R v Ong HC Auckland CRI-2011-092-10820
[2011] NZHC 1448
•26 October 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2011-092-10820
CRI-2011-092-12445
CRI-2011-092-12495
THE QUEEN
v
EWE HOE ONG ENG WAN TEOH YUEN FATT WONG SIT MOOI EN
AH KOOI TEOH LIAN FONG WONG NYA AH TAN
WAI HONG LEONG TENG-KIM OOI ENG HIN ONG
Hearing: 26 October 2011
Counsel: M Harborow for Crown
H Leabourn for Ewe Ong
D Niven for E Teoh, S En, A Teoh and L Wong
M Edgar for Ah Tan
R Smith for W Leong
P Le'Au'Anae for T Ooi
L Hughes and D Wang for Eng Ong
Judgment: 26 October 2011
SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J
R V ONG HC AK CRI-2011-092-10820 26 October 2011
[1] Prisoners at the bar, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty in the District Court to a single charge of importing the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine. As you are no doubt now aware, that charge carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you and committed you to this Court for sentence.
The facts
[2] You were all ostensibly part of a tour group that arrived in New Zealand from Kuala Lumpur on 26 April 2011. Your schedule showed that you were to travel from Auckland to Christchurch, and you would then spend 12 days in the Christchurch and Queenstown regions before leaving the country.
[3] There were 14 members in your group. Six members of the group had cleared Customs and made their way over to the domestic air terminal in preparation for boarding a flight to Christchurch. At that point Customs officials took one of your members aside and searched him. This revealed that he was carrying a white powder secreted in the soles of the shoes that he was wearing.
[4] Customs officials then set the rest of the group to one side and also set about bringing back to the international terminal those members of the group who had already gone over to the domestic terminal. Once that had been accomplished, the customs officers, assisted by the Auckland Drug Squad, then carried out a thorough search of all 14 members of the group. This revealed that ten members of the group were carrying a white powder, believed at that time to be methamphetamine, secreted in the soles of their shoes.
[5] The amount carried by each of those persons varied from 772 grams to 999 grams. In total, the police and Customs officers found approximately 8.55 kilograms of powder, later identified as methamphetamine, in the soles of the shoes worn by those ten members of the group.
[6] At retail level that amount of methamphetamine would be worth approximately $8.5 million. By any standards, this was an extremely large quantity
of methamphetamine to be imported into New Zealand on a single occasion. It would have fed the habits of users in this country for some time.
[7] Each of you entered guilty pleas at an early opportunity in the District Court. Some of you did so before the results of the analysis of the powder were available. The remainder pleaded guilty as soon as the test results confirmed that you had been carrying methamphetamine.
[8] The material that I have before me now explains the circumstances in which you came to bring this drug into New Zealand. I will go into further detail about that when I come to consider your individual personal circumstances, but broadly speaking, virtually each of you was pressured into bringing methamphetamine to New Zealand because of financial difficulties that you faced in your home country of Malaysia. Virtually all of you had borrowed money, and for the most part from persons you describe as “loan sharks” who charged an outrageous amount of interest on the loan. You were unable to repay the loans and eventually accepted offers to bring something to this country in return for a reduction, or repayment, of the amount that you owed.
Sentencing Act 2002
[9] In any case involving the importation of a quantity of drugs this large, issues relating to deterrence and denunciation are to the forefront. What this means is that the Court must impose sentences that deter both you and others like you from being prepared to become involved in this type of activity. It must denounce your conduct and hold you accountable for it.
[10] As only some of you seem to appreciate, methamphetamine is a significant problem in this country. That problem is exacerbated significantly when large quantities of methamphetamine are imported in a ready-made state from overseas. The only way in which the courts can hope to contribute to the battle against methamphetamine is to impose stern sentences upon those who are found to have imported and dealt in the drug. That is the only way in which the courts can make it clear that dealing in and involvement with this drug does not pay. That principle
applies equally to persons coming into New Zealand with the drug as it does to those within this country who are prepared to become involved with it.
