R v Leung

CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - Commonwealth offence - importation of heroin and MDMA into Australia - plea of not guilty - jury verdict of guilty - concealment of narcotics in pineapple cans. LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Customs Act 1901 Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270 Pearce v The Queen (1999) 194 CLR 610 R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44 R v Bigic [2000] NSWCCA 9 R v Bimahendali [1999] NSWCCA 409 R v Bowers NSWCCA 20 June 1997 R v Budiman (1999) 102 A Crim R 411 R v Camus [1999] NSWCCA 425 R v Chebat NSWCCA 25 July 1991 R v Chen [2002] NSWCCA 174 R v Chiap Nam Tam [2001] NSWCCA 438 R v Cordero-Vidal [2002] NSWCCA 36 CASES CITED : R v Drazkiewicz NSWCCA 23 November 1993 R v Effendi [2001] NSWCCA 391 R v El Kaharni (1990) 21 NSWLR 370 R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231 R v Chi Wah Ho [1999] NSWCCA 67 R v Klein (2001) 121 A Crim R 90 R v Laurentiu and Becheru NSWCCA 1 October 1992 R v Pereira (1991) 57 A Crim R 46 R v Power [1999] NSWCCA 25 R v Rocco [2001] NSWCCA 124 R v Salgado-Silva [2001] NSWCCA 36 R v Wong and Leung [2002] NSWCCA 169 Ryan v The Queen [2001] 75 ALJR 815 Wong & Leung v The Queen (2001) 76 ALJR 79 DECISION : Count 1 (MDMA): Fixed term of imprisonment for 14 years, commencing 6 April 2001 and expiring on 5 April 2015.; Count 2 (heroin): Imprisonment for 18 years, to commence 6 April 2003 and expiring on 5 April 2021.; Non parole period of 12 years set, to date from 6 April 2003 and expiring on 5 April 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

Wednesday 18 September 2002 70101/01 - Regina v Michael Sui Kwan Leung

SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: On 11 June 2002, Michael Leung was placed on trial charged with two counts of being knowingly concerned in the importation of narcotic substances, the importation of which is prohibited, pursuant to the now repealed s 233 B(1)(d) of Customs Act 1901, such substances respectively being heroin and 3,4 - methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), in quantities not less than the commercial quantity applicable thereto. By its verdict, returned on 26 July 2002, the jury found him guilty of both counts, but acquitted his co accused, Lu Lu of similar charges. Facts 2 On 5 March 2001, Leung flew to Australia from Canada, and booked into the Mercure Hotel Haymarket. He rented a mobile telephone at the airport, and over the following weeks he made arrangements to rent a storage unit at Millers Storage facility, also in the Haymarket area.

3 In the meantime, arrangements were being made in China for the shipment to Australia of a container of canned pineapple pieces. A Bill of Lading was initially issued by Blaiklock Compass World for shipment of this container from the port of HuangPu on 8 March 2001. For reasons which are not clear, this shipment did not proceed, but the container was eventually loaded on the vessel Cai Yun He on 16 March, pursuant to a Bill of Lading issued by Evergreen Marine. Concealed within 16 of the cartons packed into the container, as was later discovered upon its arrival in Australia, were the narcotics the subject of the charges of which Leung has been convicted.

4 The precise identity of the shipper, and of those involved behind the shipment remains unclear, different consignors having been shown on the two bills of lading, and the name of the consignor, which was initially placed on the Evergreen Bill of Lading, having been crossed out, and replaced with the name Guangxi Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs.

5 The difficulty in identifying the true consignor is in part explicable by the lack of response to inquiries made by the Australian Federal Police of their counterparts in China. The local practice of structuring exports through intermediaries, and of engaging agencies who operate under an export licensing quota scheme, who are not necessarily the true vendors or exporters, may also have been a contributing factor.

6 All that is known in this regard, is that a resident of Hong Kong and China, Suen Kuen, made arrangements with Lu Lu, the co accused of Leung, for the clearance and reception of the container once it arrived in Australia. Whether she was a knowing party to the importation of the narcotics cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, although there are a number of factors which would strongly point to that being the case.

7 Another person who was identified as having a possible involvement in the importation was Peter LI, a resident of Canada, who has business connections in that country and in China. It was this man who, according to Leung, engaged him to travel to Australia, who paid for his airline ticket, and who provided him with USD 9000 by way of expenses.

