R v Yip and Lam

Regina PARTIES: Wai Kit Yip Fung Yit Lam

COUNSEL: Mr. I. Lloyd QC (Yip) Ms. M Fanning (Lam)

SOLICITORS: Mr. McGuire and Ms. J. Petersen (Crown)

1 Wai Kit Yip pleaded guilty to a charge that on 21 January 2010, at Glendenning, he did traffic in a substance, the substance being a controlled drug, namely, methylamphetamine, the quantity trafficked being a commercial quantity contrary to the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

2 Mr Fung Yit Lam pleaded guilty to an identical charge. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

3 The facts which I have been provided with are the facts relating to both offences. They are these: Mr Yip and Mr Lam were arrested on 21 January 2010. On 11 January 2010 a shipping container load of car parts arrived at Melbourne from Hong Kong. The shipment was found to have 52 kilograms of crystal methylamphetamine, commonly known as ice, concealed within twenty-five differentials.

4 On 12 January 2010 a lease agreement for an industrial warehouse at Glendenning, New South Wales was signed by an associate of Jackie Gu, a suspected drug supplier. Some $19,000 was paid in cash for rent, bond, fees, et cetera.

5 On 12 January Gu telephoned Ho, who was in Hong Kong, to confirm that the warehouse had been organised. During this judgment I will refer to Jackie Gu as Gu, and to Man Hong Kong as Ho: Gu said "The bunch of stuff has been received." Ho said, "So tomorrow someone will see John." Gu said, "That's right." Ho said: "He seems to be leaving tonight. I heard him say by the time you have finished talking with John the full details need not be reported to me, but you will just notify me regarding the getting together at the table. I will sit with my good mate in here to wait for you."

They discussed the lease of the Glendenning property.

6 Mr Yip arrived in Australia from Hong Kong on 15 January 2010 about 2pm. He telephoned Gu and advised him that he had arrived at the Crowne Plaza Hotel at Parramatta. Yip asked Gu to meet him outside the hotel at about 3.15pm and to bring him a falsely subscribed SIM card. During this conversation Yip referred to himself as John. At about 3.15pm Gu and Yip met outside the Crowne Plaza Hotel and went to a café and had a lengthy conversation. On 16 January Yip was picked up by Gu and another man in a black Toyota. They drove to the Glendenning property where Yip left a purple suitcase. Gu gave Yip a UBD street directory.

7 Mr Lam arrived in Australia on 16 January 2010 from Hong Kong.

8 On 18 January Yip travelled in a taxi to Glendenning with two large black suitcases. They were left at the warehouse. The driver of the taxi told police the suitcases felt empty and the taxi driver was booked to drive Yip from the warehouse to Darling Harbour Holiday Inn and the same taxi driver then took Yip back to Parramatta and he arranged for the taxi driver to collect him from the Crowne Plaza the following Thursday.

9 On 19 January police commenced interception of mobile phones used by Yip. Yip contacted a man known as Kundaraci from a shipping consignee company in Victoria. He asked that man if the truck had gone already. He was advised the container only arrived that day and it would probably leave for Sydney after lunch. Yip asked if Barry had to call a truck and off-load the container into a truck, and Barry agreed.

10 On 20 January at 12.18am Yip called the Holiday Inn at Darling Harbour and was put through to Mr Lam. During that conversation Lam explained that he had lost his money at the casino. There was a conversation about how long Lam was booked into the room. Yip asked if he could stay until the 24th. Lam agreed and Yip explained he would get him some money when he saw him on the 21st. At 12.44am Yip called a male, known as Lau, who was based in China. He told Lau he was in South Africa and would be back at the end of the week if things went smoothly. At 7.30am Yip called a female for a social discussion. At the end of the call he told her he would not ring her in the next two days as it was very critical and the female told Yip to be careful. At 1.29pm Kundaraci called Yip, told Yip the truck would be there at 6am, he would need three to four people to help unload the truck. Yip told him he would only have two people. Kundaraci said "It was very hard to organise everything straightaway for you people, next time just go direct to Sydney if you want." At 1.42pm Yip received a call from a female, from a Hong Kong phone number. The female told Yip that the container had left and would arrive at Yip's location at 6am tomorrow. The female asked if Yip had an Australian number "to give to what's his name", Yip agreed. Yip complained the transport truck was expensive and he was running out of money. Yip asked the female to ask him and call Yip back.

