Seeking Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court
Mr Li Zhang intends to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia following the dismissal of his appeal by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in February 2026. This page outlines three proposed grounds. The allegations below set out Mr Zhang’s position and should be read alongside the supporting records and court decisions.
Ground 1 — Abuse of Power / Abuse of Process
Mr Zhang contends that the criminal proceedings arose from an improper use of official powers and legal processes. He relies on three connected issues: the purpose revealed by documents disclosed through Freedom of Information, the lawfulness of search warrants and Court Attendance Notices, and the lawfulness of his extradition from New Zealand.
1. FOI Disclosure: From Tax Assessment to Criminal Prosecution
Mr Zhang relies on documents disclosed through Freedom of Information in 2022 concerning the ATO’s handling of the Resort Hunter Valley Pty Ltd (RHV) assessment and the subsequent criminal investigation.
He contends that these records expose an intention to protect an indefensible RHV assessment and conceal wrongdoing in its preparation by turning the dispute into a criminal case. His complaint concerns the purpose for which the criminal process was initiated and pursued.
The proposed ground asks readers to examine the internal correspondence, the assessment’s origins and the chronology of the investigation, and to consider whether the prosecution was pursued for an improper purpose.
2. Extradition from New Zealand
Mr Zhang challenges the lawfulness and authenticity of documents used in the investigation and the commencement of proceedings, including search warrants and Court Attendance Notices (CANs).
He relies on the Newcastle Local Court’s response to a subpoena in April 2022, discrepancies between warrant documents and court records, and evidence concerning when the relevant CANs and case numbers came into existence. He contends that these records reveal defects in the purported issue, filing, dating or later production of documents relied upon by the authorities.
His argument is that these matters concern the lawful exercise of investigative powers and the integrity of the processes used to bring the prosecution. The supporting material must be examined to distinguish each alleged defect and its consequence.
3. Search Warrants
Mr Zhang was arrested in New Zealand on 4 April 2019 and extradited to Australia in September 2019. He challenges the legal foundation and supporting documentation relied upon to obtain his arrest and extradition.
This issue connects with his concerns about the Australian arrest warrants and CANs. He contends that defects in those documents undermined the process by which he was brought to Australia to face prosecution.
The proposed ground examines the extradition documents, affidavits and relevant court records to explain why Mr Zhang says his extradition was unlawful and why the alleged conduct bears upon the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Why These Issues Belong Together
Mr Zhang’s argument links an alleged improper purpose with the alleged misuse of investigative and court procedures, culminating in his extradition and prosecution. He contends that these matters, considered individually and together, amounted to abuse of power and abuse of the court’s process.
The legal question is how the identified conduct affected the integrity of the criminal proceedings. Establishing an irregularity or unlawful act does not, by itself, resolve whether the prosecution constituted an abuse of process.
Supporting Material
The supporting material includes the 2022 FOI disclosure and internal ATO correspondence; the RHV assessment and audit records; search warrants and the Newcastle Local Court subpoena response; CANs and case-number records; and arrest warrants, affidavits and extradition records. Mr Zhang’s CCA submission discusses these matters principally under its former Grounds 1 and 2.
Ground 2 — Impermissible and Excessive Judicial Intervention
This proposed ground concerns the trial judge’s interventions and their alleged effect on Mr Zhang’s ability to present his defence and receive a fair trial. Detailed discussion will follow.
1. when accused given evidence
This proposed ground concerns the trial judge’s interventions and their alleged effect on Mr Zhang’s ability to present his defence and receive a fair trial. Detailed discussion will follow.
This proposed ground concerns the trial judge’s interventions and their alleged effect on Mr Zhang’s ability to present his defence and receive a fair trial. Detailed discussion will follow.
2. five laptop access
3. computer expert
This proposed ground concerns the trial judge’s interventions and their alleged effect on Mr Zhang’s ability to present his defence and receive a fair trial. Detailed discussion will follow.
4. conciousness of guilt
This proposed ground concerns the trial judge’s interventions and their alleged effect on Mr Zhang’s ability to present his defence and receive a fair trial. Detailed discussion will follow.
5. other witnesses intervened
This proposed ground concerns the trial judge’s interventions and their alleged effect on Mr Zhang’s ability to present his defence and receive a fair trial. Detailed discussion will follow.
This proposed ground concerns the trial judge’s interventions and their alleged effect on Mr Zhang’s ability to present his defence and receive a fair trial. Detailed discussion will follow.
6. Summing up
This proposed ground concerns the trial judge’s interventions and their alleged effect on Mr Zhang’s ability to present his defence and receive a fair trial. Detailed discussion will follow.
7. Jury Warning
Ground 3 — Errors of Law
This proposed ground concerns two issues: “delusive onus of proof”—substituting proof of other matters for proof of the charged offences—and the alleged erroneous admission and use of false documents. Detailed discussion will follow.
1. Delusive of Proof
This proposed ground concerns two issues: “delusive onus of proof”—substituting proof of other matters for proof of the charged offences—and the alleged erroneous admission and use of false documents. Detailed discussion will follow.
2. not prove loss but everywhere proving loss - contradict and loss opportunity
This proposed ground concerns two issues: “delusive onus of proof”—substituting proof of other matters for proof of the charged offences—and the alleged erroneous admission and use of false documents. Detailed discussion will follow.
3. employee or consipre ---not clear, crown reminder many time - evidence act
This proposed ground concerns two issues: “delusive onus of proof”—substituting proof of other matters for proof of the charged offences—and the alleged erroneous admission and use of false documents. Detailed discussion will follow.
4. allowing using false evidence - AC and Experts Report
This proposed ground concerns two issues: “delusive onus of proof”—substituting proof of other matters for proof of the charged offences—and the alleged erroneous admission and use of false documents. Detailed discussion will follow.