R v Chea - [2015] NZHC 1806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-085-2491 [2015] NZHC 1806

THE QUEEN

v

KEVIN KAKADA CHEA KIEN TRUNG DAO ABBY RAE CUMMINS

MICHAEL EDWIN DEBRECENY

Hearing: 31 July 2015

Counsel:

P K Feltham for Crown

A F Rickard-Simms for Chea
C J Tennet for Dao
K I Jefferies for Cummins and Debreceny

Sentence:

31 July 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] I have now to sentence each of you on the convictions for your respective roles in importing, supplying and having possession of methamphetamine for supply. My task is to rate the seriousness of the offending by each of you. I do so in accordance with the view I take of the nature of that offending, which must be consistent with the jury’s verdicts. I have carefully reflected on my impression of all the evidence, bearing in mind that the jury did not find some of the charges that you faced had been proven by the Crown.

[2] The activities were mostly centred on an apartment in Chews Lane in central Wellington, where you, Messrs Chea and Dao and Ms Cummins, were living. The offending was revealed when the Police conducted a search at the premises in the
very early hours of 7 March 2014. The Police discovered a cooking operation in the

R v CHEA, DAO, CUMMINS AND DEBRECENY [2015] NZHC 1806 [31 July 2015]

open plan kitchen area of the apartment that they initially took to be methamphetamine being manufactured. On further consideration, it turned out to be a reprocessing operation to reconstitute methamphetamine, which had been suspended in some inert substance such as plaster to disguise its presence when blocks of the substance were imported. The blocks had been coloured green and, for import purposes, were described as The evidence, I am satisfied, established that Messrs Chea and Dao had contacts in Vietnam and in Canada, and I accept the Crown case that the blocks imported originated in Vietnam, were sent first to Canada, and from there to unoccupied addresses in Wellington. Payments for the disguised methamphetamine were made to bank accounts in Vietnam. The transactions were mostly made by Mr Dao, and by a woman who was apparently not otherwise involved, but was requested to undertake money transfers on behalf of Mr Chea.

[4] In the one importation for which you, Mr Debreceny, were convicted, you facilitated delivery of the package via a courier driver who you knew independently of these activities. Your physical involvement with the package might be seen as minor. However, the text traffic between you and Messrs Chea and Dao, and text message references to your involvement with those in Vietnam, establish a knowing involvement in facilitating receipt and delivery of that package to Messrs Chea and Dao, knowing of the nature of the contents and what they would be doing with it.

[5] Ms Cummins, you were living at the apartment as Mr Chea’s girlfriend. I am satisfied that you were fully aware of the reprocessing and…

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 Chea

Details

AGLC: R v Chea [2015] NZHC 1806
Case: [2015] NZHC 1806
Decision Date: 31 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Chea involved Kevin Kakada Chea, Kien Trung Dao, Abby Rae Cummins, and Michael Edwin Debreceny, who were convicted of various drug-related offenses, including importing, supplying, and possessing methamphetamine for supply. The court was tasked with sentencing each defendant based on the severity of their involvement. The judge established starting points for the sentences by considering the gravity of the offenses, the degree of culpability, and the amounts of methamphetamine involved. Chea and Dao, who were more centrally involved in the drug operations, received starting points of 17 and 15 years, respectively. Debreceny, who had a lesser role, was sentenced to nine and a half years, while Cummins, who had the smallest involvement, received a sentence of three and a half years. The final sentences took into account personal circumstances and the need for deterrence and denunciation, with minimum periods of imprisonment imposed on Chea, Dao, and Debreceny to ensure a strong deterrent effect.

Orders