritten contract near the bathroom area. 257 XL said both Yu Sun and the man in the white jacket had taken photographs. 258 XL said he had been further assaulted after the photographs. -- 22 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 21 259 He said a thick sock had been placed in his mouth and he was struck and kicked to the stomach, back and shoulder while trying to protect his head and face. 260 He said the heavier of the two men had placed a sock in his mouth, while the tall skinny man had checked windows or kept watch. 261 XL could not say how many blows there had been. He described them as more than several. 262 XL said Yu Sun and the man in the white jacket had discussed whether to destroy his home or belongings and that Yu Sun had wanted to do that. He said the man had objected because he said he would then feel obliged to replace them. 263 XL said the man in the white jacket had confirmed XL was to put $200 in Yu Sun’s mailbox. XL said threats continued to be made against him and his family, connected with him going to police. 264 XL said Jian Ge and Yu Sun had left first, while he had remained with or near the other two men. He said he was told to gather the rest of his belongings and wait about 20 minutes to half an hour before retrieving his phone and keys from near the front left wheel of his car. 265 XL said when he left the house Yu Sun’s husband was on the street looking to the house. His car had been moved from the middle of the road three or four houses away, across an intersection and on the side opposite the school. 266 After locating his car, phone and keys, XL said he had gone straight to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. He parked at a hospital carpark underground or partly underground. He said he had walked to the Emergency Department front entrance and presented at triage or reception. XL said he went to the Emergency Department because he had significant pain in his back, shoulder and arm. 267 XL said he had waited before being seen and he could not estimate the waiting time because his phone battery had been flat. XL said police officers attended on him while he had been waiting. 268 He said the first group were patrol officers who asked basic questions, including his name and where he lived. That was before he had received treatment. 269 XL said later other police attended after treatment and had asked more detailed questions about the incident. 270 XL said hospital staff had assessed his areas of pain, including by pressing affected areas. He said he identified pain in his back, shoulder and arm, including pain extending on the left side of his back towards his left hip or buttock. He had been in substantial pain at the hospital and found it difficult to speak. -- 23 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 22 271 XL said bruising had begun to appear after one or two days. He said the pain in his arms and left shoulder had reduced after about five days, but his back remained painful for about a month and continued to cause some pain after that. 272 He said that he had remained at the hospital until police took him or became involved in the next stage of the process. Cross- examination of XL 273 XL had given evidence in chief that he had arrived in Australia in February 2022.34 He denied in cross- examination he had arrived in Australia in 2018.35 274 XL accepted though that he told police in his first statement he had arrived in February 2018,36 and as at 28 May 2023, had lived in Australia over 5 years.37 275 XL was reminded of his evidence he had witnessed some deliveries and collections of bags of currency.38 He confirmed he had said the first time he had seen somebody deliver currency he had been at 77 Appleberry Street and had seen people in a car put two bags by the front door. 276 He said he had collected and placed those bags in the laundry at the house. He said he had seen what was in the bags on that occasion.39 277 XL accepted he had described in his evidence in chief two Asian or Chinese males had dropped off the bags and both had coloured tattoos in their arms.40 He confirmed he had quite a clear memory of that.41 278 XL accepted that in his first affidavit signed 28 May 2023,42 he had not mentioned the bags had ever been dropped off by anyone with tattoos.43 279 He accepted he had not mentioned in any of his four statements anyone with tattoos had dropped off a bag or bags.44 280 XL agreed he had told police that the first occasion he had seen one or more bags dropped off, that had involved a man wearing a black suit with a white shirt.45 34 Ibid T395.34-37. 35 Ibid T396.3-4. 36 Ibid T412.35-413.24. 37 Agreed Facts (n 25) [51(o)(i)]. 38 Transcript of Trial, T265.15-23. 39 Ibid T265.28-266.6. 40 Ibid T266.27-30. 41 Ibid T491.4-29. 42 Ibid T493.26-30. 43 Ibid T493.31-493.24. 44 Ibid T496.12-20. 