R v Li - [2014] NZHC 2610

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-092-011602 [2014] NZHC 2610

THE QUEEN

v

PIK YEE LI

Hearing: 23 October 2014

Appearances:

B R Northwood for Crown
M Kan for Defendant

Judgment:

23 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J

R v LI [2014] NZHC 2610 [23 October 2014]

[1] Ms Li, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty a charge of supplying the Class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine, as set out in a Crown charge notice dated 29 April 2014. The maximum penalty that may be imposed on you is imprisonment for 14 years.

Relevant facts

[2] Pseudoephedrine is contained in the cold and flu medicine known as ContacNT. What is a set of ContacNT is 1000 of the capsules. Each of those capsules contains .223 grams of granules, of which 90 milligrams is pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine can be used to manufacture methamphetamine.

[3] The charge against you was laid as a result of a Police investigation into a syndicate involved in the importation, supply and distribution of class A and class B controlled drugs, involving monitoring the private communications of a number of people. You were one of these people, along with your partner at the time, Mr Zhang. Between June and October 2013, you supplied 115 sets of pseudoephedrine, in 16 transactions. In the main, the buyers had requested, or ordered, pseudoephedrine from Mr Zhang, and he directed you to arrange to deliver it, and receive the payment which you then gave to Mr Zhang. The investigation showed that you were involved in supplying a total of 24.65 kg of ContacNT to others. The amount of pseudoephedrine you supplied was 10.35 kg, and it would have yielded between 5.175 and 7.76 kgs of methamphetamine.

Personal information

[4] You are a 43 year old woman who moved to New Zealand in 1995. You have two sons who live with you. You receive a sickness benefit as you have been diagnosed with mental health issues. You have no previous convictions.

[5] In your pre-sentence report it is noted that you deny that you knew the drug was illegal at the time as your partner told you they were flu tablets. You said you acted as an interpreter for your partner with English speaking buyers. You never used the drug. The report writer records that you are remorseful and have insight into the behaviour which led to your offending.

[6] You are assessed as being at a very low risk of reoffending and a low risk to the community. You presented as highly motivated to complete a community-based sentence. You have no rehabilitative needs. You consented to a sentence of home detention. The report writer recommends home detention but notes that there is a concern regarding your ability to cope with the restrictive nature of an electronically monitored sentence, given your mental health. However, your own view is that you do not think that the imposition of such a sentence would be detrimental to your health.

Psychological…

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 Li

Details

AGLC: R v Li [2014] NZHC 2610
Case: [2014] NZHC 2610
Decision Date: 23 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Li involved Ms. Pik Yee Li, who was sentenced for supplying the Class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine. Ms. Li was charged as a result of her involvement in a syndicate dealing with both Class A and Class B drugs. Over the course of several months, Ms. Li was involved in 16 transactions, supplying a total of 24.65 kg of ContacNT, which contained 10.35 kg of pseudoephedrine. This quantity could potentially yield between 5.175 and 7.76 kg of methamphetamine. Ms. Li's role in the syndicate was largely dictated by her partner, Mr. Zhang, who directed her to arrange deliveries and receive payments. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the gravity of the offence and the unique circumstances surrounding Ms. Li's involvement.

The legal issues in this case revolved around determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing Ms. Li, considering her culpability and the potential impact of her personal circumstances on her sentence. The Crown argued for a starting point of nine to ten years' imprisonment due to the significant amount of pseudoephedrine supplied, the commercial nature of the operation, and Ms. Li's role as a middle person in the syndicate. Defence counsel submitted that the starting point should be between six and eight years' imprisonment, taking into account Ms. Li's lesser role and her manipulation by Mr. Zhang. The court also needed to consider mitigating factors such as Ms. Li's vulnerability, lack of personal gain, and recent diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

The Court of Appeal's decision in R v Wang provided guidance for the starting point in this case. While Ms. Li's involvement was significant, the court concluded that a starting point of seven years and six months' imprisonment was appropriate, distinguishing her case from that of Mr. Wang. The court applied discounts for Ms. Li's cooperation with authorities, her guilty plea, and her personal circumstances, which included being under the influence of Mr. Zhang and suffering from serious health issues. After considering all relevant factors, the court determined that a final sentence of two years and seven months' imprisonment was appropriate, ensuring that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the unique circumstances of Ms. Li's case.

Ms. Li was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and seven months for supplying the class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine. The court also discharged her on 19 other charges as the Crown offered no evidence. The decision highlighted the importance of considering both the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders