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.