45 Ibid T495.35-496.6. -- 24 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 23 281 XL confirmed his evidence that the second time he had witnessed the delivery of one or more bags, that was by a man wearing a suit who drove a ‘white quite fancy car, maybe the white Mercedes’.46 282 He agreed in cross- examination that in his first statement he had told police the man had gotten out of a black sedan.47 283 XL confirmed his evidence on that second occasion there had been two bags dropped off by the male in a black suit.48 He accepted when he gave his first statement to police, he had said the man in the black suit dropped off one bag.49 284 XL confirmed his evidence that on that second occasion the bags had been oval shaped.50 Shortly thereafter in his cross- examination, he said the bags had been Coles zip up shopping bags with fruit pictures on them.51 285 XL was asked about whether he had seen the contents of the bags on that occasion.52 He elaborately described the appearance of Australian currency he said had been in the two bags. He said they had been about 80% full.53 286 XL accepted when he gave his first statement, he had told police he had not seen the contents of the single bag dropped off by the man in the black suit.54 287 XL accepted he had not said in any of his four statements a male in a black suit had ever dropped off two bags containing cash at Appleby Road.55 288 He accepted in his first statement he had not said he had investigated or seen the contents of any bag he had touched or handled.56 289 XL was reminded of his encounter with a white man in a “Hilux”. He said that was the first time he encountered a white man engaged in such activity.57 290 XL said in chief he had heard Yu Sun speaking on the Bluetooth in her BMW and that he could hear a male say “Gweilo is delivery money.”58 He said he had remembered that precise term being used as it “was so iconic and a bit funny, but iconic. Yeah, just a bit iconic and funny, so I remember 'gweilo'.”59 46 Ibid T267.11-14. 47 Ibid T497.23-28. 48 Ibid T268.21. 49 Ibid T498.29-499.23. 50 Ibid T267.14-15. 51 Ibid T268.4-6. 52 Ibid T267.33-35. 53 Ibid T268.20-23. 54 Ibid T499.16-23. 55 Ibid T499.31-36. 56 Ibid T516.34-517.12. 57 Ibid T273.21-24. 58 Ibid T272.6-36. 59 Ibid T273.1-3, T500.11-32. -- 25 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 24 291 He accepted in his first, second and third statement he had not mentioned any conversation over the Bluetooth in which the term “gweilo” had been used.60 292 XL had given evidence that after dropping off bags into the boot of Yu Sun’s BMW, they had travelled together back to the hospital where Yu Sun’s son George had been waiting for emergency treatment to his injured jaw.61 293 XL accepted in his first statement he had said of that occasion that after the bags had been dropped off they went to Westminster School and picked up her children and then went to Hungry Jacks and went inside to eat.62 294 In respect of any rent payable when he had moved into Thirza Avenue, XL accepted he had given evidence Yu Sun offered for him to stay without needing to pay rent. He had said prior to or at the time he had moved Yu Sun had not indicated she expected the payment of rent or any amount of rent.63 XL said the topic of rent and an amount was only raised after her third visit.64 295 Detective Gledhill said when he spoke to XL on 26 May 2023, XL had told him when he moved into Thirza Ave, he had agreed to pay $150 per week in rent.65 296 XL accepted in cross- examination he had told police in his first statement “Sometime around the middle of April 2023, Yu unblocked me on the messaging applications. I began texting her again and asked if she knew anywhere I could rent. She recommended an address at 35 Thirza Avenue, Mitchell Park which is owned by her and her husband. She said that I could rent it for $150 a week for a room there. I moved in around this time and was living there alone.”66 297 In respect of those three visits by Yu Sun, XL had given a detailed account of the first occasion. He said they held each other and Yu Sun told him she still really wanted him and he had rebuffed her.67 298 XL accepted he had not said in his first statement that Yu Sun had come around and they held each other and discussed their relationship.68 299 As for the second visit, XL gave evidence they had gone to a Chinese restaurant for takeaway pho and Beijing sauce noodles.69 XL accepted he had not 60 Ibid T501.10-32. 61 Ibid T273.37-38, T502.31-33. 62 Ibid T503.4-13. 63 Ibid T279.26-34. 64 Ibid T286.37-287.1, T506.6-12. 65 Ibid T641.11-17. 66 Ibid T506.31-34. 67 Ibid T281.3-35. 68 Ibid T520.2-18. 