11 At 2.15pm Yip and Lam met at a restaurant on the corner of Dixon Street and Goulburn Street, Sydney. At 8.58pm Gu called Yip. Yip told Gu that Gu would have to come over and said "There is some problem with the company and you may have to deal with it." About 10pm Gu met Yip outside the Star City Casino and later drove Yip back to the Crowne Plaza Hotel. After dropping off Yip Gu gave Liao a mobile phone and told him to go to Glendenning between 7am and 8am in the morning to see if there was anything weird happening. Gu was to call him later.

12 On Thursday 21 January 2010 at 5.30am Yip checked out of the Crowne Plaza at Parramatta, travelled to the Holiday Inn, Darling Harbour and collected Lam. About 6am a semi-trailer arrived at Glendenning. Yip and Lam travelled in a taxi to Glendenning. Yip opened unit seven and police could see Yip and Lam unloading car parts and boxes from the semi-trailer and carrying them into the warehouse. Yip and Lam commenced dismantling the car parts, being twenty-five differentials. They removed the packaged crystal methamphetamine which had been concealed inside the differentials. Yip and Lam loaded the drugs into one of the black suitcases and the purple suitcase. The police had a listening device and could hear the conversation between Lam and Yip. Yip was instructing Lam about packing the drugs into suitcases and placing them into the boot of a car. Yip said things such as "I'll do the unpacking". Lam, "Where should I get rid of the cardboard?" Yip "Loosen the nuts, put ten plus something packs in bag", this is Yip, "Zip them up properly. Twenty-five packs in total." Lam said, "I don't think it's big enough for all of them." Yip said, "Put into another one, put them in here first, put in the car boot. Close it, lock it."

13 At 7.10am Liao arrived and parked his car and commenced to act as a lookout. At 7.39am Yip called Gu. Yip told Gu they were "having yum cha now. Tell the old friend to keep a close watch. Having a drink now. I saw him and he seems asleep." Gu asked Yip to let him know when he is going to the airport. Yip said, "I'm not going out yet, but my flight number is 896. No need to tell you the prefix." It is believed the reference was to the number plate of the taxi in which Lam would be travelling. Yip said, "Tell him to keep alert, keep watching. Tell him to have a good watchout." Yip told Gu that he will hand the keys to him to give back to Gu and that he would not touch them again. Yip said, "You ring him and tell him to watch tight as we are in position now." Yip told Gu that he would get Liao to give the keys back to him. He also told Gu he needed some more money because he had to pay the trailer driver extra. He told Gu there were two luggages. He had given Lam a black coloured hat. Gu told Yip to have Lam sit in the back seat of the taxi.

14 Yip called the taxi driver and asked him for a taxi to drive Lam to his hotel. The tax arrived, the black and purple cases were loaded into the taxi by Lam under the supervision of Yip. A short time later Lam departed in the taxi. At 8.01am Yip called Gu and told him Lam was heading for the airport. At 8.05 Yip called the taxi driver. Yip asked the taxi driver to come back to the warehouse. Yip spoke to Lam and told him he left one of the bags behind, "Come back quick." The taxi turned around and returned to the warehouse. At 8.06 Yip called Gu, Yip told him he was calling Lam, because he had forgot to put a padlock on. Yip said, "Two luggages, I confirm with you total for the large one is 25 and the smaller one so make it 26. Organise your driver. He will arrive soon if traffic is clear." Gu said, "Okay I have notified him." The taxi returned. Lam removed the purple suitcase from the taxi and took it inside the warehouse. A short time later he returned to the taxi and replaced the suitcase. The taxi then left the warehouse with Lam and two suitcases on board. Yip secured the warehouse and handed the key to Liao.

15 At 8.11 Yip called Gu, told him the taxi had headed off. Gu said, "Thank you I have organised everything." And Yip told him, "All organised, the keys have been given to what's his name." At 8.13am Yip called Gu. Yip told him he would call him "when his leg was two minutes out." Gu said, "Wait until your friend has transferred the amount then give you a call." Yip said, "Yes it's important to wait until you made the transfer of the amount." Gu said, "It will be a while as for my part now is in peak traffic time." Yip said, "Be alert brother." At 8.14am Yip called the taxi driver and told him to drive straight to Darling Harbour and call him when he was two minutes away." He said, "Then I can send the one who is working for the boss to come up to his boss." At 8.17 Yip again called the taxi driver. While they were speaking the driver was stopped by police. At 8.18am Yip again called the taxi driver and asked him what happened? He said "what happened they catch me, the police catch me".