8 He was a man with whom Leung remained in regular telephone contact while he was in Australia. Moreover it was from him that Leung said that he obtained a delivery confirmation document along with the telephone numbers of Lu Lu, Suen Kuen, and the other persons with whom he dealt in this country.

9 Absent truthful disclosure by Leung of his precise role in the importation, it is similarly impossible to determine whether Peter LI was himself a knowing party to the importation. Again, there are indications from the surrounding circumstances, and from the evidence of Leung, that he was involved, but I would not be prepared, particularly without hearing from him, to make such a finding upon the limited basis of the evidence available. If he had in fact been involved, then it would seem from the evidence led in the sentencing proceedings, that he has now abandoned Leung and his family to their fate.

10 Whatever be Li's true role, it is evident that, soon after Leung's arrival in Sydney he received by fax, sent to his hotel, a copy of the Blaiklok Bill of Lading which he took to Silver State Agencies - presumably in expectation of the container arriving in Australia in mid March, on the vessel named in it.

11 In fact, the container, which had been shipped on board the Cai Yun He on 16 March 2001, arrived at Port Botany on 27 March 2001. It had been pre selected for inspection by the Customs Service. That inspection took place at Area Mike on 28/29 March 2001. X-ray examination was conducted, followed by the opening of the suspect cans, which ostensibly contained 3 Kgs of Madis brand pineapple pieces. It was discovered that within the cans contained in 16 of the cartons, there were ecstasy tablets and heroin in powder form secured in plastic containers which were themselves wrapped in foil.

12 The 16 cartons, in which the narcotics were found were distinguishable from the other cartons by the fact that the description of their contents, which was printed on the side of the boxes, was "6 xx 3 Kgs", whereas the description on the remaining boxes was "6 x 3 Kgs".

13 The total weight of ecstasy recovered was 131.58 Kgs, of 39.1% purity, equivalent to 51.47 Kgs pure ecstasy - more than 100 times the commercial quantity for that substance of 0.50 Kgs and, as such, was one of the largest consignments of this substance which has been intercepted. The total weight of the heroin was 14.99 Kgs of 71.4 % purity, equivalent to 10.7 Kgs pure heroin, - a quantity 7 times the commercial quantity of 1.5 Kgs applicable to that substance. The total estimated value of the importations was in the order of $8 M to $15 M.

14 While Customs and AFP agents completed their search and prepared a controlled delivery, Lu Lu made arrangements for the clearance of the container through Customs, engaging for that purpose Silver State Agencies. Improperly in order to assist that process, he prepared false invoices, and a packing declaration, upon which he forged the signature of the person who Suen Kuen informed him was the consignor/seller.

15 Suen Kuen in fact arrived in Sydney on 25 March 2001 and soon after met with Leung at an address in Strathfield. There she signed the confirmation document, and received from Leung the expenses which were identified in it. Having dealt with Leung, she then departed Australia on 29 March, although, before doing so, she provided Lu Lu with the original Evergreen bill of lading, and false inspection certificates of quality and of origin, which were no doubt intended to give an impression of authenticity to the shipment. She also gave him a piece of paper containing Leung's mobile phone number, and the address and number of the storage unit which Leung had rented.

16 By 30 March the AFP had completed the work required for a controlled delivery. That had involved removal of the cans and drugs contained in the 16 double x cartons, their replacement with regular cans from single x cartons, and repair of the double x cartons which had become wet and deteriorated as a result of leakage from the cans into which the narcotics had been concealed. The container was then repacked, delivered to Patricks Terminal, and cleared for delivery on 4 April. A listening device was placed into one of the cartons.

17 On 3 April, Lu Lu telephoned Leung and advised that the container would be delivered to him the next day. This was their first contact, although clearly Leung was waiting for his call.

18 On 4 April Leung attended at Millers Storage and, with the help of 2 labourers, unloaded the container into storage unit G46. Physical and electronic surveillance, via the listening device, was employed by AFP agents during this process. The electronic surveillance was enhanced, later that night, by the installation of a video camera external to the unit which was able to cover a portion of its interior.

19 As was discovered, when the unit and its contents were examined by AFP agents on 6 April, following Leung's arrest, the 16 double x cartons had all been placed on the left hand side of the unit, behind a pillar in two stacks of 8 cartons each. A single x carton was placed on top of them, and further stacks of single x cartons were placed, nine high, alongside the double x cartons, effectively concealing them from view. With the exception of 1 carton, the sides of the cartons with the double x inscription were all placed so as to face the wall.

