Wang v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-404-511

[2021] NZHC 445

BETWEEN
HUI WANG

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 2 March 2021

Counsel:

D S Niven for Appellant

K O M Fitzgibbon for Respondent

Judgment:

9 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 March 2021 at 4:00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

WANG v R [2021] NZHC 445 [9 March 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Wang appeals his sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge Paul on 25 August 2020.1

[2] Mr Wang contends the sentence is manifestly excessive. His submission is that the penultimate sentence should have been less than two years’ imprisonment and that home detention should have been the final outcome.

[3] My task is to determine whether there is an error in Mr Wang’s sentence such that I should impose a different sentence. If the sentence is manifestly excessive then that would be an error that must be corrected.

Background

[4] Mr Wang pleaded guilty to three charges of money laundering.2 The charges related to Mr Wang’s part in a large scale methamphetamine importation and distribution operation. Mr Wang was originally charged with one charge of being a member of an organised criminal group and two charges of money laundering. Mr Niven for Mr Wang told me that after considerable negotiation, following the disclosure of a large volume of evidence, a charge bargain was reached whereby the charge of being a member of an organised criminal group was substituted with the further charge of money laundering. As Mr Niven emphasised, this had the effect of removing any allegations that Mr Wang was himself involved with the importing of methamphetamine and its distribution.

[5] As a result, the summary of facts to which Mr Wang pleaded guilty relates to three transactions. The first occurred on 22 December 2018 when a member of the importation group called Mr Wang and arranged to meet him near a hotel where he handed over a backpack containing “tens of thousands of dollars in cash from the sale of methamphetamine from the first importation”.

1 R v Wang [2020] NZDC 17229.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 243; maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

[6] There is nothing in the summary of facts about what Mr Wang did with the cash subsequently.

[7] The second transaction occurred on 14 January 2019. On that date another member of the importation group contacted Mr Wang and he travelled to meet the group member outside the group member’s home address. The group member handed
$265,000 in cash to Mr Wang.

[8]Again, the summary of facts is silent about what Mr Wang did with the money.

[9] The third transaction occurred on 6 February 2019. On that date the group member involved with the second transaction contacted Mr Wang and arranged to meet him at an address in Onehunga.…

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 Wang v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wang v The Queen [2021] NZHC 445
Case: [2021] NZHC 445
Decision Date: 9 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v The Queen involves an appeal by Hui Wang against his sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment for three charges of money laundering, related to his involvement in a methamphetamine importation and distribution operation. Wang argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that he should have received a sentence of home detention instead. The court's task was to determine whether there was an error in the sentence that would warrant a different outcome.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriateness of the starting point for the sentence, the discount for Wang's guilty pleas, and the consideration of mitigating factors such as the cultural report and the time Wang spent on bail under restrictive conditions. The court considered various comparable cases to assess the starting point and the discount for Wang's guilty pleas.

The court found that while the starting point of three years might have been on the higher side, it was not excessively high given the nature of Wang's involvement in the operation. The court also found that the 25 percent discount for Wang's guilty pleas was excessive, and a 15 percent discount was more appropriate. The court further determined that the cultural report did not warrant a separate discount, and the time Wang spent on bail under restrictive conditions warranted a discount of around four-and-a-half months. After applying the appropriate discounts, the court concluded that the sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

The court denied home detention as an alternative sentence, considering the seriousness of the offending and Wang's medium risk of re-offending. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by Judge Paul was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment remains in place.

Orders