R v Yu HC Auckland CRI-2010-004-9725

[2011] NZHC 2098

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-004-9725

THE QUEEN

v

HONGLIN YU

Hearing:         15 December 2011

Appearances: AJF Perkins for Crown

MA Edgar, M Kan and J Ding for Prisoner

Judgment:      15 December 2011

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

Solicitors

AJF Perkins, Meredith Connell, Auckland:  [email protected]
MA Edgar, Barrister, Auckland:  [email protected]

M Kan, Barrister, Auckland:  [email protected]

R V YU HC AK CRI-2010-004-9725 [15 December 2011]

[1]      Honglin Yu - you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of one count of murder and one count of aggravated robbery.

[2]      The parents of your victim, Kiko Li, cannot be here but, as you have just heard Mr Edgar mention, I have agreed that the transcript of my summing up to the jury and the record of what I say today should be provided to them.  I recognise that this is a very distressing occasion for your parents also.

[3]      So that you can follow what I say, I will first explain to you the matters I am going to cover in my remarks before I sentence you.   First, I will describe the circumstances of your offending and identify the part which I consider you played in the events which have brought you here.   I will then make some comments about your victim, Kiko Li, and refer to the effect of the murder on her parents who are also victims in this case.

[4]      I will then discuss your personal circumstances in an effort to identify how you could have become involved in this offending, and to look at what personal factors should be taken into account in determining an appropriate sentence.

[5]      I will then discuss the sentencing principles which I am required to adopt, and examine how those principles should be applied to this particular case.  I will conclude, then, by passing sentence on you.

The circumstances of the offending

[6]      On 12 May 2010, in a text message to your co-offender Yongxin Li, you complained about having no money and being in debt.  At that moment you put in train a sequence of text messages in which you proposed, planned and then implemented the solution of killing and robbing an unsuspecting victim.  The cold- hearted, callous pre-meditation of your offending is best demonstrated simply by recording some of the messages you exchanged.   It is important to do so to demonstrate also that the brutal death of Kiko Li, the victim you chose, was the

result of a joint venture in which you were an equal partner and, in my view, equally blameworthy as Mr Li who, I am satisfied, actually stabbed Kiko to death.

[7]      Mid-afternoon  on  12 May 2010,  you  exchanged  the  following  messages. After having described your concern about lack of money you said:

I even have the thought of killing people ... who do you find disagreeable?  I

will help you fix him.

[8]      Mr Li replied:

If killing people can bring money I will also kill.

You said:

Let the two of us make a plan of kidnapping someone.

When Mr Li asked who should be kidnapped you replied:

Of course kidnap whoever is rich/whoever has money... kill the hostage as soon as getting the money.

[9]      The plan quickly gathered momentum.   Within a few hours of having told Mr Li how serious you were about the plan the two of you went to a supermarket where you paid for three kitchen knives.  Shortly after that, you suggested that Mr Li and you should watch more movies about kidnapping and learn how others do it.

[10]     You then exchanged messages in which you discussed how the knives would be used and, close to midnight, you sent the following message to Mr Li:

Kiko probably has quite a lot of money in the card ... family is also very rich

... may consider it.  Furthermore, I know her PIN.

Within seconds Mr Li replied:

Really?! No one but her! Kill her directly!

I accept  that  you  then  began  to  express  doubts  about  whether  you  could  bring yourself to kill Kiko, because she was kind to you.   Mr Li pressed on, suggesting Piha as the appropriate place to carry out the killing.

[11]     You told Mr Li that you had other doubts about the suitability of Kiko as your victim, not just because she had been kind to you.  What you said was that you did not know how much money was on her card.  You also said that when Kiko’s sister knew she was missing she would definitely ask you to help with the search.  I accept that you then expressed reservations about the prospect of Kiko losing her life for a small amount of money and suggested it was not worth it.

[12]     Two days later you managed to obtain money from another source.  You sent a text message to Mr Li saying that your plan should be put on hold.

