CASE REPORT (CRIMINAL) - TC Beirne School of Law - University ...

HUMAN TRAFFICKING WORKING GROUP 

Dr Andreas Schloenhardt, TC Beirne School of Law 

Dr Melissa Curley, School of Political Science & International Studies 

CASE REPORT (CRIMINAL) 

Case name Sally Xu, Ngoc Tran, and Lin (Jamie) Qi 

Plaintiff Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 

Defendant (1) Name: Ms Sally Cui Mian Xu 

Citizenship: Unknown 

Defendant (2) Name: Ms Ngoc Lan Tran 


Defendant (3) Name: Mr Lin (Jamie) Qi 


The University of Queensland 

Brisbane Qld 4072; Australia 

www.law.uq.edu.au/humantrafficking 

Reported in DPP (Cth) v Xu [2005] NSWSC 191; (2005) 154 A Crim R 

173 (pre-trial evidentiary ruling) 

Charges Causing sexual servitude: s 270.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth) 

replaced by s 80D(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) 

Conducting a business involving sexual servitude: s 270.6(2) 

Criminal Code (Cth), replaced by s 80E(1) Crimes Act 1900 

(NSW) 

Engaging in slave trading: s 270.2(1) Criminal Code (Cth) 

Detaining a person for advantage as a prostitute: s 86(2)(a) 

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) 

Case categorisation Act: Recruitment; transportation; transfer; harbouring; receipt 

Means: Threat or use of force or other forms of coercion; 

abduction; fraud; deception; abuse of power or a position of 

vulnerability 

Purpose: Exploitation of the prostitution of others or other 

forms of sexual exploitation 

Industry/Sector: Commercial sexual exploitation 

Form: Transnational 

Victim details Number of victims: 1 

Method of entry: Work visa (visa type unknown) 

Gender(s): Female 

Age(s): Adult 

Place, country of origin: Bangkok, Thailand 

Current status 

(Dec 14, 2011) 

Related cases N/A 

No verdict (hung jury) 

Prosecution discontinued

Facts and Background 

Date(s) of offending December 2002 – January 5, 2003 

Location(s) Marrickville, Homebush, Ryde, and Rozelle (NSW) 

The case against Sydney brothel owners Ms Sally Ciu Mian Xu, Ms Ngoc Lan Tran, and 

their co-accused, brothel manager Mr Lin Qi involved a 22-year old Thai woman (Ms K) 

who was allegedly brought from Thailand to Australia and forced to work in a brothel 

against her will. 1 

Ms K later testified that she was a law student in Bangkok when she was promised 

waitressing work in a Thai restaurant in Australia. It was alleged that her airfare to 

Australia was paid and a visa organised, and that a female ‘minder’ from Bangkok 

accompanied her to Sydney. 2 When she arrived in Australia on December 21, 2002, she 

was allegedly forced to work in Ms Tran’s brothel in Annandale, Sydney. 3 Ms K’s passport 

was confiscated and she was then told that she owed a debt to the brothel owners, which 

was to be worked off through the performance of twenty sex acts a day. 

In the subsequent days she threatened to kill herself and ‘begged a customer for help’. 4 

Ms Tran then sold her to Ms Xu, also a brothel owner in Sydney. Ms K gave evidence 

that she was forced to work daily at Xu's brothels at Marrickville, Homebush, Ryde, and 

Rozelle. She said she was given $20 by Xu to pay for her food. 5 When not at work she 

slept at a secured house with fourteen other girls. It was alleged that she was forced to 

crawl through a hole in the wall from the brothel to reach the house. 6 There was also 

evidence given that Ms K was threatened with what she thought was a baseball bat. 7 

