The man was caught with 223 grams of methamphetamine stuffed inside a computer.
The man was caught with 223 grams of methamphetamine stuffed inside a computer.
A tribunal has found it would be “unduly harsh” to deport a Chinese man jailed for five years after he was caught with 223 grams of methamphetamine.
A prison sentence of five years or more makes a foreign national automatically liable for deportation on release, but the man successfully appealedto the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which released its decision allowing him to stay in the country earlier this year.
The tribunal took into account the length of time the man had been in New Zealand, the effect deporting him would have on his partially deaf daughter, and the progress he’d made in rehabilitating himself from meth addiction.
The man, whose name was suppressed by the tribunal to protect his wife and child, arrived in New Zealand from China in the early 2000s and met his wife. They married a few years later and were granted residence in 2007.
However, the man developed a secret methamphetamine addiction in about 2012 that escalated to him using the drug almost every day.
He tried unsuccessfully to kick his habit by moving back to China until his cravings subsided, and severing ties with a friend who’d been supplying him with the drug in New Zealand.
But he began using again when he came under pressure at work and needed to meet deadlines.
His addiction came to a head in 2015 when police executed a search warrant at his home and found 223 grams of methamphetamine stashed inside a computer tower.
He told police he was storing the computer for a friend who also supplied him with the drug, but didn’t know how much was actually inside it.
Meth is a highly addictive drug that is most often smoked using a glass pipe. Photo / Mike Scott
By mid-2017, he was found guilty of possession of meth for supply and sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison. He was served with a deportation notice while behind bars a year later.
The man successfully had his prison sentence reduced by 10 months by the Court of Appeal, but challenged that judgment on the grounds there had been a mathematical error when calculating the discounts for his overall sentence.
The Court of Appeal found there had been no error. If the man’s prison sentence had been under five years, he would not have been liable for deportation under New Zealand law.
The man attempted to challenge the deportation order through the High Court and Supreme Court before his case was heard by the Immigration Protection Tribunal late last year.
Meanwhile, he was released from prison in 2019, got a job, and complied with his release conditions to not consume alcohol or drugs.
Deportation
In appealing to the tribunal, the man said he would find it extremely difficult to find employment back in China and his wife would remain in New Zealand to care for their partially deaf daughter.
He said that while his parents still lived in China, he’d only visited them five times in 20 years and only speaks to them a few times per year.
“Their father is aware of his offending and was very disappointed and angry to hear of his arrest,” the tribunal noted in its decision.
“If the appellant returned to China, he would bring great shame to the family, and this would make the relationship with his parents even worse.”
Professor Anne Marie Brady, who lectures in political science at the University of Canterbury and has specialised knowledge of domestic and foreign politics in China, gave evidence before the tribunal that in her opinion, the man would be excluded from many jobs because of his criminal record, and because he had lived overseas, he would be deemed to be a “security risk”.
Professor Brady said the appellant would find it hard to settle into life in China, and after living in New Zealand for 20 years, he would find the political climate to be repressive, particularly in the application of policies relating to freedom of speech and movement.
Legal counsel acting on behalf of the Minister for Immigration said in their submissions that family separation was an ordinary consequence of deportation proceedings.
They said there was no obvious reason why the family could not return to China together, and that the man’s wife had significant ties to China through her employment and her parents had spent most of their life there.
“If the Tribunal was to find exceptional humanitarian circumstances, it is not unjust or unduly harsh to deport the appellant,” they said.
“His offending was serious, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
“Methamphetamine offending causes great harm. Allowing the appellant to remain in New Zealand would send a message that even when a person commits serious criminal offending, they may ultimately retain residence.”
Ultimately, the tribunal sided with the man and found there were exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature and it would be unduly harsh to deport the man from New Zealand.
“In the present case, the appellant’s addiction explains what was aberrant behaviour which was otherwise out of character for the appellant, who was a hard-working man, loyal to his wife and her parents.”
