Wang v R [2015] NZCA 631 (21 December 2015)

Last Updated: 20 January 2016

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA695/2015 [2015] NZCA 631
BETWEEN	JIANBIN WANG Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Telephone Conference:	18 December 2015
Counsel:	J C Hannam for Appellant I R Murray for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	21 December 2015 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF FRENCH J

The application for bail pending appeal is declined.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

[1] Mr Wang has applied for bail pending the determination of his appeal against sentence.
[2] Following pleas of guilty, he was convicted in the District Court of 42 counts of tax evasion and providing false information to Inland Revenue so as to evade assessment or payment of GST and income tax. Judge Roberts found that the loss to the Inland Revenue amounted to $1.184 million and sentenced Mr Wang to a term of imprisonment of three years and nine months.
[3] The notice of appeal contends the Judge significantly over-stated the loss and as a result imposed a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The grounds of the application for bail

[4] Counsel for Mr Wang submits that the appeal has a good prospect of success and that if the loss were to be correctly calculated it would reduce the period of imprisonment to the point where Mr Wang would be eligible for home detention.
[5] Counsel also relies on personal circumstances, namely the fact that Mr Wang’s wife who is also in prison for related offending suffers from epilepsy and that both she and him are experiencing language difficulties in prison. A further argument advanced was that Mr Wang has a history of bail compliance

Discussion

[6] I am not in a position to attempt any extensive analysis of the merits of the appeal but on the limited information before me, it appears Mr Wang may face some difficulties. Certainly, I would not regard the appeal as being in the strong category so as to justify bail.
[7] As for the personal circumstances advanced, I have already held in declining the wife’s application for bail that her health issues are matters to be addressed by the prison authorities.^[1] Similarly, language difficulties. I also agree with the Crown that a history of bail compliance is more accurately described as the absence of a disqualifying feature rather than a justification for release on bail pending appeal.
[8] I note too that this Court is able to offer hearings for this appeal in February and March. Declining bail will not render the appeal nugatory.

Outcome

[9] Having regard to s 14 of the Bail Act 2000, Mr Wang has failed to satisfy me that it is in the interests of justice for bail to be granted.
[10] The application for bail pending sentence is accordingly declined.

Solicitors:
Hannam & Co Lawyers Ltd, New Plymouth for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

---

^[1] Fenglan Liu v R [2015] NZCA 607.