R v Lee

[2018] NSWDC 357

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Lee [2018] NSWDC 357
Hearing dates:	29 October 2018
Date of orders:	29 October 2018
Decision date:	29 October 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years with a head sentence of 4 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Parity – Manufacture large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine.
Cases Cited:	.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Wing Ho Lee
Representation:	Counsel: A Djamal – The offender   Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
File Number(s):	2016/357236

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: This is one of those cases where the most important factor to determine the sentence to impose upon the offender Wing Ho Lee is the sentence imposed by another Judge on another person involved in the criminal enterprise. The principles of parity require that Mr Lee not have a justifiable sense of grievance when he compares the sentence I impose upon him with the sentence Judge Robison imposed upon Cheuk Wai Wong.

2. The two men, along with others, were involved in an offence involving the manufacture of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. Although it is not an accurate description, Mr Wong in effect was the “cook”. Mr Lee, this offender, aided him in ways I will shortly describe.

3. The drugs appear to have been impregnated in beauty masks. It was Mr Wong’s job to extract the methylamphetamine from those masks. What this offender did was to deliver some equipment to Mr Wong on 1 February 2016. He also, as telephone intercepts reveal, acted as a go‑between, conveying enquiries from those further up the criminal hierarchy to Mr Wong. Mr Lee indicated he would take money to Mr Wong but it should also be recognised that Mr Wong had independent contact with others in the enterprise.

4. A substantial quantity of drugs were produced, 2.8 kilos in fact. This is more than the large commercial quantity which means that the offender is liable to imprisonment for the term of his natural life. As well as the maximum penalty of life imprisonment there is a standard non-parole period of 15 years imprisonment. I have taken into account both the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period in determining the sentence to impose upon Mr Lee. My reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole period appear in these remarks on sentence.

5. Mr Lee pleaded guilty to the offence for which I must sentence him. It was not an early plea though, he was committed for trial but in the course of readiness hearings before the Chief Judge it was indicated to both the Crown and the Court that Mr Lee would ultimately plead guilty to the charge for which I am to sentence him. True it is that the plea was actually entered after the first day of the trial was due to commence but in such circumstances I propose to impose upon Mr Lee a sentence which is 15% less than otherwise.

6. The offender was born in Hong Kong and brought up there, coming to Australia at the age of 26. When he was about six his parents’ separated, his mother leaving the family. The offender was cared for by his father, although due to the long hours that his father worked his father engaged someone else to do some of the childrearing. This led to a lack of proper adult supervision which in turn led to Mr Lee making a poor choice of his peers. It was in those circumstances that the offender began using drugs in Hong Kong. He was convicted of an offence of possessing a drug whilst in Hong Kong before coming to Australia. He says that he has not used drugs since then.

7. The offender has a record with an offence in Australia of possessing property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. He received an 18 month bond for that offence.

8. The offender claims in a document written to me, and also told a psychologist, that his involvement in the offence for which I must sentence him came about because after the police seized the money the subject of the proceeds of crime offence he was told that he would have to pay it back and one way he could achieve that is by doing what he was required to do in the current offence. No sworn evidence was given to establish that this version of events is the truth. It is possible that it is true. It is possible that it is not.

9. Given, as I began these remarks on sentence, that the principles of parity apply it is not necessary for me to determine whether what Mr Lee said was the reason he became involved in this offence is the truth or not because one thing is clear, and that is that Mr Lee’s role was significantly less than that of Mr Wong. The latter came to Australia specifically for the purposes of committing the offence he committed. He clearly had expertise which was required. Fingerprint evidence shows that he, and others as well, had a substantial involvement in the manufacturing process. So as far as the roles are concerned Mr Lee performed a much less important role. His subjective criminality is thus significantly less than that of Mr Wong.

10. On the other hand Mr Wong pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity having cooperated with the police from early on, he was not on bail at the time of his offending, as this offender was but despite those features I am satisfied that if Mr Lee were to receive a sentence the same as or close to that receive by Mr Wong he would have a justifiable sense of grievance.

11. Accordingly I impose sentence as follows:

12. The offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

13. I set a non-parole period of two years to date from 30 November 2016 and a head sentence of four years.

14. The non-parole period will expire on 29 November 2018, exactly one month from today, on which day the offender is eligible to be released to parole.

**********

Decision last updated: 30 November 2018