20 On 5 April Leung was seen to return to the container and to move various boxes around. On the following morning he returned to the unit. While there he selected one double x carton and removed two cans from it, which he then opened using a can opener taken from a box which also contained a knife, masking tape, and other items.

21 After opening the cans, and obviously disappointed at not finding the narcotics which had been expected, he left the premises and made his way to Haymarket. Surveillance operatives observed him making a telephone call on the mobile phone which he wore on his hip, and then entering a public telephone booth in Harbour Street, at 10.15 am.

22 Over the succeeding 50 minutes he was observed making a number of calls from several such booths in Harbour Street, Dixon Street and Hay Street in the Haymarket area. Several of these calls were placed to the Karsing International Access number, and one call of some 4 minutes duration was placed to a mobile telephone in China which Leung admitted was that of Peter Li.

23 Leung was later arrested at the McDonalds restaurant in Haymarket. A search of his wallet and hotel room produced documents linking him to the storage unit and mobile phone, the Blaiklock Bill of Lading, and the delivery confirmation document signed by Suen Kuen. Other documents recovered included business cards upon which were noted telephone numbers for Peter Li, Suen Kuen, Lu Lu, Silver State Agencies, and various people in China.

24 Leung maintained, when interviewed by AFP agents, that he had been sent to Australia by a friend, for the sole purpose of selling on behalf of that friend, a container of cans of pineapple pieces. He professed total ignorance of the presence of narcotics in the container, but declined until he had legal advice, to name the friend. He made no mention, at that stage, of any portion of the consignment having been reserved by a purchaser in Sydney; nor did he make any mention of the person who had engaged him in Canada having an associate or friend here, who would help him to sell the cans of pineapple pieces.

25 During the trial, in which he gave evidence on oath, he declared that the friend in Canada was Peter Li. He added that Li had said that he had a friend here, Gau, whose phone number was written on one of his cards, who could help him to find a buyer, by taking him around the restaurants and markets. Li's purpose, he said, was to try out the market, it being his desire to export to Australia "foodstuff and daily necessities". Otherwise he maintained his denial of any knowledge that there were narcotics in the container.

26 He said that he had in fact planned to meet Gau in Chinatown, on the morning of 6 April, in order to be taken to see some of the restaurants and supermarkets, and to be introduced to another man who had reserved part of the consignment. He said, in this respect, that he had been instructed not to sell any of the cartons until this man had taken the part which had been reserved. He did not know, he said, how much had been reserved, but was expecting Li to tell him. Absent the existence of such a person, who remains unidentified, Leung's account faced an obvious difficulty, since if he had been uninvolved in the importation, the narcotics had to be delivered to, or taken by the intended recipient from the storage unit, to which Leung alone had the key and authority to enter.

27 Not surprisingly, the version of events given by Leung was rejected by the jury as a fabrication. It is evident from the way in which the cartons were stacked, and from the actions of Leung, on 5 and 6 April, that he expected to find drugs in the cans which he opened, and that it was because of his disappointment in finding that they contained only pineapple pieces, that he rushed off to make the various calls from the public phone booths, using Karsing cards, no doubt in the hope that those calls could not be traced back to his mobile phone.

28 It is equally obvious, given his total lack of connections in or familiarity with Sydney, quite apart from his inexperience as a salesman, that he had absolutely no qualifications for the task for which he claimed to have been selected. It beggars belief that anyone would contemplate engaging a person, such as himself, for such a commercial venture, or that it would even be contemplated without some prior inquiry as to whether there was in fact a market, or any prospect of earning a profit from it.

29 Leung's own activities, during the 4 weeks he was here, demonstrate with crystal clarity that he had no interest whatsoever in selling the consignment. He made no contact with any potential purchaser, his claimed visits to supermarkets, even if true, were perfunctory, and his enquiries, if there were any, were on his account confined to a few waiters at Chinese restaurants who were unable to help. He had acquired a Chinese commercial telephone directory, but there was no suggestion that he had ever used it to phone anyone. It goes without saying that although Leung had no onus of proving his innocence, Mr Gau was not called as a witness, nor was his existence established beyond Leung's assertion that he had met with and spoken to him. The identity of the other man, if there ever was one, remains unknown.