16 The taxi was stopped a short distance from Glendenning by police and searched. The search of the vehicle located the two suitcases in the boot, which contained a quantity of methylamphetamine. When arrested Lam was in possession of over $A1,700 and over $HK5,000 and a black hat. Lam was arrested and taken to police headquarters. He declined to participate in a recorded interview.

17 At 8.19am Yip called Gu, Yip said, "Has your car been following him?" Gu said, "Yes." Yip said, "It seems that my driver has been intercepted by the police for talking on the telephone. Has it been followed?" Gu said, "I have to ask. Yip said, "You'd better ask." Gu called Liao, who said he had not seen the police. At 8.22am Yip called Gu. During that conversation Yip said, "I have played it safe. I have put it deep inside the rear boot. You find out the situation for me. The driver's got to me all right clean, but the question is an off chance coincidence, you know what I mean?" At 8.30 Yip called Gu. There was discussion about another car. Yip said he was being very cautious. Yip said, "But there is 50K of stuff in the back. Would it be seen?" At 8.54 Yip called Gu. Yip said, "Appear to be in trouble both didn't answer their phones. Will the police switch off their phones?" At 8.55am Yip called Gu. Yip said, "Would they have been busted? How to find out?" Gu said, "You can turn back." Yip said, "I'm not turning back. If I can't call you on this number how can I call you to go there and meet the guy if there is no problem? Don't change your phone as yet. I can ring you from the pay phone. If I'm not using the phone don't change."

18 Yip then travelled to the Crowne Plaza in the second taxi. He discarded a black baseball cap, gloves and shoes, which he had worn at the time of unloading the truck, placing them in a bin in the foyer of the hotel. He then travelled in another taxi to the airport. He went to the toilet and discarded in a bin a dark coloured long sleeve shirt and jeans that he had worn at the time of unloading the truck. At 10.33am Yip was arrested at the airport as he was preparing to depart for Hong Kong. The flight was scheduled to leave at 11.30am.

19 When arrested Yip appeared to have changed his appearance in order to avoid detection. He had in his possession five mobile phones, three SIM cards, cash in the amount of $A1,500 and $HK2,090. Yip declined to answer questions.

20 The black and purple suitcases were examined by forensic police and found to contain approximately 51 kilograms of a controlled drug, crystal methylamphetamine. The black suitcases contained eighteen silver coloured heat-sealed bags, each containing 2 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine. The purple case contained eight silver coloured heat-sealed bags each containing 2 kilograms of crystal methylamphetamine. In the total there were twenty-six bags. Upon analysis the methylamphetamine had an average purity of seventy-seven percent. The total pure net weight of methylamphetamine was found to be 37.75 kilograms. With that high level of purity the crystal methylamphetamine has an estimated street value of close to $27,000,000 and approximately $550 per gram. I have those facts.

21 Mr Yip gave evidence. He said he was an auto dealer in Hong Kong. It was suggested that auto parts business could be done in Australia. A Mr Chan asked him to go to Australia to see if they could explore the Australian market. He said that when he arrived in Australia he did not know there were drugs in the car parts. It was not until he met Gu outside the casino that he found out about the drugs. I do not accept that evidence. In my view he deliberately tried to downplay his part.

22 The container holding the drugs arrived in Melbourne on 11 January 2010. The operation was in place. The warehouse leased on 12 January 2010. The same day there was telephone contact between Ho and Gu. There was a reference to John, who was leaving to come to Australia. John was leaving that night. On 15 January 2010 Yip arrives from Hong Kong, goes to the Crowne Plaza at Parramatta, within a short time he is telephoning Gu and asking Gu to meet him outside the hotel to bring a falsely subscribed SIM card and Yip referred to himself as John. They met and had a lengthy conversation. On 16 January Gu picks up Yip and another man and they drive to the warehouse and leave the purple suitcase.