[13]     Your evidence before the jury was that from that point you endeavoured to persuade Mr Li against carrying out the planned kidnapping, murder and robbery. You said that you focused your attention on the relationship with your girlfriend, which appeared to be in some difficulty.

[14]     Nevertheless, on Monday 17 May, Mr Li and you met up with another man, Sam, from whom you had been estranged for several months.   I do  not accept Mr Edgar’s proposition that this was a coincidental meeting.  I believe you knew at the time you invited Sam to join you that Mr Li would attempt to recruit Sam as a participant in your enterprise.

[15]     Sam’s  evidence  confirms  that  you  asked  him  to  persuade  Mr Li  against carrying out the plan, but as the person who had both suggested Kiko as a potential victim, and who had the friendship with her, your responsibility was far greater than that.  It was within your power to put an end to the plan at that stage.  Instead, you sent a text message to Kiko, while Mr Li and you were with Sam, asking her to come out for a while.  As it happened she did not get your text that night but it is clear to me that, despite your reluctance, you were prepared to continue playing a key role in implementing the plan.

[16]     The next day, by text message, Sam tried to dissuade you from following the plan to kill and rob Kiko and he confronted you with the proposition that you seemed to be intent on going ahead with it “while clearly knowing it is wrong”.  Later texts, on the afternoon before Kiko was killed, demonstrate that you were still short of

money and looking for someone to lend it to you.  This contradicts your evidence to the jury that you no longer had any motive to kill Kiko, because you had been paid

$2000 which you gave to your girlfriend for safe-keeping.

[17]     You said in evidence that Sam assured you he had been told by Mr Li that the plan would not be carried out.  You said that from that point you had no idea that Mr Li  still  intended  to  murder  and  rob  Kiko.    It  was  your  evidence  that  what happened later that night and in the early hours of the morning did not involve, on your part, any knowing participation in the carrying out of the plan which had been discussed earlier.  You said that the attack on Kiko by Mr Li came as a shock to you while you were driving Kiko’s car in the direction of Piha.

[18]     It is plain that the jury rejected your evidence on that point and that it was accepted by them that what occurred was done with your knowledge.   Mr Edgar quite properly concedes that that inference must be taken from the verdicts.  After hearing the evidence, including your testimony, I had no hesitation in coming to the same conclusion.

[19]     Shortly after midnight on 19 May, Kiko Li initiated contact with you and asked you to take her out for a driving lesson.  At that time you were with Mr Li. You told Kiko you would take her out a little while later, because you had been drinking. Within an hour or so, Mr Li and you met Kiko near her home.

[20]     The knives purchased at the supermarket on the evening of 12 May were carried around in your car, at least one in each of the front passenger’s and driver’s doors.  Mr Li must have taken one of them at least, concealed, when you left your car near Kiko’s apartment and got into her car with Mr Li at half-past midnight. You then drove around the Auckland CBD for a time with Kiko, including providing assistance to friends whose car had been towed to a car storage yard.  The evidence was that you appeared impatient to get away from that yard and that, although Kiko had driven the car to that place, you drove away from it, with Kiko in the front passenger seat and Mr Li in the back.

[21]     You then drove out along the North Western Motorway where you exited at Great North Road.  Rather than turning back towards Kiko’s home in Morningside Drive, you continued the journey along Great North Road in the direction of Piha. The last evidence derived from the GPS system in Kiko’s car placed you in Great North Road at 2:11 am.  Kiko sent her last text message from her phone at 2:17 am. It was your evidence that Kiko was stabbed by Mr Li while you were driving the car on Scenic Drive towards Piha.

[22]     In pleading guilty to murder and aggravated robbery, Mr Li asserted that it was you who carried out the stabbing.   The evidence at your trial satisfies me, however, that you were driving the vehicle at the time of the killing. That conclusion is consistent with what Mr Li himself told Sam and what you told your girlfriend after the event.  It is also consistent with the respective positions you were in, inside the car, at the time you were last seen departing from the car yard.

