Director of Public Prosecutions v Kao and Ip

[2017] VCC 1169

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 17-00479
CR 17-00480

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

KAI YANG KAO
TSUN SHING IP

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 July 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 August 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Kao & Ip
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VCC 1169

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Catchwords: Dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime; Attempt to possess commercial quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drug.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K. Brekweg	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For Accused Kao	Mr P. Dunn with Ms A Kapitaniak	Doogue O’Brien George
For Accused Ip	Mr L. Gwynne	Lethbridges

P.1-33

 

 

HIS HONOUR:

1You have each pleaded guilty to two charges of dealing with money reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime (hereafter referred to as "proceeds of crime") as well as one charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug.  That later charge rolls up two transactions involving firstly, the contact lens vials and then the udon noodle packages. The drug involved was methamphetamine. The amount you attempted to possess was over 2.3 kilograms pure.  The commercial quantity is 750 grams pure. This was therefore 3.12 times the commercial quantity. As to the proceeds of crime offences, though you have each pleaded to two such offences, they pertain to differing monetary amounts as the summary makes clear.  The maximum penalty for the proceeds of crime offences is 3 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the attempt to possess offence is imprisonment for life. In each case the Code provides for substantial monetary penalties as well.

2Neither of you has any criminal history at all. 

Facts

3The circumstances of your offending are set out in a lengthy summary dated 27 July. This summary was read to the court by the prosecutor, Ms Brekweg and marked as Exhibit A on the plea. It referred off to various statements and materials within the depositions. There was also a transcript of the conversations captured by the listening device which had been placed in the udon packets at the time of that controlled delivery. 

4No issue was taken with the summary and your counsel both made that plain enough. In such circumstances, I really see no need to descend to the full details of your offending. They are set out in the opening and I will not go beyond the agreed facts.  On any view of it, your offending was very serious as your counsel each correctly conceded.

5I will discuss shortly the submissions made by each of your counsel as to your individual roles.  As you know, I have already dealt with a female 'co-accused' Chi Tsang.  She was and is your girlfriend Mr Kao.  I repeat in these reasons much of what I said to her in terms of matters of principle. However what is clear is that she was only dealt with for one offence.  That was a single charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug and in her case the charge pertained only to the udon noodles transaction and it was argued before me at the time of her plea, and I accepted the Crown concession, that she had a lesser role to play.  She had pleaded guilty at what I treated as the earliest opportunity though I will apply that same descriptor to your pleas in all of the circumstances. I will deal later with the concept of parity of sentence but the truth is her sentence says very little as to the appropriate sentence required in your cases.  Neither party spent much time dealing with this concept of "parity" at all, because of the clear disparities in conduct and charges. You two each obviously face a more serious charge of attempting to possess. It is rolled up and covers the two consignments, not just the one. This serious rolled up charge of attempting to possess to which you have each pleaded guilty also occurred within a handful of days of each of you being arrested by police committing the last of the proceeds of crime offences. You were arrested at the Southern Cross station in possession of very large quantities of cash, interviewed and then released on bail and it follows you were each on bail at the time of committing the acts covered by the attempts to possess charge. That is the context of your offending and it was not the context of Ms Tsang's offence at all. There are a host of other personal differences as well including my finding as to her level of dependence by virtue of her age and personality not to mention the operation of two Verdins type factors in her case, albeit in a modest fashion.

6The proceeds offences laid against each of you are serious offences in their own right. Each of you was arrested upon returning to Melbourne together on 30 March 2016. You had over $200,000 dollars cash Mr Kao, and you had about $150,000 Mr Ip. Additionally each of you had dealt with sizeable sums prior to that date, you over $500,000 Mr Kao and you $200,000 Mr Ip. So the proceeds of crime offending in its own right was serious enough. Of course the drug offending was far more serious. It is punishable by life imprisonment and as I say, occurred within a short time of your being arrested and spoken to by police at Southern Cross railway station and then being bailed.

7What is plain from the agreed summary is that the two of you were attempting to possess a commercial quantity of methamphetamine that had been unlawfully imported into this country secreted in contact lens vials and then in udon noodle bags. Each of those items came into the country on a different date. The contact lens vials were detected on about 7 April. There was a police substitution of the drugs in the contact lens vials and they were collected from the Box Hill Post office on 14 April by a man named Leung who gave them to you Mr Ip.

8The udon noodle package was sent by post and detected on or about 14 April 2016.  The drugs were removed and a controlled delivery was carried out on 20 April 2016.

9Now Leung who had been tasked by you Mr Kao to collect the contact lens vials and give them to Mr Ip, he has been dealt with by another judge. He was dealt with for that transaction and other offences including another far more serious offence by Judge Smith of this court, but it is worth noting that he received a 5 year term of imprisonment for the collection of the vials but in the setting of attempting to possess a marketable quantity.

10The arrest of the two of you followed on from the controlled delivery of the udon noodle packages on 20 April 2016.  The warrant which was executed disclosed the presence in the apartment of the earlier substituted delivery relating to the contact lens vials.  A listening device which had been placed in the udon noodle parcel captured the two of you and Ms Tsang discussing the delivered product. You were all arrested.  Neither of you two chose to tell the truth to the police.  That was your right.  Nor for that matter did your co-accused Ms Tsang tell the truth.  Nor by the way had either of you told the truth in the 30 March interviews as to the money that you had remitted or which was found in your possession on that day.  I make plain though, that your false accounts or non-accounts are in no way an aggravating feature.  It is simply that you cannot point to the existence of a cooperative and truthful account being provided which had it occurred might well have been mitigatory.  Each of you now, to some extent, as Ms Tsang did, endeavour to provide a version to the Court explaining your involvement and describing your role.  In the depositional materials, there is no statement from either of you as to your role, the extent of your involvement, or the reasons for being involved or anything from either of you in any way explaining your involvement in these crimes.  I would go far more deeply into your explanations but don't see the need to at this point. Your motivation was straightforward enough, Mr Ip. I was told that you were in it for the money, whatever that was to be.  As to your explanation Mr Kao, there was reference in a large array of the written materials placed me as to the claimed existence of large debts flowing from your earlier criminal conduct.  Namely, losses suffered in other proceeds of crime offences including the Southern Cross seizure for which you were held responsible by others prompting the suggested involvement of the Triads with coercion and threatening conduct.  Conduct of men turning up at your parent's home in Hong Kong.  Of cars following your brother.  There was reference to all of this in your mother and father's letters, the letters of others including your brother and Wong Lung SC and also for that matter the report of Dr Barth.  Dr Barth acted on your account to him of this being the setting.  Well your barrister abandoned these suggestions altogether.  He could not have been plainer or more explicit in stating to the Court that the references to the debts, the threats veiled and otherwise (to you and to family) and the coercion were not being relied upon at all. Mr Dunn told me that these mitigatory matters could not be established on the balance of probabilities and so were not being pursued or pressed on the plea.  Might I say it was a very sensible decision taken by your counsel.

