R v Sun - [2017] NZHC 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-7734 [2017] NZHC 6

THE QUEEN

v

JIA SUN

Hearing: 13 January 2017

Appearances:

F Culliney for Crown
S Wimsett for Defendant

Sentence:

13 January 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v JIA SUN [2017] NZHC 6 [13 January 2017]

[1] Mr Sun, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges of supplying pseudoephedrine and being in possession of ephedrine and methamphetamine for supply. Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are Class B controlled drugs. Being in possession of, or dealing in, those drugs carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The charge of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

[2] You pleaded guilty following a sentence indication hearing before me on

10 January 2017.1 At the conclusion of that hearing you accepted the sentence indication and entered guilty pleas to the three charges. The Crown has offered no evidence on the remaining charges, charges 30 and 32 in the Crown Charge Notice, and I now discharge you on those charges pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[3] I record that I have not requested an updated pre-sentence report. You have waived your right to a pre-sentence report because you have been in custody since the last report was prepared on 13 November 2015.

The facts

[4] The facts that underpin the present charges are contained in a summary of facts prepared for the purpose of the sentence indication hearing. This records that you were charged at the termination of a police operation targeted at the distribution of methamphetamine within the wider Auckland area. You were not an initial target of that investigation, but the police learned of your involvement when they intercepted communications between other persons allegedly involved in that form of enterprise in the Auckland area.

[5] The charge of supplying pseudoephedrine arises out of a series of communications that occurred on 10 April 2015. In the course of these you were contacted and became aware that other persons wanted to acquire ContacNT. ContacNT contains pseudoephedrine and is a sought after precursor substance for the
manufacture of methamphetamine.

1 R v Sun [2017] NZHC 2. (Copy attached).

[6] During the course of the day you met with three other persons at a restaurant in Panmure. You then advised those persons that you could get 20 sets of ContacNT, but that you needed the money first in order to pay for the drug. Arrangements were then made for you to be provided with cash later in the afternoon. You then made arrangements to uplift the ContacNT from an associate and you then delivered it to the persons who had provided you with the money to purchase it. The 20 sets of ContacNT could produce approximately 1.8 kilograms of pseudoephedrine and had a street value of approximately $200,000. It was subsequently used by those to whom you supplied it to manufacture approximately one kilogram of methamphetamine.

[7]…

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 Sun

Details

AGLC: R v Sun [2017] NZHC 6
Case: [2017] NZHC 6
Decision Date: 13 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sun before the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, involved the sentencing of Mr. Sun for charges related to the supply and possession of controlled drugs, including pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and methamphetamine. Mr. Sun had pleaded guilty to these charges. The court needed to decide on the appropriate sentence for Mr. Sun, taking into account the severity of the offenses, the principles of deterrence and denunciation, and the fact that Mr. Sun had previously been convicted of similar offenses while on bail.

The court identified the starting point for sentencing based on the nature of the offenses and compared it to similar cases involving the supply and possession of controlled substances. It considered the quantities involved and the commercial scale of the activities. The court also factored in the fact that Mr. Sun committed these offenses while already serving a sentence for prior drug-related charges. Mitigating factors, such as Mr. Sun's early guilty pleas, were acknowledged but did not result in a significant reduction in the sentence. The court applied totality principles to avoid a manifestly excessive cumulative sentence and determined that a four-year imprisonment term on each charge, cumulatively served with the existing sentence, was appropriate. Additionally, the court imposed a minimum term of two and a half years imprisonment on each charge to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offenses and the need for deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that Mr. Sun be sentenced to four years imprisonment on each of the charges, to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively with the six-year sentence he was already serving. A minimum term of two and a half years imprisonment was imposed on each charge. The sentences were to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively with the existing sentence.

Orders