R v Jiang - [2019] NZHC 3442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2018-042-000758

[2019] NZHC 3442

THE QUEEN

v

BIN JIANG

Hearing: 19 December 2019

Counsel:

J M Webber and S J Revell for the Crown

A J D Bamford and E J Riddell for Mr Jiang

Sentencing:

19 December 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOOGUE J

[1] Mr Jiang, on 21 November 2019, a jury found you guilty of the murder of your wife, Yanyan Meng, in the early hours of 27 April 2018. On receipt of that verdict I gave you a warning about the consequences of committing another specified offence under New Zealand’s three-strikes law.

[2] The sentence for murder in New Zealand is life imprisonment, unless it would be manifestly unjust.1 In your case, the Crown says that there is no suggestion that a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust. Your counsel, however, says that your case may be one which warrants a finite sentence instead of life imprisonment.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

R v JIANG [2019] NZHC 3442 [19 December 2019]

[3] I must therefore decide two questions. First, whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment. And second, if life imprisonment would not be manifestly unjust, what minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed. That is the term that you would serve before you would be eligible for parole.

Facts of the offending

[4] Mr Jiang, you are 63 years old. Ms Meng was 62 when she died. You were married for 40 years. You spent most of your married life in Switzerland where you both gained citizenship, having both been born in China. You have one son together.

[5] At the time of Ms Meng’s death, the two of you were visiting New Zealand as part of a German-speaking tour group which had started in Christchurch and was travelling to Auckland.

[6] On the evening of Thursday 26 April 2018, you and Ms Meng were staying in room 603 at the Rutherford Hotel, Nelson. Other members of the tour group were also staying on the same floor of the Hotel.

[7] Occupants of rooms directly below and adjoining room 603 have since reported to police that they heard noises coming from the vicinity of your room in the early hours of the morning of Friday 27 April 2018. These noises were described as thumping and bumping sounds.

[8] At 7:30 a.m. that same morning, the tour guide was organising your group to leave by bus for Wellington and noticed that you and Ms Meng were not present on the bus.

[9] She asked the receptionist at the Rutherford Hotel to ring your room. You answered. The receptionist put the tour guide on the phone and you told her to come up. On entering the room she observed the form of a person under a sheet on the double bed — there being two beds in the room, a double 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 Jiang

Details

AGLC: R v Jiang [2019] NZHC 3442
Case: [2019] NZHC 3442
Decision Date: 19 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Bin Jiang, the High Court of New Zealand, Nelson Registry, delivered its sentencing decision on December 19, 2019. Mr. Jiang was found guilty by a jury of murdering his wife, Yanyan Meng, on April 27, 2018. The court was tasked with determining whether a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust and, if not, to decide on the minimum period of imprisonment before parole eligibility. The Crown argued that life imprisonment would not be manifestly unjust, while Mr. Jiang's counsel contended that a finite sentence might be appropriate due to factors such as Mr. Jiang's lack of criminal history, advanced age, and the risk of reoffending.

The court ruled that there were no circumstances making life imprisonment manifestly unjust. It highlighted that Mr. Jiang's motive was entirely selfish, driven by his desire to prevent his family from learning about his emotional affair. The court also noted the absence of remorse shown by Mr. Jiang and his failure to seek medical help for Ms. Meng after she appeared to be dead. Balancing these aggravating factors against mitigating ones, such as Mr. Jiang's age and lack of criminal history, the court determined that a minimum period of 10 years before parole eligibility was appropriate. This decision aimed to denounce the offence, hold Mr. Jiang accountable, and provide an opportunity for reflection.

The final order of the court was that Mr. Jiang would serve life imprisonment with a minimum period of 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. This ruling ensures that Mr. Jiang remains in custody for a significant duration, reflecting the gravity of his crime and its impact on the victims and their families.

Orders