R v Sze

Case [2016] NZHC 1703 26 July 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-003038

[2016] NZHC 1703

THE QUEEN

v

FUNG CHU WINNIE SZE

Hearing: 26 July 2016

Appearances:

S McColgan for the Crown M Kan for the Defendant

Sentencing:

26 July 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Counsel: Michael Kan Law, Barristers and Solicitors, Auckland Solicitors: Meredith Connell (Crown Solicitor), Auckland

R v SZE [2016] NZHC 1703 [26 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Ms Sze, you are here today for sentence having been convicted following a jury trial before me on three charges of class A drug offending. Those charges were one count of importing methamphetamine, one count of possessing methamphetamine for supply, and one count of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine.1 The maximum penalty in respect of the importation and the possession for supply charges is life imprisonment.2 The maximum penalty in respect of the conspiracy charge is 14 years imprisonment.3

Facts

[2] All the charges against you relate to approximately 40 kilograms of methamphetamine which was imported into New Zealand by way of a single cargo shipment by sea in early 2015.

[3] The shipment arrived at Auckland from Shenzhen, China, on 13 February 2015. It was labelled as containing 40 cartons of metal queue barriers. Inside the cartons were solid metal bases for the barriers and hollow metal pipes to be inserted into them. The methamphetamine was concealed within these hollow pipes. On arrival the shipment was forwarded to a logistics company to await delivery to the consignee.

[4] You and your husband, Mr Yuen, arrived in Auckland from Hong Kong on 1 March 2015. You are both Hong Kong Chinese nationals and informed customs officers that you had come for a holiday.

[5] Once here, you initially stayed in an apartment and then arranged to rent a detached house and garage at Stonefields in Mount Wellington. You arranged payment of the storage fees with the logistics company and organised delivery of the shipment to the Stonefields house. On 13 March 2015 you both went shopping and purchased a drill to be used for extracting the methamphetamine from the queue barrier poles.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and (f) and s 6(2A).
2      Section 6(2)(a).
3      Section 6(2A)(a).

[6] At this same time an investigation by New Zealand Customs led to an examination of the imported shipment. Approximately 40 kilograms of methamphetamine was discovered concealed in the queue barrier poles in four out of the 40 cartons. Customs personnel replaced the majority of the drugs with a placebo for the purposes of completing a controlled delivery.

[7] Between 13 March and 22 March 2015 you had a number of communications with an unknown male in Hong Kong who was obviously involved in the importation. You updated him on the receipt of the consignment and discussed what would be required by the New Zealand recipient for collection. You also expressed concern that the entire shipment should be uplifted as one because of the risks to you and Mr Yuen and…

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 Sze

Details

AGLC: R v Sze [2016] NZHC 1703
Case: [2016] NZHC 1703
Decision Date: 26 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ms. Fung Chu Winnie Sze was convicted on three charges of class A drug offenses, including importing methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine for supply, and conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. The case involved the importation of approximately 40 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed within queue barrier poles. The shipment was intercepted by New Zealand Customs, who replaced most of the drugs with a placebo for a controlled delivery. Sze, a Hong Kong Chinese national, was arrested upon her return from Hong Kong and claimed she believed the consignment to be building materials. However, the jury found her involvement in the drug importation.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, adjustments for personal factors, and whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. The court determined the starting point for Sze's sentence by considering the quantity of drugs involved, her role in the operation, and the nature of the offense. The court found that Sze played a significant role in the importation, comparable to her husband, and thus set a starting point of 22 years imprisonment.

Considering Sze's personal circumstances, the court acknowledged her first serious offense, her mental health issues, and the difficulties she would face in prison, including being incarcerated in a foreign country. The court applied a 15% discount to the starting point, resulting in a sentence of 18 years and 8 months imprisonment. The court decided against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment, noting Sze's low likelihood of reoffending and the severity of her personal circumstances.

Ultimately, Sze was sentenced to 18 years and 8 months imprisonment for importing methamphetamine, with concurrent sentences for the other charges. The court's decision balanced the seriousness of the offense with the mitigating factors presented by Sze's personal circumstances.

Orders