23 Those facts clearly indicate that Yip is not an innocent who came to Australia to deal with car parts and was then brought into a drug operation as a result of fear. I have absolutely no doubt he was involved in Hong Kong. He came to Australia to assist with the delivery of the parts from Melbourne to Sydney, the unpacking and delivery of the drugs. There was no doubt he was directing Lam as to how to carry out the unpacking and what to do. Mr Yip had a source of funds, was able to give Lam money after Lam lost it at the casino and all of the evidence, in my view, points one way, that is, Yip was playing an important part in this drug importation. He played an active role.

24 I agree with the Crown's submission in relation to this matter, which was that in performing his role he did some of these things; travelled to Australia, arranged the transportation of the container from Melbourne to Sydney, met with Lam to instruct him as to what was required, provided money for Lam's expenses, liaised with Gu to ensure arrangements were in place, enlisted the assistance of the taxi driver and arranged counter-surveillance measures outside the warehouse. I should, however, say, I am not sure if this is the Crown's submission, but my understanding is that Gu played a higher part than Yip. That, of course, is not a matter I have to deal with at the moment except in my findings, insofar as Mr Yip is concerned, is that he was playing a slightly lower part than Gu.

25 I just want to cover one other matter. There was evidence that Yip had contacted a Jack Soghomonian in reference to the importation of car parts into Australia and the selling of them. Having read all that evidence I have formed the view that that was a cover. A man rings Jack, I will refer to him as, and asks if he would meet with the offenders as a favour and they are told right from the beginning that Jack does not do that sort of business, he does not deal in those sorts of car parts. There is a meeting that appears to me to be all part of the cover up. It is hard to say what Yip received financially. It does not appear to be, on the facts that I have seen, a lot of money. There is evidence of some $10,000 and then $20,000. However, he did not receive a lot of that money because he was arrested. I am, however, satisfied that Yip came to Australia with full knowledge of what his role was, that is, to be an intermediary between the importer and persons to whom the drugs were to be delivered. It was in the central role in the trafficking of the drugs. However, his part was limited, he was one of the links in the chain.

26 Mr Lam gave evidence that he also came to Australia for the purpose of unpacking car parts. He suspected that there may have been something illegal in relation to the car parts, they might have been pirated or fake parts. He was paid, I think, $5,000 before he left Hong Kong. Out of that he purchased his plane tickets. He knew that he had to unpack various items. He says he did not know they were drugs, and he says after he was told he was too scared to refuse. Interestingly enough, Yip and Lam had met in Hong Kong before coming to Australia. Lam says he had no knowledge of the drugs, yet we have intercepted telephone calls between Yip and Lam early on 20 January about losing money at the Casino, about getting him more money, about how long he is staying, and I simply cannot accept that Lam did not know why he was coming to Australia. I accept that he played this sort of part, he travelled to Australia to assist Yip in unloading the drugs, unpacking the car parts, unpacking the various drugs from the car parts, placing them in the suitcases, delivering the suitcases to Gu when he was arrested. He played a role in this importation. He played, and I do not think there is any dispute about this, a lesser role than Yip. His role was to assist in the unpacking and delivery of the drugs for which he was paid a sum of money. I also accept that the quantity of drugs was extremely large as set out in the facts and had a very high street value.

27 Mr Yip pleaded guilty. As I understand it, he was arrested on 21 January 2010. A brief was handed over on 26 May 2010. He sought the advice of senior counsel and the Crown were advised at an early time that he would plead guilty and indeed he pleaded guilty on 21 July 2010. Mr Lam pleaded guilty two months earlier. There did not seem to be a lot of difference with the utilitarian value of the pleas. They both had significant value, they were both at an early time, and I allow a discount of twenty-five per cent to each of the offenders on their sentence.

28 The next matter is assistance to the authorities. Yip offered assistance to the AFP at an early time. A letter was tendered. Mr Gu has been arrested. Mr Ho has been arrested in Hong Kong. I have seen a letter from the police which confirms the offer to assist and give evidence. He was interviewed by police after offering to assist and gave a version which he said he would be prepared to give in evidence. The police say his offer is of little assistance to the prosecution. They say that Yip's version is not full and frank and I agree, and any assistance would be extremely limited, and I agree. Lam also offered to help and the police also say the assistance he could give would be of little assistance. I am not prepared to allow any discount for the offer to assist as the offers are clearly of little assistance and in Yip's case not full and frank. However, I do accept that the offer in each case is evidence of contrition and remorse.