69 Ibid T283.1-5. -- 26 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 25 mentioned that in his first statement. He accepted he had told police the second visit involved Yu Sun and her husband and a conversation outside of the house.70 300 As for the third visit, XL had given evidence Yu Sun came with her husband who said he did not care if he continued to have sex with his wife.71 XL accepted in his statements he had not mentioned such a conversation.72 XL accepted in his first statement, he had said only that her husband had come on the third visit and had checked the property for damage.73 301 In respect of his evidence about the events leading to his decision to move out, XLs evidence was that he had a conversation with Yu Sun where she had told him he still owed her money for his spending on the Bendigo card.74 302 He accepted that in his four statements he had not mentioned any discussion with Yu Sun about his alleged spending on the Bendigo Bank card.75 303 XL had said in evidence Yu Sun had told him to move out of Thirza Ave and move his belongings otherwise she would throw them out.76 He said he had told her if she did that, he would go to the police station.77 304 XL confirmed in cross-examination his attendance at the Hindley Street Police station was a response to that threat she would throw his belongings out.78 305 He accepted when he gave his first statement he had not mentioned to police he had gone to the Hindley Street station after any threat made by Yu Sun.79 306 He accepted his first statement was different to his evidence. 307 He said after the third visit he told Yu Sun the stove had stopped working; she had blamed him for breaking it and he had received a message from her that he owed $1000, which included for that damage. He accepted he had told police he went to the station to get advice about that exchange.80 308 XL in evidence said after he attended the Hindley Street Police station, he had two or three phone calls with Yu Sun including one where she had said she would find a lawyer to use against him for living in her place unlawfully.81 70 Ibid T521.28-528.8. 71 Ibid T280.8-15, T285.21-26, T522.29-33. 72 Ibid T523.19-524.5, T525.27-526.2; Agreed Facts (n 25) [54]. 73 Transcript of Trial, T526.28-527.1. 74 Ibid T288.20-26. 75 Ibid T527.18-27. 76 Ibid T289-290. 77 Ibid T291.3-5. 78 Ibid T528.6-10. 79 Ibid T528.11-529.11. 80 Ibid T529.12-37. 81 Ibid T292.6-8, T293.30-32. -- 27 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 26 309 XL volunteered in cross-examination that her lawyer had called him after he went to the Hindley Street Police station.82 Challenged about that, XL had been uncertain whether the call was from a lawyer.83 He said he had assumed that as the person had asked for his police reference number.84 310 He accepted that he had not in his four statements said Yu Sun had said she would find a lawyer to use against him for living in her place unlawfully85 or that he received a phone call from anyone asking for his police reference number.86 311 XL gave evidence after telling Yu Sun that he would go to the AFP and ATO, she had said “I don’t care and if you do that you will be in big trouble and you will end up really ugly.”87 XL confirmed she had said that in cross-examination.88 312 XL accepted he had not mentioned in his statement any threat made by Yu Sun in those terms.89 313 XL gave evidence he had started moving his belongings from Thirza Ave to his new rental at Netley on Thursday 25 May 2023.90 He said he did not think he could have started moving his belongings earlier in the week.91 314 XL accepted he had said in his first statement “On Tuesday 23 May, I decided to move out of Thirza Avenue as I was really scared of what might happen. I left some of my belongings there. At about 11pm on Tuesday 23 May, I decided to move out of Thirza Avenue as I was really scared of what might happen.”92 315 He accepted in his second statement provided 1 February 2024 he had said, “The following day, on Tuesday, 23 May 2023, I found a new place to live at 55 Harvey Avenue, Netley. After I finished work that day, I moved some of my belongings to the new address.”93 316 XL gave evidence he had been so scared of Yu Sun he had slept in his car at the TAFE carpark.94 XL accepted he had not mentioned that in his first three statements to police.95 82 Ibid T329.11-13. 83 Ibid T531.2-14. 84 Ibid T532.3-19. 85 Ibid T532.36-533.17. 86 Ibid T532.7-9. 87 Ibid T294.7-10. 88 Ibid T533.36-534.10. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid T296.38-297.14, T432.7-13, T443.13-30, T536.21-537.7. 91 Ibid T537.5-7. 92 Ibid T556.24-38. 93 Ibid T537.9-539.19. 94 Ibid T294.12-19, T295.5-14, T430.35-38, T435.13-16. 95 Ibid T539.20-34. -- 28 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 27 317 XL mentioned for the first time under cross-examination he had made the third trip back to Thirza Ave as he wanted to check on his logbooks for TAFE.96 318 In his evidence, XL had said when he made the second trip he had left at Thirza Ave his inflated bed and tent and some unnecessary- not really going to use straightaway belongings- like used textbooks and some clothes.97 319 XL had given evidence he made the second trip to Thirza Ave as he had forgotten his blanket.98 XL had not told police that in his first statement.99 320 XL gave evidence he made the third trip as he had been concerned about his belongings being there and of the risk Yu Sun might go into the house while he was not there.100 XL had not told police that in his first statement.101 321 XL gave evidence after his second trip he had driven halfway to Harvey Avenue.102 In his first statement he had said he went all the way back to Netley.103 322 XL gave evidence on