[23]     Nevertheless,  I  have  no  doubt  that  what  happened  next  was  simply  the carrying out, or perhaps more appropriately, the execution of your plan.   Without warning, Mr Li attacked Kiko from behind with one of the knives.  You described Mr Li as reaching over to cover Kiko’s mouth with his left hand and using his right hand to strangle her neck.  You said you were shattered; that you grabbed his arm and said “You are crazy, what are you doing?’ You described Kiko as struggling and that when Kiko shouted your name you tried to grab Mr Li harder while still driving the car.  You said that Mr Li suddenly took out a knife and stabbed Kiko several times on her body.  You said you asked him if he was crazy and that he then pointed the knife at you saying “It’s none of your business, carry on driving.”  You said that you “totally freaked out”, that your brain then totally stopped working.  You claimed this was all unexpected because you thought Sam had already persuaded Mr Li not to do it.  The jury’s verdict inevitably means that while they may have accepted that Mr Li did stab Kiko largely in the way you described, they rejected your view that you knew nothing about that and were surprised that it was happening.

[24]     The pathologist’s evidence described the consequences of what was plainly a vicious attack on an unsuspecting and defenceless victim.  The evidence suggests an attempt was made by Mr Li to strangle Kiko Li with the seat belt or, at least, to

confine her while he attacked her with the kitchen knife.  She received seven distinct stab wounds to the neck and upper chest, including what appears to have been the fatal blow, which pierced her heart, and one which penetrated some 10 centimetres, cutting her diaphragm and liver.  She received 22 wounds in all including a number to her arms and hands, indicating a furious struggle to defend herself.

[25]     The pathologist’s view was that Kiko would have lost consciousness in one or two minutes after the chest wounds were inflicted and would have died within five or ten minutes after that.

[26]     You  claimed  in  evidence  that  you  were  extremely  frightened  that  Mr Li would stab you and might kill you as well.  You said that when Mr Li asked you to turn the car around you followed his instruction, acting just like a robot because you were frightened. You stopped the car and you then assisted Mr Li to put Kiko’s body in the boot.

[27]     You  drove the car,  with  Kiko’s  body in  the boot,  to  an  automatic teller machine in Mt Albert where Mr Li used Kiko’s EFTPOS card in an attempt to gain an account balance.  About half an hour later, although you claimed in evidence you were still acting under instructions from Mr Li, you attempted to use the card at an ATM in St Heliers, again unsuccessfully because you used an incorrect PIN.

[28]     I do not accept you did so because you were in shock or fearful.  The knives had been discarded earlier.  The attempt to obtain money from Kiko’s account in this way was entirely consistent with the proposal Mr Li and you had discussed a week earlier when you confidently told him you knew Kiko’s PIN.   You were simply carrying out the plan.

[29]     You then returned to where your car was parked in Morningside, leaving Kiko’s car nearby with her body still in the boot.  The next day you attempted, with Mr Li, to clean Kiko’s vehicle.  She was reported missing on 22 May 2010.

[30]     On 25 May 2010, a week after the murder, Mr Li and you asked an associate, Mr Zhang, to assist with the disposal of the car.  You paid Mr Zhang $1,000 to drive

Kiko’s car to Hamilton. You led the way while Mr Zhang drove Kiko’s car, which he had been told was being dumped because it had blood in it. It was accepted when he was sentenced for his part in this enterprise that he did not know that Kiko’s body remained in the boot.