11The product from the listening device represented a real problem to your claims.  So too of course, the need to establish mitigatory matters on the balance of probabilities.  In any event those mitigatory claims were not pressed and Mr Dunn stated that none of that material was in any way being relied upon in mitigation and that there was accordingly no claim then raised on that score as to any reduced moral culpability as had been advanced in the written outline and in that written material.  I will come back to deal with role later in these reasons but again Mr Dunn sensibly conceded your superior role, Mr Kao. That is, superior to your girlfriend Ms Tsang and superior to the man who sits alongside you in the dock, Mr Ip.

12You have both been in custody from the date of your arrest.

13The quantity of pure methamphetamine in the rolled up transactions was over 2.3 kilograms

14Another man, Mr Pan, was dealt with at Court for 'related' proceeds of crime offending and in fact made a statement against you Mr Kao. I say related but you are not strictly co-accused as his conduct relates to remittances carried out by him under your instructions, Mr Kao. His sentence merely shows how another Judge of this court (Judge Parsons) regarded the seriousness of the transactions committed by that man. His transactions were close to the value of $200,000 but of course he gave an undertaking to give evidence which was worth a lot. But for that undertaking he would have received 12 months on a guilty plea, or so the Judge said.

Matters raised in mitigation

15I turn the then to the matter raised in Mitigation, firstly for you Mr Kao.

Plea: Mr Kao

16Mr Dunn and Ms Kapitaniak in an excellent plea raised a number of matters in mitigation on your behalf Mr Kao.  They were referred to in the very lengthy written plea submissions filed on the plea and marked as part of Exhibit 1. Well as I made clear a moment ago, there were a large number of matters raised in the written submissions which were not persisted with. At one point early on in the plea in discussions with your counsel, I set out in a very broad manner the matters that I understood were actually being relied upon and Mr Dunn suggested that I had got it pretty much right. Those matters were:

•Your early guilty plea;

•The presence of some remorse;

•Your youth and lack of any criminal history;

•Your good prospects of rehabilitation as evidenced by the character material, your response to the offending, your past good character and your strong efforts in custody;

•He relied up on your increased custodial burden owing to your state of relative isolation in this country;

•He relied upon a report of Dr Barth and argued that the 5th and 6th limbs of a case you heard discussed; Verdins v Queen were attracted here, though accepted that this was not a strong claim on the state of the evidence placed before me.

17Now he also placed before me submissions in quite some detail as to your family background. He placed before me a host of written references, reports and letters including references from your mother, father and brother and from other family members and friends of the family. There was also a written apology from you. Your mother and father were both called and gave impressive evidence before me.

Plea: Mr Ip

18As to you Mr Ip, your counsel Mr Gwynne also conducted an excellent and realistic plea and relied on many of the same matters. So he too relied upon:

·Your early guilty plea,

·The presence of some remorse,

·Your relative youth and lack of any past offending,

·The increased custodial burden owing to isolation from your family and friends.

·He argued you had positive prospects in the future.

·He also made submissions as to your role and spoke of your being recruited by Mr Kao.

19Now each counsel conceded that this was very serious offending carrying with it the inevitability of a sizeable prison term. Indeed the word grave was employed by Mr Dunn in the written submissions. Though deportation was inevitable here, neither counsel relied upon that fact in any mitigatory way at all. Neither of you had any expectation of permanently settling in this country and you are both very keen to start the next chapter of your lives back in your homeland upon your ultimate release from prison, whenever that occurs. You look forward to that day and look forward to deportation home.

20Both of your counsel made some submissions as to the tables of cases I was taken to by the prosecutor.

Prosecution submissions

21The prosecutor Ms Breckweg made a number of submissions as to the gravity of the offending and I didn't take any party to have taken issue with the submissions. She took me to various matters of principal derived from the established case law in this area. Cases dealing with proceeds of crime offending and drug offending. General deterrence she argued was obviously a major consideration. Well there is no argument about that from any of the counsel acting for you. She dealt with the issue of role and your superior position Mr Kao. Ms Breckweg argued that you were obviously a trusted member of this syndicate with a senior role in Australia and the ability to give directions to others and with knowledge of the names of others in the hierarchy. Well your counsel readily conceded your superior role. The prosecutor placed before me 2 tables of so called comparable cases marked as exhibit B on the plea. In any event I see no need to restate her various submissions in full. As I say, they were uncontroversial.

Background

22I have to this point not described either of your personal backgrounds.  Nor do I intend to in any great detail.  These reasons will be quite long enough already I can assure you, and I am prepared to accept the family and personal backgrounds that have been placed before me by each of your counsel in the written and oral submissions.  There is also much reference to your background Mr Kao in the report of Dr Barth and in the various references and letters and reports placed before me in each case.  Also in your parent's evidence, Mr Kao, and in the long chronology I was taken to by Mr Dunn.

KAO: BACKGROUND

23Very briefly though, you were 22 years of age at the time of the offending and 23 now.  You were born in Hong Kong on 8 February 1994. You are the oldest son.  Your parents are both very high achieving individuals. They are both highly educated and they have seen the obvious advantage of education and understandably saw the need for you to follow suit. You had trouble fitting in at a variety of schools and developed some mental health issues as a very young teenager. You were only 13 or so. You received treatment and were medicated at one point. They cast around for some alternative schooling and at one point you dropped out and did some work as a production assistant. Your parents convinced you of the need to return to school. They had explored options in a number of countries before ultimately sending you to Ivanhoe Grammar. It was not a success and such was their determination to see you educated that your mother actually resigned from her job and came out and lived in Australia whilst you did year 11 and 12 at Taylors College. She moved back to Hong Kong in your final year and you went on to Swinburne University where you seemingly failed two years. You were living in an apartment bought by your parents and were provided with a relatively modest monthly allowance. You gravitated to some undesirable criminal milieu. The rest really is history. Mr Dunn conceded that you were the "warehouse manager" in charge of the Melbourne warehouse crew at the Australian end of the criminal syndicate. You were responsible for receiving the drugs and had the power to delegate and to recruit and direct others. You had recruited others for the money remittance practice I was told, and had recruited Leung to collect the contact lens vials parcel and instructed Ip to collect the parcel from Leung. You had made your address available for the receipt of the noodle consignment.