his third trip he parked next to the BMW and blocked the whole street.104 In cross-examination, he did not agree he had parked his car to effectively block the street; he said he had obstructed traffic a little bit.105 XL had not in his statements mentioned parking outside the house in an unusual way.106 323 XL gave evidence that at some stage after he went to the Police Station his relationship with Ms Sun “softened”.107 He had not referred to that in his first affidavit. He had said “after speaking with Ms Sun on the phone, she was really angry, so I hung up. She tried to call me back a few times, but I didn't answer. On Tuesday, 23 May, I decided to move out of Thirza Avenue as I was really scared of what might happen.”108 324 XL gave evidence that after he had arrived at Thirza Avenue on the third occasion, he had entered the house and encountered Ms Sun and they had spoken. He had said he was “shocked and afraid because I’m – why she parked outside the house and what’s going on with this lady.109 He later said he was “a bit shocked but 96 Ibid T545.38-546.24, T551.23-25. 97 Ibid T300.25-30. 98 Ibid T295.21-26. 99 Ibid T547.37-548.4. 100 Ibid T299.6-11, T545.38-546.9. 101 Ibid T549.18-24. 102 Ibid T444.29-34, T446.17-25, T541.25.34, T543.1-15. 103 Ibid T445.9-14. 104 Ibid T299.30-32. 105 Ibid T552.19-554.2, T553.9-2. 106 Agreed Facts (n 25) [53]. 107 Transcript of Trial, T435.17-33. 108 Ibid T585.13-586.38. 109 Ibid T299. -- 29 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 28 not really afraid.”110 He confirmed he suggested they go to the pancake shop.111 XL had not mentioned that to police.112 325 In respect of the alleged offending conduct, XL gave evidence the two unknown men and the white jacket man entered Thirza Avenue together.113 He said at that time Yu Sun had not come into the house and it had only been the white jacket man who had been holding him as he went inside the house.114 326 In his first statement XL had told police he had been led through the front door whilst being grabbed by both the white jacket man and Yu Sun.115 327 In his first statement XL told police after he had been led to the laundry room by the white jacket man and Yu Sun, “two more men then arrived, one through the back door/laundry door and the other through the kitchen.”116 328 XL, when pressed about that, said perhaps there were more than two other men in black there that night.117 His evidence was one was tall and skinny and the other was of larger build.118 He said both were wearing blue surgical type facemasks of the type that could be bought from the pharmacy.119 329 Detective Gledhill said he had spoken to the complainant at the Royal Adelaide Hospital just after 7am on 26 May 2023. XL had provided a description of and said only one male had a surgical mask on and not the other.120 330 XL said in evidence the man in the white jacket had said to him “please do what I told you to do otherwise I will give you the drug shot.”121 331 In his first statement XL said whilst Yu Sun and the man in the white jacket left the laundry, one of the men said “Don’t get up or we will put you down with a needle and heroin and ruin your life…This man was Asian and large build, fat”.122 332 XL in chief, 123 and in cross-examination, said the heavy-built man in black grabbed socks from his belongings and put them in his mouth.124 In his first statement, XL had told police the tall skinny man put the socks in his mouth.125 110 Ibid T437.8. 111 Ibid T301.21-30. 112 Ibid T558.27-559.8. 113 Ibid T456. 114 Ibid T456-457. 115 Ibid T457-459. 116 Ibid T459-460. 117 Ibid T461. 118 Ibid T559.34-560.17. 119 Ibid T315.11-20. 120 Ibid T641.34-38. 121 Ibid T476.20-24. 122 Ibid T468-469. 123 Ibid T331.21-24. 124 Ibid T478.19-32. 125 Ibid T331.17-26. -- 30 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 29 333 XL gave evidence that when he had been asked to write out the contract he initially refused because it was not fair.126 He did not tell police he initially refused to write out any document about money he owed.127 334 XL gave evidence he had been asked three questions whilst being held at gunpoint.128 One was “why /did you park the park in the middle of the street”129 and another was whether he had brought anyone else to the house.130 335 XL had not told police he had been asked about how he had parked his car during the incident,131 or whether he had brought anyone or had anyone around.132 336 XL gave evidence when he refused to provide his PIN code he had been punched.133 XL told police only that he had provided the PIN code when asked.134 337 XL gave evidence after he provided his PIN the male in the white jacket and Yu Sun had left the room for about 20 minutes and two men had guarded him.135 338 He told police he provided his PIN (in his first statement). He had said the man in the white jacket and Yu Sun left the room for a period after that.136 339 XL gave evidence that during this incident he heard someone tell one of the men in black to check the windows.137 He had not told police that.138 340 XL gave evidence Yu Sun had suggested destroying his phone but that the male in the white jacket said no.139 XL had not mentioned that to police.140 341 XL gave evidence the man in the white jacket made threats to report his parents in China.141 XL had not mentioned that in his first statement.142 342 XL gave evidence the man in the white jacket told him to put $200 in the mailbox.143 XL told police he was told to put $450 in the mailbox.144 126 Ibid T329.9-15, T568.14-22. 