[31]     After Kiko’s car was left in Hamilton, in a street where you had previously lived, you returned to Auckland.  The car and Kiko’s body were not discovered until

1 June 2010, nearly two weeks after she was killed.

[32]     Although I am satisfied it was Mr Li who stabbed Kiko to death while you were driving the car, and that a few days before Kiko’s death you expressed reservations about the selection of Kiko as your victim, I have no doubt that you participated fully in planning and carrying out the murder and robbery.  You could have prevented this terrible crime at any time between the time you first suggested it on 12 May and the time of Kiko’s death.  You saw the opportunity to carry out the planned murder on the night Kiko rang to ask you to take her for a driving lesson. And you facilitated Mr Li’s involvement by taking him with you to collect Kiko and her car, and by driving the car with Kiko belted into the front seat and Mr Li in the back.  You drove her out to a relatively remote area in the direction of Piha, where the murder was committed in the very manner Mr Li and you had discussed with Sam.  Your actions after Kiko’s death demonstrate a determination on your part to benefit from the crime, and to cover it up.   The Police first spoke to you before Kiko’s body was moved to Hamilton.  You could have assisted the Police to find her much sooner than they did.

[33]     Despite  being  given  every  opportunity  to  accept  responsibility  for  your actions and to tell the Police what you had done, you lied and said you knew nothing about Kiko’s disappearance.  There was not the least sign of any emotion from you when the Police recorded the lengthy interview with you on 1 June 2010, after Kiko’s body had been discovered.

The victims

[34]     It is most important in this case that I acknowledge and have regard to the effect of your offending on the victims, not only Kiko Li whose life was brutally cut short at the age of only 18, but also her father and step-mother who grieve for her.

[35]     Although not much was said about Kiko’s personality at the trial, I was left with the impression that she was a charming young woman who was enjoying her time in this country and making the most of the opportunity to study here.  That is confirmed by her parents.  She appeared to have been a good friend to a number of people, including you.  There is no reason to think that she would not have fulfilled the high hopes which her parents held for her.

[36]     You have heard Ms Robertson read the victim impact statements provided by Kiko Li’s father and step-mother. They describe the deep grief and the psychological harm which they and Kiko’s step-brother have suffered through her death.   Their deep distress has caused disharmony and disruption to the family, and Mr Li has described  the serious  financial  consequences  for his  business  as  a  result  of his distraction.   Both parents have expressed understandable anger at the taking of a young life in early bloom and ask that you be held accountable for your crime.  They are entirely justified in doing so.

The personal circumstances of the offender

[37]     I acknowledge the letter that your parents have submitted to me; they say, and I accept, that they are very upset by Kiko’s death, and feel a sense of guilt over it.   I recognise that your parents, too, are victims in this case.  The knowledge that you will be required to serve a lengthy term of imprisonment in a foreign land, during a period in which you should have been establishing a career and having your own family, must be devastating for them.

[38]     You are aged 21 years 8 months.   Your parents say that you grew up in a harmonious family.  They describe you as kind, polite and loving.  You studied in

private primary and intermediate schools in China and, because of your excellent grades, you were admitted into an Advanced High School.

[39]     Your parents tell me that you acted decently in school; you respected your teachers and got on well with your class mates.

[40]     Your parents hoped that you would learn English in a civilised country and so, when you were 16, you came to New Zealand by yourself to study, with your parents hoping that you would achieve academic success and then return to China to serve your native country.

[41]     They say that after a few years of hard study at secondary school in Hamilton and, more recently, in Auckland, your English quickly improved and you developed a deep affection for this country.  Your parents say that due to your kindness and frankness you made many friends.  It is no doubt a matter of great regret to them that your offending cut short your education before you could obtain any formal qualifications.  It may be hoped that you will take such opportunities to further your education as will be available to you during your sentence.

[42]     Against the background described by your parents, it is no surprise to me that you have no previous convictions.  There is no evidence that you have developed any harmful patterns of alcohol or drug use, or that you have a gambling habit.

[43]     You are assessed as being at a low risk of re-offending.

[44]     As I sat through your trial, I struggled to find any evidence which would give a clue as to how and why you could have suggested and then carried out cold- blooded murder.  After the jury properly convicted you, I thought I might find some answers in the pre-sentence report.  But there is nothing in the information provided to me, nor in the submissions which Mr Edgar has made, to explain your offending adequately.

