R v Ip - [2016] NZHC 1825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-092-002502 [2016] NZHC 1825

THE QUEEN

v

SUI MAN IP

Hearing: 8 August 2016

Appearances:

Michael Regan for the Crown
Shane Tait for the Defendant

Judgment:

8 August 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v IP [2016] NZHC 1825 [8 August 2016]

Introduction

[1] Sui Man Ip you appear for sentence this morning on one charge of importing the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine.1 The maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment.2

[2] The Crown has provided me with an agreed summary of facts. I have also received both written and oral submissions from counsel when you last appeared to receive a sentence indication. Counsel have advised they are content for me to take those submissions as applicable to this morning’s hearing without the need to file supplementary material.

Facts

[3] The facts of the offending can be shortly stated. On 20 January 2016, you arrived at Auckland International Airport on board a flight from Perth, Australia. You are a Hong Kong national. You entered the country without incident. Later that day you moved into a flat in Mt Albert. On the tenancy agreement you called yourself “Christine,” which I understand is a name you use from time to time.

[4] On 4 February 2016, an officer from the Ministry of Primary Industries examined a package which had arrived at the International Mail Centre. The package was addressed to you at the Mt Albert address. Inside the package were, amongst other things, three cans labelled as stewed pork rib. A white crystalline substance, weighing a total of 1006 grams, was found secreted inside the cans. Testing revealed it was methamphetamine with a purity of 78 per cent.

[5] Your phone data was accessed by Customs. It was revealed you had sent a series of messages on 9 January 2016 to someone referred to as “Johnny” advising him that you had not been able to “receive it again”. “It” was plainly a reference to the package. You added it was still at Customs and there was a 90 per cent chance it would not be released. Johnny advised you to wait two more days. On 12 February,
you sent a further message to Johnny again stating you “didn’t receive it”. On

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a).
2 Section 6(2)(a).

13 February, you sent a series of messages to Johnny advising him that you had been told to move to another address, presumably by another person associated with the importation. You told Johnny another attempt would be made to send the package to you. Later that day you began looking for a new address and eventually moved to Mt Wellington on 16 February 2016.

[6] Sometime later you attempted to leave the country but you were arrested by

Customs at the airport.

Personal circumstances

[7] You are a Hong Kong national who has not previously appeared before the New Zealand Courts. The pre-sentence report adds little to explain…

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 Ip

Details

AGLC: R v Ip [2016] NZHC 1825
Case: [2016] NZHC 1825
Decision Date: 8 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Sui Man Ip, was convicted of importing a Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, and appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment. The Crown and the defendant’s counsel agreed on a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment, based on the commerciality of the offence, the harm caused by methamphetamine, and the level of premeditation and organisation involved. The court also considered personal mitigating and aggravating factors. The Crown conceded that there were no aggravating factors, while the defendant was granted discounts for his early guilty plea, previous good character, and the hardship of serving a sentence in a foreign country, albeit at a reduced level. The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter others from committing similar crimes.

The court’s reasoning was grounded in the purposes and principles of sentencing, which include holding the offender accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing the conduct, and deterring the offender and others from committing the same offence. The court noted the gravity of the offending and the need for deterrence in cases involving the commercial importation of methamphetamine. The court also considered the role of the defendant in the importation, which was that of a “catcher,” and the importance of deterrence in cases of serious drug offending. The court imposed a sentence of nine years and three months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent, which means the defendant must serve at least four years and seven months before being eligible for release.

Orders