127 Ibid T568.23-36. 128 Ibid T311.24, T313.21-28. 129 Ibid T317.12-14. 130 Ibid T317.16-18. 131 Agreed Facts (n 25) [55]. 132 Transcript of Trial, T575.7-576.3. 133 Ibid T469.32-470.1. 134 Ibid T470.2-9. 135 Ibid T325.10-22. 136 Ibid T576.9-577.26. 137 Ibid T331.25, T332. 138 Ibid T583.26-584.5. 139 Ibid T337.18.25. 140 Ibid T584.8-33. 141 Ibid T470.25-35. 142 Ibid T470.35-471.11. 143 Ibid T471. 144 Ibid T471-472. -- 31 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 30 343 XL in evidence said the man in the white jacket had threatened that if he did not pay the money they would find him in TAFE and they knew where he lived.145 XL had not told police that had been said to him in his first statement.146 344 XL gave evidence he was questioned about phone calls he had made.147 He had mentioned that to police.148 345 XL gave evidence that during the incident the man in the white jacket looked up a similar stove online and showed him how much he had to pay.149 He had not told police that.150 346 XL gave evidence that his first statement taken at the Arkaba had occurred with four police officers and an interpreter present. He disagreed it was just two police officers and an interpreter.151 Detective Kelch said present was himself, Brevet Sergeant Crossland and an interpreter over the phone.152 347 XL disagreed that when the police came to his room at the Arkaba to take his statement he kept raising things he suggested he had researched on the internet. He said he had no access to his phone and tablet at that time.153 348 It is an agreed fact XL wanted police to put things in his statement he said he had learned online about organised crime connected to China and their methods.154 349 Detective Kelch gave evidence the statement taking process took a very long time because XL “was going off track quite a lot… he would just talk about random things really. He would just speak about experiences and assumptions and then we would just have to start the question again.”155 350 XL was challenged about his evidence concerning the name Jian Ge. He said he had he had heard the name while living with Yu Sun, including during her phone calls or WhatsApp communications. He said also he had heard that name on the night of the alleged offending at Thirza Avenue. 351 XL accepted in his first police statement he had not mentioned hearing the name Jian Ge or that name at all. He accepted his later statements had not recorded that his basis for recognising that name had been from a phone-call or WhatsApp. 145 Ibid T471. 146 Ibid T471.22-31. 147 Ibid T475. 148 Ibid T476. 149 Ibid T477. 150 Ibid T477. 151 Ibid T589.23-29. 152 Ibid T650.36-6. 153 Ibid T594.10-595.27. 154 Agreed Facts (n 25) 51(k)(i). 155 Transcript of Trial, T648.11-17. -- 32 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 31 352 XL was taken to an email from Detective Gledhill dated 30 May 2023, sent about two days after his first police statement. Questioning explored whether the name Jian Ge had first come to his attention from police. 353 XL referred to having had conversations with police outside the formal written statements, including about his car, SkyCity and names. He said he was unsure whether some information had come to him from police or someone else. 354 XL accepted in no statement had he said he had met that man before. He maintained he told Federal Police about matters relevant to recognition of Jian Ge. 355 XL was questioned about how often he had gone to DaDa and what he had seen there. Cross-examination tested if he had seen Jian Ge at DaDa, or whether he had later connected him with the business through other information. 356 XL maintained that he had gone to DaDa only once, had entered through the back, had seen staff and office areas, and understood Yu Sun had authority there. 357 XL was questioned about his evidence about cash deliveries, the bags used, the cars used, the delivery men and the movement of money to the laundry. 358 He accepted he could not be certain about every bag containing cash where he had not seen the contents. He maintained Yu Sun had told him dirty or illegal money was hard to avoid in currency exchange. He accepted he had not included those details his first police statements. 359 XL was questioned about making a $600 payment to Yu Sun for the rent dispute and why he had left his belongings at Mitchell Park. He accepted after leaving the Hindley St police station he had phone calls with Yu Sun about rental matters. He accepted he had threatened to go to the Federal Police about DaDa’s money flow during those conversations. 