R v Wong - [2018] NZHC 1973

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-2723

[2018] NZHC 1973

THE QUEEN

v

SHUI TONG WONG

Hearing: 3 August 2018

Appearances:

S McColgan for Crown

D G Young and J Wong for Defendant

Judgment:

3 August 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v WONG [2018] NZHC 1973 [3 August 2018]

[1] Mr Wong, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of being in possession of material (t-boc methamphetamine) and equipment with intent to manufacture methamphetamine,1 as well as a charge of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine,2 and a charge of possessing methamphetamine.3 The maximum penalty on the first two charges is five years imprisonment. The maximum penalty on the conspiracy charge is 14 years imprisonment, and the maximum sentence on the possession charge is six months imprisonment.

Facts

[2] I sentence you on the basis of a summary of facts that you agreed to when you entered your guilty pleas. This records that on 14 January 2017, a consignment of cargo containing approximately 160 litres of t-boc methamphetamine, labelled as dishwashing liquid, left Hong Kong by sea bound for New Zealand. Boxes containing the t-boc methamphetamine were labelled with a triangle.

[3] T-boc methamphetamine is a liquid created when a chemical is added to methamphetamine so as to mask the existence of the methamphetamine. The methamphetamine can be extracted through a chemical process involving the addition of hydrochloric acid and the completion of an evaporation process. The summary records that 160 litres of t-boc methamphetamine can produce 46 kilograms of pure methamphetamine.

[4] The consignment arrived in New Zealand on 28 January 2017, and customs officers who inspected it discovered the existence of the t-boc methamphetamine. They replaced most of the t-boc methamphetamine with a placebo liquid. They then arranged for a controlled delivery of the boxes, which now contained the placebo liquid, together with a small quantity of t-boc methamphetamine, to be made to the address to which the consignment was to be delivered. On 18 February 2017, you and one of your co-offenders, Mr Mingsisouphanh, arranged for a courier company to uplift the consignment and deliver it to a storage unit in New Lynn. Mr Mingsisouphanh had rented the storage unit the previous day.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 12A and 12A(3)(b).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2).
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a).

[5] The police then obtained a warrant authorising them to install audio and visual surveillance devices in the storage unit. You and another co-offender, Mr Chan, were observed visiting the storage unit on 22 February 2017. You and Mr Chan inspected the contents of the unit and discussed the triangular markings on the boxes that indicated t-boc methamphetamine was stored inside. You also removed the contents of some boxes and moved others.

[6] On 23 February 2017, police staff covertly observed you picking Mr Chan up from an inner-city backpackers’ hostel. 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 [2018] NZHC 1973
Case: [2018] NZHC 1973
Decision Date: 3 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wong, Shui Tong Wong was sentenced by Lang J in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. Mr Wong was sentenced following his guilty pleas to charges of possession of material and equipment for manufacturing methamphetamine, conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr Wong, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offending, as well as any aggravating or mitigating factors.

The court selected a starting point of 12 years and six months imprisonment for the conspiracy charge, incorporating Mr Wong's culpability in relation to the possession charges. An uplift of six months was applied to account for the possession of a significant quantity of methamphetamine. The court considered mitigating factors such as Mr Wong's age and the absence of previous convictions, which led to a discount of nine months. A further 20% discount was given for Mr Wong's guilty pleas, resulting in a total sentence of nine years and nine months imprisonment. The court also ordered Mr Wong to serve a minimum term of four years and ten months before being eligible to apply for parole.

In conclusion, Mr Wong was sentenced to nine years and nine months imprisonment for the conspiracy charge, with a minimum term of four years and ten months before parole eligibility. The sentences for the possession charges were to be served concurrently.

Orders