The case came to the attention of the authorities on January 5, 2003, after Ms K borrowed 

a telephone from the reception Ms Xu’s brothel in Rozelle, where Mr Qi was the 

receptionist. Ms K hid in a toilet cubicle and called 000. 8 

Ms Xu and Ms Tran were subsequently arrested and charged with offences relating to 

causing sexual servitude, conducting a business involving sexual servitude, engaging in 

slave trading, and detaining a person for advantage as a prostitute. Mr Qi was charged 

with the same offences but not for the offence of engaging in slave trading. Initial charges 

under the Criminal Code (Cth) were later retracted and replaced with their equivalent 

offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). 9 

Prior to the trial, on May 13, 2004, Ms Xu made an application to the Supreme Court of 

New South Wales to challenge a restraint order, previously granted to the Director of 

Public Prosecutions, in relation to her property and a sworn statement she made setting 

out the particulars of her dealings with that property. It was common ground that an issue 

at the defendant’s trial would be her connection, or otherwise, with premises alleged to 

have been the location of the offences. Ms Xu attempted to argue that the original order 

1 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Annual Report 2004-05 (2005) 105. 


3 ‘Hung jury in ‘sex slave’ case’ (26 May 2005) The Sydney Morning Herald. 



6 Australia, Anti–People Trafficking Interdepartmental Committee, Trafficking in Persons: The 

Australian Government’s Response January 2004–April 2009 (2009) 72. 




9 Section 80D(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (replacing s 270.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth)); s 80E(1) 

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (replacing s 270.6(s) Criminal Code (Cth)). 

2

and sworn statement should be vacated until after the trial on the grounds that it would 

infringe on her fundamental common law privilege against self-incrimination. The 

application was, however, dismissed: DPP (Cth) v Xu [2005] NSWSC 191; (2005) 154 A Crim 

R 173. 

First Trial 

Court New South Wales District Court 

Citation Unreported 

Trial judge Judge Anthony Blackmore 

Important dates Trial: March 22, 2005 - May 26, 2005 

Defendant (1) 

Ms Sally Cui Mian Xu 

Defendant (2) 

Ms Ngoc Lan Tran 

Defendant (3) 

Mr Lin (Jamie) Qi 

Charge 1: Causing sexual servitude: s 270.6(1) Criminal 

Code (Cth), replaced by s 80D(1) Crimes Act 1900 

Plea: Not guilty 

Verdict: No verdict 

Charge 1: Conduct of a business involving sexual servitude: 

s 270.6(2) Criminal Code (Cth), replaced by s 80E(1) Crimes 

Act 1900 (NSW) 



Charge 2: Engaging in slave trading: s 270.2(1) Criminal 

Code (Cth) 


Verdict: Not guilty 

Charge 3: Detaining a person for advantage as a prostitute: s 

86(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) 




Code (Cth), replaced by s 80D(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) 



Charge 2: Conducting a business involving sexual servitude: 





Charge 3: Engaging in slave trading: s 270.2(1) Criminal 

Code (Cth) 



Charge 4: Detaining a person for advantage as a prostitute: 

s 86(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) 




Code (Cth), replaced by s 80D(1) Crimes Act 1900 

3

Sentence N/A 



Charge 2: Conduct of a business involving sexual servitude: 





Charge 3: Detaining a person for advantage as a prostitute: 

s 86(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) 



In April 2005, following nine weeks of evidence in the District Court of New South Wales, 

the jury deliberated for two days before acquitting Ms Xu of the slave-trading charge. The 

jury was not able to reach a verdict on the other charges against any of the defendants. 

Ms K, the main witness, endured eleven days of testimony, including six days of vigorous 

cross-examination where she was portrayed by the defence as a willing sex worker, who 

was bringing the charges due to her anger at not earning more money. 10 After the trial, 

Ms K returned to Thailand and indicated that she would not be willing to testify in a 

subsequent retrial given the trauma experienced in the first trial. 11 Without her evidence, 

the prosecution was unable to proceed to a retrial. 12 


11 Fiona David, ‘Prosecuting trafficking in persons: known issues, emerging response’, 

Australian Institute for Criminology, Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice, No 358, June 

2008, 3. 


