On January 23, Yang Lanlan appeared at the Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney. (Internet image)
[People News] The case of Yang Lanlan, which was initially set for a hearing on January 30, unexpectedly held its fifth court session on January 23. This hearing was likely prompted by a local media report. On January 15, a reporter from the Daily Mail was stationed outside the Rose Bay police station and observed a woman who was supposed to report to the police as per her bail conditions. The reporter found her identity suspicious, and upon questioning, the woman admitted she was not Yang Lanlan, but 'someone else.'
On January 16, police visited a residence in downtown Sydney to deliver a court summons to Yang Lanlan, requiring her to appear in court for allegedly violating her bail conditions.
On January 23, Yang Lanlan finally showed up at the Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney. Dressed in dark clothing, she wore large Chanel sunglasses and a medical mask that nearly covered her entire face, as she was very cautious about being seen by the public. However, this made it difficult to confirm whether she was indeed Yang Lanlan.
Surrounded by her legal team and facing a throng of media, Yang Lanlan did not respond and silently walked into the courthouse. After the hearing concluded, she quickly got into a waiting Tesla and left.
The main issue of the hearing that day was not the accident itself, but rather procedural questions regarding Yang Lanlan's alleged 'violation of bail conditions.'
According to court disclosures, Yang Lanlan previously lived in a luxurious penthouse in the affluent Watsons Bay area of Sydney. However, she moved without notifying the authorities and changed her residence address, which violated her bail conditions.
In court, Yang Lanlan acknowledged that she had "violated bail regulations." Nevertheless, her legal team contended that this violation stemmed from a misunderstanding due to a "miscommunication within the legal team," which led Yang Lanlan to mistakenly believe that her bail conditions had been relaxed, allowing her to change her address without prior notification.
Her representative lawyer argued that there was a "reasonable explanation" for this violation, asserting that it was not a significant fault on the part of Yang Lanlan. The court accepted this explanation and did not require her to return to her original residence, confirming that the procedure for changing her bail address had been completed on the 22nd.
The court hearing that day was lengthy, primarily focused on the move, the address change, and misunderstandings, with both sides engaged in a heated exchange. The hearing did not address the identity of the woman who impersonated Yang Lanlan. Was she a stand-in arranged by Yang Lanlan? If she were not Yang Lanlan, why did the police accept her report? If she was indeed Yang Lanlan, why did she deny it to reporters? Many questions remain unanswered. The audience expressed frustration that while trivial matters were discussed, the crucial issues were overlooked.
The Yang Lanlan case is scheduled for another hearing on January 30. Legal experts predict that the legal team will effectively prolong the case through various procedural rules and technicalities. This strategy of "stirring the waters" is likely to hinder any substantial progress in the upcoming court session.
△
News magazine bootstrap themes!
I like this themes, fast loading and look profesional
Thank you Carlos!
You're welcome!
Please support me with give positive rating!
Yes Sure!