R v Chan - [2016] NZHC 2376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-3100 [2016] NZHC 2376

THE QUEEN

v

KIN LONG CHAN

Charges:
Plea:

Importing methamphetamine (4); Supplying methamphetamine

(2); Attempting to supply methamphetamine; Possession of methamphetamine for supply (2)

Not guilty

Counsel:

R M A McCoubrey and K C Chang for Crown
A G V Rogers, D S Niven and Mr Wong for Prisoner

Sentence:

6 October 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Prestige Lawyers Ltd (Auckland) for Prisoner

R v CHAN [2016] NZHC 2376 [6 October 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Chan, the jury found you guilty of four charges of importing methamphetamine, two charges of supplying methamphetamine, one charge of attempting to supply methamphetamine and two charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply. The maximum penalty for all of these charges is life imprisonment except for the attempt charge which has a maximum penalty of
10 years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[2] You are a 23-year old Hong Kong national living in New Zealand. You first came here as a 12-year old. Your parents remained in Hong Kong. You lived with a home-stay family and went to school here but you returned to Hong Kong regularly to see your family.

[3] In 2013 you met Ho Mak. You met him at the Sky City Casino. Mr Ho Mak led you to become involved with a Hong Kong based syndicate that arranged for large consignments of methamphetamine to be imported into New Zealand. The offending for which you were convicted occurred between early February 2015 and
25 March 2015.

The importation charges

[4] I first summarise the facts underlying the importation charges.

[5] You were convicted in relation to four consignments. Three of these were imported by mail with the packages directed to a storage unit in Mt Eden. Two of the packages were intercepted by New Zealand Customs. One was found to contain approximately 2.2 kilograms of grey powder containing methamphetamine crystals. The other package was found to contain 1.22 kilograms of grey powder also containing methamphetamine. A third, empty, package was found after the operation had been terminated. That package contained traces of methamphetamine.

[6] The fourth consignment arrived in Auckland by ship on 5 March 2015. It was inspected by Police and Customs officers. The officers found 60.9 kilograms of

methamphetamine concealed within garden hoses packaged inside 30 boxes. The officers repacked the boxes and replaced the bulk of the methamphetamine with an innocent substance. The boxes were later delivered to a self-storage unit in Mt Eden which you had procured. This was the second largest seizure of imported methamphetamine in New Zealand.

[7] Your role in this importation operation, Mr Chan, was to help with the logistics of receiving and distributing the packages once they had arrived in New Zealand. You rented the storage unit to which the mailed packages were to be delivered. You waited expectantly for their arrival. The evidence for that is that on
16 March 2015, you, along with Mr Kam,…

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 R v Chan

Details

AGLC: R v Chan [2016] NZHC 2376
Case: [2016] NZHC 2376
Decision Date: 6 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chan involves Kin Long Chan, a 23-year-old Hong Kong national residing in New Zealand, who was convicted by a jury of multiple drug-related charges. These included four counts of importing methamphetamine, two counts of supplying methamphetamine, one count of attempting to supply methamphetamine, and two counts of possessing methamphetamine for supply. The legal issues primarily revolved around determining the appropriate starting point for Chan's sentence and assessing the extent to which his personal circumstances warranted any reduction in his sentence. The court had to balance the need to denounce and deter such serious drug offenses with the mitigating factors presented by Chan's youth, his lack of significant personal gain, and his otherwise good character.

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, took into account the severity of Chan's involvement in the drug importation and distribution network, acknowledging his role in facilitating the logistics of receiving and distributing the packages. However, the court also considered his lesser involvement compared to his co-offenders, as well as his youth and the lack of significant personal benefit from his actions. While Chan's youth and vulnerability to the influence of the syndicate's leader, Ho Mak, were noted as mitigating factors, the court did not find him genuinely remorseful. The court ultimately decided on a starting point of 23 years for the lead charge, adjusted slightly downwards to 19 years and three months after accounting for mitigating factors and his time on electronic monitoring bail. The minimum period of imprisonment was set at 40% of the total sentence, resulting in a minimum of seven years and eight months.

In summary, the court sentenced Chan to a total of 19 years and three months imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for each of the charges, effectively resulting in a single term of imprisonment of 19 years and three months. A minimum period of imprisonment of seven years and eight months was also imposed.

Orders