[45]     I am baffled by the extreme dislocation from reality which is evident in the text messages you exchanged with Mr Li, as to the conception and carrying out of

this planned killing and robbery.  Some explanation might be found in the fact that at a young and impressionable age you were sent to New Zealand with the best of intentions, but without any parental or family support.  I do not doubt that the people who undertook responsibility for providing you with board and lodging from time to time will have shown an interest in you, but they do not appear to have had any control over your lifestyle, or influence over your social development.

[46]     It is evident that you – and many others here in New Zealand on student visas

– habitually spent aimless hours, late at night and in the early hours of the morning, in the company of friends in internet cafes or pool halls.   During the important formative years of adolescence between 16 and 20, you do not appear to have had any moral compass, despite the fact that your parents appear to me to be decent right-thinking people.

[47]     But the absence of direct parental involvement over the past four or five years does not explain how you could have thought that the killing of another human being was an appropriate solution to your difficulty in supporting the lifestyle you chose on limited funds.

[48]     Your inability to comprehend the enormity of your actions was reflected in the cold hearted content of the text messages you sent to Mr Li, and in the calm and detached manner in which you behaved during the Police interview.  You denied any involvement  in  Kiko’s  death,  and  when  you  gave  evidence  at  your  trial  you continued to deny any responsibility for it.

[49]     Your parents have told me that you have felt guilt and remorse.  I have seen little evidence of it.  The probation officer said that you appeared at times during her interview of you to be remorseful, but that this was overshadowed by your continual shift of responsibility onto your co-offender and your denial of your own part in what occurred.  That was my impression also, from the way you conducted yourself in giving evidence.

[50]     It may be that, although he is younger than you, Mr Li had the more forceful personality and that, to a degree, you got yourself into a situation in which you

became susceptible to pressure from him to see through the plan.  But I do not accept that at the age of 20 you were unable to know, first, that what you had proposed was atrocious and utterly wrong; and, second, that you could have prevented the plan being carried out.

[51]     The only possible explanation I can find, which only goes part of the way to assisting me to understand how you became involved in this matter,  lies in the increasing body of scientific evidence about the development of the adolescent brain. A few months ago, the Prime Minister released an important report by his Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman and others, which explains that recent findings of scientific research indicate that maturation – among boys especially – is not complete until well into the third decade of life, and that the last functions to mature are those of impulse control and judgment.

[52]     The  Courts  have  become  more  cognisant  of  this  science.    In  a  recent decision,1 the Court of Appeal noted that one of the ways in which youth is relevant to sentencing is that the age-related neurological differences between young people and adults indicate that young people may be more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures (including peer pressure), and may be more impulsive than adults.2

[53]     I do not think the discussion in that case about adolescent risk-taking has any particular relevance here, given the long period over which this offending was planned.  But there are issues arising from that case which I take into account.

[54]     This brings me to the principles of sentencing which I am required to apply in this case.

1 Churchward v R  [2011] NZCA 531.

2 At [77].

Sentencing principles

Life imprisonment and minimum term

[55]     On the charge of murder, you are liable to life imprisonment and Mr Edgar does not suggest it would be manifestly unjust to impose that sentence upon you.3   I am also required to order that you serve a minimum period of imprisonment.4   This period must be the minimum term I consider necessary to satisfy the purposes of:

(a)       holding you accountable for the harm done to the victims of your offending and the community;5

(b)promoting    in    you    a    sense    of    responsibility     for,    and    an acknowledgement of, that harm;6

(c)       denouncing your conduct as being wholly unacceptable in a civilised society;7 and

(d)deterring you or other persons from committing the same or similar offences.8

[56]     I am mindful of the general principles of sentencing set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002, including that I am obliged to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

Section 104 Sentencing Act 2002

[57]     I must also consider whether s 104 of the Sentencing Act applies so as to require me to impose a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 17 years, unless I

am satisfied it would be manifestly unjust to do so.