360 XL was asked about his evidence Yu Sun said he could go to police or other authorities and it would end up badly if he did. XL said he told the interpreter that but accepted it was not in any statement he had given. 361 XL said he had later received a call from someone he believed was Yu Sun’s lawyer because the caller had asked about the police reference number. He accepted that call had not been referred in any statement he had given. 362 Questioning tested the plausibility of XL’s account of his fear of Yu Sun, of sleeping in his car to avoid her, about moving to Netley and returning late at night for his belongings to Michell Park. 363 XL maintained he had gone to Hindley Street police station because Yu Sun threatened to put his belongings on the street. He maintained he had later returned to Mitchell Park to retrieve some remaining items, including a blanket, camping equipment, hiking boots and textbooks or course materials. -- 33 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 32 364 XL was asked whether he had already collected the most important items, including his MacBook Pro and Nintendo Switch, before returning. He maintained important belongings had been left at Mitchell Park. 365 XL was challenged about the Pancake Kitchen invitation he said he extended to Yu Sun. It was put to him that he had said he was frightened of Ms Sun. He responded he had been frightened of her earlier, but by Thursday night he had been trying to soften the relationship and resolve practical issues. 366 XL was challenged about his evidence that he had seen Yu Sun’s BMW whilst reversing and later had seen her car parked on the street in front of Thirza Avenue. He maintained the sequence that he first seen the BMW pass and stop near the school oval, then he had later seen Yu Sun’s car parked on the street in front of the house after he returned. 367 XL was challenged about whether Yu Sun had been in the street, in the car, or by the back door, at different points of time. He said he had first seen her in or by the BMW and later at or near the back door after returning to the house. 368 He was challenged about the location of his car and whether he had parked in the middle of the road as he said he did. XL maintained his car had remained on the road after he had entered the house and that it had later been moved. He accepted his car may have been partly over the middle of the road rather than in the middle. 369 XL was asked about why he had entered the house and whether he had been forced to do so. He maintained he had gone inside because he had seen what appeared to be a pistol and had not wanted to be hurt. 370 XL was questioned about how the two unknown men had entered or appeared. He accepted his evidence had been different to his statements; he had referred to those men arriving through the back door, laundry door or kitchen. 371 XL was challenged about whether the man in the white jacket had left the laundry and whether the two other men had prevented him from leaving. 372 He was questioned about his description of the pistol, including whether it had been a Beretta, whether it had been cocked, and what he could reliably identify. 373 He accepted limits in his knowledge of firearms but maintained that he had seen what looked like a pistol. 374 XL was questioned about his relationship with Yu Sun, their contact after he moved out, and whether she had wanted the relationship to continue. 375 XL said Yu Sun initially had not charged him rent, later had raised rent and repayment issues, and had threatened to remove his belongings. -- 34 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 33 376 XL said alleged threats by Yu Sun, including threats about lawyers or authorities he recounted, had not been included in his earlier statements. 377 XL was further cross-examined about whether he had ever seen the contents of all the bags he said contained money. He maintained he had seen banknotes in some bags, particularly the Coles-style bags delivered by the man in the black suit. 378 XL was challenged as to whether his police statements had recorded seeing the contents of bags or whether he added that detail, not present in earlier accounts. 379 XL was asked about whether Yu Sun had taken or received his car keys and whether he had voluntarily entered the house. He maintained the pistol had caused him to comply and go inside. 380 XL was cross-examined about his account of going to hospital after the incident. He said the sky had still been dark when he went to hospital. 381 He did not accept he had left the hospital and returned in the afternoon. He said he had not left until police had taken him or became involved. 382 XL remembered speaking with a doctor but did not remember all details of the timing or whether the doctor had been female. He accepted he spoke with a doctor twice, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. He said he had told the doctor he had still been in pain during the afternoon interaction. 