[11] As our Court of Appeal has reminded sentencing courts on numerous occasions, New Zealand cannot be seen as a “soft touch” when it comes to the importation of methamphetamine, whether as a point of transit or as an ultimate destination.[1]
[1] R v Davis CA440/04, 20 October 2005 at [67]; Solicitor-General v Huang [2011] NZCA 436 at [21].
[12] Lenient sentences imposed in this country would send entirely the wrong message. They would encourage those who organise such shipments overseas to increase the quantity and frequency of shipments to New Zealand. Those who live overseas and may be tempted to become couriers, as you have done, have to know that if they are caught in this country they will spend significant lengths of time in our prisons.
[13] It is also important, however, that the sentences that are imposed on you are broadly consistent with those imposed in other cases. I say “broadly” because, as the present case demonstrates, the circumstances of no two cases are ever exactly the same.
The approach to be taken
[14] I need to explain now the approach that I am going to take in structuring the sentence to be imposed on each of you.
[15] First, I am going to determine the starting point for the sentence to be imposed. This means the sentence that reflects the culpability of your offending, or the blameworthiness of your offending, but does not take into account characteristics that are personal to you. I then need to adjust that starting point to take into account factors that make your offending more serious, or less serious, because of your personal characteristics. I then need to determine whether to direct that you are to
serve a minimum term of imprisonment before being permitted to apply for parole.
[16] I propose to deal with the issues of starting point and the discount to be given for mitigating factors on a global basis because these issues are, for the large part, common to you all.
Starting point
[17] There is no dispute in this case that the starting point for the sentences to be imposed is governed by a decision of our Court of Appeal known as R v Fatu.[2]In that case our Court of Appeal set down guidelines for sentences to be imposed on offenders charged with offences relating to methamphetamine. The Court of Appeal held that persons who import more than 500 grams of methamphetamine are to be subject to a starting point of between 12 years and life imprisonment.[3]
[2] R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72.
[3] At [36].
[18] All counsel agree that your offending falls within this range because of the fact that all of you imported considerably more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. The issue I am required to decide is whether, and if so to what extent, I should select a starting point of more than 12 years imprisonment to reflect the gravity of your offending.
[19] The Crown submits that your offending should attract a starting point of around 15 to 16 years imprisonment. It says that a starting point of that magnitude is required to reflect the large amounts of methamphetamine involved and the fact that you operated effectively as a group.
[20] In their written submissions your counsel differed in their assessments of the starting point to be selected. They submitted that the starting point should be between 12 years imprisonment at one end of the scale and 15 years imprisonment at the other. During the hearing today that appears to have refined to a submission that
the starting point should be between 12 and 14 years imprisonment.
[21] The Crown relies for the most part on a case called R v Jian and Huang.[4]
That case had similarities to yours because, it too, involved a tour group from overseas arriving in New Zealand carrying significant quantities of methamphetamine.
[4] R v Jian and Huang HC Auckland CRI-2010-092-9117 and CRI-2010-092-10777, 7 September 2010.
[22] The total amount imported was approximately 8.1 kilograms, but the individual couriers each carried significantly more than you did. They carried between 1.3 and 2.3 kilograms of methamphetamine each.
[23] In that case the sentencing Judge selected a 15 year starting point before taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The Crown contends that, having regard to the total amount imported, the starting point for your offending should be approximately the same.
[24] Your counsel take a different view. They say that the Court needs to bear in mind the fact that you had no part whatsoever in the planning of the importation. They point out that you are effectively a group of individuals who were gathered together at the last moment before travelling to New Zealand. It was only at that point that you were issued with the shoes containing the methamphetamine. They point out that, for the most part, you have faced financial pressures that forced you into this offending. They also make the point that, considering the very large risk that you took, you stood to gain very little in monetary terms. For the most part you seem to have been promised between $9,000 and $16,000. For that reason, whilst your counsel accept that your offending was commercially motivated to some extent, they say that it falls at the very bottom end of commerciality.