29 Mr Yip is thirty-two years of age. He is a resident of Hong Kong. He has no prior criminal convictions. He is in a de facto relationship. I have considered a number of documents, including a letter from his fiancée, other references indicating that he is a good man, one from Sister Cox at Parklea, and also from the Western Sydney TAFE indicating that he is trying to better his position whilst in gaol and I have seen TAFE certificates, and also a medical certificate which I believe relates to his mother. Of more importance, though, I have a report from Dr W John Taylor, psychologist, 30 October 2010. Mr Taylor says this, that Mr Yip "… appears to have been raised in a stable and close family environment. He has been in a relationship with his partner for the last three years. They intended to marry. His partner continues to support him. He has had a problem with gambling since the age of about eighteen years. The results of psychometric tests administered are consistent with the history he provided and indicates he does not have a personality disorder or an emotional disturbance. The results of tests show he has a low, moderate risk of re-offending". He formed the opinion that Mr Yip "has good prospects of rehabilitation, he will find it more difficult to serve his sentence as he does not have emotional support".

30 In addition there was a pre-sentence report which confirmed the history, confirmed those matters Mr Yip referred to, and took the matter, really, no further.

31 All of that reveals that he has got good prospects of rehabilitation. He does not have any real psychological problems. His past history was unremarkable, but there is no doubt it would be difficult for him to serve his sentence here because he does not speak English, as I understand it, and his family would not be here.

32 Mr Lam is forty-eight years of age. He also comes from Hong Kong. He has three children between the ages of thirteen and twenty-four. He is divorced, he has elderly parents. They do not know about his arrest. He suffers from a liver dysfunction and needs some treatment. He has a criminal record. It is a fairly minor record except for one entry twenty-four years ago, which is a robbery. He served a term of imprisonment. There are no previous drug offences. He has a gambling addiction, which left him vulnerable to this matter. I should say that I formed the opinion that, with their gambling problems, they were both fairly vulnerable, they having been hired to do this sort of job. He has expressed contrition. He also is faced with those same sorts of difficulties that Mr Yip is faced with in serving his sentence.

33 I have read a letter from his daughter. In fact, I think, both daughters. No doubt they are devastated by their father's behaviour and the result. Dr Adam Martin, forensic psychiatrist, reported. He said that Mr Lam: "… was well aware of the seriousness of his situation. He is facing a lengthy gaol sentence and that causes distress. He is isolated from his homeland and his family". He "did not gain the impression that he was suffering from any major mental illness. He had been drinking heavily but he is not now. There is no apparent history of illicit drug use. He has some social problems, including separation from his wife who had a major mental illness, and his gambling problem, of course, could make him vulnerable to persons who wanted him to take part in illegal activity".

34 There was also a pre-sentence report which set out his family history. I will not go into all that, I have considered it all. His gambling is of some importance. He sets out the moneys he received as a result of this. He is very ashamed of what he has done and he is reported to have partially completed a course in English. I have taken into account those matters and the other documents I have been given.

35 There were, at one stage, various submissions made about special circumstances. I believe, in the end, that is probably resolved by a recent decision of Hili v The Queen, Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45. In that, the High Court look at the setting of a non-parole period and the percentage that non-parole period should be in Commonwealth cases. As part of that discussion they clearly indicated that you could have special circumstances. However, as I understand the decision, you take those special circumstances into account when fixing the non-parole period. In other words when you are determining what percentage of the head sentence should be served in gaol and what percentage of the sentence on parole. I have taken those matters into account with both of these offenders when doing that.

36 I have taken into account that those matters set out in div 2 of pt 1B of the Crimes Act (Commonwealth)1914, and in particular s 16(1) and (2), and also the question of deterrence. I have to take into account that I must impose a sentence or make an order that is of a severity appropriate to all the circumstances of the offence. I have to take into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, I have done that. The personal circumstances, the injury, the loss or the damage, plea of guilty, cooperation, the detrimental effect that any sentence may have upon the person, the need to ensure that the person is adequately punished, character and antecedents, age, mental and physical condition, prospects of rehabilitation, and the probable effect that the sentence or order will have on the person's family or dependants, and that, of course, will be considerable. I have to take into account the criminal behaviour and I believe I have covered those various matters.

