R v Li - [2007] NZCA 402

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA449/06
CA312/07
[2007] NZCA 402
THE QUEEN
v
REBECCA KATSZI LI
Hearing:23 August 2007

Court:Chambers, Randerson and John Hansen JJ
Counsel:B J Hart and A J Trenwith for Appellant

S B Edwards for Crown

Judgment:10 September 2007 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against conviction is allowed to the extent that the convictions on counts 8, 9, 10, 13, and 15 are quashed.

B        The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Randerson J)
Introduction
[1]       The appellant was convicted in the District Court after a jury trial on 49 charges. Twenty-nine of these were for forgery and the remainder were for counterfeiting and related charges. Judge Joyce QC presided at the trial and subsequently sentenced the appellant to an effective term of four years imprisonment. A minimum period of two years imprisonment was imposed in respect of the forgery convictions.
[2]       This appeal against conviction and sentence is concerned only with the convictions on 29 counts of forgery. Two of these (counts 1 and 7) were laid under s 264 Crimes Act 1961 in respect of offending alleged to have occurred prior to 1 October 2003. On that date, the former ss 264 and 265 Crimes Act were repealed and replaced with new provisions including s 256 (forgery) and s 257 (using forged documents). The remaining 27 forgery counts were laid under the new s 256(1).
[3]       The appeal against conviction is advanced on two broad grounds:
a)In respect of the 27 forgery counts laid under the new provisions, it was not open for the jury to convict the appellant under s 256(1) under which the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. Rather, any convictions ought to have been in respect of the separate crime created by s 256(2) for which the maximum penalty is only three years imprisonment.
b)Eleven counts were defective for separate reasons we detail later.

[4] The sentence appeal is on the basis the sentence was manifestly excessive because:
a)The appellant should have been sentenced on the basis of the maximum penalty of three years under s 256(2) rather than 10 years under s 256(1).
b)In respect of counts 1 and 7, the maximum sentence was reduced between the date of the offending and the date of sentencing with the result that the maximum penalty should have been three years rather than 10 years by virtue of s 6 Sentencing Act 2002.
c)The imposition of the minimum period of imprisonment was not warranted in the circumstances.

Background facts
[5] The appellant was the sole director and shareholder of a company engaged in printing, graphic design and sign-writing. The Crown case was that from the year 2000 or earlier, the appellant began producing a range of forged certificates and other documents including degree or diploma certificates for a number of tertiary institutions such as the University of Auckland, as…

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 [2007] NZCA 402
Case: [2007] NZCA 402
Decision Date: 10 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Li, the appellant was convicted of a total of 49 charges, including forgery, counterfeiting, and related offences. The appeal against the conviction and sentence was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant's primary arguments were that the charges should have been brought under a different section of the statute, and some of the counts were defective. The court found that the charges were properly laid under the relevant section of the statute and that some of the counts were indeed defective, leading to the quashing of certain convictions. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the seriousness of the offending warranted the original sentence, despite the partial success of the appeal against conviction. The final orders of the court were to quash the convictions on counts 8, 9, 10, 13, and 15, and to dismiss the appeal against sentence.

Orders