District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Zheng [2013] NSWDC 151 Hearing dates: 26 July 2013 Decision date: 26 July 2013 Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 5 years and a head sentence of 8 years Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Importation of more than the large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine -Precursor - Attempting to possess for the purpose of supply Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown Lang Shuo Zheng Representation: Ms S Goodwin - Crown Mr J Overall - The offender Director of Public Prosecutions Ren Zhou Solicitors - The offender File Number(s): 2012/18642 - 2012/106375 2012/247242 sENTENCE 1HIS HONOUR: Manufacturers of methylamphetamine face a number of difficulties in present day New South Wales. One of those concerns the supply of raw materials or, as they are sometimes known, precursors. Not too long ago one source of the precursor pseudoephedrine was cold and flu tablets sold in pharmacies, but changes in ingredients and changes in the regulation of the supply of such medication has meant that that source has dried up. That has placed more of a focus on the importation of such precursors. Pseudoephedrine, in particular, is a relatively common precursor which is now often sourced from overseas so that illegal drug manufacturers can use it to make methylamphetamine. 2Lang Shuo Zheng stands for sentence today for his involvement in the importation of more than the large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine, 27.58 kilograms in fact representing almost nine kilograms of pure pseudoephedrine. To put those quantities into context the large commercial quantity of that drug is five kilograms. 3The method that Mr Zheng and others used was to source from China a medication with a name Contact NT. This is a medication which can be lawfully purchased in China, it contains a relatively high proportion of pseudoephedrine. The medication was then repackaged into what was described as craft eggs which were then sent to Australia, the package arriving in mid-December 2011. Once it arrived here the police got involved. They removed the medication and substituted it with an inert substance. The package was then delivered to Mr Zheng who, the evidence reveals, was the principal in the Australian end of the operation insofar as that required the receipt of the package, the unpackaging of the substance and the handing over of the substance to people who would manufacture methylamphetamine. 4Mr Zheng now stands to be sentenced for a charge of attempting to possess for the purposes of supply 27.58 kilograms of pseudoephedrine being a large commercial quantity of that drug. Of course, this is an attempt because he did not actually possess any of the prohibited drug because of the involvement of the police before the package was delivered to Mr Zheng. He pleaded guilty to that charge at the first available opportunity. Other charges had been preferred against him but this one had not been. His plea came soon after that charge was laid, thus he is entitled to a discount on his sentence of twentyfive per cent to reflect the utilitarian value of his plea. 5The Crown has tendered a statement of facts of some thirty-two pages. As is commonly the case in matters prosecuted by the Commonwealth there is a great deal of unnecessary detail in the statement of facts which tends to obscure rather than reveal what the offender actually did. It is possible to extract from the statement of agreed facts a summary of the offender's involvement in the way I have earlier described. 6I am not going to sentence Mr Zheng on the basis that he was a principal in the overall operation. There is nothing to suggest that and there is evidence to suggest that he was not. But as I said earlier he was the principal in the Australian end of the operation which, of course, was a very important and indeed essential aspect of the aims of those involved in this criminal operation. 7The offender is forty-six years of age and remarkably has no prior criminal history. I say 'remarkably' because not too many forty-six year olds would decide to get involved in such serious criminality. The offence is so serious that it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of fifteen years. I have taken both the standard non-parole period and maximum penalty into account in determining the appropriate sentence, and my reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole period in this case are to be found in these remarks on sentence. 8Why would the offender get involved in such a serious offence, an offence that could see him going to gaol for the rest of his life after forty-six years of lawful behaviour? The answer is difficult to determine. The explanation given is that the offender was asked to do so by his younger brother who lives in China. But that is scarcely an adequate explanation. It would be a remarkable sense of family obligation which would lead a law abiding forty-six year old to start importing drugs which could be used to manufacture methylamphetamine. Perhaps another part of the explanation lies in the circumstance that what was imported is, as I mentioned earlier, available openly in China, that circumstance may have led Mr Zheng to believe that what he was doing was not quite as bad as truthfully it was. 9There is nothing in Mr Zheng's background which would suggest that he was the sort of person to become involved in drug importation or drug manufacture. He was born in China, went to school there but came to Australia after he had become involved in demonstrations in China against those in power at the time. Once he came to Australia in 1989 he lived in Campsie, obtained work and studied English. He has worked in restaurants with one break ever since. He has children and is happily married. He is supported in Court by his family. He appears to be hardworking, (he is working in custody for example), and is a man who gave no hint that he would commit this most serious crime. 10I mentioned that there was one break in Mr Zheng's employment. It appears that one of Mr Zheng's son suffers from depression to a significant extent. This affected his son's behaviour and Mr Zheng took time off work in order to care for his son. As a consequence of that Mr Zheng, himself, became depressed for a time. Fortunately, his son's condition has improved although I gather there are significant balance of depression still remaining. But when things got a bit better in 2011 Mr Zheng returned to work in restaurants and that is where he was working at the time of his arrest. 11The seriousness of the offence is obvious. The standard non-parole period and the head sentence are enough to demonstrate that. On top of that Mr Zheng attempted to possess over five times the large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine and even if one looks at the pure amount of pseudoephedrine that in itself was over the large commercial quantity. So this was a large operation and had the drug been passed onto manufacturers a significant amount of methylamphetamine could have been produced and sold to drug users. It is fortunate that that did not occur. It is fortunate that police intervened and so when I assess the harm that Mr Zheng's conduct caused I will take into account that no drug was ever manufactured, let alone distributed. 12I have mentioned the sad condition of the offender's son. It appears that Mr Zheng does a lot for his son and that his son will suffer from Mr Zheng's incarceration. Unfortunately, results such as those are common place when fathers or mothers or aunts or uncles are sent to gaol. Although I will take that circumstance into account as part of the general mix of subjective factors it is not a matter where I am able to significantly mitigate the punishment which much be imposed upon Mr Zheng. 13Mr Zheng will do his time in custody harder knowing that his misconduct has led to him not being available to care for his son and his other children and his wife. Also making Mr Zheng's time in custody harder will be his difficulties in English. Despite coming to Australia in 1989 and despite studying English he has been assisted in Court by an interpreter. 14One thing I have not mentioned is that the evidence would suggest that Mr Zheng was to get a fairly low amount of money out of this, $7000, and there is no suggestion that he or his family were in financial strife at the time of the offence. That just adds further to the mystery as to why the offender would do what he did. 15The offender expressed his remorse in Court. He is no doubt sorry for what he has done especially as he sees the impact of his criminal activities on his family. I am satisfied that the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation and indeed the length of the sentence I am shortly to announce on Mr Zheng will add as a substantial personal deterrence to him ever doing something of this kind again. 16One of the most important matters in determining the appropriate sentence is, of course, that this was ongoing criminality. The Crown says that between 11 January and 18 January when Mr Zheng was arrested he was actively involved in receiving, unpackaging and handing over the pseudoephedrine as well as arranging for payments to people back in China. This is far from a case where a person has done one illegal act and immediately regrets it, on the contrary, Mr Zheng did many separate things all of which involved illegal behaviour as part of his attempt to obtain possession of a large quantity of pseudoephedrine so that it could be supplied. Necessarily, therefore, a significant sentence is required. 17I make a finding of special circumstances in Mr Zheng's favour. He continues to suffer from elements of depression and he will be assisted upon his release from custody by having an extended period of supervision on parole available to him. 18Mr Zheng is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of five years to commence on 18 January 2012 together with a head sentence of eight years. The non-parole period will expire on 17 January 2017 which is the earliest day on which Mr Zheng can be released to parole. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 23 August 2013