Neems v The Queen - [2017] NZCA 21

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF IDENTITY OF PERSON NAMED “L” IN THIS JUDGMENT REMAINS IN FORCE.

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATED WITH HUI ZHANG REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA546/2015
[2017] NZCA 21

BETWEEN	MICHAEL JEFFREY NEEMS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA589/2015
BETWEEN	GUO PEI CHEN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA606/2015
BETWEEN	DESMOND LOKE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA649/2015
BETWEEN	DESMOND RILEY LINGARD SHARP Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 August 2016
Court:	Winkelmann, Williams and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	P J Kaye for Appellant Neems T M Cooper for Appellant Chen T M Cooper for Appellant Loke H B Leabourn for Appellant Sharp Z R Johnston for Respondent
Judgment:	22 February 2017 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AMr Sharp is granted an extension of time to appeal.
BMr Sharp is granted leave to amend his grounds of appeal.
CAll appeals are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Williams J)

Introduction

The appellants in these appeals were among the targets of Operation Gem. This operation was an investigation into the importation and distribution of pseudoephedrine, and the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. The operation was undertaken between August and December 2013. It detected a relatively sophisticated drug operation at the apex of which was Hui Zhang,[1] who imported pseudoephedrine from China on a very large scale, repackaged and distributed it in smaller but still substantial amounts. This was done via trusted couriers to second-tier members of the syndicate. These individuals then on‑distributed to manufacturers of methamphetamine usually in return for a cut of the proceeds. The pseudoephedrine was imported in the form of Contac-NT and is an important precursor ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
[1]Mr Zhang has also filed an appeal but this was adjourned and so was not heard as a part of this consolidation of the Operation Gem appeals.
The appellants Mr Chen and Mr Sharp were second-tier distributors. Over the course of Operation Gem, Mr Chen was involved in 13 transactions involving 11.25 kilograms of pseudoephedrine valued at an estimated $1 million. Mr Sharp admitted to charges of supply, and possession for supply, of 7.5 kilograms of pseudoephedrine having an estimated value of $664,000. Mr Sharp also used the product to manufacture methamphetamine for profit in his own right. A search of the address occupied by Mr Sharp and his family revealed a relatively large-scale clandestine lab, together with significant quantities of stored cash. Police found 112 grams of finished methamphetamine in a bedroom at the address. The appellant Mr Loke was found to be part of this manufacturing operation. He was convicted of possession of the 112 grams of methamphetamine as well as possession of equipment, materials and precursor substances.
Mr Neems was apprehended while driving a car in which police found 22 Contac-NT sets, containing just under two kilograms of pseudoephedrine to the value of $176,000. The pseudoephedrine had passed through 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 Neems v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Neems v The Queen [2017] NZCA 21
Case: [2017] NZCA 21
Decision Date: 22 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved four appellants, Neems, Chen, Loke, and Sharp, who were part of a drug syndicate involved in the importation and distribution of pseudoephedrine and the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. The appellants were convicted and sentenced in relation to their involvement in this syndicate. They appealed their convictions and/or sentences. The Court of Appeal considered the appeals and ultimately dismissed all of them. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to convict Neems, and rejected his argument that the jury's verdict was unreasonable. The Court also rejected the arguments made by Sharp, Chen, and Loke in relation to their sentences, finding that the sentences imposed were appropriate and did not constitute an error. The Court did, however, grant Sharp an extension of time to appeal and leave to amend his grounds of appeal.

Orders