30 Leung contradicted himself in that, at one point, he suggested that he wanted to secure "a good result" for Peter Li, who he said had offered him the opportunity of being his representative here for future transactions, if the venture went well, yet, at another point, he said that he was merely an employee and did not need to work hard.

31 Clearly, his activities in Sydney during his 4 weeks here were directed to one objective, and one objective alone, namely the reception of the container and the deliverance of the drugs from within it, so as to pass them to the next handler in the drug distribution chain. I accordingly reject, as offensive to common sense, as did the jury, that Leung was engaged innocently in this venture.

32 The case is one where Leung has plainly lied on oath in a sustained and deliberate fashion, and with a degree of cunning. In that regard he clearly foresaw the need to have an explanation for the way in which the double x cartons were stacked, for opening two cans from one carton, and for having purchased two empty wine storage boxes, which almost certainly were acquired so as to take away the narcotics.

33 Equally clearly, he foresaw the need to provide an explanation as to how the drugs were to be removed from the container by whoever else was involved in their illicit importation, without involving his assistance. While he is not to be additionally punished for going to trial or for having lied, his stance in this regard demonstrated his cunning, his capacity for manipulation, and his total lack of contrition or remorse.

34 By reason of the responsibilities with which he was entrusted, having been given possession and control of narcotics of a value between $8M and $15M in round terms, he must be regarded as having been well placed in the hierarchy of those involved in this importation. He occupied a position well elevated from that of a minor functionary, or courier, or temporary custodian. While it cannot be established that he was a principal, on either the export or import side, and while it may also be accepted that he received instructions from persons in Canada or China, and was not involved in all of the arrangements for the transaction, he occupied, on any view, a significant role as a middleman. It was a role which was essential for moving two separate narcotic substances, each in significant quantities and of a considerable value, onto the illicit market in this country. The degree of criminality involved in relation to middlemen whose presence is essential to the continuation of the trade in narcotics is considerable, and is well recognised on the authorities: R v Camus [1999] NSWCCA 425 and R v Laurentiu and Becheru, NSWCCA 1 October 1992. 35 The one aspect of his role which remains unclear is the reward which he expected to receive. There is no basis for a finding that he was to receive a share or percentage of the profits of a successful importation. On the other hand I do not accept that his reward, for undertaking the risks of the venture, were as small as the CAD $2000 or so, which he said he expected to be paid for selling a genuine consignment of cans of pineapple pieces. As a matter of common sense some greater reward must have been involved, but I am unable to speculate as to any specific amount. What I do find, however, is that he entered into this venture with a view to monetary profit, no doubt to supplement his meagre earnings in Canada.

36 He is to be punished by reference to this assessment of his role in the importation, having regard also to the significant elements of retribution and general deterrence applicable to those who seek to profit from the trade in narcotics, which poses such a threat to the community and having regard also to the fact that the offence is one which is difficult of detection. 37 In a case such as the present I specifically find, in compliance with s 17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), that no sentence other than one requiring full time custody is appropriate, given the nature of the importation, and given the need to reflect not only a punitive and retributive element but also to convey a personal and general deterrent: R v El Kaharni (1990) 21 NSWLR 370. 38 While heroin has been consistently regarded as a hard drug, the importation of which calls for significant sentences, the importation of ecstasy as a mid range drug similarly is regarded very seriously: R v Bowers NSWCCA 20 June 1997, R v Budiman (1999) 102 A Crim R 411 and R v Effendi [2001] NSWCCA 391. In that regard the report of Professor Christie which was tendered in evidence, demonstrates that it cannot be dismissed as a good time, or party drug which poses little in the way of personal risk to users. On the contrary, as the summary to his report notes: " In most respects use of MDMA is much less hazardous and harmful than heroin and less harmful than cocaine and other stimulant drugs. The exception is the potential to produce fatal adverse reactions in a small proportion of users and growing evidence of neurotoxic destruction of serotonergic nerves. The latter consequence seems likely to occur in at least some MDMA users but the consequences of such damage for the life of the user, or ex-user, cannot be gauged at present. Use of MDMA is clearly more hazardous than cannabis. If pressed to rate these hazards and harms, I would therefore place heroin as the most dangerous and cannabis the least. Cocaine and the amphetamines are somewhat less dangerous than heroin but still very dangerous. I believe that MDMA is considerably less dangerous than heroin, less dangerous than cocaine but considerably more dangerous than cannabis." 39 Those who seek cynically to profit from the import of drugs can expect little in the way of mercy or sympathy, if after coming to Australia they happen to end up in the prison system of a country other than their own, isolated from family and friends. While I do recognise, for the reasons mentioned, that this is a matter which renders imprisonment somewhat more punitive for the offender and his family than otherwise might be the case, it is part and parcel of the risk that those, who choose to join the international trade in narcotics, must accept. That this is so has consistently been stated: R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231 at 249; R v Chebat NSWCCA 25 July 1991; R v Pereira (1991) 57 A Crim R 46 at 48; R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44 at 46; and R v Klein (2001) 121 A Crim R 90.

