Chen v The King - [2025] NZHC 601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000277

[2025] NZHC 601

BETWEEN
XIAOLING CHEN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 3 February 2025

Counsel:

D P H Jones KC and J L Grobbelaar for Appellant B J Thompson and I L M Archibald for Respondent

Judgment:

21 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 March 2025 at 2 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Xiangling (Sarah) Hou (Auckland) for Appellant Crown Law (Wellington) for Respondent

CHEN v R [2025] NZHC 601 [21 March 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 27 January 2021, Judge Rollo1 found Ms Xiaoling Chen guilty of two charges of obtaining a valuable consideration by deception.2 On 18 June 2021, the Judge sentenced Ms Chen to nine months’ home detention and 150 hours’ community work.3

[2] Ms Chen now wishes to appeal her convictions. However, first she must obtain an extension of the time allowed for filing her notice of appeal. Ms Chen’s notice of appeal was lodged on 10 June 2024, nearly three years after the expiry of the statutory period of 20 working days.4

[3] My first task is to decide whether to extend the time allowed for the filing of Ms Chen’s notice of appeal. If I do permit the extension, then I must decide whether to allow the appeal.

Background

[4]I adopt Judge Rollo’s summary of the factual background:5

[1] Xiaoling Chen (also known as Annie or Ani Chen or Annie or Ani Shiu, the latter being her maiden name), whom I will refer to as Ms Chen, is a property developer living in Auckland. She is Chinese by birth, although a New Zealand citizen at this time, she has told me. She is a Mandarin speaker, which is relevant because the discussions and agreements that are the subject of the issues in this case were conducted orally or in writing predominantly in Mandarin.

[2] In 2016 and 2017, Ms Chen entered into three joint venture agreements with ZL, the first complainant (and with Ms Chen’s uncle, ZG, in the first and second instances, although his involvement is not of any real significance in this case).

[3] In June 2017, Ms Chen entered into another joint venture agreement with the second complainant, AY.

[4] Each joint venture agreement concerned the purchase, development and intended subsequent sale of what was rural land located at Pokeno, in the Waikato district (the rural land).

1      R v Chen [2020] NZDC 25807.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 240(1)(a).
3      R v Chen [2021] NZDC 12234.
4      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 231(2).
5      R v Chen, above n 1.

[5] The four pieces of rural land, which are in close proximity or contiguous to each other, adjoin an area of new residential subdivision in Pokeno. The joint venture in each case anticipated a re-zoning of the rural land by the local authority so that it could be developed as residential land by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chen v The King

Details

AGLC: Chen v The King [2025] NZHC 601
Case: [2025] NZHC 601
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Xiaoling Chen against her convictions for obtaining valuable consideration by deception was brought before the High Court of New Zealand by Judge Brewer. Chen, found guilty by Judge Rollo in 2021, sought an extension to the statutory 20 working days for filing an appeal, which she missed by nearly three years. The primary issue before Brewer J was whether the time extension should be granted considering the delay and the merits of the appeal. Chen's appeal hinged on the argument that the trial was compromised by the improper use of a document and alleged errors in the credibility assessment of the witnesses. The Court examined Chen's reasons for the delay, finding that while she received accurate legal advice, her decision not to appeal earlier was deliberate. Despite this, Brewer J assessed the strength of Chen's appeal grounds, focusing on the use of a specific agreement during the trial and the judge's credibility assessment. The Court concluded that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence, and the proposed grounds for appeal did not sufficiently demonstrate a risk of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, Brewer J declined to grant leave to extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal.

Orders