R v Yim - [2017] NZHC 702

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-004-002124 [2017] NZHC 702

THE QUEEN

v

CHRISTOPHER YIM

Hearing: 11 April 2017

Appearances:

B Northwood for Crown
S Lack on behalf of R Mansfield for Defendant

Sentenced:

11 April 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Copy to: R Mansfield, Auckland
S Lack, Auckland

R v YIM [2017] NZHC 702 [11 April 2017]

[1] Christopher Yim, you are for sentence on one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The Crown does not offer any evidence on the other charge you face of conspiracy to import. You are discharged on that count.

[2] You were arrested following an investigation into the importation into New Zealand of over 39 kilograms of methamphetamine. Two of your co-accused Mr Hung and Mr Chen came to New Zealand to arrange a consignee address and to receive the delivery of the consignment of methamphetamine. They were also to extract the concealed methamphetamine from the consignment and repackage it for supply to others. In January 2016 Mr Hung arrived in New Zealand from Taiwan for those purposes. On 10 February Mr Chen arrived in New Zealand from China to assist Mr Hung. They acquired a rental address in Forrest Hill on the North Shore which became the consignment address. They also hired a rental vehicle to assist with the supply of the methamphetamine once it had been received.

[3] On 21 February 2016 a consignment arrived at Auckland Port from China consisting of 28 boxes described as granite tea trays. On 25 February 2016 the consignment was examined by New Zealand Customs Service and was found to contain approximately 39.6 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed within the granite tea trays. The Customs Service replaced the majority of the drugs with a placebo for the purpose of completing a controlled delivery. A Surveillance Device Warrant was issued out of the High Court in New Zealand which authorised the interception of the cell phone number used to contact the logistics company to arrange delivery.

[4] On 1 March 2016 at about 12.00 pm the consignment was delivered to Hung and Chen at the rented Forrest Hill address.

[5] The ongoing investigation into the importation led the police to you. On 3

March 2016 a series of search warrants were executed on secure parks, secure units and cars belonging to you. At a storage unit in your name at St Lukes the police found a Lamborghini car with $932,160 inside it. They also found a BMW car with
$550,650 inside it. At an address in Nugent Street, Newmarket the police found the

kilogram of methamphetamine in a car registered to you together with $141,940. At

Ireland Road, Panmure your home address, the police found a further $214,708. [6] When you were arrested you declined to make any statement.
[7] The pre-sentence report notes that you have minor convictions, two for driving and one for shoplifting dating back to 1997. You were…

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 Yim

Details

AGLC: R v Yim [2017] NZHC 702
Case: [2017] NZHC 702
Decision Date: 11 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Yim involved the sentencing of Christopher Yim on a charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. The defendant was arrested following an investigation into the importation of over 39 kilograms of methamphetamine. The Crown did not offer evidence on the charge of conspiracy to import, and the defendant was discharged on that count. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant considering the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The key legal issues were the appropriate starting point for sentencing and the factors that should be considered in determining the final sentence. The Crown argued for a starting point of 16 years imprisonment, while the defence submitted for a starting point of 11 years, noting the defendant's lesser role in the operation. The court considered the significant quantity of methamphetamine in the defendant's possession and his involvement in the overall operation. It also took into account the sentences imposed on the defendant's co-offenders, Mr Chen and Mr Hung.

The court decided on a starting point of 14 years imprisonment, acknowledging the defendant's important but lesser role in the operation. It considered personal circumstances, such as the defendant's short time in New Zealand and lack of insight into his involvement. The court also considered the defendant's guilty plea and his lack of genuine remorse. After applying the relevant reductions, the court sentenced the defendant to 11½ years imprisonment, with no minimum non-parole period.

Orders