24I was very impressed by the evidence of your parents. I was also impressed by the very positive efforts you have made in custody. You are a trusted worker and also are one of 4 prisoners at the MRC involved in the school's program. Anyway I am sure I have barely scratched the surface of the materials placed before me but I see no need to repeat  all of that material in my reasons. I have read all of the materials placed before me on the plea on a number of occasions since the plea was conducted and have reminded myself of the evidence called and the submissions that were made before me. I act on all of that material including your developing interest in Christianity and the potential assistance provided by Rev Pullinger upon your ultimate release. I think there probably is something in Wong Lung's reference where he speaks of the paradox of being a victim of the family's excellence. You didn't measure up to their high standards and would have been keenly aware of that fact with such high achieving parents and a high achieving  younger brother. Your life had stalled to some extent. Having heard evidence from your parents, I am confident that they will do whatever they can to assist and support you upon your ultimate return home. That would include housing you and obtaining employment for you. Though you have been doing very well in prison, it is still not easy for you. It would have been a very new experience for you going there for the first time and though happily your parents have the funds to visit you quite regularly, it is not as regular as would be the position if they lived locally.

IP: BACKGROUND

25As to your background Mr Ip, and again I will only go to it briefly, you are now 26, born 27 October 1990. You were 25 at the time of the offending. You were also born in Hong Kong but of a far less prosperous family than Mr Kao's. You have one younger brother.  Though the family was less prosperous you enjoyed a positive upbringing. You did not pass year 10 and were in the workforce from the age of 15 in a variety of capacities including as a waiter, a sales assistant and even as a labourer. You are in good health. You had met Mr Kao when you were about 17 and you were good friends overseas. You came to Australia in February 2016 and within a relatively short space of time were committing serious criminal offences being the proceeds of crime offences.  I cannot and do not find against you that you have come to this country intending to offend. I am not satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt.  You have done courses whilst in prison. There are references from your parents, an aunt as well as a reference from Mr Kao's mother who happily has taken something of an interest in you given your state of isolation. Your parents have not been able to afford the trip out to this country. So in that sense you are certainly more isolated than Mr Kao. You also have written an apology.

26I turn now in each case to the various matters raised on your behalf. Firstly the issue of your guilty pleas.

Guilty Plea

27You have both pleaded guilty and you have done that at an early stage. I initially had some doubts as to whether your pleas should be judged to be as early as Ms Tsang's. She had decided to plead some months out from the contested committal listed in March 2017, I think in October 2016, I believe it was and I was prepared to treat her plea as made at the earliest opportunity. You two settled on the day of the committal though there had been some settlement discussions in the lead up. After hearing from Mr Gwynne and the prosecutor about the details of some late served materials in the lead up to the committal, I was not discouraged by the Crown to treat the plea from each of you  as one given at the earliest stage and that is how I will treat each of your guilty pleas. In each case, I take your earliest guilty plea into account in your favour.  It is a matter of significance.  The community has been spared the time, cost and effort of what would have been a relatively lengthy trial in this court as well as a committal hearing conducted in the Magistrates' Court. There is a utilitarian benefit for pleading guilty.  Witnesses have been spared the experience of giving evidence. You have each accepted responsibility for your offending and have each facilitated the course of justice by pleading guilty and at a point I will treat as the earliest stage. Each of you are consenting also to the forfeiture order applied for.  In each case, the sentence I will impose is far less than would have been imposed if you had been found guilty by a jury. 

Remorse

28Each of your counsel suggest you are remorseful. You have each pleaded guilty which is often enough but not always evidence of some remorse. However I don't need to make this assessment as to remorse purely on the basis of your guilty plea. In each case there is a range of other materials touching upon the likely presence of remorse here including written references, reports and your own apologies. You have both been in prison for well over a year and have been able to consider the gravity of your offending.  Now remorse is not to be confused with self-pity or even feelings of shame for letting down one's family. You have those emotions each of you, I am sure enough of that. Why wouldn't you? However I am also of the view that you are to a degree remorseful or contrite for your crimes and I take that into account in each case.

Increased burden

29You are each foreign nationals and you are housed in prison in this country. You are geographically isolated from your friends and relatives, and they are the people who would normally make up a prisoner's regular visitors.  Those sort of visits I am sure serve to sustain prisoners and you do not have the advantage of them. I am prepared to give some weight to your increased custodial burden, much more than would have been the case had I been satisfied that either of you had actually entered the country actually intending to commit crimes.  As I said to your co-accused Ms Tsang I say now to you though: I cannot give great weight to your increased burden.  It was an inescapable fact that if you were caught committing these serious crimes, you would end up serving a lengthy term of imprisonment in this country far removed from your loved ones and friends. That is what has happened. Still there will be this increased burden and I cannot just ignore it. I take it into account in each case in mitigation of sentence.

Dr Barth's report

30I take into account in your case Mr Kao the report of the Dr Barth though not the aspects dealing with coercion and threats. I see no need to set out his various findings. He makes a number of diagnosis and none actually explain your offending or contributed causally to it. Mr Dunn made some submissions as to the application of the fifth and sixth limbs of Verdins being attracted in your case.  The Crown took issue with that submission and when pressed it is fair to say Mr Dunn was not too persistent or forceful in the submission. He recognised the sparse nature of the evidence. He said he was 'sliding' towards the 5th and 6th limbs. Well, approaching a mitigatory point is not the same as establishing it. At the same time as he was arguing in support of an increased burden owing to the claimed Verdins features, he was placing before me submissions and materials dealing with the very positive way you are actually engaged in custody. I don't think there is much at all in the Verdins point. There is no material suggesting the likelihood of serious deterioration so the 6th limb is simply not engaged and as to the 5th, there is a real paucity of material suggesting any increased burden owing to the mental health conditions spoken of. Your current anxiety is mostly reactive to the understandable stress of awaiting your fate. I have already found an increased custodial burden owing to your isolation Mr Kao. I do not think the mental health issue takes it much if at all further. However I am prepared to give some very modest weight to an increased prison burden flowing from the conditions referred to in Barth's report. The fifth limb is enlivened but only barely. The 6th limb is not. 