40 Otherwise, the relevant principles for sentencing offenders guilty of the offences which Leung has committed, are well settled. They are embodied in decisions such as Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270 at paras 19-20, R v Bimahendali [1999] NSWCCA 409, Wong & Leung v The Queen (2001) 76 ALJR 79 at paras 64, 71 and 75, R v Chen [2002] NSWCCA 174 and R v Klein (2001) 121 A Crim R 90 at 95. 41 That the offences involved are particularly serious is indicated by the circumstance that the maximum sentence available, in each instance, is imprisonment for life and/or a fine of $750,000: s 235 (2) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). 42 Relevantly for sentencing in this case is the circumstance that the quantity and value of the drugs involved were very significant. Moreover, the number of persons and the elaborate and well planned organisation obviously involved, indicates that this was a major international operation with tentacles in 3 countries, at least. 43 While it follows from the decision in The Queen v Wong and Leung that the sentencing exercise should not be confined to a consideration of the quantity and value of the drugs alone, it being necessary also to have regard to the offender's role and the other circumstances mentioned in s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914, these aspects of the case, along with the pivotal role performed by the present offender, are very important factors. 44 On any view, the importations involved very great criminality, and Leung's own criminality, as a pivotal middleman, responsible for taking possession of and securing the drugs before passing them on to the next handler in the import/distribution chain, was high.

45 Subjectively, not a great deal is known of Leung. On his account he was born on 6 April 1966, in China and graduated from High School. He migrated to Canada in 1989, and has, on his account, held down relatively menial part time or casual work mowing, gardening, cleaning, and removing garbage. 46 He claims once to have established an import business with his brother which had one unsuccessful venture in relation to an import of jellyfish, and to have done casual work assisting Peter Li in the handling and clearance of containers which the latter imported into Canada from China. 47 While on remand in custody he has used his time gainfully so far as he has undertaken some TAFE courses in clothing production, and has commenced various educational courses for which he has received certificates. 48 He is married, and has three children aged 7, 10 and 11, living in Canada. His wife gave evidence of the hardship and distress occasioned by his imprisonment, not only in terms of the loss of a breadwinner, but of the emotional support upon which the children depend. While their separation will be an obvious hardship for all of them, as I have indicated, that is a matter of limited importance in narcotics cases. The risk of separation while an offender is serving a sentence has a deterrent value, and it is something which is part and parcel of the venture of drug running. It would be unconscionable, and contrary to the proper administration of justice, if those behind the drug trade were to try to take advantage of it, so as to lessen the risks to their couriers and middlemen. 49 There is no evidence of Leung having any wealth or assets in Canada or elsewhere. The evidence in fact is to the contrary, in that his gross income for the 2001 tax year was minimal, including a nil tax liability, and in that he has current debts in the order of CAD6500. 50 By reason of the family's lack of means, his wife and children will need to return to Canada where they will largely be dependant on social security. His prison earnings in the order of $45 per month will be of no assistance. 51 It is accepted by the Crown that he has no prior convictions, and he is entitled to have that consideration taken into account. A reference from Harry Fan, a practicing lawyer in Vancouver, was tendered which attested to the fact that he had behaved there as an industrious young man who had worked hard to raise his children. It has been repeatedly said however, that good character is only of limited relevance in relation to narcotics cases, since its presence is something which syndicates can use to their advantage, in presenting an air of legitimacy to their operations, and in lulling a false sense of security at Customs barriers: Regina v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231. However, by parity of the reasoning applied in relation to sex offenders, by the High Court in Ryan v The Queen [2001] 75 ALJR 815, it cannot be entirely dismissed as a mitigating circumstance.

