R v Yau - [2015] NZHC 2939

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-003100 [2015] NZHC 2939

THE QUEEN

v

KAKIT YAU

Hearing: 24 November 2015

Appearances:

D Johnstone for Crown
L D Burns for Prisoner

Judgment:

24 November 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF GILBERT J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
L D Burns, Auckland

R v YAU [2015] NZHC 2939 [24 November 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Yau, you appear for sentence on one charge of supplying methamphetamine on or about 22 March 2015 and one charge of possessing methamphetamine for the purposes of supply on or about 25 March 2015. The maximum penalty for these offences is life imprisonment.

The facts

22 March 2015 - supply

[2] You are a Hong Kong national living in New Zealand. You first came to New Zealand on a student visa in 2010. You are an only child and have no family in New Zealand. Since your arrival in New Zealand, you have returned to Hong Kong at the end of each year to visit your parents.

[3] Four or five years ago you met a person in Hong Kong who sells drugs. Late last year while on a visit to Hong Kong, this person asked you whether you knew of any people in New Zealand who might be interested in buying methamphetamine. You agreed to become involved as a distributor of methamphetamine in New Zealand.

[4] Your subsequent offending came to the attention of the police during the course of Operation Wand, an investigation into large scale importation and supply of methamphetamine.

[5] On 17 March 2015, after being advised by your contact that a consignment of methamphetamine had arrived in New Zealand, you told him that you had found a buyer interested in purchasing four kilograms of methamphetamine at $190,000 per kilogram. On 22 March 2015, you arranged for three samples of methamphetamine to be delivered to this buyer.

[6] The following day, you reported to your contact in Hong Kong that two of the samples were found to be “wet” and asked if further “dry” samples could be supplied. You indicated that there were two buyers, one of whom you described as

being “very professional” and wanting to conduct “lab tests”. You advised that if the samples were satisfactory, this buyer would purchase the methamphetamine immediately.

[7] You had a number of conversations with your contact in Hong Kong concerning the procedure to be followed when supplying the order.

[8] On 25 March 2015, before any further supply occurred, Operation Wand terminated and you admitted your involvement to the police.

25 March 2015 – possession for supply

[9] On 23 March 2015, you discussed the possible supply of methamphetamine at $220,000 per kilogram to another buyer who required four or five kilograms of methamphetamine a week. Following negotiations between you, your contact in Hong Kong and the buyer, it was agreed that you would initially supply one kilogram of methamphetamine for $230,000 and then a further kilogram in two
500 gram lots a few days…

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 Yau

Details

AGLC: R v Yau [2015] NZHC 2939
Case: [2015] NZHC 2939
Decision Date: 24 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Mr. KaKit Yau was sentenced for his involvement in the supply and possession of methamphetamine. The court heard that Yau, a Hong Kong national living in New Zealand, was involved in the distribution of a significant quantity of methamphetamine. He played a role in locating buyers, negotiating prices, and arranging the collection and delivery of the drugs. Yau's involvement came to light during Operation Wand, an investigation into large-scale importation and supply of methamphetamine. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Yau, taking into account the severity of his crimes and various mitigating factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was determining the appropriate starting point for Yau's sentence, considering the quantity of drugs involved and his role in the drug supply chain. The Crown argued for a starting point of 13 to 15 years of imprisonment, while the defence submitted that a starting point of ten years was appropriate, considering Yau's role as a middleman. The judge acknowledged that Yau's offending fell within band 4 of R v Fatu, which suggested a starting point between ten years and life imprisonment. However, the judge found that Yau's role in the drug supply chain warranted a starting point of 12 years' imprisonment. The court also considered personal factors such as Yau's isolation from family and friends in New Zealand, his low risk of re-offending, and his early guilty plea.

After considering the arguments and mitigating factors, the judge determined that the appropriate sentence for Yau was eight years and seven months of imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and three months. The sentences for both charges were to be served concurrently. The court emphasised the importance of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community in imposing a significant minimum period of imprisonment.

In conclusion, KaKit Yau was sentenced to eight years and seven months of imprisonment for his involvement in the supply and possession of methamphetamine. The sentence included a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and three months, reflecting the severity of his crimes and the need to protect the community from the harmful effects of drug distribution. The sentences for both charges were to be served concurrently.

Orders