ZHOU V R SC 79/2009
Leave to appeal was dismissed because, although an unjustifiable disparity existed arising from co-offenders not being ordered to serve a minimum term, allowing the appeal would create a broader injustice by treating the applicant and co-offenders more favourably than similar offenders; the Court found no question...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 79/2009
- Parties
- Applicant: Ri Tong Zhou; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 December 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Minimum Period of Imprisonment, Parity of Sentencing, Miscarriage of Justice, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ri Tong Zhou
Applicant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred because co-offenders were not ordered to serve a minimum term while the applicant was
- 2 Whether the disparity in minimum terms justified granting leave to appeal
- 3 Whether the matter raised a question of general or public importance to attract the Court's intervention
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was dismissed because, although an unjustifiable disparity existed arising from co-offenders not being ordered to serve a minimum term, allowing the appeal would create a broader injustice by treating the applicant and co-offenders more favourably than similar offenders; the Court found no question of general or public importance and no substantial miscarriage of justice as the applicant's offending justified the imposed minimum term.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ZHOU V R SC 79/2009 15 December 2009IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 79/2009 [2009] NZSC 129 RI TONG ZHOUvTHE QUEENCourt: Elias CJ, Tipping and Wilson JJ Counsel: H D M Lawry for Applicant G H Allan for Crown Judgment: 15 December 2009JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed. REASONS[1] The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal 1 against a direction that he serve at least eight years of a term of 15 years imprisonment imposed on him for supplying, offering to supply and conspiring to supply methamphetamine. He accepts, through counsel, that if he had been sentenced in isolation from his co-offenders, he "could not complain about the imposition of a1 [2009] NZCA 365.minimum period of imprisonment" but contends that a miscarriage of justice occurred because the co-offenders were not ordered to serve a minimum term. [2] It appears to us that the sentencing Judges carefully considered the circumstances of the different cases before them and that it is not at all clear that any of their decisions could be said to be wrong. The Court of Appeal accepted however that there was an unjustifiable disparity in the sentences imposed on the applicant and his co-offenders, and we are content to decide the application on that basis. That disparity arose not because the applicant was ordered to serve a minimum term but because the co-offenders were not. As the Court correctly observed, to allow the appeal in these circumstances would remove any injustice between the applicant and his co-offenders but would create a new and more extensive injustice in that the applicant as well as the co-offenders would be treated more favourably than many similar offenders who had been ordered to serve a minimum period of imprisonment. [3] The judgment of the Court of Appeal represented the application of settled principles to the facts of the case. No question of general or public importance arises for the consideration of this Court. Nor did any substantial miscarriage of justice occur, because the offending of the applicant justified a minimum term of the length imposed. The application must therefore be dismissed.Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington