Cheng v The King - [2025] NZSC 26

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 126/2024
[2025] NZSC 26

BETWEEN	JIANZHONG CHENG Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	A Wei, R Rodrigues and Y Sun for Applicant I S Auld for Respondent
Judgment:	3 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Jianzhong Cheng, the applicant, pleaded guilty to 18 charges of drug offending. He was sentenced to nine years and six months’ imprisonment.[1] He unsuccessfully appealed against sentence to the Court of Appeal and now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.[2]

Background

[1]R v Cheng [2024] NZDC 3635 (Judge Gibson) [Sentencing notes].

[2]Cheng v R [2024] NZCA 598 (Hinton, Brewer and Osborne JJ) [CA judgment].

The charges reflected the applicant’s involvement in the importation of at least 13.055 kilograms of ephedrine over six separate occasions;[3] 5.826 kilograms of pseudoephedrine on one occasion; and 3.91 kilograms of ketamine over two separate occasions. In addition, the applicant was involved in the supply of drugs. In particular, he was in possession of 956.7 grams of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply; supplied some 100 grams of methamphetamine over two separate occasions; had 3.936 kilograms of ephedrine for the purpose of supply; and supplied 9.64 kilograms of ephedrine over five separate occasions. The incidents giving rise to the charges took place over a period of about a year.
[3]Like the Court of Appeal, we have adopted the figure used by counsel for both parties.
Both the sentencing Judge and the Court of Appeal described the applicant as “effectively” a “middleman” between a Ms Wei, a more senior member of the group involved in importation and supply, and the manufacturers of the methamphetamine.[4] In this context, the Court of Appeal said this:[5]
[Mr Cheng] received packages, unpacked them, took photographs and videos of the process, and sent those to Ms Wei. He was an integral part of the subsequent supply operation, supplying ephedrine to methamphetamine manufacturers and methamphetamine to customers under instructions from Ms Wei.
[4]Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [2]; and CA judgment, above n 2, at [5].
[5]CA judgment, above n 2, at [5].
In sentencing the applicant, the Judge took the methamphetamine offending (Class A) as the lead offences. As the offending involved under two kilograms it fell within Band Four of Zhang v R.[6] The Judge was satisfied Mr Cheng’s role fell somewhere between “lesser” and “significant” in terms of the Zhang analysis.[7] The Judge set the starting point for this part of the offending at nine years’ imprisonment. The Judge then addressed starting points for the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine offending, referring to three other cases involving Class B drugs.[8] An uplift was adopted, reflecting both the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine offending and the ketamine (Class C) offending, of six years, taking into account totality factors.
[6]Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
[7]Sentencing…

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 Cheng v The King

Details

AGLC: Cheng v The King [2025] NZSC 26
Case: [2025] NZSC 26
Decision Date: 3 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jianzhong Cheng, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against his sentence of nine years and six months’ imprisonment for drug importation and supply offences. He had previously pleaded guilty and had lost his appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with deciding whether to grant Cheng leave to appeal to this Court. The primary issues involved Cheng's role in the drug operation, the appropriateness of the sentence, and whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of mitigating factors and sentencing discounts. The Court of Appeal had already considered and rejected these arguments, and the Supreme Court found no basis to conclude that the Court of Appeal’s assessment was flawed or that there was a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range, and the Court of Appeal’s consideration of mitigating factors was reasonable. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed Cheng's application for leave to appeal. The Court found no grounds to question the Court of Appeal's decision or to believe that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Orders