383 XL was also challenged about what he told police at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, including details about the number and description of the men, masks, the rental arrangement, Yu Sun’s visits, sexual advances, and the rent dispute. Consideration 384 The real issue in this case was the honesty and reliability of XL. 385 He was the crucial witness. The prosecution relied on my acceptance of his evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as to what had happened at Thirza Ave. Approach to assessment of XL as a witness 386 XL gave evidence by CCTV. That did not influence its weight and nor did I draw any inference adverse to the defendants because of that. 387 As the prosecution had to prove each accused was guilty, the prosecution had to convince me XL’s evidence was true and accurate. 388 It was not for the defence to show he had been wrong or lying. There can be many reasons a witness might lie, and I did not speculate about those. 389 XL’s evidence had not been more credible, or believable, because there may have been no evidence providing a reason he might lie. I did not conclude the absence of any such evidence meant he had no reason to lie and had told the truth. -- 35 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 34 390 My assessment of all the witnesses had been a matter for my experience of life, my dealings with other people, and my commonsense. People vary in backgrounds, intelligence, education, personality, character and age. I was entitled to have regard to that and the way witnesses gave evidence and how they had stood up to cross-examination. 391 I did in respect of all the witnesses, including XL, consider whether they had been honest. To the extent I considered them an honest witness, I then considered the reliability and accuracy of his evidence. 392 Counsel for the defendants suggested several things going to XL’s honesty and reliability to cause me to reasonably doubt the prosecution case. Honesty and reliability of XL 393 As for the credibility of XL, there were aspects of his evidence which concerned me. 394 He was a poor listener, and his answers were sometimes unresponsive. 395 He had clearly thought carefully about what had occurred and had replayed these events over in his mind many times. 396 That had impacted his answers. I considered he had inserted detail that was embellished or exaggerated, for example, his description of the Beretta and of the tattoos on the men who had come to the house. 397 His thoughts had been disordered to some extent. He tended to jump topics. 398 On several occasions he needed to be re- focused on the topic being addressed. He was an unfocused witness, as Police had also experienced from the outset. He had also conducted his own research into matters which he told Police he thought should be incorporated into his account. 399 It was difficult to differentiate between what might have been exaggeration, embellishment, analysis or research and actual recollection. 400 The prosecution premised its case on false imprisonment as a joint enterprise. 401 In respect of that alleged offending conduct, XL gave evidence the two unknown men and the white jacket man had entered Thirza Avenue together with him.156 He had said as well that Yu Sun had not come into the house at that point. 402 He said initially it had only been the white jacket man who had been holding him as he went inside the house.157 XL then also said that man had let go off him before entering the house. 156 Ibid T456. 157 Ibid T456-457. -- 36 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 35 403 He later gave several versions of where the two unknown men had been and when they had entered the scene. 404 I did, despite all those concerns, consider XL had been trying to tell the truth. 405 The photographic and medical evidence had broadly and somewhat supported his version of events. He had been at the house with the defendants, the interaction with them had not been friendly, and he had reported at hospital with injuries following that interaction. 406 Beyond that outline, for which support had been provided by other evidence I accept, XL had not been a reliable witness. 407 The accumulation of prior inconsistent statements, differences, omissions and additions overwhelmed his evidence consistent with the prosecution opening. 408 During XL’s evidence a multitude of prior inconsistent statements to police out of court were identified about: • when he had arrived in Australia; • the description of the person or persons involved in dropping off the bags on the first occasion; • the colour of the car used in the second drop- off and how many bags and what type of bags there were and whether he had looked in those bags; • where he and Yu Sun had travelled to and what they had done after the occasion when he had picked up bags from the white man in the Hi-Lux; • whether he had agreed to pay rent for Thirza Ave before or after he had moved in there or at all; • what had happened during the visits of Yu Sun at Thirza Ave; • what Yu Suns husband had said or done during visits to Thirza Ave; • what he had discussed with Yu Sun before he had gone to the Hindley St police station and why he had gone