Legal Research
Cases
Wu v The the King

Wu v The the King

Case [2022] NZCA 604 5 December 2022

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA324/2022
[2022] NZCA 604

BETWEEN	DONGLAN WU Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	25 October 2022
Court:	Cooper P, Venning and Palmer JJ
Counsel:	A Wei and C S Fredric for Appellant R M A McCoubrey for Respondent
Judgment:	5 December 2022 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Venning J)

Ms Donglan Wu pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.[1] On 7 June 2022, Downs J sentenced Ms Wu to five years, three months’ imprisonment.[2] Ms Wu appeals against that sentence.

Background

[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).

[2]R v Wu [2022] NZHC 1320.

We take the background from the Judge’s sentencing notes:[3]
[2]       You and your former husband separated December 2020. You left the family home March 2021. Shortly thereafter, the victim, Ms C, moved into the home as Mr Wu’s new partner.
[3]       At some unspecified time, you threatened Mr Wu, saying you would make him suffer and he would regret it. You had, in or about February 2020, threatened to kill your son and commit suicide. You said you wanted to make headlines.
[4]       In the early hours of 17 March 2021, you went to the home. You arrived at 3.10 am. Unsurprisingly, everyone was asleep. You moved two gas bottles from outside, entered the home, and placed them by Ms C’s bed. You opened the nozzle on each bottle, then left the room.
[5]       Ms C got up to use the bathroom. You attacked her with a knife. Its blade was approximately 12 centimetres long. You cut her left forearm causing a five-centimetre injury. You cut her head—the laceration went to the bone. At some point, you plunged the knife into Ms C’s neck. This caused a severe, gaping wound of approximately eight centimetres.
[6]       Others came to Ms C’s aid. Police were swiftly called immediately. You declined to comment. You were charged the same day.
[7]       Ms C lost a lot of blood. Her injuries required surgery. She has permanent scars on her arm and neck. She could not work for a month and has undergone extensive rehabilitation. Ms C remains traumatised by what you did. Unsurprisingly, she lives in fear and anxiety.

The High Court sentence

[3]Footnote omitted.

The Judge took a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment.[4] He then allowed a 20 per cent deduction for the guilty plea, 15 per cent for the fact Ms Wu was a first‑time offender and had prospects of rehabilitation, five per cent for her personal circumstances and five per cent for remorse.[5] In addition, although counsel had not sought it, the Judge reduced the resultant adjusted sentence by a further three months to take account of Ms Wu’s difficulties with English and the cultural impediments that might arise while she was in prison.[6] That led to the end sentence of five years,…

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 Wu v The the King

Details

AGLC: Wu v The the King [2022] NZCA 604
Case: [2022] NZCA 604
Decision Date: 5 December 2022 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Donglan Wu appealed against her sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, as imposed by Downs J. Wu had attacked a woman with a knife, causing severe injuries. Wu pleaded guilty to the charge, but her counsel argued that the discount applied to her sentence for entering a guilty plea was too low. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Crown conceded that the Judge should have allowed a 25 per cent discount for the guilty plea, rather than 20 per cent. However, the Crown submitted that the end sentence of five years, three months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and, having regard to all the circumstances, was within range. The Court agreed, noting that the starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment was appropriate and the total discount of 47.5 per cent, including an additional three months for factors not sought by Wu, was generous. The Court held that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders