Reng v NZ Police - [2014] NZHC 2586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-000125 [2014] NZHC 2586

BETWEEN
MINGZHONG WENG

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 6 October 2014

Counsel:

Y B Lee for the Appellant
E L Woolley for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

[Re Appeal Against Refusal to Discharge Without Conviction]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 22 October 2014 at 10.30 am, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors: Y B Lee, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

WENG v POLICE [2014] NZHC 2586 [22 October 2014]

[1] The appellant, Mingzhong Weng, pleaded guilty in the District Court and was

sentenced to 140 hours’ community work for the following charges:

(a) Assault with intent to injure, pursuant to s 193 the Crimes Act 1961;

maximum penalty, three years’ imprisonment;

(b) Possession of an offensive weapon, pursuant to s 202A of the

Crimes Act; maximum penalty, three years’ imprisonment; and

(c) Speaks threateningly, pursuant to s 21 of the Summary Offences Act

1981; maximum penalty, three months’ imprisonment, or a fine of up

to $2,000.

He had sought a discharge without conviction, which was refused by

Judge Tremewan. He now appeals against that decision. The appeal is opposed.

Background

Factual background

[2] At about 11.20 am on 25 December 2013, Mr Weng was at his home with his partner, Ms Yang. The two were lying in bed and Mr Weng asked Ms Yang to go to a friend’s barbeque with him. When she refused, he kicked off the bed covers and began slapping Ms Yang across her legs, stating “I will hit you whenever I like, and I’ll kill you on Christmas day”.

[3] Mr Weng then sat on Ms Yang’s legs, pinning her to the bed. He grabbed her neck and began squeezing tightly with one hand. Ms Yang was unable to breathe and began to lose consciousness.

[4] Mr Weng eventually let go of Ms Yang, and she tried to leave the room. Mr Weng grabbed her leg and pulled her to the ground. Ms Yang tried to yell for help. Mr Weng picked up a towel and shoved it into Ms Yang’s mouth in an attempt to stop her from screaming. He grabbed her ankle and pulled her into a wardrobe.

[5] Mr Weng picked up scissors and told Ms Yang to stay in the wardrobe, or he would kill her. Mr Weng dropped the scissors and left the room. He returned a short time later. Ms Yang tried to leave the room again, but Mr Weng grabbed her by the ankle and dragged her back inside the wardrobe.

[6] Mr Weng picked up a large sewing needle and motioned it towards her neck in a threatening manner. Ms Yang attempted to calm Mr Weng down, and when he left the wardrobe, she managed to escape the room. Mr Weng and Ms Yang share their accommodation with other persons. Ms Yang was able to run to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reng v NZ Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 2586
Decision Date: 22 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mingzhong Weng appealed against the decision of Judge Tremewan to refuse his application for a discharge without conviction. Mr Weng had pleaded guilty to assault with intent to injure, possession of an offensive weapon, and speaking threateningly. The appeal was opposed by the New Zealand Police. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The court considered the gravity of the offence, which was moderate to serious, and the consequences of conviction, which included the loss of employment and potential barriers to future employment and travel. The court found that the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The court found that the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders