R v Zhang - [2020] NZHC 3350

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF REFERENCES IN THESE SENTENCING NOTES TO THE NAMES OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARE

PROHIBITED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF REFERENCE TO ACTIONS OF A DEFENDANT IN A STATEMENT MADE BY MR ZHANG PROHIBITED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-090-1976

[2020] NZHC 3350

THE QUEEN

v

YUZHEN ZHANG

Hearing: 16 December 2020

Counsel:

D Johnstone for Crown

D P H Jones QC for Defendant

Judgment:

16 December 2020

[REDACTED] SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v ZHANG [2020] NZHC 3350 [16 December 2020]

Suppression

[1] For clarity, I commence with the following suppression orders. First, all references by name to the defendants in the upcoming murder trial are suppressed. Second, reference to the actions of a defendant in a statement made by Mr Zhang, that I will refer to in my sentencing, are also suppressed.

[2] Before I go further, I want to acknowledge the victim and his family for the hurt and suffering caused by his death and the circumstances of it. It must be very difficult to bear. I will say something more about that later. I simply wish to observe that while you, Mr Zhang, were not involved in his murder, it is important to acknowledge that harm today at the outset.

Introduction

[3] Mr Zhang, you face sentence on one charge of accessory after the fact to the murder of Mr Baochang Wang. You have accepted a sentencing indication of 15 months’ imprisonment, with the issue of home detention left to be determined by me. I indicated that I would be assisted by background information about you, including any cultural matters that may have influenced your offending. In response, you have provided me with a statement and a number of supporting references.

[4] Two things are very clear from that material. First, this offending is out of character. You are a family man, hard-working and trusting, but also naive. Secondly, there is a cultural dimension to your offending – born in China under the “One-Child” policy, close friendships have assumed great importance to you. This is important because it was your misguided feelings of familial-like obligation to your closest friend in New Zealand that led to your offending.

[5] I will expand on these factors later and their significance, but I simply note that, in conjunction with other factors I will mention, I have come to the view that home detention is appropriate.

[6] My sentencing will be in four parts. Firstly, I will explain the facts of the offending. Secondly, I will refer to the victim impacts statements. Thirdly, I will refer to your personal circumstances and, finally, I will fix my sentence.

[7] Much of this, you will know, Mr Zhang, because I have addressed it in a sentencing indication. But it is important that the public hear it.

Summary of facts

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 [2020] NZHC 3350
Case: [2020] NZHC 3350
Decision Date: 16 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Zhang is a criminal proceeding in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, concerning Yuzhen Zhang, who was charged with being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Mr Baochang Wang. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence for Zhang, who had assisted in the disposal of the victim's body. Zhang accepted a sentencing indication of 15 months' imprisonment, with the issue of home detention to be determined by the court.

The central legal issue was whether home detention or imprisonment would better serve the purposes and principles of sentencing, considering Zhang's role in the disposal of the victim's body and his cultural background, which influenced his sense of obligation to his friend. The court considered mitigating factors such as Zhang's good character, his limited involvement in the crime, and the cultural aspect of his actions.

The court concluded that Zhang's actions were driven by a misguided sense of familial-type obligation due to his cultural background, and he had shown remorse and a willingness to assist the police. Given the nature of the offence, the court acknowledged the need for deterrence but also considered Zhang's low risk of reoffending. The court found that home detention would better serve the purposes and principles of sentencing in this case.

The final order of the court was to sentence Yuzhen Zhang to a term of home detention for six months on the charge of being an accessory to the murder of Mr Baochang Wang. Additionally, references to a friend who Zhang assisted were suppressed as the friend had not had an opportunity to be heard in relation to those matters.

Orders