52 His health, while in custody, has occasioned him some difficulty. Apparently he suffers from kidney stones but has now had surgery to relieve that condition. Further treatment may be necessary in the future, and while the condition may occasion him discomfort, it is neither life threatening nor such as to render his imprisonment more arduous. To his credit he elected not to interrupt the trial for the purpose of surgery, and that can be regarded as having facilitated the course of justice to a degree, although this should not be overstated. 53 In sentencing Leung I must pay particular regard to such of the circumstances mentioned in s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), as are shown to exist. In relation to that provision I have already made reference to the nature and circumstances of the offence. No other offences are to be taken into account, and there is no evidence to show that the prisoner's criminality on this occasion was part of any continuing course of conduct. He has shown no remorse or contrition for the offence, nor did he plead guilty to the charges preffered. He has provided no cooperation to law enforcement authorities in this country or elsewhere. As I have mentioned the sentence will have a very significant impact on his family and dependants, but that has to be given only limited weight. So far as anything is known of his personal circumstances he presents otherwise as a person of good character. Nothing arises by reason of his background, age, physical or mental condition, which would explain or mitigate his responsibility for the offence. Whether he will reoffend is unknown, although it may be expected that the fact of this conviction and the sentence to be imposed will ensure that he has few, if any, prospects of future international travel.

54 Pursuant to s 16G of the Crimes Act, it is appropriate that I make an allowance in the order of 65%, for the absence of remissions, in the State of New South Wales, in accordance with the principles recognised in R v El Karhani (1990) 12 NSWLR 370 and R v Drazkiewicz NSWCCA 23 November 1993. A non parole period should be set in relation to the heroin sentence within the range of 60 - 66% mentioned in R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44, which would allow for a potential release on parole for 6 years, a period sufficient, in my view, to allow for the personal circumstances of Mr Leung, including the interests of rehabilitation.

55 Since the two offences are part of the same importation, it is proper to treat them as one continuing venture.

56 However, in order to reflect the total criminality involved, and to pay proper respect to the decision in Pearce v The Queen (1999) 194 CLR 610, I am of the view that a small accumulation of sentence is appropriate, in the circumstances of an importation which involved two separate narcotic substances, each well in excess of the applicable commercial quantity. The commencement date for the first sentence should be 6 April 2001, the date from which he has been held in custody. 57 In sentencing Leung I have had regard to the pattern of sentencing disclosed in the tables of cases, involving the importation of heroin and cocaine, and of MDMA and other middle range drugs, particularly those involving similar quantities and offenders who were middlemen with similar objective circumstances, which were provided. 58 Of particular relevance in relation to the MDMA offences are the decisions in R v Power [1999] NSWCCA 25, R v Bigic [2000] NSWCCA 9, R v Rocco [2001] NSWCCA 124, and R v Chiap Nam Tam [2001] NSWCCA 438. 59 Similarly, of particular relevance in relation to the heroin offence are the decisions in R v Salgado-Silva [2001] NSWCCA 36, R v Cordero-Vidal [2002] NSWCCA 36, R v Wong and Leung [2002] NSWCCA 169, R v Chi Wah Ho [1999] NSWCCA 67. 60 Micheael Siu Kwan Leung, in relation to the count of being knowingly concerned in the importation of MDMA in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity applicable thereto, I sentence you to imprisonment for a fixed term of 14 years, to commence from 6 April 2001 and to expire on 5 April 2015. In relation to the count of being knowingly concerned in the importation of heroin in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity applicable thereto, I sentence you to imprisonment for 18 years, to commence from 6 April 2003 and to expire on 5 April 2021. I set a non parole period of 12 years to date similarly from 6 April 2003, and to expire on 5 April 2015. 61 You need to understand that the total sentence of imprisonment for 20 years will entail a period of actual imprisonment of not less than 14 years dating from 6 April 2001, together with a period of service in the community under supervision if after that period you are released on parole. Any parole order made will be subject to conditions, and it may be amended or revoked, in particular if you fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with those conditions or commit any further offences. If revoked you risk being taken back into prison to serve the balance of the sentence, as well as any other sentence which may be imposed for any other offence which you commit. 62 Before parting from this case I wish to state that the Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police are to be strongly commended for their vigilance and professionalism in detecting this shipment of drugs, and in mounting the operation which led to Leung's conviction and the interception and destruction of the narcotics involved. Their safe delivery would have unjustly enriched those faceless cowards who were behind this evil trade, at the terrible expense of those young persons in the community who have been foolish enough to tread the path from experimentation to addiction. **********

Last Modified: 09/19/2002 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.