R v Jiang - [2016] NZHC 2256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-8179 [2016] NZHC 2256

THE QUEEN

v

JIAWEN JIANG

Hearing: 22 and 23 September 2016

Appearances:

B R Northwood for Crown
G Morison for Defendant

Sentence:

23 September 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v JIANG [2016] NZHC 2256 [23 September 2016]

[1] Mr Jiang, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to 31 charges of supplying methamphetamine. In respect of three of those charges you were assisting or arranging for another person to supply methamphetamine. The maximum sentence for those charges is life imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to two charges of conspiring to supply methamphetamine. The maximum sentence in respect of those charges is 14 years imprisonment.

The facts

[2] Your offending was discovered as a result of a large-scale police operation. You were the initial target of that operation because the police believed that you were involved in selling methamphetamine. On 13 April 2015, this Court granted a warrant authorising the police to intercept your communications. Within two months they had extended their interception operation to include several other people because of information they discovered from your communications.

[3] Between 12 June and 11 August 2015, the police intercepted communications confirming that you were involved in at least 31 supplies of methamphetamine. You were subject to a grant of EM bail at that stage because of other drug-related offending for which you were arrested on 10 March 2015. Because you could not leave your home, you engaged a number of drivers to deliver methamphetamine and/or cash to purchasers. In particular, you sold drugs on a wholesale basis to Mr David Vernon, who then distributed them to others using a system of drivers. Mr Vernon’s activities were also restricted at that time because he was on EM bail as well.

[4] The police have discovered that in 14 transactions, you supplied no less than

623 grams of methamphetamine. They have been unable to calculate how much additional methamphetamine you supplied in the remaining 17 transactions. You obviously get the benefit of the doubt in respect of those transactions because the Court cannot fix a quantity of methamphetamine in respect of which to sentence you. Nevertheless, those transactions demonstrate that you were dealing methamphetamine on a very large scale.

Approach

[5] Your sentencing is complicated by the fact that you are currently serving a sentence of four years six months imprisonment on other drug-related charges to which I shall refer shortly. I need to impose a sentence that takes into account the fact that you are already serving that sentence of four years six months imprisonment. I propose to do this by first fixing the sentence that would have been imposed in this case, but for the fact that you are already in prison on other charges. I will then notionally recalculate the sentence that I would have imposed if I had been sentencing you on all of the charges, including those for which you are already…

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 [2016] NZHC 2256
Case: [2016] NZHC 2256
Decision Date: 23 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Jiang involved the sentencing of Jiawen Jiang on 31 charges of supplying methamphetamine, three charges of assisting or arranging for another person to supply methamphetamine, and two charges of conspiring to supply methamphetamine. The maximum sentences for these charges were life imprisonment and 14 years imprisonment, respectively. The offending was discovered as a result of a large-scale police operation, and Jiang was the initial target because of the police's belief that he was involved in selling methamphetamine. The police intercepted Jiang's communications, which confirmed his involvement in at least 31 supplies of methamphetamine.

The legal issues the court had to decide were the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment. The court found that Jiang's offending fell within the most serious band of offending, Band 4, which related to very large commercial quantities of methamphetamine. The court selected a starting point of 12 years imprisonment, but increased it by 12 months due to Jiang's offending while subject to electronically monitored (EM) bail. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Jiang's guilty pleas, which reduced the starting point by two years and seven months.

The court then notionally re-calculated the sentence on the basis of all charges, including Jiang's earlier offending. The court found that Jiang's culpability needed to be assessed on the basis that he supplied or possessed around 650 grams of methamphetamine. The court imposed a cumulative sentence of six years and two months imprisonment, which was to be served concurrently with the sentences Jiang was already serving. The court also imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of 50 per cent, which meant Jiang would be eligible for parole after serving three years and one month on each charge.

Finally, the court made an order discharging Jiang on the remaining six charges he faced, as the Crown offered no evidence on those charges. Overall, Jiang was sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of ten years and eight months.

Orders