District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lee [2013] NSWDC 232 Hearing dates: 27 September 2013 Decision date: 27 December 2013 Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 2½ years and a head sentence of 5 years Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Importation of drugs - Accepting delivery - Part of a scheme to obtain possession a large quantity of drugs Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown Yonguk Lee Representation: Ms J Levick - Offender Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown File Number(s): 2013/46958 Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: What led to the offender Yonguk Lee committing a most serious offence, indeed an offence so serious it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, were a number of factors which were highly interrelated. At the time of this offence he was using excessive amount of cannabis, he was depressed, short of money and had a poor relationship with his mother. It was in those circumstances that be took the opportunity that was presented to him to make $1,000 by accepting delivery of a package which he suspected, to the point of belief, contained drugs. 2The matter came to the attention of the authorities earlier this year. On 9 February 2013 Customs intercepted a package which had been posted from China. It was to be delivered to the offender using a false name. Customs examined the package and discovered inside almost a kilogram of a crystalline substance which when further analysed proved to contain methylamphetamine. After analysing the purity of the substance it was possible to calculate the quantity of pure methamphetamine in the package as being 792.3 grams. To put that into context the commercial quantity of that drug is 750 grams. So Mr Lee is just in that category of offending which leads to a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 3Customs removed the drugs and substituted an inert substance. Police then began to intercept the offender's telephone. Over the next few days they overheard a number of conversations between the offender and others in which it was clear that the offender's role in this enterprise was to receive the package. Eventually an AFP officer purporting to be a TNT courier rang the offender and arranged for the package to be delivered to him. On 14 February that package was delivered to the offender pursuant to an arrangement that had been made between the offender and the AFP officer who was pretending of course to be a courier. The offender accepted delivery of the package. He was arrested soon afterwards. 4In an interview the offender had with police that day he told them that he got involved in this enterprise for a friend. "Harry Pi" offered him an easy job to collect the package in exchange for payment of $1,000. Although the offender clearly accepted the high probability that the package contained drugs, he decided to go ahead and accept the offer because of the financial reward. 5In sentencing the offender it is important to have regard of course to the criminality of his actions, to pay regard to what the offender did. What he did was to agree with Harry to collect the package, to discuss with Harry over the telephone the delivery of the package, to wait for its delivery, to collect and sign for it using a false name and allow his home to be used as a place of storage for the package. Clearly the offender played an important role. Those who wanted to get their hands on the drugs so that they could be distributed needed someone to collect the package and it was this role that the offender played. 6He was only nineteen years at the time of this offence and, it seems, somewhat of an impulsive young man. He was born in Korea and came to Australia at the age of six. There was not a lot of money around in the family home and he took his parent's separation to heart. At one stage he returned to Korea with his father but lived more often with his mother. 7I mentioned before the interrelationship of cannabis use, depression, lack of money and the offender's relationship with his mother. The interrelationship of those factors is of course obvious and they led to a situation where the offender, having moved out of home, having been using cannabis for a long time, having been depressed, having been short of money, accepted the offer made to him by Harry because of the financial reward it would bring. 8The offender's life has not been an easy one. A very helpful account of it is given in a reference from a man who has known the offender and his family for some time, Mr Bruce Rownsley. He is married to a woman who was born in Korea and he thus has had close contact with many people of Korean origin in the Strathfield, Homebush and Belmore areas of Sydney, including the offender and his family. He summarises the offender's situation in these terms. Poor family, abusive and uninterested father and stepfather, unpleasant home life because of his mother's two broken marriages. He was overweight, had poor academic ability, was bullied at school, depressed emotional state, low self esteem, dependant on others and easily led. 9Not everyone can respond to an offer to make money such as was made to the offender by Harry with the same sense of mature consideration. The offender, being only nineteen years old at the time and having the background that Mr Rownsley summarises, was less able than most to reason about the appropriateness of accepting Harry's proposal. That is a significant matter when it comes to assessing the moral culpability of the offender's conduct. 10The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and has thus expressed a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. He also spoke to the authorities and gave them what he thought was some assistance in identifying others involved in the importation of drugs. Although the information has turned out to be of little value to police, the fact that the offender offered it in the first place tends to support other evidence indicating the offender's remorse at what he has done. Taking into account the offender's willingness to facilitate the course of justice by pleading guilty and a small discount for assisting the authorities the sentence I will impose upon Mr Lee is approximately 30 per cent less than it would otherwise have been. 11A submission was made to me that it would be appropriate to grant bail to Mr Lee so that he could enter the William Booth drug rehabilitation program. However the law is clear, s 11 remands should be exceedingly rare where it is inevitable that full-time custody would be imposed even if substantial rehabilitation were demonstrated. For that reason I do not propose to accede to the submission that a s 11 remand should be granted. 12I am prepared to proceed on the basis that the offender does have good prospects of rehabilitation. The change in his behaviour in particular as a result of him no longer using cannabis since he went into custody bodes well for the future. Also the sentence that I must necessarily impose upon the offender will play a substantial part in personally deterring him from future offending, at least of the seriousness of this offence, because it remains the case that the offender's conduct was seriously wrong. He was part of a scheme to gain possession of a large quantity of drugs which had been imported into Australia. Had those drugs been distributed a lot of people would have suffered. The problems of drug use and drug addiction extend far beyond the misery caused to those who are addicted to drugs. Anyone who has spent even a short time in any criminal court in this State would know the contribution that drug use and drug addiction has to the commission of a significant proportion of crimes dealt with on a daily basis. What Mr Lee did was seriously wrong and he must be punished accordingly. 13I have been assisted by submissions as regards other cases where people have been sentenced for offences of this type. Of course no two cases are the same and so I have taken into account those differences in assessing the sentence that I will impose upon Mr Lee, but the cases have been helpful in ensuring that the sentence I am about to impose on him is broadly consistent with the attitude taken by other judicial officers to offences of this kind. 14The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of two and a half years, to date from 14 February 2013. It will expire on 13 August 2015 on which day the offender is to be released to parole. I set a head sentence of five years. 15Mr Lee I need to explain to you the sentence I have just imposed upon you. It dates from the day you went into custody, the day you were arrested. You must serve two and a half years in gaol which means that the earliest you can be released is 13 August 2015. Whether you are released then or not is not up to me, it is up to the parole authorities. 16Once you are released you will continue serving your sentence in the community to 13 February 2018. You will be on parole in the community and if you commit other offences or do not comply with the conditions of your parole you can be returned back into custody. Understand that. If you have any questions I am sure Ms Levick will see you downstairs and discuss the matter with you. ********** 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: 02 December 2013