R v Wong - [2020] NZHC 1654

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-009583

[2020] NZHC 1654

THE QUEEN

v

WAI FAT WONG

Hearing: 10 July 2020

Appearances:

Erin Woolley for the Crown Maria Pecotic for Wai Fat Wong

Judgment:

10 July 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v WAI FAT WONG [2020] NZHC 1654 [10 July 2020]

Introduction

[1] Wai Fat Wong, at the age of 68 you appear for sentence on four charges which relate to the importation and possession for supply of the class A controlled drug methamphetamine.

[2] You were arrested with your six co-defendants on 19 September 2017. You first appeared in the High Court on 21 February 2018 after I determined your trial should be heard here. In making that decision I was primarily influenced by the sophisticated nature of the offending and the very large quantities of high-grade methamphetamine involved.

[3] Your trial, with your co-defendants, was scheduled to commence on 11 February 2019. However, you pleaded guilty to the four charges on the morning of the trial. At that time, I convicted you and remanded you to a nominal date so that the two other defendants who had also pleaded guilty could be sentenced with you along with any other defendant or defendants convicted following trial. As it happened, the jury found all the other defendants, that is Ricky Leung, your wife Hao Li, Zhi Tan and Chi Leung, guilty.

[4] Following those verdicts all counsel advised that it was their clients’ strong preference that no sentencing should take place before the Court of Appeal had delivered its methamphetamine sentencing guideline judgment in Zhang v R.1 On 21 October 2019 the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in that case. I set down the sentencing of all defendants for 13 December 2019.

[5] Shortly before the scheduled sentencing, I received two unsworn affidavits filed on your behalf. These were made by you and Ms Li. In your affidavit you essentially claimed that it was only after you arrived in New Zealand that it dawned you might have been embroiled in some nefarious and unlawful drug importation enterprise. Although you accepted that the elements of the charges were made out and did not seek to vacate your pleas of guilty, you denied your involvement was either planned or deliberate. Instead, you claimed that you were naïve, wilfully blind and/or

1 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.

reckless and you did not play a leading or significant role in the methamphetamine importation and distribution operation.

[6] That position sat in stark contrast to that maintained by the Crown throughout the trial and in the sentencing submissions they filed. The Crown’s case was, and remains, that you sat well up in the operational hierarchy and that you took a leading role in co-ordinating the various phases of the operation and the activities of others involved.

[7] Given the factual gulf between you…

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 Wong

Details

AGLC: R v Wong [2020] NZHC 1654
Case: [2020] NZHC 1654
Decision Date: 10 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wai Fat Wong was convicted and sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for his involvement in the importation and possession for supply of methamphetamine. Wong was one of several co-defendants arrested in connection with a sophisticated drug importation operation. He pleaded guilty to charges related to three importations of methamphetamine, involving a combined weight of over 250 kilograms. The court had to determine Wong's actual role in the drug importation and distribution operation, which was disputed between Wong and the Crown. After a separate hearing, the court found that Wong played a leading role in the operation.

The legal issues the court had to decide included setting an appropriate starting point for sentencing in accordance with the methamphetamine sentencing guidelines, considering Wong's personal factors and guilty pleas, and deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI). The court considered Wong's age, health problems, lack of a criminal history, and previous good character when determining the discount for personal factors. The court also took into account Wong's late guilty plea and the strength of the evidence against him when deciding the discount for his pleas.

The court decided on a starting point of 31 years' imprisonment for Wong, slightly above the starting point for his co-defendant, Ricky Leung. The court then applied discounts for personal factors and guilty pleas, resulting in a provisional sentence of 28 years and six months. After further consideration, the court decided on a final sentence of 25-and-a-half years' imprisonment for Wong. The court also imposed an MPI of eight-and-a-half years, considering the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and accountability in light of Wong's involvement in a large-scale commercial drug operation.

Orders