R v Huang - [2008] NZCA 46

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA577/07
[2008] NZCA 46
THE QUEEN
v
XIAO HUI HUANG
Hearing:14 February 2008

Court:Glazebrook, John Hansen and Wild JJ
Counsel:C P Comeskey for Appellant

F E Guy Kidd and S K Barr for Crown

Judgment:5 March 2008 at 4pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL, WHICH IS AGAINST BOTH CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Wild J)
Introduction
[1]       Ms Huang appeals against both conviction and sentence. At the end of her trial in the High Court at Wellington last April, the jury found Ms Huang guilty of possession of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine for supply, and of conspiring to supply methamphetamine. Clifford J subsequently sentenced Ms Huang to 12 years imprisonment. Ms Huang appeals against her conviction, contending that the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor at her trial was misleading and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In his written submissions Mr Comeskey raised two matters. Without prior advice to the Crown or Court, he sought to add a third in his oral submissions.
[2]       Ms Huang challenges her sentence as being manifestly excessive.
Background
[3]       In January 2006, Customs intercepted a consignment from China of three cartons sent to an address in Miramar, Wellington. Concealed inside filter cartridges in the cartons Customs and Police found eight kilograms of methamphetamine in 26 heat sealed plastic packages. At the time this was the largest seizure of methamphetamine imported into this country, with an estimated street value around $8 million.
[4]       After Customs and Police had substituted a placebo for all but some 20 grams of the methamphetamine, the cartons were delivered to the Wellington address. Ms Huang’s co-accused, Mr Ng, accepted delivery of the cartons at this address. Ms Huang flew from Auckland to Wellington. After travelling by taxi to Raumati where she booked a motel for the night, she returned to Wellington and rented a safety deposit box. Following a telephone call from Mr Ng she went to a motel in Lyall Bay where Mr Ng handed her the 26 packages and a set of weigh scales. She took these to a room she had booked at the Duxton Hotel in Wellington. She was apprehended shortly after leaving the hotel.
[5]       In the course of a lengthy interview with Detective Lockyer following her apprehension, the appellant denied knowing that the packages contained methamphetamine. She claimed a friend called Mark had given her $2,000 and asked her to collect the packages, which she thought contained milk powder. She told the Police that the contents of the packages looked, smelt and felt like milk powder. One of her exchanges with Detective Lockyer was:
Detective:What do you think was in the parcels that you received at the motel?
Appellant:I really don’t know is what. … Because I open it up, I smell like a milk powder.

At another point the appellant told the detective:
… And also those bags are yellow colour and ah looking at…

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 Huang

Details

AGLC: R v Huang [2008] NZCA 46
Case: [2008] NZCA 46
Decision Date: 5 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Huang, Xiao Hui Huang appealed against both her conviction and sentence. Huang was found guilty of possession of Class A controlled drug methamphetamine for supply and conspiring to supply methamphetamine. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The court examined three grounds of appeal against conviction, none of which were accepted. The first ground was based on an inconsistency between the composition of the placebo described by the Crown pre-trial and the evidence given by a Customs Officer at the trial. The second ground was based on the Crown's closing address to the jury, which suggested Huang intended to sell drugs in Raumati. The third ground was based on the Crown's evidence that all the packages could fit into the backpack. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, as the court found the sentence of 12 years imprisonment imposed by the Judge was not manifestly excessive.

Orders