Li v The King - [2023] NZCA 239

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA10/2021
[2023] NZCA 239

BETWEEN	MANCHAO LI Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	23 March 2023
Court:	Clifford, Dunningham and Cull JJ
Counsel:	M Kan for Appellant E J Hoskin and M R L Davie for Respondent
Judgment:	15 June 2023 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Following a jury trial before Jagose J in the High Court the appellant, Manchao Li, was found guilty and convicted of the murder of his ex-wife Zhimin Yang, and of breaching a protection order made against him in her favour. Mr Li was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non‑parole period of 19 years.[1]
[1]R v Li [2020] NZHC 3419.
Mr Li now appeals his conviction. Mr Li originally also appealed his sentence. At the hearing of this appeal, counsel on appeal for Mr Li, Mr Kan, advised the Court that Mr Li wished to withdraw his sentence appeal. We, through the interpreter, asked Mr Li to confirm that was indeed the case. We are satisfied both from our assessment of Mr Li’s response and from its translation by the interpreter that was indeed his intention. We therefore record that Mr Li withdrew his appeal against his sentence and proceeded with his conviction appeal only.

Background

Based on the sentencing notes of Jagose J in the High Court, we summarise the circumstances in which Mr Li killed Ms Yang.
At about 8.30 am on Monday 29 July 2019, Mr Li followed Ms Yang from her home to a bus stop on Westgate Drive in Massey, Auckland. At the time, Mr Li was prohibited by Court order from watching or loitering near Ms Yang’s home, from following her, from physically or psychologically abusing her, and from possessing any weapon. What then happened was witnessed by many people.
Mr Li was carrying a hunting knife he had recently purchased in a black plastic bag. He approached Ms Yang as she waited for the bus. She screamed. He tackled her to the ground from behind. He then dragged her to an adjacent grassy lot. He stood over her as she struggled to sit up, holding her down by her hair or by her collar at the back of her head, and stabbed her multiple times. He then dropped her limp body to the ground, walked back to his car and drove away. He was pursued and stopped by a member of the public. He was later arrested by the police. Ms Yang died at the scene despite attempts by members of the public to save her.
The Judge explained:
[15] Your attack on Ms Yang was seen by people near the bus stop:
(a)a worker on a nearby construction site, his and his workmates’ attention drawn by Ms Yang’s screams, saw you attacking her using your whole body with “a lot of power, a…

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 Li v The King

Details

AGLC: Li v The King [2023] NZCA 239
Case: [2023] NZCA 239
Decision Date: 15 June 2023 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Manchao Li, sought to appeal his conviction and sentence for the murder of his ex-wife, Zhimin Yang, and for breaching a protection order made in her favour. Li's appeal against his sentence was withdrawn at the hearing of this appeal. Li's appeal against his conviction was based on a wide-ranging attack on the competence of his counsel at trial, Messrs Mansfield, Wimsett, and Graham. Li claimed that his counsel failed to follow his instructions and that he was not properly advised during the trial. Li also claimed that adequate disclosure had not been made to him, or that adequate translation facilities had not been provided to enable him to understand the evidence and communicate with his counsel.

The court found that Li's appeal was without merit. The careful record kept by Li's counsel evidenced that Li's explanation of the basis for his view, that the record was a falsity or fabrication, was simply not credible. The court was satisfied that none of Li's complaints about his trial counsel gave rise to a real risk of a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed.

The court noted that Li had a long history of animosity and antagonism towards Ms Yang, and had been fixated with and obsessed by the wrong he perceived he had suffered at her hands. Despite living in Christchurch, Li continued to harass Yang in the vicinity of her home and work in Auckland. Li had built up a collection of large hunting knives, a meat cleaver, and air rifles, and had talked about disfiguring or killing Yang in retribution. Li's killing of Yang was impulsive and the culmination of his frustration and exhaustion of what he saw as legal channels of redress. Li's narcissistic personality and chronic depressed mood left him poorly equipped to deal with Yang's legal successes against him. Li's response was to engage in querulous paranoia and resentful stalking, the latter of which the psychiatrist considered on its face to be callous and purposefully intended to cause Yang psychological distress. However, the psychiatrist concluded that neither that behaviour nor Li's stopping of his prescribed medications explained his killing of Yang.

The court found that Li's appeal was without merit and dismissed the appeal.

Orders