R v Yuen - [2016] NZHC 571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-003038

[2016] NZHC 571

THE QUEEN

v

WEI CHUEN YUEN

Appearances: E L Woolley for Crown J D Munro for Prisoner

Date:

5 April 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF COURTNEY J

R v YUEN [2016] NZHC 571 [5 April 2016]

[1] Wei Chuen Yuen, you are appearing for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of importing methamphetamine for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment,1 one of possession of methamphetamine for supply the maximum penalty for which is life imprisonment,2 and one of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine for which the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.3
[2] These charges followed a Customs investigation into a shipment labelled as 40 boxes of queue barriers that arrived at Auckland Airport from China on 13 February 2015. The boxes contained solid bases for the queue barriers and hollow metal pipes to be inserted into the bases. The shipment was forwarded to a logistics company prior to delivery.

[3] On 1 March 2015 you and your wife, Fung Sze, arrived in New Zealand from Hong Kong. You are both Hong Kong Chinese nationals. You told Customs officers you had come for a holiday. You rented properties in Auckland, including one in Stonefields, Mount Wellington.

[4] Soon after you arrived your wife arranged payment of the storage fees and delivery of the shipment to the Stonefields property. On 13 March 2015, you and Ms Sze went to a shop in downtown Auckland where you purchased a drill. While you were doing that the shipment was being examined by Customs officers, who found 40 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed in the queue barrier poles in four of the 40 boxes. They removed the majority of the drugs and substituted a placebo.

[5] On 22 March 2015 Ms Sze returned to Hong Kong and you stayed at the Stonefields property. The next day you took delivery of the shipment, extracted what you believed to be methamphetamine and re-packaged it into 40 snaplock bags. The day after that, 24 March 2015, you met another man, Jinsong Feng,4 at a café and handed him a bag that was later found to contain one kilogram of what you and he believed to be methamphetamine but which was, in fact, mostly placebo. Police

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a).
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a).
4      Ms Sze and Mr Feng are both facing charges arising from these events and their trials are scheduled to begin in the week beginning 23 May 2016.

searched Mr Feng’s residence in Royal Oak and found the one kilogram bag containing the white crystalline placebo. They also found snaplock bags, scales and other items associated with methamphetamine dealing.

[6] Later the same day the Police searched your property at Stonefields and found three backpacks containing 39 snaplock bags filled with a crystalline substance containing mostly placebo and some methamphetamine. The…

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 Yuen

Details

AGLC: R v Yuen [2016] NZHC 571
Case: [2016] NZHC 571
Decision Date: 5 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant Wei Chuen Yuen was sentenced following his guilty plea to charges of importing, possessing for the purpose of supplying, and conspiring to supply methamphetamine. The charges stemmed from a Customs investigation that uncovered 40 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed within queue barrier poles. Yuen was arrested after taking delivery of the shipment and repackaging the drugs for distribution. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences, Yuen’s culpability, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The primary legal issue was establishing an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the significant amount of drugs involved and Yuen’s role in the importation. The court considered the principles set out in previous cases, particularly R v Fatu, R v Chen, and R v Kam, which dealt with similar offences involving large quantities of methamphetamine. The court concluded that a starting point of 23 years was appropriate, given the significant amount of drugs and Yuen’s critical role in the importation.

Courtney J concluded that a starting point of 23 years was appropriate, but reduced this to 15 years and 7 months after considering mitigating factors, including Yuen’s age, lack of prior convictions, his limited English proficiency, and his motivation to support his family. The court also acknowledged Yuen’s efforts to adjust and rehabilitate in prison and his early guilty plea, which resulted in a further reduction to 15 years and 7 months. While the Crown requested a minimum period of imprisonment of half the sentence, the court decided against this, considering Yuen’s limited prospects of reoffending and the hardship of imprisonment for him.

The final orders were that Yuen be sentenced to 15 years and 7 months imprisonment on the importing and possession charges, and a concurrent 12-year sentence on the conspiracy charge, making a total sentence of 15 years and 7 months.

Orders