NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CRI-2024-485-000031
[2024] NZHC 1849
BETWEEN
CHUAN SHENG LAW
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent
Hearing:
2 July 2024
Counsel
V C Nisbet for Appellant
L R van der Lem for Respondent
Judgment:
8 July 2024
JUDGMENT OF RADICH J
[1] In April 2024, Judge Mika sentenced Chuan Law to six months’ home detention1 on a charge of sexual connection with a young person2 and on a charge of meeting a young person following sexual grooming.3 The Judge declined Mr Law’s application for discharge without conviction and his application for permanent name suppression.
[2] Mr Law brings this appeal from the Judge’s refusal to grant the discharge without conviction application. Failing that, an appeal is brought from the sentence
1 R v Law [2024] NZDC 8122 [Sentencing Decision]. Judge Mika’s sentencing indication of 17 March 2023 was attached to the Sentencing Decision and can be regarded as forming part of it: R v Law DC Hutt Valley CRI-2022-096-2234, 17 March 2023 [Sentencing Indication].
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1); maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3 Section 131B; maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
LAW v R [2024] NZHC 1849 [8 July 2024]
imposed on the basis that it was manifestly excessive and that a community sentence with supervision was appropriate.4
[3] The overarching issue for the Judge was as to where the case sat in the spectrum of the options that were available. Those options ranged from the discharge that was sought, at one end, to imprisonment, which can be the likely sentencing outcome for sexual offending against children, at the other.5 The Judge adopted what is, essentially, a mid-point in that spectrum. The issue for me now is to consider whether the Judge erred and whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred such that an appeal should be allowed.6
The relevant facts and circumstances
The offending
[4] When the offending occurred, the victim was 15 years of age and Mr Law was 26 years of age. They were both members of a (primarily online) community that involves members taking on different identities. It is described as an inclusive community that can include consensual intimacy on the part of its members. It was within the context of this community that Mr Law and the victim began to message each other through messaging applications. The messaging led to exchanges of a sexual nature. Mr Law suggested that the victim might come to his apartment. However, because that was too far for the victim to travel, they arranged to meet in Seaview, Lower Hutt, on the evening of 1 April 2022.
[5] During the online conversations between them, the victim confirmed to Mr Law that he was 15 years of age and said that Mr Law could go to prison over the activities…
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 Law v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Law v The King [2024] NZHC 1849
Case
[2024] NZHC 1849
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Law v The King, Chuan Sheng Law appealed against his conviction and sentence imposed by Judge Mika in the Hutt Valley District Court. Law was sentenced to six months' home detention on charges of sexual connection with a young person and meeting a young person following sexual grooming. The appeal contested the refusal to grant a discharge without conviction and the sentence's excessiveness.
The court considered the gravity of Law's offending, which involved a significant age disparity and manipulation through online messages. The victim, aged 15, experienced substantial emotional harm, necessitating ongoing counseling and medication. Law's remorse and efforts to rehabilitate, including attending WellStop and engaging a forensic psychiatrist, were noted but did not mitigate the severity of the offending.
The court examined whether the consequences of conviction, particularly Law's loss of employment, were out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. It found that the consequences were not disproportionate, aligning with the likely outcomes for similar sexual offences against children. The court also assessed the sentence's appropriateness, finding it neither manifestly excessive nor an error in principle. The sentence, which was a departure from the usual imprisonment for such offences, was deemed suitable given the circumstances.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the Judge did not err in refusing the discharge without conviction or in imposing the sentence. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the District Court's decision.