R v Su - [2017] NZHC 1147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-8179 [2017] NZHC 1147

THE QUEEN

v

XIANG SU

Hearing: 30 May 2017

Appearances:

B Northwood for the Crown
T Cooper for the Defendant

Judgment:

30 May 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel: T Cooper, Auckland

R v SU [2017] NZHC 1147 [30 May 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Su, you may remain seated until the time comes to formally pass sentence on you.

[2] Mr Su, you have been found guilty of a single charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply under s (6)(1)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. You were found guilty by a jury of your peers on 5 May 2017 following a jury trial in the High Court here in Auckland.

[3] I will begin by setting out those parts of the factual background which, in my view, are relevant to the sentence I will impose. I will then determine an appropriate starting point which reflects the culpability of your offending, before adjusting that starting point to reflect any aggravating or mitigating factors relating to you personally.

Factual background

[4] In April and June 2015, surveillance device warrants were issued in the Auckland High Court for the interception of communications made and received by Jiawen Jiang, David Vernon, and Ryan Brown, all believed at that time to be involved in the offence of supplying methamphetamine.

[5] This supply was facilitated through drivers who were used because both Mr Jiang and Mr Vernon were on electronically-monitored bail and were accordingly unable to leave their homes.

[6] The Crown case was that you acted as a driver and provided a store-house in your home, where methamphetamine could be kept for the dealers.

[7] On 16 July 2015 the police executed a search warrant at your home on the North Shore where you lived with your wife and her mother. In a bedroom on the ground floor, which you had been occupying, the police found 233 grams of methamphetamine hidden in a computer tower under a desk. The methamphetamine

was packaged in small self-sealing bags. Seven of those bags contained between

27.5 and 27.7 grams of methamphetamine. The other bags contained smaller amounts. The methamphetamine that was found in your bedroom was estimated to have a street value of between $77,000 and $140,000 depending on how it was sold.

[8] Other items found in a desk in the bedroom included a piece of paper on which was recorded, amongst other things, a series of numbers with decimal points, which were either just over or just under the number 28. There were also other associated documents. You accepted in your evidence that the documents were in your handwriting but said you did not know what the numbers related to.

[9] Also in the desk drawer the police located electronic scales of a kind that were able to weigh very small amounts of methamphetamine and a number of…

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 Su

Details

AGLC: R v Su [2017] NZHC 1147
Case: [2017] NZHC 1147
Decision Date: 30 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Mr. Xiang Su, who was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine for supply. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing, the gravity of the offence, and various mitigating and aggravating factors. The court considered the starting point of six and a half years' imprisonment, reflecting Mr. Su's relatively minor involvement in the operation and his limited role in the supply chain. The court then adjusted the starting point by reducing it by five percent to account for Mr. Su's previous good character and his belated acceptance of responsibility. However, the court did not reduce the sentence further to reflect the time spent on bail, as Mr. Su was released on bail simpliciter and was subject to only a minor restriction on his movements.

The final sentence imposed was five years and ten months' imprisonment, along with forfeiture orders in respect of the drugs and related exhibits. The court emphasised the need to hold Mr. Su accountable for the harm caused by methamphetamine offending to the community, while also promoting his sense of responsibility and deterring him and others from committing similar offences in the future.

Orders