R v Zhang - [2025] NZHC 1840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-004-001080

[2025] NZHC 1840

THE KING

v

WENFU ZHANG TAYZEL TUPOU-TOKA TINI

ROBERT TALATI LIAM QUADE PRASAD

Hearing: 16 June 2025 – 30 June 2025

Appearances:

K S Li and K H M Nihill for Crown G J Newell and L Qian for Mr Zhang

S Tait and A Maxwell-Scott for Mr Tini

P H Tomlinson and K Hamblin for Mr Talati O Hintze and G Burns for Mr Prasad

Judgment:

7 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF MOUNT J

Charge One—Cessation of Importation

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 July 2025 at 3 pm,

………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland G J Newell, Auckland
S Tait, Auckland
P H Tomlinson, Auckland O Hintze, Auckland

R v ZHANG & ORS [2025] NZHC 1840 [7 July 2025]

[1] The defendant Mr Zhang faces one charge of importing methamphetamine into New Zealand between 12 January and 9 February 2023. He also faces one charge of attempting to possess methamphetamine for the purpose of supply.

[2] Shortly before trial, counsel for Mr Zhang gave notice that the defence would contest the date on which importation ceased. Mr Zhang filed written submissions on 21 June 2025. The Crown filed written submissions on 24 June 2025, and I heard oral submissions on 25 June 2025. I issued a minute that day, which stated:1
[3] On charge one, I consider it will be open to the jury to conclude that the process of importation continued until the morning of 9 February 2023 if they accept the Police evidence that there was an intended controlled delivery that was abandoned at that time. I intend to direct the jury as to the law in terms of Note 3 of the draft question trail distributed yesterday 24 June 2025.

[3]The relevant note in the question trail reads:

2.Importation is a process which is completed either when:

a.the authorities (Police or Customs) decide to retain all of the controlled drug; or

b.the goods brought into New Zealand reach their immediate destination and are available to the consignee or addressee.

(whichever is the earlier).

[4]I said I would provide reasons for my ruling in due course, which I now do.

Background facts

[5] Charge One relates to 10 pallets of maple syrup that entered New Zealand as part of a larger consignment of 18 pallets on 14 January 2023. The Crown case is that Mr Zhang’s role was to receive and store the first group of 10 pallets at 381 Dominion Road in Auckland, where he had rented space above a supermarket.

[6] On 17 January 2023, Senior Customs Officer Brittany Herbert observed anomalies in x-rays of the consignment taken at the Sea Cargo Investigations Facility. She physically examined the consignment and saw that many of the plastic bottles

1 R v Zhang HC Auckland CRI-2023-004-1080, 25 June 2025.

were dirty, and at least one had been…

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 Zhang

Details

AGLC: R v Zhang [2025] NZHC 1840
Case: [2025] NZHC 1840
Decision Date: 7 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Mr Zhang, who is charged with importing methamphetamine into New Zealand between 12 January and 9 February 2023 and attempting to possess methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. The central legal issue was determining the point at which the importation process ceased, which is crucial for establishing whether Mr Zhang's actions contributed to the actus reus of the offence. This issue hinged on the interpretation of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and relevant case law.

The court examined the process of importation under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, considering two primary ways in which importation can end: either when the authorities decide to retain all of the controlled drug permanently, or when the goods reach their immediate destination and are available to the consignee or addressee. The court focused on the first limb of the test, which involves the authorities' decision to retain the controlled drug. The court emphasised that the process of importation continues as long as the goods remain in transit to their destination, and intervention by authorities for a controlled delivery does not necessarily terminate the importation process.

The court concluded that the importation process did not cease until the authorities decided to retain all of the controlled drug permanently. In this case, the decision to abandon the planned controlled delivery on the morning of 9 February 2023 marked the point at which the importation process ended. Therefore, any relevant acts by Mr Zhang until that point could contribute to the actus reus of importation. The court directed the jury to consider this legal framework in their deliberations.

The court's decision provided clear guidance on the timing of the cessation of the importation process, which is pivotal for determining the scope of Mr Zhang's potential liability. The court's ruling ensures that the process of importation is accurately assessed in light of the authorities' actions, particularly when a controlled delivery is involved. This ruling will serve as a significant precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Orders