R v Zheng - [2012] NZHC 1102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2011-004-003755 [2012] NZHC 1102

QUEEN

v

LEI ZHENG CHEN CHEN

Hearing: 22 May 2012

Counsel: G Kayes for Crown
H Leabourn and J Nguy for Zheng
G Newell for Chen

Judgment: 22 May 2012

SENTENCE OF WINKELMANN J

R V LEI ZHENG HC AK CRI 2011-004-003755 [22 May 2012]

[1] Lei Zheng, you appear for sentence having been found guilty of five counts of blackmail following a jury trial. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years’ imprisonment. I enter convictions in respect of each of those five counts. Mr Chen, you appear for sentence having been found guilty of two counts of blackmail. I enter convictions on those two counts.

[2] The facts in relation to your offending are as follows. A plan was formed by a group of men to blackmail the proprietors of Chinese massage parlours. Pursuant to this plan, five massage parlours were visited over the course of several days. Mr Zheng, you were present on each occasion and were accompanied by no fewer than three other men. Of that group, you played the lead role in what occurred at each place. You demanded a protection fee of $100 per working girl per week and threatened the safety of the managers or their staff if they refused to pay. At times the threats were explicit. You threatened the proprietor of the business, the subject of count 1, that if she did not pay the money 30 Polynesian people would come to the business and would not allow her to run the business, and would try to stop her employees from coming back. She paid $200 because she was scared and did not want her employees to get hurt.

[3] You threatened the proprietor of the business the subject of count 2 by stating that you had an organisation of 20 to 300 members and you were there to collect protection fees. You told her if she did not pay you would bring petrol over and burn down her house and, if that did not work, would cause her to have a traffic accident.

[4] You threatened the proprietor of the business in count 3, saying of course something would happen if she did not pay.

[5] Threats to the proprietors of the other two businesses were less explicit, involving demands for protection fees and an implied threat to one of the proprietors that if she did not pay she would have trouble in the future.

[6] Mr Chen you played a lesser role. You visited only two premises, those the subject of counts 4 and 5. You seem to have been included to keep up the numbers

of those present, but also to act as the group’s English interpreter in case the group had to deal with a non-Chinese speaking person. At one of the two places you did undertake some interpreting. Other than that you played no active role, sitting quietly while Mr Zheng…

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 Zheng

Details

AGLC: R v Zheng [2012] NZHC 1102
Case: [2012] NZHC 1102
Decision Date: 22 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lei Zheng and Chen Chen were convicted of multiple counts of blackmail and appeared before the Auckland Registry of the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing. The court needed to determine appropriate sentences for Zheng and Chen, considering the nature and extent of their involvement in the blackmail scheme, the vulnerability of the victims, and the principles of sentencing. Zheng played a lead role in the blackmail operations, while Chen's involvement was more peripheral, primarily acting as an interpreter. The court assessed Zheng's risk of reoffending as low, but noted his late display of remorse. The Crown argued for a starting point of around four years imprisonment for Zheng, while the defence suggested two and a half years. The court ultimately sentenced Zheng to three and a half years imprisonment for five counts of blackmail, to be served concurrently. For Chen, the court considered his lesser involvement and sentenced him to 200 hours of community work and six months of supervision, along with a requirement to pay reparation of $700. The court emphasised the importance of holding the offenders accountable, denouncing their conduct, and deterring similar offending in the future.

Orders