R v Piao

Case [2020] NZHC 1839 28 July 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-090-2090

[2020] NZHC 1839

THE QUEEN

v

YANLONG PIAO

Hearing: 28 July 2020

Appearances:

D G Johnstone and J A Lee for the Crown S L McColgan for the defendant

Date of sentence:

28 July 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:
S L McColgan Barrister, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v PIAO [2020] NZHC 1839 [28 July 2020]

[1] Mr Piao, as you know, on 10 June this year,1 you pleaded guilty to a charge of accessory after the fact to murder of Baochang Wang.2 I am now to sentence you for that conviction. In sentencing you, I must accept as proved all facts that are essential to your guilty plea.3

[2] I have listened to what the lawyers have had to say, both for you and for the Crown. They recommend starting points of between two and a half and four years’ imprisonment; both accept a discount of up to 60 per cent is available to mark your assistance in bringing Mr Wang’s murderers to justice.

[3] I am not bound by the lawyers’ recommendations. I must satisfy myself of the appropriate sentence for the gravity – the seriousness – of your offending, including your culpability – your responsibility – for it.

Background

[4] I turn to your offending. Mr Wang is alleged to have been murdered in Auckland in August 2017 by associates of yours. You found out about Mr Wang’s death soon after it occurred. You saw Mr Wang’s body. Mr Wang was not reported missing, and his location remained unknown until police exhumed his body in March this year. Your liability is not for murder, but instead arises independently, occurring after the initial crime is alleged to have been committed.

[5] In the very early hours of Tuesday, 22 August 2017, you and your associates drove to an isolated road off the Desert Road in the Taupo District, to dispose of Mr Wang’s body and thereby to suppress evidence of your associates’ involvement in his death. You and your associates travelled there in multiple vehicles, you driving a van with Mr Wang’s body in the rear. On arrival, a shallow grave was dug in waste land off the isolated road. Mr Wang’s body was placed in the grave, and concrete poured over it. You and your associates then returned to Auckland.

1      R v Piao CRI-2020-090-2090 (minute) 10 June 2020.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 176. The maximum term of imprisonment is 7 years.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1)(b).

[6] Mr Wang’s death only came to police attention because, in October 2019, you advised them of it and its consequences. The police are clear, without your information, Mr Wang’s death “would not have been investigated, his body not recovered, and persons [not] held to account” for those matters.

Victim impact statements

[7] You told the Department of Corrections’ pre-sentence report writer you were “really…

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 Piao

Details

AGLC: R v Piao [2020] NZHC 1839
Case: [2020] NZHC 1839
Decision Date: 28 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Piao, the defendant pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Baochang Wang. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant's involvement in disposing of Wang's body. The primary legal issues revolved around the severity of the defendant's actions and the factors that should be considered in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court found that the defendant played an active role in disposing of Wang's body, which was a callous act that required denunciation and deterrence. The court determined a starting point of three years' imprisonment for the defendant's actions, considering the inherent callousness of the crime and the premeditated nature of the defendant's involvement. The court also took into account the defendant's early guilty plea and assistance in bringing Wang's murderers to justice, which led to a discount of up to 60% on the starting point. After considering all the relevant factors, the court sentenced the defendant to fourteen months' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on the defendant's current term of imprisonment for drug-related offenses.

The court's decision in R v Piao demonstrates the importance of holding individuals accountable for their involvement in serious crimes, even if their role is that of an accessory. The court also highlights the significance of considering factors such as early guilty pleas and assistance in determining an appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that was proportionate to the defendant's involvement in the crime and took into account the impact of the crime on the victims and their families.

Orders