District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Yin [2013] NSWDC 234 Hearing dates: 3 October 2013 Decision date: 03 October 2013 Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment . Set a non-parole period of 4 years and a head sentence of 7 years Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Supply a prohibited drug - Large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown Hao Yin Representation: Director of Public Prosecutions File Number(s): 2012/18645 2012/106359 2012/247273 2012/247273 SENTENCE 1HIS HONOUR: In July this year I sentenced Lang Shuo Zheng for an offence involving an attempt to possess a large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine. 2The offender standing for sentence today, Hao Yin, committed an offence in relation to that same quantity of pseudoephedrine together with another smaller quantity. 3As I said when sentencing Mr Zheng, manufacturers of methylamphetamine face a number of difficulties but one of the most important is sourcing their raw ingredients. This has made the importation of pseudoephedrine from overseas a highly desirable means of obtaining the precursors to methylamphetamine manufacture. 4The fact that in China there can be purchased a legitimate medication known as Contact NT which contains a relatively high proportion of pseudoephedrine has made importation of that drug from China a common source of the necessary precursor. 5The fact that it can be legitimately purchased in China also affects the moral culpability of those who are involved in the supply of that drug in New South Wales. There is clearly a tendency on the part of those who know that Contact NT can be bought legitimately in China to think that that substance is not truly as bad as it really is. 6Once more the statement of facts tendered by the Prosecution in this case is full of unnecessary detail, tending to obscure rather than illuminate the essential criminality of what the offender did. I have done my best and this is what I think is the situation. 7The offender was involved with Mr Zheng. Mr Zheng was the principal in the Australian arm of an operation whereby pseudoephedrine would be imported into Australia and then supplied to others. Mr Yin, the offender, assisted him. His role was to facilitate acceptance of the pseudoephedrine, to store the pseudoephedrine, to unpack it and repackage it at Mr Zheng's direction and to remit money overseas. The evidence would tend to suggest that in all of these activities, Mr Yin acted at the direction of Mr Zheng. 8I was not able to determine any occasion where the offender exercised any significant initiative. It does not appear that he made any independent decision in relation to anything important in this matter, simply doing what Mr Zheng told him. 9He has now pleaded guilty to one offence of supplying a prohibited drug, it related to two separate quantities of pseudoephedrine, one quantity, 27.58 kilograms corresponded with the quantity for which Mr Zheng was sentenced. (Mr Zheng pleaded guilty and was sentenced to an attempt to obtain possession of the drug, the attempt being because an inert substance had been substituted by the authorities). 10Mr Yin has pleaded guilty to supplying that drug, that being more than a large commercial quantity. Although the charges are legally different nothing actually turns on that difference, the maximum penalties are the same as is the standard nonparole period. 11It is a serious matter indeed, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment to supply a large commercial quantity of prohibited drugs. It also carries with it a standard nonparole period of 15 years imprisonment, I have taken into account both the standard nonparole period and the maximum penalty in determining the appropriate sentence. My reasons for not imposing the standard nonparole period are to be found in these remarks on sentence. 12The offender was born in China. He is an only child because of the One China Policy. His father worked in a bank and his mother collected rent for the Housing Commission. I presume because they were keen to see their son succeed they sent him to Australia to study after he had completed Year 10 in China. At first he did English courses and then he went to High School but halfway through Year 12 he commenced doing a cooking and hospitality course at TAFE. He has been largely working in restaurants since then. 13Along the way he married a woman who he had met at school, Winona Chen, but that marriage ended. It is certainly over now that he has gone into custody. She has not visited him on any occasion. The breakdown of the marriage led to Mr Yin becoming depressed. He had a friend whom he looked up to, that friend was Mr Zheng, the gentlemen I sentenced earlier this year. As far as Mr Yin was concerned Mr Zheng had a lifestyle to be admired. 14After Mr Yin's marriage broke down, Mr Zheng was quite supportive both emotionally and financially, and so it was that when Mr Zheng asked Mr Yin to do him a favour and collect a package in 2009 Mr Yin agreed. 15The 27.58 kilograms I referred to earlier represented the contents of one of those packages but there is another quantity of pseudoephedrine I should mention which was discovered after Mr Yin was arrested. In his bedroom was another 909.6 grams of pseudoephedrine which was the product of an earlier delivery of another package. 16This is the first offence of Mr Yin apart from a single shoplifting matter a few years ago. He is 26 years of age and has plans on his release from custody and presumed deportation to continue working in hospitality and restaurants. 17To get to the age of 24 without committing any criminal offence and then to commit an offence as serious as this does tend to suggest that there is a good prospect this will be the only offence, serious offence at least, Mr Yin ever commits, there are thus good prospects of rehabilitation. 18I am prepared to find that Mr Yin's involvement in this operation was the product of particular circumstances, flowing significantly from the depression he experienced after his marriage split up and the fact that he looked up to someone, Mr Zheng, who took advantage of him. He was impressionable and vulnerable to requests for help by Mr Zheng. 19He gave evidence in Court today expressing his remorse, not only because of the effects of his offence on his family but also because of the consequences that flow from the supply of drugs and their use by people in the community. I accept that Mr Yin is remorseful. It is fortunate that, at least insofar as the drugs that Mr Yin is charged with supplying, none of the pseudoephedrine ever made it to any drug manufacturer because of the intervention of the authorities. 20He has been in custody from 18 January 2012. He is serving his sentence away from his family, although fortunately for him, his mother has been able to visit him once a week for two months one year, and then once a week for three months the following year but of course he will do his time in custody harder than those offenders who receive more regular visits from family and friends. 21He is using his time in custody productively, continuing his English studies. He gave evidence today in English for the most part, requiring the assistance of the interpreter on only a few occasions such as when there was a reference to his "residence" rather than his "home" or "house". 22He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity it is conceded by the Crown and so he is entitled to a discount on his sentence of 25%. 23Of course one of the most important factors appropriately relied on by Mr Wilkinson as regards to the sentence that I should impose upon Mr Yin concerns the principle of parity. Mr Yin should not have a justifiable sense of grievance when he compares the sentence I impose on him with the sentence I earlier imposed on Mr Zheng especially because Mr Yin's role was much less than that of Mr Zheng. 24I have already explained that Mr Yin operated at the direction of Mr Zheng. Another way of comparing their roles is to examine why Mr Yin was doing this. His financial reward was at most $1,500 in relation to each of the two separate packages. Given the significant commercial value of the quantities of pseudoephedrine it can be appropriately said that Mr Yin's financial reward was meagre in the extreme, and so in objective terms, Mr Yin's conduct was much less serious than that of Mr Zheng. 25Pointing somewhat in the other direction, however, is the circumstance that Mr Yin's sentence covers two separate quantities, about a kilogram more than the quantity that Mr Zheng's sentence covered. Nevertheless, Mr Yin's sentence must in accordance with the principles of parity be less than that of Mr Zheng. It is unfortunate for Mr Yin, that it however remains the case, that he must be punished and significantly so for what he has done. 26His involvement in this most significant crime involving large quantities of a drug necessarily means that a sentence of some length be imposed upon him. Drugs are terrible things. The community suffers in many ways because of the actions of drug addicts and the authorities, including sentencing courts, must do what they can to deter others from acting as Mr Yin has acted. 27I impose sentence as follows: I sentence Mr Yin to imprisonment. I set a nonparole period of four years to date from 18 January 2012. It will expire on 17 January 2016. I set a head sentence of seven years. Mr Yin is eligible to be released to parole on 17 January 2016. ********** 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: 05 December 2013