3 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

4 Ibid, s 103.
5 Ibid, s 7(1)(a).
6 Ibid, s7(1)(b).
7 Ibid, s 7(1)(e).

8 Ibid, s 7(1)(f).

[58]     The Crown submits, and Mr Edgar accepts on your behalf, that s 104 is engaged in this case.   That is realistic, because of the presence of several of the factors which Parliament has directed must lead to a minimum term of 17 years.

[59]     First, the murder was committed, as the jury determined, in the course of committing another serious offence - aggravated robbery.9     Rendering Kiko defenceless by stabbing her to death was part of the plan to take possession of her EFTPOS card. You suggested kidnapping, murder and robbery right at the start.

[60]     I consider also that the purpose in killing Kiko was the obvious one of avoiding detection.10    Kiko knew you well and, had she not died, would have been able to identify you as having robbed her.

[61]     The murder also involved a high degree of pre-meditation and planning, as I have described.11    You carried out the plan in accordance with the details you had previously discussed with Mr Li and conveyed to your intended recruit, Sam.  The evidence established a cold-blooded plan to end the life of another human being for money, and what could only have been a modest sum at that.

[62]     Next,  the  murder  was  committed  with  a  high  level  of  cruelty  and callousness.12    I have no doubt that the last minutes of Kiko’s Li’s consciousness were painful and terrifying for her.  And there was a complete absence of sensitivity or feeling for your victim – your friend – in the manner in which you treated her body; dumping it in the boot of her car and then, about a week later, abandoning her body in Hamilton where it lay for several days.

[63]     I also consider that the circumstances in which you committed the offending had made Kiko particularly vulnerable.13   She was taken completely unawares, in the company of someone she trusted and whom she plainly regarded as a close friend.

You exploited her trust in you.   She had no means to defend herself or escape,

9 Ibid, s 104(1)(d).

10 Ibid, s 104(1)(a).
11 Ibid, s 104(1)(b).
12 Ibid, s 104(1)(e).

13 Ibid, s 104(1)(g).

confined as she was by her seatbelt and your continuing to drive the vehicle as the attack ensued.

[64]     I am next required to consider whether, on the basis of general sentencing principles, the gravity of the offending requires the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment of greater than 17 years.   In considering the application of s 104, I have already identified a number of the aggravating factors which are set out in s 9(1) of the Sentencing Act. They are:

(a)       the degree of violence and the use of a weapon;

(b)      the extent of the harm you caused, namely the death of your victim;

(c)      the  cruel  manner  in  which  Kiko  was  trapped,  defenceless  by  her seatbelt and attacked from behind;

(d)the  vulnerability  of  your  victim  and  the  abuse  of  the  trusting friendship she had with you;

(e)       the predetermination and planning involved in your offending; and

(f)      the  lengths  to  which  you  went  to  avoid  detection,  including  the callous and undignified way you dealt with Kiko’s body after she was killed.

[65]     There is nothing in the circumstances of the offending which mitigates or lessens the seriousness of it.

Consideration of other cases

[66]     I have considered the minimum sentences imposed for similar murders in which a significant degree of violence was employed.  They include R v Zhou14  in

which at least 76 wounds were inflicted with a knife, a meat cleaver and a claw

14 R v Zhou HC Auckland  CRI-2005-092-10395, 13 October 2006.

hammer.  The minimum period imposed there was 17 years.  In R v Weatherson15 in which  a total  of 216  stab  wounds  were  identified along  with  other blunt  force trauma, the minimum period was 18 years.  It is difficult and frequently unhelpful to compare the circumstances of one case with another and, although the brutality of the violence in those cases exceeds that which was involved here, your offending involved a far greater degree of pre-meditation and planning.

