Liu v The Queen

[2015] NZCA 607

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA698/2015
[2015] NZCA 607

BETWEEN	FENGLAN LIU Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Telephone 

Conference:

15 December 2015

Counsel:

S W Hughes QC for Appellant
I R Murray for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

17 December 2015 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF FRENCH J

The application for bail pending appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

1. Ms Liu has applied for bail pending the determination of an appeal against conviction and sentence.  Following a judge alone trial before Judge Roberts, she was convicted in the District Court of 16 counts of aiding her husband’s company to provide false information to Inland Revenue so as to evade assessment or payment of GST and income tax.[1][2]  The Judge found the offending had occurred over a five-year period and involved a substantial loss to Inland Revenue.  He sentenced her to a term of imprisonment of two years and three months.[3]

The grounds of the application for bail

[1]In breach of s 148(1) Tax Administration Act 1994.

[3]R v Top International Trading Ltd [2015] NZDC 23330.

1. The primary grounds of the bail application are the lack of permanent care arrangements for Ms Liu’s two children, aged 18 and 16; a medical condition of epilepsy; the strength of the appeal; and concerns that by the time it can be heard Ms Liu will be close to being eligible for parole, rendering the appeal nugatory.

Discussion

1. At the time the bail application was filed, the appeal did not have a hearing date and it was assumed to be at least six months away.  However, the Court has been able to offer hearing dates in February and early March 2016.  In my view, in those circumstances, the concerns raised by counsel lose much of their force.

2. Further, while I am obviously not in a position to attempt any extensive analysis of the merits of the appeal, on the limited information before me I would not necessarily endorse Ms Hughes QC’s assessment of them as falling in the “strong” category, so as to justify bail.

3. As for the situation regarding the teenage children, an earlier hearing date will, to some extent, ameliorate that problem because relatives have been willing to help, at least on a temporary basis.  I acknowledge Ms Hughes’ submission that the failure to make arrangements in advance needs to be seen in the context of a person who has language difficulties and who would have been hopeful of a home detention sentence because the Judge asked for information about the suitability of the home address for that purpose.  However, there was a sentencing indication and Ms Liu was on notice that prison was a realistic option.  In my assessment, it was a situation that could and should have been anticipated. 

4. Finally, in my view, issues about Ms Liu’s epilepsy are matters to be addressed to the prison authorities.

Outcome

1. Having regard to s 14 of the Bail Act 2000, Ms Liu has failed to satisfy me that hers is a case where, on the balance of probabilities, it is in the interests of justice to grant her bail pending appeal.

2. The application for bail is accordingly declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

[2]R v Top International Trading Ltd [2015] NZDC 21331.