Hearing: 24 September 2015

Appearances:

B Northwood and Z Johnston for Crown R Mansfield and NW Dobbs for H Zhang T Cooper for Chen

R Reed and M Wharepouri for L Zhang
J Clearwater for Neems
D Niven and H Leabourn for Sharp
G Newell for Loke

Sentence:

24 September 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v ZHANG & ORS [2015] NZHC 2325 [24 September 2015]

Table of Contents Paragraph

Number

Introduction [1] Facts [2] Approach to sentencing [14] Hui Zhang [20] Charges [20] Pseudoephedrine importation [21] Pseudoephedrine possession and supply [32] Personal circumstances [38] Minimum period of imprisonment [45]
Lulu Zhang[46] Charges [46] Starting point [47] Personal circumstances [55]

Guo Pei Chen  [62] Charges       [62] Starting point  [63] Personal circumstances  [69] Minimum period of imprisonment  [74] Desmond Riley Lingard Sharp  [78] Charges       [78]
The pseudoephedrine charges  [79] Manufacture of methamphetamine  [84] Overall starting point  [90] Personal circumstances  [92] Minimum period of imprisonment  [95]
Desmond Loke  [96] Charges  [96] The related offending  [100]

Table of Contents Paragraph

Number

Personal circumstances [101] Minimum period of imprisonment [107] Michael Jeffrey Neems [109] Charge [109] Starting point [112] Personal circumstances [115] Sentences [119] Hui Zhang [120]
Lulu Zhang [123] Guo Pei Chen [125] Desmond Riley Lingard Sharp [129] Desmond Loke [132] Michael Jeffrey Neems [135]

Introduction

[1] Hui Zhang, Lulu Zhang, Guo Pei Chen, Desmond Sharp, Desmond Loke and Jeffrey Michael Neems: you appear for sentence after being found guilty by a jury of various charges relating to your participation in a criminal group which was responsible for the importation and supply of pseudoephedrine and, in the case of two of you, the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Facts

[2] In October 2012, at the Ports of Auckland, Police and Customs officers intercepted a water filter, said to have come from Longgan District in China, which was consigned to an address in East Tamaki, Auckland. On examination of the cylinder, a total of 39 bags of pink and yellow granules in the form of a cold and flu remedy, ContacNT, containing around 90 kilograms of the Class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine, were revealed. It was later discovered that your fingerprints, Mr Zhang, were on two of the plastic bags containing the drug. The jury acquitted you of being a party to that importation but I shall have more to say about it later.

[3] In August 2013, the Organised & Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (“OFCANZ”) commenced an investigation, known as Operation Gem, into the activities of a syndicate of associates suspected to be involved in the importation, supply and distribution of class A and class B drugs, namely methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine.

[4] The Police, with the assistance of Customs, had been monitoring the importation of ContacNT within consignments that had arrived from China.

[5] On 11 May 2013, a container that originated from…

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 [2015] NZHC 2325
Case: [2015] NZHC 2325
Decision Date: 24 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the High Court of New Zealand sentenced six individuals who were part of a criminal group involved in the importation and supply of pseudoephedrine and, in some cases, the manufacture of methamphetamine. The court followed a structured approach to sentencing, considering the nature and extent of each individual's involvement, personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing, including deterrence, accountability, and denunciation. Starting points for sentences were determined based on the severity of the offending, with adjustments made for factors such as personal circumstances and culpability. The court imposed sentences that reflected the significant harm caused by the group's activities, with some sentences including minimum periods of imprisonment to ensure accountability and deterrence. Each defendant received a sentence commensurate with their role in the criminal operation, with considerations given to factors such as the scale of the operation, the level of personal benefit gained, and the degree of harm caused to the community. The sentences ranged from four years to twenty years, with concurrent and cumulative terms applied as appropriate.

Orders