R v Eng

Case [2024] NZHC 890 16 December 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2022-085-002285

[2024] NZHC 890

THE KING

v

HELEN ENG

Hearing: 16 December 2024

Counsel:

G Burston and M Story for Crown L A Caris for Defendant

Judgment:

16 December 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRAU J

[1] Ms Eng you appear for sentencing today on a single representative charge of receiving items over $1,000, on the basis that you were reckless about whether the property had been stolen.1 You pleaded guilty to the charge on the morning your trial was due to start. You are asking the Court to discharge you without conviction and permanently suppress your name. The Crown opposes a discharge, and opposes name suppression. The Crown says you should be sentenced to community detention and community work, which is the sentence that a couple of the co-offenders received last week.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 246, 247(a), and 66(1), maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

R v ENG (SENTENCING) [2024] NZHC 890 [16 December 2024]

The offending

[2] Your charge comes from a Police operation in 2022 targeting a very large-scale receiving operation which was run by your husband, Mr Soon, assisted by a number of associates.

[3] Mr Soon has been sentenced to three years and 10 months’ imprisonment for his leading role in what was a very significant criminal enterprise that had many victims in the Wellington community, and where the total amount of stolen property the Police recovered was not far short of $3 million. You are the final offender to be sentenced in respect of this operation.

[4] The summary of facts that you have accepted by pleading guilty, records that Mr Soon (who had access to company and personal accounts and lines of credit that were granted to you), purchased an unprecedented amount of stolen property. The Police operation started by capturing Mr Soon’s text messaging and surveillance of his activities. It ended with search warrants at a number of residential properties that you both owned, that your company, Synergy Investments Ltd owned (which you were the sole director and shareholder of), at your central city business address, and at 16 storage units in five locations that were hired between January and September 2022 for Mr Soon to store the stolen property in. Some of these storage units were rented in your name, although it appears, without your knowledge.

[5] I make it clear that there was no stolen property found at your city business address. But there was a large amount of stolen property stored at your home that you shared with Mr Soon and at which you also had tenants who were involved in the offending. Your charge only relates to the stolen property recovered there.

[6] The summary tells me that Police recovered around 851 items from every part of the house, including bedrooms that were rented to other people, two of whom were co-offenders, and in the bedroom that you 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 Eng

Details

AGLC: R v Eng [2024] NZHC 890
Case: [2024] NZHC 890
Decision Date: 16 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Helen Eng appeared for sentencing on a charge of receiving stolen items over $1,000, having pleaded guilty to being reckless about the property's origin. The court had to decide whether Eng should be discharged without conviction, her appropriate sentence, and whether her name should be permanently suppressed. Eng sought discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression, while the Crown opposed both, advocating for community detention and community work. The court first assessed the gravity of Eng's offending, considering her culpability and the circumstances of her involvement. Eng argued she was unaware of her husband's activities and had limited knowledge of the stolen property found at their home, but the court found her involvement to be reckless given the significant amount of stolen goods. The court then evaluated the consequences of conviction, including potential impacts on her employment, mental health, and reputation, concluding they were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offending. Eng was sentenced to six months of community detention with a curfew, avoiding community work to allow her to maintain her employment and church activities. The court denied name suppression, finding the public interest in open justice and the seriousness of the offending outweighed Eng's concerns about reputational damage and potential racial abuse.

Orders