R v Shao - [2016] NZHC 1000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-11052 [2016] NZHC 1000

THE QUEEN

v

DA WEN SHAO

Hearing: 17 May 2016

Appearances:

S McColgan for Crown
A D Couchman for Defendant

Sentence:

17 May 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v SHAO [2016] NZHC 1000 [17 May 2016]

[1] Mr Shao, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of being in possession of pseudoephedrine for supply and a representative charge of supplying pseudoephedrine. The maximum penalty for both offences is 14 years imprisonment.

The facts

[2] The facts of your offending are set out in a very detailed summary of facts, with which you take no issue.

[3] Your offending was discovered as part of a very large and sophisticated police operation that had several different aspects. The police uncovered the offending through a mix of investigation techniques, including both visual and electronic surveillance.

[4] The supply charge relates to three separate supplies of ContacNT that occurred between 23 August and 2 October 2013. The surveillance techniques employed by the police established that you had supplied a total of 4.5 kilograms of ContacNT to others during this period. With the assistance of associates, you sent coded cellphone messages to those with whom you were dealing. You then met with them at pre-arranged times in public places such as supermarket carparks. You would then hand over the ContacNT in return for an agreed quantity of cash.

[5] The supply of 4.5 kilograms of ContacNT would produce in excess of 1.8 kilograms of pure pseudoephedrine. That could be synthesised into between 900 grams and 1.35 kilograms of pure methamphetamine. Given the market price of ContacNT at that time, the Crown estimates that these supplies would have produced revenue of around $160,000.

[6] The charge of being in possession of pseudoephedrine for supply was laid as a result of events that occurred between 3 and 22 October 2013. During that period you were an integral member of a complicated scheme by which ContacNT that had been imported into New Zealand was made available to a distribution network. The

plan involved the substitution of ContacNT for potato starch at a freight forwarders premises at Auckland Airport. This required Mr Uele, the freight forwarder, to be part of the plan.

[7] Your involvement began when you were contacted by a Ms Gan, whom the Crown alleges was the ringleader of the operation. You then contacted an associate and said that you needed a van. The van was then supplied, and was left in a place for the freight forwarder to pick up. You were involved in organising that process. The freight forwarder then took the van to his premises at the airport, where it remained for several days. During that period ContacNT that had previously been imported into New Zealand was placed in the van in boxes labelled as containing potato starch. Once this process was complete, the van was left at a public place where it was…

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 Shao

Details

AGLC: R v Shao [2016] NZHC 1000
Case: [2016] NZHC 1000
Decision Date: 17 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Shao, heard by the High Court of New Zealand, involved the defendant, Da Wen Shao, who had pleaded guilty to charges of possession and supply of pseudoephedrine for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for each offence was 14 years imprisonment. The court heard the case on 17 May 2016, with S McColgan representing the Crown and A D Couchman representing the defendant. The sentencing remarks were delivered by Justice Lang, who imposed the sentence on the same day.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr Shao, considering the seriousness of his involvement in the drug trade, his role within the network, and mitigating factors such as his age, background, and remorse. The legal issues included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the impact of the defendant's guilty pleas, and whether a minimum term of imprisonment should be imposed.

Justice Lang considered the severity of Mr Shao's involvement in the drug trade, which involved the supply of over 4.5 kilograms of ContacNT and the possession of over 200 kilograms of ContacNT, with the potential to produce significant amounts of methamphetamine. The court took into account the sophisticated nature of the operation and the role Mr Shao played as a senior leader in the distribution network. The court rejected the defendant's claim of remorse as too little and too late but granted a 25% reduction for his guilty pleas. The court imposed a minimum term of imprisonment to adequately recognise the sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation, accountability, and protection of the public. The final sentence was nine years and four months imprisonment on the possession charge, with a minimum term of four years and eight months before eligibility for parole, and four years on the supply charge, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Shao was to serve nine years and four months imprisonment on the possession charge, with a minimum term of four years and eight months before being eligible to apply for parole, and four years on the supply charge, to be served concurrently.

Orders