R v Wang - [2013] NZHC 3259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-004-015546 [2013] NZHC 3259

THE QUEEN

v

JIQING WANG

Hearing: 14 - 18 October 2013

Counsel: M R Harborow for Crown
P E Dacre QC for Prisoner

Sentence: 5 December 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel: P E Dacre, Auckland

R v WANG [2013] NZHC 3259 [5 December 2013]

Introduction

[1] Jiqing Wang, on 18 October 2013, following a five-day trial you were found guilty by a jury of the possession of the Class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine for the purposes of supply. That is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] Many of the background facts are not in dispute. In August 2012, a consignment arrived at Auckland Port, having been loaded in Guangzhou, China. That consignment was a pizza oven containing 35.32 kilograms of ContacNT granules hidden within it. ContacNT is a common cold and flu medication available in China. It contains a high percentage of pseudoephedrine, a precursor drug for the manufacture of methamphetamine.

[3] The pizza oven was too large to be delivered to the apartment given as the original delivery address. Your address in Newton was provided as an alternative delivery address. On 12 September 2012, Customs Officers conducted a controlled delivery of the pizza oven to your address. Most of the ContacNT had been removed and replaced by a placebo, although approximately 100 grams of pseudoephedrine remained in the oven. That evening, Police executed a search warrant at your address and took you in for questioning.

Knowledge

[4] The key issue at trial was whether you knew that there were drugs in the pizza oven. The Crown case was that you either had actual knowledge of the contents of the package delivered to your address or that you were wilfully blind as to its contents. Your case was that your friend, Lucky Wang, asked you to store luggage for a friend of his who was returning to China and that you genuinely believed that was all the package was.

[5] The jury’s verdict clearly indicates that they rejected your version of events and concluded that you either had actual knowledge of the contents of the package or were wilfully blind as to its contents. It is not possible to know which of those two options the jury believed, as either would be sufficient for them to find you guilty.

[6] The Crown says that I should sentence you on the basis that you had actual knowledge of the contents of the package. Mr Dacre QC says on the other hand, that I should conclude that you were “wilfully blind” as to the contents of the package. I am not sure that a lot turns on the issue in terms of the appropriate sentence, on the particular facts of this case, but it is appropriate that I make a finding on the issue for sentencing purposes.

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 Wang

Details

AGLC: R v Wang [2013] NZHC 3259
Case: [2013] NZHC 3259
Decision Date: 5 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jiqing Wang was found guilty of possessing 35.32 kilograms of pseudoephedrine, a precursor for methamphetamine, for the purpose of supply. The consignment, concealed within a pizza oven, was intended for delivery to Wang's address. The key legal issue was whether Wang had actual knowledge of the package's contents or was wilfully blind. The court found that Wang either knew or should have known about the drugs.

The court considered multiple factors including Wang's communications with Lucky Wang, his instructions to his girlfriend, and his actions after the delivery. The court concluded that Wang had actual knowledge of the drugs. The court then assessed Wang's culpability, noting his significant role in the importation despite being at the lower end of the supply chain. The court also considered the large quantity of drugs and the potential harm to the community.

The court examined various sentencing precedents and concluded that a starting point of five years and six months was appropriate. After considering mitigating factors such as Wang's good character and lack of a criminal history, the court imposed a sentence of four years and six months imprisonment. The court did not consider a minimum term of imprisonment necessary.

Orders