31I turn then to the issue of youth.

Youth

32Mr Kao, your Counsel relied upon your youth and referred me to a number of matters of principle from cases that I am well familiar with.  Mr Ip, though you are older, your counsel relied upon those same principles adapted to one of your "relative youth" and questioned whether you were any more mature despite your greater age. You were after all associating with people younger than you and it is accepted by all concerned that your role was below that of Mr Kao, who was younger. These issues of youth also arose in the case of Ms Tsang and much of what I am saying now, I said when dealing with her.

33Youth is almost always a matter of sentencing significance and leads to a greater focus being placed on rehabilitation. The community, whether they know it or not, has a strong interest in the rehabilitation of any offender whatever their age but young people especially. Why is that? Well, young people can more readily be reclaimed. Young people are more prone to act without regard to consequences. They can lack the degree of self-control, judgment and insight possessed by more mature adults. They are therefore often less culpable. Now neither of you were teenagers. Neither of you could have had any doubt in your minds as to the seriousness of the crimes you were committing though I doubt you really thought through the consequences.  You were still quite young Mr Kao but you were the head of the Australian end of the syndicate which cannot be forgotten, your counsel concedes as much. You, Mr Ip, strike me as an unworldly 25 year old at the time. You were each in a country removed from the family and friends who might positively influence you.

34I did not believe that Ms Tsang thought through the consequences of acting in the way she did. You two probably did not really think through the consequences either, one potential consequence being apprehension and being charged and dealt with for an offence punishable by life imprisonment in a country far removed from your friends and families. 

35Our experience as judges shows that young people, especially young or youthful first offenders are also more amenable to change. We as judges also understand that adult prison is more likely to impair rather than improve rehabilitative prospects.  There is a strong and understandable interest then in the reclamation of young offenders, especially young or youthful first offenders which you are. Even young or youthful offenders whose prospects for rehabilitation undoubtedly will lie in another country. I pay regard to these principles dealing with the sentencing of youthful offenders referred to in cases such as Mills and Azzopardi and restated and elaborated on in the more recent case of Boulton. See also Pitone v The Queen [2017] VSCA 3.

36The benchmark for conduct deserving of sending a youthful first offender to prison is a high one indeed but of course each counsel concede that is the only option here.  Even where reached, matters of youth still have a role in shaping a reduction of the weight to be placed on general and specific deterrence.

37The principles dealing with the importance of youth are not automatically applied in the same way in every case where there is a youthful offender.  There is always a need to consider youth but the extent to which it reduces the weight given to other purposes of sentencing will depend on the nature of the crime and the age and history of the offender.  Sometimes it must surrender some, if not significant ground to other purposes of sentencing. 

38As the level of seriousness of criminality increases there will be a corresponding reduction in the mitigating effects of the offender's youth.  See Azzopardi, see Pitone.  The attempt to possess charge is very serious indeed. Your youth, though still an important consideration here, is not the only factor I need to consider. There is a need to punish, to denounce and to deter each of you as well as others.  General deterrence is of real importance in this sort of case.  It is simple enough; The more weight that must be given to punishment, deterrence and community protection, the less weight can be afforded to youth, though I never lose sight of it here.

39I turn then to your prospects of rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation

40What then are your rehabilitative prospects? Counsel adopted the same adjective and described them as good. You were at the time young men with no prior criminal record living in a foreign county. No doubt you both succumbed to the lure or temptation of easy money. You Mr Kao had something of a sense of not living up to the expectations of your family. Your life had stalled at least educationally. Neither of you have the very sizeable impediments that so often stand in the way of rehabilitation, for instance long standing drug addictions or serious and intractable mental health concerns. You each come from obviously very decent and concerned families. You have both pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and I judge that each of you are actually remorseful to a degree.  You are not proud of what you have done.  You both feel that you have brought shame upon your families and that is the truth. You have.  I am pretty confident you both have a greater insight now as to the gravity of your offending.  You are both doing very well in prison. You both look forward to the next phase of your life post sentence, that is to returning home to your families and trying to restart your lives. Each of you have families that seek to guide you upon your return. I see no need to descend chapter and verse into the voluminous written materials or the oral evidence or submissions placed before me. I have no doubt that the process of being arrested, charged and then imprisoned for as long as you have been to date will have a real role in deterring you from any re-offending. So too obviously the many years in prison that lie ahead for you. I believe you each present a relatively low risk of committing an offence such as this again.  I am prepared to accept your counsel's submission that you do have good or favourable prospects of rehabilitation in the future.

Principles of sentence

41I have been referred by each counsel to various matters of principle to take into account in coming to my ultimate conclusion as to sentence. Some cases dealing with principles pertaining to proceeds of crime offences were mentioned. Moon Ja Kim v R 2016 VSCA 238 and R v Jiao 2015 NSWCCA. There was at least some reference to some cases which spell out the principles pertinent to the attempt to possess charge.

42As to the proceeds of crime matters, it is obvious that general deterrence is an important consideration. So too the monetary amount, the period of the activity and the number of transactions. The actual role and context is also obviously important. Well here the amount for charge 1 for you Mr Kao was over $500,000 with a number of dealings rolled up into that single charge. I take care not to doubly count the amounts described in the summary. For you on charge 4 Mr Ip, it was $200,000. That related to travel to Perth specifically to engage in the conduct. Then there are the Southern Cross station offences. Well that is where you were each caught, you with over $206,000 cash Mr Kao and you with a touch over $150,000 cash Mr Ip. Again there is a clear aspect of deliberation here. This was not spontaneous offending at all. This involved the flight together up to Sydney and then the return on the same day by train. It was distinct offending from the earlier offending and related to sizeable quantities. You Mr Kao had recruited Mr Ip, as you had recruited others. This was highly professional, organised and highly premeditated criminal activity.