37 I have been referred to a large number of authorities on sentence. Each has a unique set of circumstances which do not necessarily apply to this sentence. However, I will briefly record references to a number of those cases which may have some relevance:

38 Maldonado v R [2009] NSWCCA 185, one part of that sentence is similar in that it related to trafficking and there was a head sentence of fifteen years. Shen v R [2009] NSWCCA 251, trafficking and supply, the drug was MDMA, 7.5 kilograms, eleven years head sentence. There were a number of other cases referred to by the Crown but they related to much smaller amounts of drugs. X and Y [2002] NSWCCA 40, importation of 24 kilograms of ecstasy and seven of cocaine. There was a plea. X was sentenced to ten years, Y to seven years. I am only referring to head sentences.

39 Reardon, Michaels and Taylor [2002], NSWCCA 203, conspiracy to import. That involved 50 kilograms of cocaine. Reardon was sentenced to seventeen years. He was a principal. Michaels to eighteen years. He had prior drug convictions and Taylor to twelve years. He had prior drug convictions. Mazzitelli [2002] NSWCCA 436, 28 kilograms of cocaine, seven million dollars, convicted. No prior offences. Nineteen years and eight months head sentence.

40 Leong [2003] NSWCCA 51, 78 kilograms of heroin. Twenty years. He had some prior convictions and had been in prison, although overseas. Shepherd [2003] NSWCCA 287, was a plea. 34 kilograms of ecstasy. Eleven and a half years. El Hani [2004] NSWCCA 162, it was a plea and assistance, 123 kilograms of ecstasy. Fifteen years. Twyler and Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247, a plea of guilty, 20-30 kilograms of cocaine. Twyler received a head sentence of seven and a half years and Chalmers twelve years.

41 Nguyen and Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238 which it was argued, whilst being similar, Nguyen's actions were a lot worse. There were 27 kilograms of cocaine and 17 kilograms of methylamphetamine. I believe a sentence of sixteen years.

42 R v Le [2007] NSWCCA 234, and that reviewed a large number of differing sentences. I have read and considered that, and looked at a number of sentences, but as I said they are all different. Everyone has a different type, many of them have multiple offences. It is very difficult to get any total guidance from them although there may be some guidance in Le and Nguyen and Pham.

43 The submissions which were made to me by counsel, very helpful submissions, included on behalf of Mr Yip that I would sentence him to a head sentence of somewhere between twelve and fourteen years with a non-parole period of seven to nine years and naturally at the low end of that scale. Of Mr Lam, that I would sentence him to a full-time term of imprisonment between seven and nine years with a non-parole period of four, I think, to seven years. The Crown, I suppose not unnaturally, thought that it carried a much heavier sentence, although I am not sure that I fully followed the Crown submission except that it would have to start at least at seventeen years.

44 First of all, as I have said, Lam plays a lesser role and should be sentenced to a lesser sentence than Yip. Yip plays a significant role as set out in my reasoning. It was a very large importation of prohibited drugs. As far as they are both concerned they were assisting to import into this country a very large amount of drugs for sale into our community. That is, drugs brought from Hong Kong for sale here and which would have allowed people to make a very substantial profit. This importation would have affected a large number of members of the community. These importations need to be stopped. It is a very serious matter and it is a matter in which the Court has to sentence each of these offenders in such a way that they understand that they cannot offend in this way but, more importantly, that others in the community and others contemplating bringing drugs into Australia understand that if they do they will be sentenced to very lengthy terms of imprisonment.

45 In considering Mr Yip's sentence I started at somewhere between seventeen and eighteen years, reduced it by twenty-five per cent for his plea of guilty, then considered it on the basis I should impose a non-parole period and did that by reaching a figure of sixty-six per cent. I should say these are not in exact figures. Obviously one cannot work out exact figures. This is the way I went about it.

46 With Mr Lam I started at about fifteen years, again reduced by twenty-five per cent, and again roughly sixty-six per cent. Although those are not totally accurate and where they are not accurate I erred in favour of the offenders.

47 Mr Yip, I convict you. I sentence you to a term of imprisonment which consists of a non-parole period of eight years and six months and a total term of thirteen years, both to date from 21 January 2010.

48 Mr Lam, I convict you. I sentence you to a term of imprisonment which consists of a non-parole period of seven years and a total term of eleven years, both to date from 21 January 2010.

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.