Zheng v The King - [2024] NZSC 27

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 131/2023
[2024] NZSC 27

BETWEEN	HENGJIA ZHENG Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	P E Dacre KC and R L Thomson for Applicant P F Wicks KC and K E Hogan for Respondent
Judgment:	10 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Mr Hengjia (Joe) Zheng was convicted, after a judge‑alone trial before Gault J, of the following offence under the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990:[1]
45 Offence to obstruct investigation, etc
Every person commits an offence, and is liable on conviction [who],—
(a)in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding $15,000:
…
(e)in the course of complying with any requirement imposed pursuant to section 5 or section 9, gives an answer to any question, or supplies any information, or produces any document, or provides any explanation, knowing that it is false or misleading in a material particular or being reckless as to whether it is so false or misleading.
[1]R v Zhang [2022] NZHC 2540 (Gault J) at [8].
Mr Zheng’s appeal against conviction on that charge was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[2] He now applies for leave to appeal to this Court.

Background

[2]Zheng v R [2023] NZCA 551 (French, Collins and Wylie JJ) [CA judgment] at [150].

In sentencing, Gault J set the facts out as follows:[3]
[25] Turning to the facts relevant to Mr Joe Zheng's charge of providing false or misleading information to the SFO, you attended two compulsory interviews with the SFO — one on 3 December 2019 and one on 15 January 2020. You supplied the SFO with information knowing that it was false or misleading in a material particular. Specifically:
(a)You said the $108,463.23 paid from Ms [Shaona] Zhang’s[4] bank account into your account on 31 May 2018 was a deposit to ANCO Properties Development Ltd, a company you and Mr [Shijia (Colin)] Zheng[5] work at, for building a house on the North Shore — but in fact, that money was the proceeds of the sale of wine by HLG [Holding Ltd].[6]
(b)You said [during the first interview with the SFO] that around the time the money was transferred into your account, you drafted a building quotation contract to build a house on Ms Zhang’s land and it was signed — but in fact, there was no building quotation contract for a house on Ms Zhang's land created or signed in May 2018. The building quotation contract was created on 16 August 2019, signed on 26 August 2019 and backdated 21 May 2018.
(c)You said [during the second interview with the SFO that] the 21 May 2018 building quotation contract was lost, and when you discovered this in approximately August 2019 you created, signed and backdated another contract with the same amount on Mr…

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 Zheng v The King

Details

AGLC: Zheng v The King [2024] NZSC 27
Case: [2024] NZSC 27
Decision Date: 10 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Zheng v The King, the applicant, Hengjia (Joe) Zheng, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for providing false or misleading information to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Zheng was convicted under the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990, for providing knowingly false information during interviews with the SFO, concerning a deposit for property development and the existence of a building contract. The Court of Appeal previously dismissed Zheng's appeal against his conviction. The key legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether cultural considerations, specifically the principles of guānxi within the Teochew community, should have been taken into account by the trial judge, and if their omission constituted grounds for allowing an appeal against conviction.

The Supreme Court considered whether cultural factors could absolve Zheng of culpability for knowingly providing false information. The Court noted that Zheng and his brother were familiar with New Zealand cultural norms but also regularly adhered to Teochew cultural principles. However, the Court held that cultural considerations could not relieve Zheng of culpability, as there was no evidence to suggest that Teochew cultural concepts justified lying to law enforcement. The Court emphasised that Zheng's submissions implied a defence based on cultural obligation, which could not absolve him of deliberately misleading the SFO. The Court of Appeal's conclusion that Zheng deliberately set out to mislead the SFO was deemed unimpeachable, and the Court found no miscarriage of justice or issue of general public importance in Zheng's case.

Based on its assessment, the Supreme Court dismissed Zheng's application for leave to appeal. The Court found that cultural considerations did not affect the trial judge's conclusions that there was no earlier contract, and no risk of a miscarriage of justice was evident. The Court's decision was grounded in the unimpeachable evidence and findings of the Court of Appeal, which had thoroughly examined Zheng's cultural arguments.

Orders