43The principles to be applied in relation to the drug matter are well known and are set out in many of the cases including Nguyen v The Queen [2011] VSCA 32. You are not to be sentenced for importing the drugs into this country though it is obvious enough that you Mr Kao had connections to the persons importing and knowledge of the existence of drugs being imported. It is after all said that you were the warehouse manager for the syndicate at the Victorian end. That is the man in charge at this end of what was an international syndicate. I am dealing with each of you for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug. The drugs had been substituted but that does not reduce your moral culpability at all. The offence is punishable by the same maximum penalty as importation. Life imprisonment. Many of the principles which apply to importation apply to the offence of attempting to possess for obvious reasons.

44What is made plain in the cases is that attempting to possess a drug is not in a less serious category than importing the drug.  See Nguyen point 13. 

45You were at the Victorian end of the syndicate Mr Kao. High up at that end. You recruited Mr Ip. You had also recruited Mr Leung. You must have provided the address and name of the consignee and then arranged for him, that is Leung to collect the first shipment. He did. You organised Mr Ip to collect that shipment (the contact lens vials) from Leung and to bring it back to your premises where it was stored. It was still in your possession many days later. The second shipment was to come to your building but was not consigned to you. Again it was addressed to Leung and there was a mis-description of the address. You engaged with the person delivering the parcel on the 20th and pretended to contact 'Timmy'. You Mr Ip played the role of Timmy Leung at least initially and the parcel was received. The parcel was taken upstairs. Now Ms Tsang's counsel told me on her plea that it was the intention of your group to sell the drugs. He (Mr Kassimatis SC) argued on her plea that there existed a debt owed to 'some serious criminal types' and that this venture was engaged in with a view to your group on-selling the drug and clearing that debt. That she was concerned and had fear for your safety, Mr Kao. I could not find in her case on the balance of probabilities that a debt actually existed or that she held that fear. Now in this case, you Mr Ip don't seek to raise the existence of any debt or any fear. You were acting to obtain some financial reward as you had been in the proceeds of crime offending. Though there had been reference to the debt and coercion in the written submissions and some of the references filed on your behalf Mr Kao, that was abandoned by Mr Dunn.

46I can easily enough conclude that in each case your involvement was driven by the expectation of financial gain. In each case, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it motivated this crime as it almost always does in this field. There is nothing in either of your personal circumstances which in any way lessens your criminal culpability other than of course your relative youthfulness which I have already referred to and taken into account. 

47It is impossible for me to know precisely what your expected financial reward was to be. However it must have been sizeable enough to prompt each of you to be involved in a crime as serious as this. These were valuable drugs as the additional valuation statement attests and whatever role you had in any hierarchy, you were each trusted with highly valuable drugs and large amounts of cash. It is also impossible for me to determine what the end destination was for these drugs. You were both (as was Ms Tsang) engaging with the udon noddle delivery in a manner that makes clear enough that you were not just storing the drugs. It is not what you were doing. You had opened the package, had removed some noodles and were talking of their on-sale and the means of extracting the drug. There was even some talk of denying to others that you had even received the drugs. Some noodles had been placed into a saucepan, and this was not to eat. As is probably almost always the position, there is so much that I do not know about the nature of the syndicate or your planned future activities. But even on your own counsel's description Mr Kao, you were a highly placed and critical part of an organised international criminal syndicate. One with knowledge of the players above you in the hierarchy.  You had significant control and autonomy as evidenced by your ability to recruit and engage others, and, at the very least, to store extremely valuable drugs and handle vast sums of money. You engaged others who distanced you or so you thought, from the potential direct consequences of detection of the drugs. You obviously had an understanding as to the quantity of the drugs arriving in the udon noodles. So Leung was the consignee on each occasion. Mr Ip was to play that role on the 20th.

48As to your role Mr Ip, the fact is it was deemed to be essential or it would not have occurred. You collected the vials from Leung and brought them to your boss and friend Mr Kao. There must have been some sense of the need for that arrangement. You were therefore physically concerned with the collection and transport of a package you were aware contained drugs. That was the first consignment. Then you, unlike Ms Tsang, played an actual physical role in receiving the parcel on the 20th April. You were at that point, the two of you, joint possessors with Ms Tsang and very much speaking as such on the listening device as the package was unpacked.  In each instance, you Mr Ip were aware that the parcel contained drugs though I cannot find to the required degree that you knew the actual quantity. Your role, though it might seem minor,  was obviously essential or you would not have been assigned the role and performed it. You were a cog, an essential cog, in a much larger machine being this criminal network. You were an active part of that network

49A courier bringing drugs into the country is often enough described in Court as a 'mere' courier. They should not be. Their role is critical to the success of the venture. They are often paid ridiculously small amounts of money to carry drugs into this country and they take on often massive risks in leaving their own country and large enough risks in entering this country.  They are very often driven by desperation. You were not physical couriers. You are not charged with the importation. There is no suggestion as to any desperation in your circumstances Mr Ip and those suggestions of coercion and the like were abandoned in your case Mr Kao.  General deterrence is clearly a very important sentencing consideration in this case.

50The amount of drug is always an important matter to consider.  Here it was more than 3 times the commercial quantity. 3.12 to be precise.

51Though there was something in the written submissions of Mr Dunn implying that less weight can be given to general deterrence as it is already widely understood that people committing this offence receive significant sentences, that argument does not pass muster. General deterrence is a powerful sentencing factor in this sort of case and that is the position despite your youth.  Young people often enough are involved in this type of offending as this very instance demonstrates. Everyone connected to the exercise was young. 

52As I said to Ms Tsang I say now to each of you: This court must send a loud and clear message to any other like-minded person engaged in, or thinking of being engaged in this sort of highly illegal activity.  People often succumb to the temptation of so called easy money. Once in prison it no longer looks too easy. They are prepared to take the risk and do so for reward. Whether young or old or somewhere in between.  Whether for profit or gain, or to clear a debt or out of loyalty or desperation or for any other of the countless reasons that may exist to commit this style of crime, the message sent from these Courts to potential likeminded offenders must be plain and unequivocal. Do not succumb to the temptation. Do not take the risk.  Think long and hard before becoming involved in attempting to possess commercial quantities of drugs brought unlawfully into this country, for if apprehended, the consequences will be dire indeed and may well deprive you of substantial portions of your life. 

53This community is sick and tired of the scourge of drugs. They have scarred our community. They bring untold misery to very many members of our society who fall into their hold. The sentences imposed by the Courts must signal to others who might be tempted to commit this type of offence that the potential financial rewards or gains from such an activity are neutralised by the risk of severe punishment.

Parity of sentence

54There was some very brief reference to the sentences passed upon others. I mentioned this earlier in these reasons. Those others were Ms Tsang, Mr Leung and Mr Pan. None are strictly co-offenders in the sense of having been sentenced for the precise same crimes that you have committed. Ms Tsang received 6 years for her limited role in the udon noodle transaction but was in no way connected with the earlier transaction. Mr Leung was dealt with by Judge Smith in relation to his role in the contact lens vials but was dealt with for attempting to possess a marketable quantity which has a lesser penalty. He received 5 years for that crime, though had far more serious matters dealt with at the same time. He had been recruited by you Mr Kao and said he was paid $2000.

55Mr Pan was also recruited by you Mr Kao and committed offences related to money laundering that were similar to those committed by each of you but they were actually individual offences committed by him.

56There is a concept referred to by us lawyers as parity of sentence.  You have heard it discussed very briefly. The brevity of that discussion was driven by the various points of distinction here. In the broadest sense, and this is very much a gross simplification, parity speaks of the notion that like offenders will be dealt with in a like manner.  

57Ordinarily, if there are no points of distinction between the actual offenders or their role or their background, then identical or, at least, very similar dispositions should be imposed.  I repeat this is a gross simplification of the principle.  It is a principle which makes perfectly good sense and which strives to avoid any justifiable sense of grievance as between like offenders. 

58It is no part of my job to try to prevent a person holding any unjustified grievance.  I cannot stop someone from having unjustified feelings.  All I can do is try to explain disparities of sentence.  I have said more than once in the past that the principle of parity is very easy to state in the hypothetical, but is often a much more difficult principle to grapple with in the real world.  That is because, of course, there is almost never such a thing as a like offender or like backgrounds.  There are far more commonly differences in the individual features of offenders or in their role or as often both. 

59Well there are differences all over the place here in the roles played.  I have already referred to them in my reasons. There are differences in personal circumstances obviously enough. You are older Mr Ip. You are the Victorian head Mr Kao. Ms Tsang had some mental health issues that I took into account, more than in your case Mr Kao. There is also the critical differences in the actual conduct covered by the charges dealt with against others. Ms Tsang was sentenced purely for the udon noodle transaction. She was not on bail as each of you were. She did not face the earlier contact lens transaction. Mr Leung did but it was laid on a marketable quantity basis and without reference to any involvement by him in the later udon noodle transaction.

60There are very many differences here and that much is conceded by both counsel who did not waste much time at all dealing with this concept of parity. It is obvious that each of you must do a good deal worse than Ms Tsang. It is also conceded by your counsel Mr Kao that your role was the most serious.  Well I make plain that I do not ignore any of the other sentences passed upon others but there are obvious limits to the way they inform my task.

61That is because though there is some factual connection, there are the many disparities and they are not even like offenders.

62Consistency of sentencing is always an important consideration.  I was taken to two charts of so called comparable cases. Also to some SacStat statistics. Each party addressed me as to certain aspects of the cases and the statistics were discussed by Mr Dunn and the prosecutor. I was taken to the differences, to the similarities, to how they might be distinguished. It was late in the day and I expressed some level of frustration at this phase of the plea, a phase that most regrettably has become the norm in this State. This constant trawling though other cases, cases that are never identical, relating to offences that are never identical, committed by offenders whose personal circumstances are never identical.  In circumstances where the dispositions imposed by other courts are just that, not the only appropriate sentence but the one selected in that other case by another Court when another disposition may as easily have been selected. In circumstances where often enough as here, the other cases said to be comparable also have a variety of differing sentences. It is an unfortunate development in the ways pleas are now conducted but understandably counsel take their lead from what happens above me in the Court hierarchy. I have looked at those cases in the charts. I have looked at other cases involving sentencing for this type of offence.  I have looked also at sentences imposed for the lesser offence of attempting to possess a marketable quantity and tables dealing with that offence as set out in the case of Lau v R [2011] VSCA 324 and Pham [2016] VSCA 259

63The case of Thomas has a very sizeable coverage of sentences for commercial quantity offending as well as a survey of sentences for offences concerned with importing or attempting to possess a marketable quantity, the lesser offence.

64Having gone on this almost mandatory and certainly unwelcome excursion through these other cases, it has disclosed that which I believed to be the likely position prior to that unwelcome excursion. It would not be of much assistance to me. It wasn't and it rarely is.

65I have to pass an appropriate sentence in your case.  None of these other sentences passed in other cases dictate the outcome in your case. They are not in any way precedents to be followed unless distinguished.

66Your offending was very serious.  Your offending was the most serious Mr Kao because of your role. That was conceded. Mr Ip, you slot in below Mr Kao but above Ms Tsang given your physical role in relation to the udon noodles and the vials. You were recruited by Mr Kao for each of the offences before me. In each case your youth or relative youth is of significance to my task.  I believe that in each case it is reasonable for me give less weight to specific deterrence and community protection given my positive findings as to your future prospects.  They are still clearly relevant factors. General deterrence is a very sizeable factor as is conceded by both counsel. 

Sentence

67I have taken into account in each case all of the submissions made on your behalf and all of the exhibits tendered before me. 

68Now in dealing with various matters in mitigation, I have used terminology more often employed in a State sentencing exercise under the Sentencing Act. I am doing that as it is simply the terminology I am used to using. I have actually taken into account the various relevant matters listed in s16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914. It is clear and conceded by each of your counsel that I have no option at all but to imprison you. The question to resolve is the length of the individual sentences, the relationship between the sentences and extent of cumulation, the total effective sentence and the duration of the non-parole period.

Totality

69I must and do pay regard to the principle of totality of sentence and this leads to significant concurrency being engaged here. There must be some cumulation as the offending is very different and even the proceeds of crime charges have to be individually recognised. They are serious offences, each of them. I have taken a last look at the overall sentences to ensure that it is commensurate with your overall criminality and not crushing upon you. I can only achieve cumulation in the Federal sphere by staggering the commencement of sentences, so I apologise in advance for the difficulty you are going to have in understanding the sentence I am about to pronounce

70I better hand down to the bar table a form of my reasons.

Mr Kao

71Alright Mr Kao, I will deal with you firstly.  Would you stand up please?

72Now these are the orders that I propose.  I will go through them and then I will ask the parties if they produce my desired or intended effect and then I will formally pronounce them.

73It is my intention that on charge 1 the larger of the proceeds of crime offences, I convict and sentence you to 2 years imprisonment

74On charge 2 the smaller proceeds of crime offence, I convict and sentence you to 14 months imprisonment

75On charge 3, the charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, I convict and sentence you to 9 years 8 months imprisonment.

Cumulation by way of commencement date

76The sentence imposed on charge 3 commences today. (9  years 8 months) The sentence on charge 1 commences 12 months before the expiry of the sentence on charge 3. (adds 12 months) The sentence on charge 2 commences 10 months before the expiry of the sentence imposed on charge 1 (adds 4 months). This by my calculation at least with these commencement dates results in a TES of 11 years imprisonment.

77Ms Breckweg you are familiar with these sort of matters, does the maths add up in terms of that commencement?

78MS BRECKWEG:  I am doing that now Your Honour.

79HIS HONOUR:  Yes, okay.  I thought it was just me who had trouble with these things.

80MS BRECKWEG:  No no Your Honour, sorry.  Yes that is right Your Honour.

81HIS HONOUR:  I have to fix the commencement date, that is the only way I can achieve accumulation.  It is whether I have commence – I do not want to select particular dates at all - - -

82MS BRECKWEG:  Yes.

83HIS HONOUR:   - - - for obvious reasons, so I have chosen to express them the way that I have in terms of, prior to the expiry of.  I could as easily do it after the commencement of but I have to – but those figures as far as you are concerned produce my intended effect?

84MS BRECKWEG:  Yes Your Honour.

85HIS HONOUR:  And they comply with the provisions?

86MS BRECKWEG:  They absolutely do Your Honour.  Yes.

87HIS HONOUR:  So it results in a total effective sentence of 11 years imprisonment.

88MS BRECKWEG:  Yes Your Honour.

89HIS HONOUR:  Well in those circumstances, those are the orders that I foreshadowed, those are the orders that I make then in terms of those three offences and in terms of the accumulation.

90So it is a total effective sentence of 11 years imprisonment.

Parole order

91I direct that you serve a non-parole period of 6 years and 10 months  imprisonment.

92I am required to explain to you the effect and the purpose of that parole order, even though the reality in this case is you will likely never be released into the community on parole. 

93The purpose of such an order is to permit your possible release from prison, subject to certain conditions, at the expiry of the non-parole period.  It follows that you will serve a sentence of 6 years and 10 months in prison.  A parole order may then be made but that of course, is entirely in the hands of the Commonwealth Attorney-General.

94If and when such an order is made, it envisages a period of service in the community called the 'parole period' to complete the service of that sentence.  This is likely to be illusory in your case as you are bound to be deported but I cannot have regard to that fact in fixing the non-parole period.  Nor can I decline to fix one for that reason.  I have to proceed on the footing that you will serve every day of the 11 year term I have announced.

95If a parole order is made, it will be subject to conditions which you would need to comply with obviously.  The order can be amended or revoked.  I cannot know in 2017 what those conditions would be.  They would be informed by your needs some years from now.  The consequences if you failed without excuse to fulfil these conditions on parole, would be your being ordered to serve the balance of the sentence up to 11 years.

Section 17A

96I am obliged to state the reasons for proceeding to impose a term of imprisonment.  It is sufficient for me to refer to the various matters of gravity that I have referred to in these reasons to this point.  For the purposes of the records of the court, I state that no other sentence was appropriate, given the nature and gravity of your crimes as was directly and correctly conceded by your counsel. 

Pre-sentence detention

97I make a declaration pursuant to s.16E of the Crimes Act 1914, as to the time that you have already served in custody. The total pre-sentence detention is 484 days. I declare that this period of 484 days is to be noted in the records of the court. What that means is that you have already served that portion of the sentence.

6AAA

98I have reduced your sentence because you have pleaded guilty and at the earliest stage.  I am required to state the measure of reduction.  But for your guilty plea, I would have sentenced you to be imprisoned for a period of 15 years.  I would have fixed a non-parole period of 11 years.  That s.6AAA statement is to be noted in the records of the court.

99Just have a seat then Mr Kao.

Sentence Mr Ip

100Mr Ip if you would stand up now please.  Likewise I apologise in advance for the complicated in which way one has to pass sentence in this sort of case.  I will tell you of the orders that I propose, I will see if they produce my intended effect, and if they do I will formalise those orders.

101On charge 4 Mr Ip, the larger of the proceeds of crime offences, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment.

102On charge 5 the lesser of the proceeds of crime offences, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment

103On charge 6 that is the attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a unlawfully imported border controlled drug, you are convicted and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.

Cumulation by way of Commencement date

104I direct that the sentence imposed on charge 6 commences this day. (8 years) The sentence imposed on charge 4 will commence 6 months before the expiry of the sentence imposed on charge 6 (add 8 months). The sentence imposed on charge 5 will commence 8 months before the expiry of the sentence imposed on charge 4. (add 4 months).  Again my apologies for having to put it that way, it is the only way I can effect cumulation.

105What this results in, or my intended outcome is a TES of 9 years imprisonment.

106I will just make an enquiry with the prosecutor to see how my maths is travelling in relation to that.

107MS BRECKWEG:  Your Honour in terms of this sentence, I am getting 9 years and 2 months.

108HIS HONOUR:  All right then, what am I doing wrong?  I would say the 8 years starts today, charge 4, is a 14 month sentence and it starts 6 months before the expiry.  So doesn't that run 8 months beyond?

109MS BRECKWEG:  Yes it does Your Honour. Yes it does.  I had the 8 years – so its starts 18 August and goes to 18 August 2025.  Charge 4 starts 6 months before that sentence ends, so that would start on the 18 February 2025.

110HIS HONOUR:  And that is?

111MS BRECKWEG:  14 months.

112HIS HONOUR:  That adds 8?

113MS BREWKEG:  Yes, that is correct.  It would go 18 February 2025, for 14 months is 18 June 2026.

114HIS HONOUR:  I'm not worrying about dates, so I must say I've stayed out of that.  But so, that adds 8, and so what is the next one?  That's the 12 month sentence that commences 8 months before the expiry of that one.  So that one is a 12 month sentence that then adds 4, doesn't it?  It accumulates 4 months.

115MS BRECKWEG:  I think it's when I actually put the dates in though Your Honour, the actual – what that actually means in date form, I am getting      

116HIS HONOUR:  It can only mean the same thing, in terms of dates.

117MS BRECKWEG:  I understand, I just don't know what I am doing wrong.

118HIS HONOUR:  You may not be, I can tell you if you went down to my chambers you would find about 15 pieces of paper with chicken scrawl, and dates and trying to work out that I have the right commencement date.  Just take our time about it for now.

119MS BRECKWEG:  Yes.

120HIS HONOUR:  I have not worked out physical dates, that is not the way I have done it.  I have simply expressed commencement dates.  If you look at the commencement dates I have expressed, does it not add 12 months?  Just sit down, and do it in your own time, and make sure.

121MS BRECKWEG:  It does in terms of the wording, I'll just do it one more time.

122HIS HONOUR:  If it does in terms of the wording then how can the calendar be different?

123MS BRECKWEG:  Well that is what I am trying to find our Your Honour.  That is probably why I (indistinct words) but I will do it again.

124HIS HONOUR:  Look Mr Ip, I think just take a seat for a moment, sorry to be doing this. 

125MS BRECKWEG:  Your sentence was correct.  I was cumulating the charge 5, on charge 6, when it is correct, it is fine.

126HIS HONOUR:  What I am hoping to achieve is the 12 month accumulation is between those two charges, by the staggered commencement dates.  Anyway you are satisfied that produces my intended effect?

127MS BRECKWEG:  I am Your Honour, yes.

128HIS HONOUR:  Ms Kapitaniak, I did not ask you earlier, but in terms of your client, any issues in terms of the maths of it all?

129MS KAPITANIAK:  Not on my calculations.

130HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.

131MS KAPITANIAK:  I understand we're on the same page.

132HIS HONOUR:  And Ms Wilson? No issue in terms of the maths?

133MS WILSON:  No issue Your Honour, that seems to be adding up as best as it can in these matters.

134HIS HONOUR:  All right, now I am sorry for that Mr Ip. If you can stand up again please.  We have just had that discussion to make sure that my intended effect has been achieved and it has.  So I adopt then and formally pronounce those orders as to the individual sentences and the commencement date.  And it results in a total effective sentence of 9 years imprisonment for you. 

Non parole period

135I fix in your case a non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months imprisonment.

Parole order

136I am required to explain to you as well the effect and the purpose of that parole order, even though the reality is that you will likely never be released into the community. 

137The purpose of such an order is to permit your possible release from prison, subject to certain conditions, at the expiry of the non-parole period.  It follows that you will serve a sentence of 5 years and 4 months in prison.  A parole order may then be made but that is at the discretion of the Commonwealth Attorney General.

138If and when such an order is made, it envisages a period of service in the community called the 'parole period' to complete the service of that sentence.  As I have said it is likely to be illusory in your case as well as you are also bound to be deported but I cannot have regard to that fact in fixing the non-parole period.  Nor can I decline to fix one for that reason.  I have to proceed on the footing that you will serve every day of the 9 year term I have announced.

139If a parole order is made, it will be subject to conditions which you would need to comply with.  The order can be amended or revoked.  Likewise in your case I cannot know in 2017 what those conditions would be.  They would be informed by your needs some years from now.  If you failed without excuse to fulfil these conditions on parole, you would be ordered to serve the balance of the sentence up to 9 years.

Section 17A

140Likewise in your case I am obliged to state the reasons for proceeding to impose a term of imprisonment.  Again It is sufficient for me to refer to the various matters of gravity that I have referred to in these reasons to date.  For the purposes of the records of the court, I state that no other sentence was appropriate, given the nature and gravity of your crime as was directly and correctly conceded by your counsel. 

Pre-sentence detention

141I make a declaration pursuant to s.16E of the Crimes Act 1914, as to the time that you have already served in custody. The total pre-sentence detention is 484 days. I declare that this period of 484 days is to be noted in the records of the court. What that means is that you have already served that portion of the sentence.

6AAA

142I have reduced your sentence because you have pleaded guilty and at the earliest stage.  I am required to state the measure of reduction.  But for your guilty plea, I would have sentenced you to be imprisoned for a period of 13 years.  I would have fixed a non-parole period of 9 years.  That s.6AAA statement is to be noted in the records of the court.

143Just have a seat then please.

Forfeiture/ Disposal order

144In each case there is an application under section 48 and 59 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for forfeiture of the cash listed in the order. That is the cash seized from each of you at Southern Cross station and additionally in your case Mr Kao the cash found upon the search of your apartment. No opposition is taken to the making of these orders and I order pursuant to section 48 of that Act that this cash be forfeited to the Commonwealth. I have signed each of those orders.

145I shudder to ask, but are there any other matters that I have overlooked in terms of sentencing structure.

146MS BRECKWEG:  No, everything is fine thank you Your Honour.

147HIS HONOUR:  Yes all right.  Ms Kapitaniak, Ms Wilson, any other matters that I need to deal with?

148MS KAPITANIAK:  No Your Honour.

149HIS HONOUR:  Are there any custody matters or issues?  I mean they are in custody, they have been in custody, do you need me to make any endorsements going back with them?

150MS KAPITANIAK:  No Your Honour.

151HIS HONOUR:  Nope?  All right, are you going to go see them downstairs?  Yes, okay.  Well again, Mr Ip and Mr Kao I am sorry that my reasons have taken so long to pronounce.  Each of your counsel will be down to see you downstairs in due course.  Okay?

152So if Mr Kao and Mr Ip can now be removed please.  I will sign the formal orders downstairs.  Thank you very much for your assistant madam Interpreter.  I will stand down now.

‑ ‑ ‑