[67]     A case which bears some comparison with this is one16  which involved a kidnapping and murder of a 19-year-old Chinese man, Wan Biao, by two men (then aged 21 and 22 respectively) whom he considered to be his friends.   This was a planned  kidnapping  during  which  money was  extracted  from  the  victim’s  bank account.  Wan Baio was then brutally murdered and his body placed in a suitcase and dumped in the harbour.

[68]     In sentencing the offenders following their conviction after a trial, the Judge said that in the circumstances of the offending indicated an appropriate minimum term of 19 to 20 years’ imprisonment.  He then took into account the previous good records of the offenders; their relative youth; the incarceration difficulties inherent in their foreign nationality (they were also Chinese) and, to some extent, the remorse they had expressed.  Having regard to those factors, an end minimum sentence of 18- and-a-half years was imposed.

[69]     I  return  to  the  circumstances  of  this  case.    Bearing  in  mind  all  of  the aggravating  factors  I  have  mentioned  and  the  approach  taken  in  other  cases,  I consider that an uplift of two years from the statutory minimum is appropriate.  This would mean that the starting point, based on the circumstances of the offending,

would be a minimum term of imprisonment of 19 years.

15 R v Weatherson HC Christchurch CRI-2008-012-137, 15 September 2009.

16 R v Cui HC Auckland CRI-2006-004-18412, 6 December 2007.

[70]     I am next required to consider your personal circumstances.   There are no aggravating personal factors and I have already referred to some of the mitigating features.

[71]     In your favour are your previous good record and the fact that you will suffer additional hardship, during what will undoubtedly be a very lengthy term of imprisonment,  by  reason  of  your  being  isolated  from  your  family  in  a  foreign country.

[72]     I  also  take  account  of  your  youth.    Mr Perkins  is  right  that  you  are significantly older than  the appellant  in  Churchward,  but  the scientific research suggests that you will not fully mature for another five years or so.  While none of the  elements  of  impulsive  youthful  offending  are  present  here,  I  have  already referred to your apparent dislocation from reality and your susceptibility to peer pressure, which I am prepared to accept was exerted upon you by Mr Li as evidenced by some of the text messages he sent to you.

[73]     I also regard it as significant that at a time when you should be developing into adulthood you will be confined to prison.  I am mindful that you will be in your mid-to late-30s before you are released from prison and deported to China.

[74]     You denied responsibility for this crime so, unlike Mr Li, you get no credit for a guilty plea, and there is insufficient evidence of remorse to allow what your parents have said about that to be taken into account.

[75]     Nevertheless, the mitigating personal factors I have referred to would justify a reduction of three years in the term which would otherwise be imposed on a fully matured adult offender.   That would lead to a minimum term of imprisonment of

16 years, but I am required to consider whether the imposition of a minimum term of

17 years, which Parliament has directed me to impose, would be manifestly unjust.

[76]     I am not persuaded that that is the case.   This was a cold-blooded, pre- meditated murder of an innocent young woman motivated by greed and for what could have been only a paltry sum of money.  There are too many factors requiring a

17-year minimum term to allow what would otherwise be an appropriate discount for your youth to override the will of Parliament.

[77]     In coming to this conclusion, I have not overlooked the minimum period of

16 years’ imprisonment imposed on Mr Li.

Sentence for aggravated robbery

[78]     Crown  counsel  has  suggested,  and  Mr Edgar  does  not  dispute,  that  the appropriate term of imprisonment to be imposed in respect of the aggravated robbery conviction is one of seven years’ imprisonment.  That is the term which was imposed on Mr Li.  A concurrent sentence of seven years will be wholly subsumed by the term of imprisonment imposed on the murder charge and I propose to follow that course.

[79]     Mr Yu – please stand.

Decision

[80]     On the charge of murder, you are sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.

[81]     On the charge of aggravated robbery, you are sentenced to a concurrent term of seven years’ imprisonment, the end result being that you will serve a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.  Stand down.

.....................................

Toogood J