there; • the stove in Thirza Ave and his spending on the bankcard; • whether threats had been made by Yu Sun about him going to the AFP; • what he and Yu Sun had discussed over the phone around the Hindley St station attendance; • when he had started to move his belongings out of Thirza Ave; -- 37 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 36 • when he had found a new place to live at Netley; • what of his property had remained at Thirza Ave and what he had gone back to collect and how far he had got to Netley before going back; • how he had parked his car on Thirza Ave; • whether he had been scared or frightened of Yu Sun; • who had led him through the door at Thirza Ave and where Yu Sun had been and where the two unknown men had been at that time; • how the two unknown men had entered or appeared through the back door, laundry door or kitchen; • who had threatened to inject him with heroin; • his response when he had been asked to write out the contract; • what questions or interrogation of him had occurred; and • what he had agreed to pay Yu Sun and why. 409 In general, the law does not allow a finder of fact to use what a person had said outside court as evidence to prove the truth of what the person said. 410 I heard evidence of those prior inconsistent statements for a limited purpose. I have only used them to assess XL’s credibility. The defence argued, in effect, that since XL had given different accounts at different times, I should not accept the evidence he gave at trial. 411 I have not used the evidence of XL’s statements on other occasions for any other purpose. I have not used them as evidence of what occurred. 412 There were also omissions and differences and additions in his evidence which I have used to assess XL’s credibility and reliability. They had included: • XL’s elaborate description of the appearance of Australian currency he said had been in the two bags and them being about 80% full;158 • XL in chief about whether he had heard Yu Sun speaking on the Bluetooth in her BMW and that he could hear a male say “Gweilo is delivery money”;159 158 Ibid T267.11-23. 159 Ibid T272.6-36, T273.1-3, T500.11-32. -- 38 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 37 • the detailed account of the first occasion at Thirza Ave when XL had said they had held each other;160 • the conversation with Yu Sun where XL said she had told him he had still owed her money for his spending on the Bendigo card.161 • the phone call with Yu Sun where she had said she would find a lawyer to use against him for living in her place unlawfully162 and that her lawyer had called him after he went to the Hindley Street Police station;163 • XL’s evidence he had been so scared of Yu Sun he had slept in his car at the TAFE carpark;164 and • XL had made the third trip back to Thirza Ave as he wanted to check on his logbooks for TAFE;165 413 XL had some limitations in his understanding of English. That did not though provide a satisfactory explanation for the issues with his evidence identified. 414 My observations of his understanding and comprehension accorded with the evidence of police officers Miller, Gledhill, Kelch and Crossland. 415 XL had spoken adequate English in giving his evidence. He availed himself of the assistance of interpreters only occasionally. 416 Having assessed the whole of the evidence, I have not been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of what had occurred in the morning of the alleged offending. 417 I cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt who was outside the house, whether anyone physically directed XL inside, that XL had been not free to leave, whether Jian Ge had a pistol, who had assaulted him and caused his injuries, whether his injuries presented had been inflicted by the defendants, the role and actions of the other two men in that respect, what if any threats had been made and by whom and as to the contents of the written document, such as to assess involuntariness. 418 I cannot exclude as a reasonable possibility XL had been in default of his rent and that the interaction that morning had involved a dealing about a debt genuinely owed and that XL had agreed to pay the properly outstanding rent. 160 Ibid T281.3-35. 161 Ibid T228.22-36, T527.18-27. 162 Ibid T292.6-8, T293.30-32. 163 Ibid T329.12-13. 164 Ibid T294.12-19, T295.5-14, T430.35-38, T435.13-16, T539.25-30. 165 Ibid T545.38-546.24, T546.5-13, T551.23-25. -- 39 of 40 -- [2026] SADC 72 38 419 I have, given his unreliability, not been able to make necessary factual findings sufficient to prove each and every element of the charged offences. 420 That the photographs found in the BMW and the medical evidence support XL in a broad sense, does not change that conclusion or bolster the unreliable or unsatisfactory aspects of the evidence of XL I have detailed, to the requisite extent. Verdict 421 For the reasons explained, I have therefore found each accused not guilty. 422 A verdict to that effect will be entered in respect of each defendant and each of the five offences charged. -- 40 of 40 --