Jury found woman guilty of selling controlled substance, participating in organised criminal group
The New Zealand Supreme Court did not allow a woman to appeal against her conviction after a jury found her guilty of one representative charge each of participating in an organised criminal group and selling synthetic cannabis, a Class C controlled drug.
In He v R [2026] NZSC 103, the applicant was a middle-aged Mandarin-speaking woman born in China. At trial, the Crown alleged that she led an operation supplying synthetic cannabis in the Christchurch area.
The applicant contested at least two pieces of evidence. First, she alleged that the voice identification evidence from Detective Zhang, a fellow Mandarin speaker, was inadmissible under s 46 of the Evidence Act 2006.
The detective interpreted Mandarin text and voice messages on a phone seized from the applicant during a prior police investigation called Operation Sin. He later recognised her voice during an investigation dubbed Operation Ellerslie II.
Detective Zhang identified similarities between the voice heard in Operation Sin and that heard in Operation Ellerslie II. He said the speaker, apparently a middle-aged woman with a northern Chinese accent, seemed to be in charge in both exchanges.
Second, the applicant challenged the co-conspirator hearsay evidence under s 22A(b) of the Evidence Act.
In communications discussing sales, stock, orders, and prices, her alleged co-offenders referred to a “lady,” “sister,” and “big sister,” the same terms of deference used in the voice identification evidence, allegedly in reference to the applicant.
After the jury found the applicant guilty of the representative charges, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s conviction appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, the applicant applied for leave to again bring a conviction appeal. In her proposed appeal, she claimed that the trial court wrongly admitted the voice identification evidence and the co-conspirator hearsay evidence.
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to file a conviction appeal. The Supreme Court saw no potential miscarriage of justice, no issue of general or public importance, and no need to grant leave to appeal in the interests of justice.
The Supreme Court addressed three arguments regarding the voice identification evidence.
First, while she pleaded guilty to the Operation Sin charges, the applicant alleged that there was no valid comparator for Detective Zhang’s identification in Operation Ellerslie II, as she did not accept that her voice was in the Operation Sin recordings.
Disagreeing, the Supreme Court noted that the phone seized in Operation Sin appeared to belong to the applicant.
Second, the applicant argued that Detective Zhang did not listen to the two sets of recordings for voice identification purposes. She added that there was a two-year delay between the two police operations during which the detective did not hear her voice.
Rejecting these arguments, the Supreme Court pointed out that the detective identified common voice characteristics in the two sets of recordings.
Third, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s assertion of a potential predisposition in the voice identification evidence.
The Supreme Court noted that Detective Zhang stated that hearing a familiar voice when translating and transcribing the Operation Ellerslie II recordings surprised him.
The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s argument regarding the “reasonable evidence” threshold for a court to find participation in conspiracy under s 22A(b) of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court noted that the case did not depend on an application of that principle.
The Supreme Court found no error in the Court of Appeal’s finding that the trial court properly admitted the visual identification evidence. The Supreme Court saw no reference to this proposed ground of appeal in the applicant’s submissions.
Here are some other recent Supreme Court of New Zealand decisions in proceedings arising from convictions or sentences involving prohibited or controlled substances.
Rejecting proposed arguments alleging errors on the part of trial counsel and the prosecutor, the Supreme Court issued a 3 August 2026 decision denying an application for leave to appeal against a conviction for two representative charges of offering to supply cocaine and ketamine.
The Supreme Court made a 3 July 2026 decision declining an application for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal of New Zealand ruling that administrative errors in the production of a conviction history report did not constitute deliberate falsification.
In proceedings arising from offences involving methamphetamine, while acknowledging that it might later address the approach to s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002, the Supreme Court issued a 4 June 2026 decision denying leave to appeal from two sentences.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