4

Analysis and Comment 

A number of sources cite this case as an illustration of how a trafficking victim is central to 

successful prosecutions for trafficking in persons and how victims often significantly suffer 

during trial as their credibility is vigorously tested by defence counsel. 13 

Fiona David, referring to transcripts of the trial, notes that: 

Ms K was questioned about what she wore on particular days, her prior sexual history, 

which ‘clients’ she had sex with in Australia and what this involved. She had to respond to 

repeated questions that suggested she was a liar, that she just wanted a visa and that she 

really wanted to marry an Australian man so she could remain in Australia. Defence 

counsel brought various men, whom they alleged were former clients, into the courtroom 

and asked her to identify them. Throughout her evidence, she sat in open court with the 

three co-defendants. 14 

David also highlights how prior inconsistent statements made by the victims can lead to 

them being accused of fabricating their story: 

In the Tran, Xu & Qi case, defence counsel suggested that Ms K had fabricated her story 

so she would not be deported from Australia, and that she had collected telephone 

numbers from her clients in the hope they would marry her so she could remain in 

Australia. In this case, the prosecutor was able to lead evidence from Ms K that she had 

actively sought to return home after being detected by the police, even though she was told 

she might be eligible for a visa to remain in Australia (transcript of R v Tran, Xu & Qi, 8 

April 2005). The likely need to rebut attacks on the alleged victim’s credibility underscores 

the important role of corroborative evidence. 15 

It was stated in 2009 by the Anti–People Trafficking Interdepartmental Committee that at 

the 

National Roundtable on People Trafficking in June 2008, participants identified training for 

legal practitioners and jurors on trafficking issues as an initiative which may improve the 

experience of victims of trafficking who choose to give evidence in court proceedings. The 

Attorney-General’s Department is currently working with the National Judicial College of 

Australia to develop additional education resources for judges on people trafficking. 16 

13 See, Australia, Anti–People Trafficking Interdepartmental Committee, Trafficking in Persons: 

The Australian Government’s Response January 2004–April 2009 (2009) 24–25; Fiona 

David, ‘Trafficking for Sexual Purposes’, Research and Public Policy Series, No 95 (2008) 

50–51; Fiona David, ‘Prosecuting trafficking in persons: known issues, emerging response’, 

Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice, No 358, June 2008, 3–4. 

14 Fiona David, ‘Prosecuting trafficking in persons: known issues, emerging response’, Trends 

and Issues in Criminal Justice, No 358, June 2008, 3. 

15 Ibid, 4. 



5

List of references 

Official case reports 

DPP (Cth) v Xu [2005] NSWSC 191, (2005) 154 A Crim R 173 

Secondary sources 

Australia, Anti–People Trafficking Interdepartmental Committee, Trafficking in Persons: The 

Australian Government’s Response January 2004–April 2009, Canberra, ACT: 

Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. 

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Annual Report 2004-05 (2005) 105 – 106. 

David, Fiona, ‘Prosecuting trafficking in persons: known issues, emerging response’, Trends and 

Issues in Criminal Justice, No 358, Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology June 

2008. 

David, Fiona, ‘Trafficking for Sexual Purposes’, Research and Public Policy Series, No 95, 

Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2008. 

Davies, Lisa, ‘Prostitute supports That “sex-slave” claims’ (21 April 2005) The Daily Telegraph 

(Sydney) 22. 

Hung jury in “sex slave” case’ (26 May 2005) The Sydney Morning Herald, 

 

Schloenhardt, Andreas et al, ‘Human Trafficking and Sexual Servitude in Australia’ (2009) 32(1) 

University of New South Wales Law Journal 27. 

Schloenhardt, Andreas et al, ‘Trafficking in Persons in Australia: Myths and Realities’ (2009) 

10(3) Global Crime 224. 

© 2011, The University of Queensland, Human Trafficking Working Group. 

An electronic copy of this document is available at www.law.uq.edu.au/humantrafficking. 

6

CASE REPORT (CRIMINAL) - TC Beirne School of Law - University ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?