[25] I accept that you played no part in planning this offending. You did not stand to share in any of the ultimate profit that the importation was to derive. You were each promised concrete amounts, and usually in reduction of significant debts that you could not otherwise repay. In many cases, also, I accept that you had been subject to threats of violence to both yourself and members of your family if you did
not repay the debt. Some of you were driven by other needs, namely the need to pay
medical bills for members of your family, and /or to meet the costs of education for your children that you could not otherwise afford. I therefore accept that your participation as couriers was limited to the physical carriage of the drug, and that it was not for substantial personal commercial gain.
[26] I also accept the submission of your counsel that the overall culpability of your offending is slightly less than that of the offenders in Jian and Huang. Individually, too, you carried quantities of methamphetamine significantly less than the quantities carried by the offenders in that case.
[27] Nonetheless, you were, at the end of the day, willing participants in bringing a large quantity of a very dangerous drug into this country. Some of you frankly admit that you knew or suspected that you were carrying drugs. Others say that you believed, because of what you had been told by others, that you were carrying something different, such as gold. In the end, by your pleas, I proceed on the basis that you were willing importers of this drug into New Zealand.
[28] Each of you carried significantly more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. As a result, and even taking into account the fact that your role was limited to that of couriers, I do not accept that a starting point of 12 years imprisonment would be appropriate.
[29] I take the view that a starting point of 14 years imprisonment is the least that I can select having regard to the amount of drug involved and the fact that you operated, to some extent at least, as a group. Although I accept that many, if not all of you, were unknown to each other at the beginning of the operation, nevertheless you had the comfort of numbers on the journey to New Zealand and whilst passing through Customs.
[30] You need to understand that the role of a courier, whilst limited in terms of sharing profits and responsibility, is nevertheless vital to the success of any drug importation of this type. Without willing couriers, those who organise importations have no hope of success. It is for that reason that a starting point of 14 years
imprisonment is appropriate in this case having regard to the overall circumstances of your offending.
Aggravating factors
[31] I now need to consider whether or not that starting point should be increased at all to reflect aggravating factors personal to you. Several of you have previous convictions overseas. Some of these would ordinarily be relevant in the present circumstances, and might ordinarily operate to increase the starting point that I have selected. That is particularly the case for those of you who have convictions for drug-related offences in the recent past. The Court would be justified in increasing the starting point to reflect that fact because it would show that you knew the consequences of offending and yet you were prepared to take the risks.
[32] In the present case the Crown does not ask for an increase to the starting point. It submits, however, that those members of your group who have previous convictions cannot claim the benefit of a clean criminal record or of being of previous good character. That operates to take away one of the principal factors that I would be entitled to take into account in reducing the starting point that I have selected.
[33] I accept the Crown’s submission on this point. I do not propose to increase the starting point to reflect previous convictions. Neither, however, am I prepared to give credit for good character to those of you who have previous convictions. I am prepared to make an allowance for previous good character for those who have no previous convictions. I propose to make an allowance of nine months to reflect that fact.
Mitigating factors
[34] Your counsel have urged upon me that I should reduce your sentence to take into account other mitigating factors. First, they point to the fact that, as foreigners, you will find it more difficult to serve your sentences within a New Zealand prison environment. Some of you speak no English and that, too, will increase the hardship
of your sentence. I accept that that is the case, but I do not accept that it operates to reduce the starting point that I have selected.
[35] You knew that you were travelling to a foreign country when you agreed to become involved in this offending. You must have been aware that, if you were caught, you would probably be imprisoned in that country. You must have weighed that factor into the equation when you made the decision that it was still worthwhile proceeding. For that reason I do not propose to reduce your sentence to reflect the fact that you will be spending time in a foreign prison. However, I am prepared to take it into account to some extent in fixing the minimum term that I am satisfied must be imposed.
[36] Your counsel also submit, or at least some of them do, that further credit should be given for the fact that you have expressed remorse and co-operated with the New Zealand and Malaysian authorities since your arrest.
