R v Zhang

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-11602

[2015] NZHC 2591

THE QUEEN

v

HUI ZHANG

Hearing: 21 October 2015

Appearances:

B Northwood for Crown

SR Lack, on behalf of R Mansfield, for Prisoner

Sentence:

21 October 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

[On outstanding conviction]

R v ZHANG [2015] NZHC 2591 [21 October 2015]

[1] I am sorry Mr Zhang, that it has been necessary to get you back to the courtroom. As counsel will have explained to you, the reason you are here is because when I sentenced you on the other charges earlier I overlooked that you had pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of pseudoephedrine for supply. I did not sentence you on that charge and it is necessary to do so today.

[2] The sentence I will impose will be the same sentence as was imposed on each of the charges of supplying pseudoephedrine to which you pleaded guilty. That sentence will be served concurrently with your present sentences, which means that you will not serve any additional time in prison.

[3] Mr Zhang, there was one outstanding charge which was a duplicate of a charge on which you were found guilty. I formally grant the Crown leave to withdraw that charge: CRN 13092016876.

[4] Would you please stand Mr Zhang. On the charge of possession of pseudoephedrine for supply to which you pleaded guilty prior to trial you are sentenced to imprisonment for six years and five months, to be served concurrently with the like sentences imposed on the charges of supplying pseudoephedrine to which you also pleaded guilty. Please stand down.

…………………………….

Toogood J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand was the sentencing of Hui Zhang, who had been convicted of multiple charges related to the supply and possession of pseudoephedrine. The court heard arguments from B Northwood for the Crown and SR Lack for the prisoner. The proceedings took place on 21 October 2015. Justice Toogood delivered the judgment, noting that the court needed to address an oversight in Zhang’s sentencing on a specific charge of possession of pseudoephedrine for supply. This charge had not been sentenced at the time of Zhang's other convictions, necessitating a separate sentencing hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Zhang on the outstanding charge of possession of pseudoephedrine for supply. The court was required to consider the relevant legal principles and guidelines in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence was both proportionate to the offence and consistent with sentences previously imposed on related charges. The court needed to balance the severity of the offence against the need to avoid imposing additional custodial time, given Zhang’s concurrent sentences for other related offences.

Justice Toogood addressed the legal issue by reaffirming the principles of sentencing proportionality and consistency. The court acknowledged the oversight in not sentencing Zhang for the possession charge at the initial hearing and rectified this by imposing a sentence that matched the penalties already given for the related supply charges. The sentence was to be served concurrently with Zhang’s existing sentences, ensuring that no additional prison time was imposed. The court granted the Crown leave to withdraw a duplicate charge, streamlining Zhang’s convictions and sentences. Ultimately, Zhang was sentenced to imprisonment for six years and five months, to run concurrently with his existing sentences.

The final orders of the court were that Zhang was sentenced to imprisonment for six years and five months on the charge of possession of pseudoephedrine for supply, to be served concurrently with his sentences on related charges. Additionally, the Crown was granted leave to withdraw a duplicate charge. The court's decision ensured that Zhang’s sentencing was completed and consistent with the sentences already imposed for related offences.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established