R v Liu - [2018] NZHC 853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI-2014-085-006779

[2018] NZHC 853

THE QUEEN

v

JAMIE LIU

Counsel:
P K Feltham for Crown

I M Antunovic for Defendant

Sentence:

30 April 2018

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

[1]Mr Liu, you appear for sentence in relation to the following charges:

(a)one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine;1

(b)one representative charge of offering to supply methamphetamine;2 and

(c)one charge of participating in an organised criminal group.3

[2] You pleaded guilty to these charges after accepting a sentence indication I gave you on 9 February 2018.4

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2). Maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
2      Section 6(1)(c) and (2). Maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Liu [2018] NZHC 95.

R v LIU [2018] NZHC 853 [30 April 2018]

Your offending

[3] You were arrested on 10 June 2014 as part of Operation Fantail, an investigation by the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand into a large-scale methamphetamine supply network in Wellington and the surrounding districts.

[4] The members of this syndicate demonstrated a high level of criminal knowledge and sophistication, well beyond that of a typical street dealer. Their turnover was so high that members were trading in multiple ounces of methamphetamine at a time.

[5] You were involved in the sale and distribution of methamphetamine. You arranged for bulk supplies of methamphetamine to be purchased through a supplier. You were in contact with senior gang members in relation to sourcing and supply. On a number of occasions, you sold methamphetamine to Mr McKinley for the purposes of on-supplying that methamphetamine.

[6] Your role was to supply bulk amounts of methamphetamine for on-supply within the Wellington based network. You travelled to Auckland regularly to bring methamphetamine to the lower North Island.

[7] On 15 April 2014, you borrowed $7,000 from Mr McKinley, flew up to Auckland to purchase methamphetamine and drove back to Wellington to deliver the drugs to Mr McKinley. On 18 April 2014, you supplied further methamphetamine to Mr McKinley. A total of 42 grams of methamphetamine was supplied.

[8] On 21 May 2014, you turned up unannounced at Mr Kinley’s apartment, but he was not home. You informed him the following day that you had five “crayfish”, a code name for methamphetamine, that you intended to sell to him. On 26 May 2014, Mr McKinley flew to Auckland to purchase methamphetamine, but was unable to secure a source. He asked you if you could arrange a transaction for him. You said that you were unable to do that, but you did offer to sell him or provide him with “one for seven”. A total of 142 grams of methamphetamine was offered for supply.

Your circumstances

[9] You are 41 years old and are currently a beneficiary. On 20 October 2015, you suffered a severe stroke from…

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 Liu

Details

AGLC: R v Liu [2018] NZHC 853
Case: [2018] NZHC 853
Decision Date: 30 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Liu, the defendant pleaded guilty to three charges related to drug trafficking and participation in a criminal organisation. The court heard that Liu was part of a sophisticated methamphetamine supply network, dealing in bulk quantities and arranging for supplies to be sourced from Auckland. Liu's involvement included arranging bulk purchases and supplying methamphetamine to other members of the syndicate. The court noted that Liu's role was significant within the operation, and he played a part in sourcing and distributing the drugs.

The legal issues before the court were to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing, to consider adjustments to that starting point, and to decide on an appropriate sentence. The court considered aggravating factors such as the premeditation and scale of the offending, the quantity of drugs involved, and Liu's role in the operation. Mitigating factors included Liu's extensive previous convictions, his time on restrictive bail, and his severe health conditions resulting from strokes. The court also took into account Liu's guilty plea.

The court determined that a starting point of five and a half years' imprisonment was appropriate, but after applying adjustments for mitigating factors, the final sentence was two years' imprisonment. Given Liu's health conditions and the likelihood that a prison sentence would be detrimental to his recovery, the court opted for a sentence of home detention. Liu was sentenced to 12 months' home detention on each charge, with specific conditions allowing for medical and rehabilitative appointments. The sentence of home detention was deemed to reflect the seriousness of Liu's offending.

Orders