Soon v The King - [2025] NZCA 350

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA809/2024
[2025] NZCA 350

BETWEEN	CHIN KOK SOON Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	17 June 2025
Court:	Ellis, Peters and Walker JJ
Counsel:	M T Lennard and N A Mitskevitch for Appellant E M Ferrier and M K Story for Respondent
Judgment:	23 July 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to adduce further evidence on the appeal is granted.

B The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellis J)

Mr Soon (also known as Mr William) pleaded guilty to the following charges:
(a)twenty representative charges of receiving property exceeding $1,000 in value;[1]
(b)one non-representative charge of receiving property exceeding $1,000 in value; and
(c)one charge of failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search.[2]
[1]Crimes Act 1961, ss 246, 247(a) and 66(1) (maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment).
[2]Search and Surveillance Act 2021, s 178 (maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment).
We will return to the facts underlying these charges, shortly.
On 14 November 2024, Mr Soon was sentenced by Radich J to three years and ten months’ imprisonment.[3] The Judge arrived at this sentence by:
(a)adopting a starting point of six years and six months’ imprisonment;[4] and
(b)reducing that starting point by:
(i)25 per cent for guilty pleas;[5]
(ii)10 per cent for previous good character;[6] and
(iii)five per cent for physical and psychological medical factors.[7]
[3]R v Soon [2024] NZHC 3393 [judgment under appeal] at [88].
[4]At [40].
[5]At [43].
[6]At [53].
[7]At [73].
Mr Soon now appeals that sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in not allowing a further discount for the punitive effect of restraint orders made under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the CPRA) over a number of properties owned by Mr Soon, Ms Eng (Mr Soon’s wife) and/or their company, Synergy Investments Limited (in liquidation).[8] He says this Court’s earlier refusal to entertain such an argument in Henderson v R was wrong or, alternatively, that Mr Soon’s is an exceptional case not ruled out by the broader Henderson dicta.[9]

Further evidence

[8]Synergy was put into liquidation on 27 June 2023.

[9]Henderson v R [2017] NZCA 605.

Mr Soon seeks leave to adduce evidence on his appeal, relating to the restraint orders and their impact on the value of his properties. The evidence is in the form of an affidavit from Mr Lynskey, a solicitor acting for Mr Soon and his wife in relation to the CPRA proceedings. Radich J declined to consider such material,[10] and leave to adduce it on appeal was opposed by the Crown. In our view, however, consideration of that evidence is necessary to fairly understand Mr Soon’s principal position on appeal and we grant leave for that reason, accordingly.

The offending

[10]R v Soon HC Wellington CRI-2022-085-2285, 9 September 2024 (sentence indication of Radich J) at [55].

Radich J summarised Mr Soon’s offending in the…

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 Soon v The King

Details

AGLC: Soon v The King [2025] NZCA 350
Case: [2025] NZCA 350
Decision Date: 23 July 2025 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Chin Kok Soon, appeals against his sentence for various criminal charges, including receiving stolen property and failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search. The sentencing judge had imposed a term of three years and ten months’ imprisonment after applying a series of discounts to a starting point of six years and six months. The appellant contests the sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge erred in not allowing a further discount for the punitive effect of restraining orders made over his properties under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. The appellant had sought leave to adduce further evidence on the appeal, relating to the restraint orders and their impact on the value of his properties. The Court grants leave for this evidence to be adduced as it is necessary to fairly understand the appellant’s principal position on appeal. The Court finds that the restraining orders do not warrant a discount in sentencing as they seek to deprive offenders of the fruits of their criminal activity rather than to punish. The Court is prepared to leave open the possibility that there may be some kind of exceptional circumstances that requires a departure from the general rule but concludes that the appellant’s circumstances are not such an exceptional kind. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders