The Queen v Wong - [2007] NZCA 280

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA329/06
[2007] NZCA 280
THE QUEEN
v
ALEX KWONG WONG
Hearing:12 June 2007

Court:Ellen France, Ronald Young and Keane JJ
Counsel:J Haigh QC and B H McCarthy for Appellant

M F Laracy for Crown

Judgment:6 July 2007 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Ellen France J)

Introduction
[1] The appellant was convicted after trial of the following charges:
(a)Importing a class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, on two occasions (8 May and 8 July 2004);
(b)Supplying a class A controlled drug, methamphetamine (8 May 2004);
(c)Possession of a class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, for supply (8 July 2004); and
(d)Money laundering.

[2]       The appellant was acquitted of two further charges of importing and supplying methamphetamine in April 2004. His co-accused were acquitted on all charges. In terms of the money laundering charge, the appellant was charged together with his father, De Shan Huang (Mr Huang Snr), but because of difficulties with representation, Mr Huang Snr was tried separately. He was subsequently acquitted at trial.
[3]       The appellant was sentenced to a term of 17 years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years.
[4]       The appellant appeals against his convictions.
Factual background
[5]       In July 2004, a shipment of five cartons of lava lamps from China arrived at Auckland International Airport. The cartons were addressed to a property on the North Shore. The name of the contact person on the way-bill was shown as Chi Wai Fung, one of the appellant’s co-accused. The cartons were intercepted by Customs. One carton was delivered and was accepted for delivery by another of the appellant’s co-accused, Sheng Song, at his home. After that carton had been sent on its way, Customs officers examined the remaining four cartons in more detail. They found a substance suspended in the liquid in the lava lamps. It was subsequently confirmed that methamphetamine was dissolved in the liquid in the lava lamps. (The estimated yield from the liquid was approximately 8.9 kilograms of methamphetamine hydrochloride.)
[6]       A controlled delivery of the remaining four cartons was then effected. Delivery of the four boxes was again accepted by Sheng Song.
[7]       After further investigation it was discovered that two earlier shipments of lava lamps had been made in April and May 2004. Those shipments had been delivered to an address in Northcote, Auckland. Mr Song agreed he had accepted and signed for the delivery of those packages.
[8]       The Crown case at trial was that all three shipments were part of an ongoing importation operation in relation to which the appellant was the senior member and the other co-accused, Chi Wai Fung and Harry Yu (in respect of the 8 July importation) were the “middlemen”.
[9]       The money laundering count alleged that between 23 April 2004 and 8 July 2004, together with Mr Huang Snr, the appellant laundered $150,000 in cash, which was the proceeds of a serious offence knowing…

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 The Queen v Wong

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Wong [2007] NZCA 280
Case: [2007] NZCA 280
Decision Date: 6 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Alex Kwong Wong appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing multiple grounds for the appeal. The appellant was convicted of importing and supplying a class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, and money laundering. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant was sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years. The court considered the arguments based on severance and admissibility, unreasonable and inconsistent verdicts, directions to the jury, and the ruling that the trial should proceed with ten jurors. The court found no error in the approach taken by the trial judge in relation to severance and admissibility of evidence. The court held that the evidence was relevant and that there was no special need for a direction about the risks of drawing inferences from the evidence. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant and that the verdicts were not inconsistent. Finally, the court found no basis for intervention regarding the ruling that the trial should proceed with ten jurors.

Orders