[37] Dealing first with remorse, I take the view that virtually without exception, your remorse is driven by the circumstances in which you now find yourself. You had the time to think about the consequences of your offending before you got on the plane in Kuala Lumpur. You must have known the issues that would arise if you were caught at the other end. That was the time for true remorse to play a real part. I am not prepared to make a separate allowance for your remorse.
[38] Next, your counsel submit that you should be given a discrete allowance, as I have said, to reflect co-operation given to authorities in New Zealand and Malaysia since your arrest. It is difficult to assess the weight to be given to this submission, because each of you has co-operated to a different extent. It is difficult to ascertain just how much co-operation has been shown by each of you. It is also difficult to know whether, if at all, that co-operation may ever result in some tangible benefit particularly in relation to Malaysian issues.
[39] I consider that it would be speculative of me to give concrete recognition to this factor by reducing the starting point. I would hope that it is taken into account by the Malaysian authorities when you return to Malaysia after you are deported at
the end of your sentence. I say that because I am aware from material that has been placed in front of me that it is likely that you will be subject to further investigation, and possible detention, by the Malaysian authorities when you return home. Hopefully, the co-operation that you have shown to date will be taken into account by the Malaysian authorities when they decide what to do with you once you return home. To the extent that I am able to give it recognition, I propose to do so by again reducing the minimum term that I propose to impose.
Minimum term
[40] From what I have just said, it will be obvious that I propose to impose a minimum term of imprisonment.
[41] The Court has the power to do that in any case where it imposes a sentence of more than two years imprisonment provided certain criteria are met. Ordinarily, prisoners are eligible for parole after serving one-third of their sentence. The Court may extend the time before a prisoner may apply for parole. It can only do that, however, where it is satisfied that the usual parole provisions would not satisfactorily meet the objectives of deterrence, denunciation, accountability and the need to
protect the public.[5]
[5] Section 86 Sentencing Act 2002.
[42] Your counsel have pointed to other cases in which the Court has not imposed a minimum term of imprisonment where the offender has imported Class A controlled drugs. They point to a decision of my own earlier this year in which I indicated that a review of the authorities provided by the Crown in that case suggested that a minimum term of imprisonment had not generally been imposed in relation to persons whose role in the importation of drugs was limited to that of
being a courier.[6]
[6] R v Slipkus and Sliupas HC Auckland CRI-2010-004-19597 AND CRI-2010-004-22321, 1 March 2011 at [22]
[43] The matter is placed beyond doubt, in my view, by the recent decision of the
Court of Appeal in Solicitor-General v Huang.[7] In that case the Court of Appeal
emphasised the need for general deterrence in offending of the type that you have engaged in. The Court of Appeal pointed out, as I have already indicated, that New Zealand must not be seen as a soft touch when it comes to the importation of drugs. In serious offending such as this, all of the criteria for a minimum term of imprisonment are generally met, and the Court should ordinarily impose a minimum term of imprisonment to reflect that fact. I am satisfied that the need for general deterrence operates in this case to render a minimum term of imprisonment appropriate.
[7] Fn 1 at [21].
[44] The Crown asks that a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 50 per cent be imposed. It says that each of your should be required to serve at least one-half of the sentence imposed upon you before being able to apply for parole. With one exception, I propose to direct that you serve a minimum term of 45 per cent of your sentence before being eligible to apply for parole. Ordinarily, I would have made an order that you serve one-half, as the Crown directs. I am satisfied, however, that the factors to which I have already referred mean that a slight reduction is appropriate.
[45] I turn now to your individual circumstances.
Eng Teoh
[46] Eng Teoh, you appear for sentence at the age of 29 years. You imported the most methamphetamine of any of the prisoners in this case because you imported
999.3 grams. In addition, you have a previous conviction overseas. This occurred in
1999, and although the summary before me indicates that it related to heroin, you say that it related instead to ketamine. You were fined on that occasion, which indicates that the offending cannot have been too serious.
[47] You say that you got involved in this offending because your small business was in financial difficulties. You also accept that you encouraged your partner, sitting next to you, Sit En, to become involved. She told the probation officer that in the past you have been involved with “undesirables” overseas, and this may have led to previous offending and the present offending.
[48] You are going to suffer significant personal difficulties, because both you and your partner will be in prison in New Zealand. You have a young son overseas and he will necessarily need to be cared for by others for a significant period of time.
[49] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment that I have identified, I do not propose to apply an increase to reflect your previous conviction, but neither am I prepared to give you any discount in relation to your good character. I propose to make an allowance of 25 per cent to reflect your guilty pleas.
[50] I propose to make that allowance in respect of you and in relation to all other prisoners because I accept that you entered your pleas at a very early opportunity. This had several effects. First, it demonstrated that you were prepared to accept responsibility for your offending at an early stage. Second, it saved this country the cost of preparing for, and prosecuting, a full jury trial. That is a significant saving in terms of both manpower and in monetary terms.
[51] For that reason I am satisfied that the maximum discount permissible in this country, namely 25 per cent, should be applied to you and all other prisoners. I do not accept the Crown’s submission that the discount to be applied for guilty pleas should be limited to 20 per cent. In saying that, I am cognisant of the fact that in R v
Hessell[8]the Supreme Court indicated that a robust approach needs to be taken to
sentencing. Where offenders are caught in circumstances where they have no possible defence, it may be that a lesser discount should be applied. That logic can be applied to your case, but I take the view that the very early acknowledgement of responsibility and the cost that you have saved this country justify the application of the full discount.
[8] R v Hessell [2010] NZSC 135.
[52] I propose to direct that you serve 45 per cent of the resulting sentence, which is ten years six months imprisonment, before being eligible to apply for parole. This means that you will be required to serve a minimum of four years nine months
imprisonment before being eligible to apply for parole.
[53] Sit En, you appear for sentence at the age of 29 years. You carried into New
Zealand 772.2 grams of methamphetamine. You have no previous convictions.
[54] As I have already said, you are Eng Teoh’s partner. Although he appears to accept responsibility for inveigling you into becoming involved in this offending, you appear to take some responsibility yourself. You say that you were left with hospital bills for your ill mother, and that you loaned money from friends to enable you to pay those bills.
[55] The people from whom you loaned the money were clearly not people to be trifled with. When you failed to repay the money, they began making threats to the safety of your son. They said that you could redeem yourself by travelling overseas and you were told that you would be smuggling gold. You frankly admit, however, that you guessed that you were carrying drugs. You said that you were “not stupid”, and that that is what you believed you would be carrying. You say, however, that you needed the money and it was therefore worth the risk.
[56] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment that I have selected, I propose to apply a discount of nine months to reflect the fact that you have never been in trouble before. I propose to apply the 25 per cent discount for your guilty plea, leaving an end sentence of nine years 11 months. You will be required to serve a minimum term of four years six months.
Yuen Wong
[57] Yuen Wong, you appear for sentence at the age of 62 years. You brought into
New Zealand 794.2 grams of methamphetamine. You have no previous convictions.
[58] It is clear that you suffer from severe health problems. You have also got a serious gambling habit. This meant that you obtained loans from persons you describe as “loan sharks”. You decided that the only way to try and meet these debts was to take up the offer of this drug run.
[59] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment, I propose to apply a deduction of nine months to reflect your previous good character and a further discount of 25 per cent to reflect your guilty plea. This means that you have an end sentence of nine years 11 months imprisonment.
[60] In your case I have decided to impose a minimum term of imprisonment of four years. In terms of proportion that is around 40 per cent. I make that concession because your age means that you are going to spend a much larger proportion of your future life in prison than your fellow prisoners.
Ah Teoh
[61] Ah Teoh, you appear for sentence at the age of 22 years. You came into New Zealand carrying 802.3 grams of methamphetamine. You have no previous convictions.
[62] The pre-sentence report makes it clear that you have very long-standing addiction problems with drugs. You have been involved in drugs for a long time and this has resulted in your suffering significant health issues. This means that you are on medication for those issues.
[63] Your gambling problems have also meant that you have financial issues. You became indebted as a result of those issues and you were forced to turn to loan sharks. As a result of accepting the offer to travel to New Zealand, you were told that gambling debts would be paid off. You were receiving at that time threats from creditors.
[64] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment, I apply the discount of nine months to reflect your previous good character. I apply the 25 per cent discount for your guilty plea, ending with the sentence of nine years 11 months imprisonment. The minimum term that you will serve is four years six months imprisonment.
[65] Lian Wong, you appear for sentence at the age of 55 years. You brought into
New Zealand 798.4 grams of methamphetamine.
[66] In terms of previous offending, you have convictions for serious crimes overseas. Had you been appearing for sentence in New Zealand and those offences had been committed here, it is highly likely that the Court would have increased the sentence to take those matters into account.
[67] The pre-sentence report reveals that you are a heroin addict, and you have been since about 15 years of age. This has resulted in significant problems for you. You now suffer chronically from depression for which you need to take medication. You, too, had to borrow money from loan sharks, this time to pay hospital fees relating to an operation that you had for a collapsed lung in 2010. You were unable to repay that money, and this led to you agreeing to become involved in the present offending. I note, with some concern, that you do not believe that you will ever be able to combat your addiction on a permanent basis. This obviously means that when you are deported you will remain at high risk of reoffending.
[68] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment, I do not apply an increase or decrease to reflect personal factors other than your guilty plea. I apply a 25 per cent discount for the guilty plea, leaving you with a prison term of ten years six months and a minimum term of imprisonment of four years nine months.
Nya Tan
[69] Nya Tan, you appear for sentence at the age of 51 years. You carried into
New Zealand 997 grams of methamphetamine. You have no previous convictions.
[70] Like others, you became enmeshed in this offending as a result of your indebtedness to loan sharks. You borrowed this money so that you could fund hospital fees for your son-in-law who was very ill. You were unable to repay the loan and, again, agreed to travel to New Zealand in order to have the loan reduced.
Sadly, your son-in-law has passed away since your arrival here. You have had to deal with that issue from behind prison bars in New Zealand. You have very significant health issues, including diabetes and heart problems.
[71] You accept, however, that you began to suspect that you were carrying drugs whilst you were on the plane to New Zealand. You thought about searching your footwear to find out what you were carrying, but eventually you decided against that because you believed that there was somebody on the plane watching you and other members of the group.
[72] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment, I apply a discount of nine months to reflect your previous good character. I apply the discount of 25 per cent to reflect your guilty pleas. I propose to direct that you serve a minimum term of imprisonment of four years three months. I make that deduction bearing in mind the health issues that you face.
Ewe Ong
[73] Ewe Ong, you appear for sentence at the age of 40 years. You carried 797.9 grams of methamphetamine into New Zealand. You have no previous convictions.
[74] You were the first person spoken to by the Customs officials at the airport, and you say that you knew then that you were in trouble. You also have frankly admitted that you knew that there were drugs in your shoes. You point out, however, that you have co-operated fully with both New Zealand and Malaysian authorities since your arrest.
[75] The probation report suggests that you knew that what you were doing was wrong. Your counsel points out that there may have been difficulties in interpretation that led to the probation officer forming an erroneous view on that issue. Nevertheless, your offending stands out somewhat from that of your fellow prisoners. There is no suggestion in your case that you offended because of your indebtedness or the influence of others. Rather, you sought to obtain some money
from this offending so as to be able to provide a better life and education for your family.
[76] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment, I apply a discount of nine months to reflect your previous good character. I apply a discount of 25 per cent to reflect your guilty pleas. You will receive an end sentence of nine years 11 months imprisonment and I will direct you to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of four years six months.
Teng-Kim Ooi
[77] You appear for sentence at the age of 58 years. You brought into New
Zealand 798.5 grams of methamphetamine. You have no previous convictions.
