R v Gu

Case [2023] NZHC 2109 9 August 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-090-002022

[2023] NZHC 2109

THE KING

v

ZHICHENG GU

Hearing: 9 August 2023

Appearances:

Matthew Nathan KC and Joanne Lee for the Crown

Julie-Anne Kincade KC and Scott Brickell for Zhicheng Gu

Judgment:

9 August 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v GU [2023] NZHC 2109 [9 August 2023]

Background

[1] Mr Zhicheng Gu, at the age of 31, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Mr Wang Baochang (“Mr Wang”).1 Conviction for murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.2

[2] It is my task to sentence you. I will aim to keep these sentencing remarks brief and to avoid legal technicalities where possible. However, sentencing for murder is not an altogether straightforward exercise. Fortunately, similar complexities arose for this Court when sentencing your co-defendants, Mr Zhao3 and Mr Yu.4 You will therefore hear me refer on a number of occasions to the approach taken with those defendants. Where I can, I will footnote comments which do not need to be covered orally but which should be recorded so that those reading these sentencing notes later are able to understand how I have come to some of the conclusions which follow.

The offending

[3] It is first necessary for me to set out the facts of your offending. These will be familiar to you. But because sentencing is a judicial function which must be undertaken in open Court and in public, it is necessary for me to set out the facts which are relevant to how I arrive at the sentence you will receive.

[4] Having presided over your trial, and having viewed and on occasions reviewed the relevant evidence countless times and having seen and heard the witnesses, I am well placed to summarise the evidence and, of course where necessary, make findings of fact to the required criminal standard. So here are the facts as I find them.

[5] During 2017, you were a member of an organised crime syndicate which imported ephedrine and methamphetamine and also manufactured and supplied methamphetamine in New Zealand. Your co-defendants are all Chinese nationals. Mr Zhao headed the enterprise. He made the strategic decisions. He had the

1      I note that there appears to be some inconsistency in the order in which Mr Wang’s names are published. This is because Chinese surnames are traditionally written before the first or given name. I adopt this approach here.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 172.
3      R v Zhao [2022] NZHC 2919.
4      R v Yu [2023] NZHC 1391.

international connections. He was instrumental in getting the drugs, both ephedrine and methamphetamine, into the country. He was the boss. The second in command was Mr Yu. Mr Yu was responsible for handling the drugs once they crossed the border and distributing them to local gangs or to methamphetamine manufacturers, some of whom were making the…

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 Gu

Details

AGLC: R v Gu [2023] NZHC 2109
Case: [2023] NZHC 2109
Decision Date: 9 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Zhicheng Gu was sentenced for the murder of Mr. Wang Baochang, a crime he was found guilty of by a jury. Gu, a member of an organised crime syndicate involved in the importation and manufacturing of methamphetamine, was found to have played a role in the premeditated murder of Mr. Wang, who was also involved in manufacturing methamphetamine for the syndicate. The legal issues in the case revolved around determining the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment (MPI) for Gu's role in the murder, considering factors such as the level of planning involved, the brutality of the crime, and Gu's personal circumstances. The court found that while the murder involved calculated planning, it did not reach the threshold of brutality required to engage a specific sentencing factor. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Gu's status as a foreign national and the time he had already spent in detention. Ultimately, the court determined that an MPI of 13 years and eight months was appropriate, meaning Gu must serve this term before being eligible for parole. Gu was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, with the MPI of 13 years and eight months to be served before parole eligibility.

Orders