[78] You say that you were offered the equivalent of NZ$16,000 to wear the shoes to New Zealand. You were in poor financial circumstances at the time and you needed the money. You, too, had debts from gambling, and you were subject to the predations of loan sharks. You say that you suffer from poor health, and I accept that. You suffer from diabetes, tuberculosis and asthma. You are also illiterate. For these reasons I accept that your time in a New Zealand prison is going to be more difficult than some of your fellow prisoners.
[79] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment, I deduct nine months for your previous good character. I then deduct a further 25 per cent to reflect your guilty plea. This leaves an end sentence of nine years 11 months imprisonment. I will direct that you serve a minimum term of four years three months imprisonment. The slightly reduced minimum term reflects your poor health.
Eng Ong
[80] Eng Ong, you appear for sentence at the age of 40 years. You imported 798 grams of methamphetamine into this country. You have a previous conviction overseas for aggravated robbery. This must have been reasonably serious, because you received a sentence of six years imprisonment.
[81] You, too, say that you were in financial difficulties. Your business was not doing well, and in addition you had to meet medical expenses relating to your mother’s health issues, as well as expenses relating to your children’s education. You were to receive the sum of approximately NZ$16,000 for importing the drug. You say that you were in a room with five other persons when you were given the shoes that you were to wear on the flight to New Zealand. You say that you thought that you were bringing gold into this country.
[82] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment, I do not impose an increase to reflect your previous offending, but I do not give you any discount for previous good character. I apply a 25 per cent discount to reflect your guilty plea. Of the end sentence of ten years six months imprisonment, I will direct that you are to serve a minimum term of four years nine months imprisonment.
Wai Leong
[83] Wai Leong, you appear for sentence at the age of 24 years. You have one previous conviction overseas for being in possession of a drug. That conviction was entered in 2010 and you received a sentence of eight months imprisonment in respect of it. Ordinarily, that would be a factor that would be likely to increase the starting point selected.
[84] You say that you were uncertain about what you were carrying to New Zealand. You had amassed a gambling debt of approximately NZ$30,000. You were promised approximately NZ$9,000 for your efforts in bringing something to New Zealand.
[85] You, too, have a gambling problem. This led to pressure being placed on you when you were unable to meet a deadline for the repayment of a debt. You, too, will suffer significantly as a result of your sentence of imprisonment here because you have a 3 year old son and a partner overseas.
[86] From the starting point of 14 years imprisonment, I will not impose an increase to reflect your previous conviction, but I will not apply a deduction in
relation to your previous character. I will apply a deduction of 25 per cent to reflect your guilty plea, leading to an end sentence of ten years six months imprisonment. I will direct that you serve a minimum term of imprisonment of four years nine months.
Sentences
[87] Eng Teoh, you are sentenced to ten years six months imprisonment and you are directed to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of four years nine months.
[88] Sit En, you are sentenced to nine years 11 months imprisonment and directed to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of four years six months.
[89] Yuen Wong, you are sentenced to nine years 11 months imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of four years.
[90] Ah Teoh, you are sentenced to nine years 11 months imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of four years six months.
[91] Lian Wong, you are sentenced to ten years six months imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of four years nine months.
[92] Nya Tan, you are sentenced to nine years 11 months imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of four years three months.
[93] Ewe Ong, you are sentenced to nine years 11 month imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of four years six months.
[94] Ten-Kim Ooi, you are sentenced to nine years 11 months imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of four years three months.
[95] Eng Ong, you are sentenced to ten years six months imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of four years nine months.
[96] Wai Leong, you are sentenced to ten years six months imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of four years nine months.
Destruction order
[97] In case they have not already been destroyed, I make an order for the destruction of the drugs that were found.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel:H Leabourn, Guardian Chambers, Auckland
D Niven, Central Chambers, Auckland
M Edgar, Central Chambers, AucklandR Smith, Vulcan Chambers, Auckland
P Le’Au’Anae, Friendship Chambers, Manukau
L Hughes, Public Defence Service, Auckland
0
2
0