Key Takeaways
- Kaixiao Liu, his wife Lanyue Xiao, and his parents Xiuyun Li and Jingui Liu are on trial for the kidnapping and manslaughter of 70‑year‑old Shulai Wang, whose body was found wrapped in rubbish bags in Auckland’s Gulf Harbour in March 2024.
- The Crown alleges that Wang and five other Chinese women lived in the Liu family’s Orewa home (“the Ark”) in conditions of servitude, addressing Liu as “the lord.”
- The five other women were discovered during a July 2024 police search, found to have overstayed their visas, and were deported in August 2024 after refusing to speak with police or immigration officers.
- Immigration officer Alexander Ballerau testified that the women were unlawfully present, did not engage with interviews, and that deportation proceeded once police indicated they were no longer needed for the investigation.
- During cross‑examination, Liu asked an immigration officer whether the deported women could be facilitated to return for trial, citing “open justice” and the “search for truth”; the judge interrupted him for assuming the women’s thoughts.
- The officer explained that the Immigration Minister can override the five‑year bar on re‑entry for deported persons, but such an application must be made through an immigration adviser or lawyer.
- Liu’s wife Xiao questioned whether the women had been informed of their right to appeal the deportation order; Ballerau said the right expired 42 days after visa expiry, which had already passed.
- Standby counsel Quentin Duff confirmed that overstayers who are witnesses or involved in criminal proceedings may be allowed to remain in New Zealand, but the deportation decision was made solely by immigration authorities.
- The trial continues, with the jury hearing testimony about the alleged abuse, the women’s silence, and the procedural handling of their deportation.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleges that Shulai Wang, a 70‑year‑old Chinese national, was recruited by Kaixiao Liu to receive religious instruction at his Orewa residence. Upon arrival in New Zealand, Wang reportedly became part of a household where she and five other Chinese women were required to serve the Liu family, addressing Liu as “the lord.” The Crown contends that Wang was subjected to starvation, punishment for disobedience, and ultimately bound with tape after a failed escape attempt. Her body, discovered wrapped in layers of rubbish bags by a fisherman in Gulf Harbour on 12 March 2024, led to charges of kidnapping and manslaughter against Liu, his wife Xiao, and his parents Li and Jingui Liu. All four defendants are self‑represented, assisted by standby lawyers.
The “Ark” Household and Alleged Servitude
Crown witnesses described the Liu home as “the Ark,” a place where the six Chinese women lived under strict rules imposed by Liu. According to the prosecution, the women were not free to leave, were expected to perform domestic chores, and were discouraged from contacting outsiders. The Crown argued that this environment amounted to servitude, with Wang’s treatment being particularly harsh. The allegations include that Wang was denied adequate food, punished for minor infractions, and eventually restrained after she tried to flee. These claims form the core of the kidnapping and manslaughter charges, suggesting that Liu’s authority extended beyond spiritual guidance to physical control over the women’s lives.
Discovery of the Overstayers
During a police search warrant executed on Harvest Avenue in July 2024, officers found five additional Chinese women residing in the Liu home. Immigration officer Alexander Ballerau testified that all five were Chinese citizens and were unlawfully present in New Zealand at that time. Two of the women had first arrived in January 2020, while the other three entered in 2023. Their visas had expired, rendering them overstayers. The police discovery prompted immigration authorities to become involved, setting the stage for the subsequent deportation process.
Immigration Interviews and the Women’s Silence
Ballerau reported that, when interviewed individually by immigration officers, the five women refused to speak and did not engage with Mandarin interpreters. He noted that three of the women “simply smiled” throughout the interviews, offering no verbal responses. Crown Prosecutor Emma Kerr earlier stated that, aside from initial comments, the women declined to interact with police. This silence was highlighted by the prosecution as indicative of fear, coercion, or a lack of willingness to assist the investigation, reinforcing the claim that the women were living under duress within the Liu household.
Deportation Decision and Police Input
When asked by Kerr whether police were content with the deportation and whether the women were no longer needed for the investigation, Ballerau affirmed that immigration proceeded once police indicated they were no longer of interest. He clarified that deportation decisions are made solely by immigration authorities; police advice merely informs whether the individuals remain relevant to an ongoing investigation. Thus, after receiving police confirmation that the women were not required for the Wang case, immigration moved forward with their removal from New Zealand.
Liu’s Attempt to Bring the Women Back for Trial
During cross‑examination of immigration officer Mohammed Arour, Kaixiao Liu asked whether the officer could help “those ladies come to the trial, because they want to,” framing the request as a matter of “open justice” and the “search for truth.” Justice Downs interrupted Liu, cautioning him against assuming the women’s thoughts and urging him to rephrase the question. Arour responded that the Immigration Minister possesses the authority to override the standard five‑year prohibition on re‑entry for deported persons, but such an override must be sought through an immigration adviser or lawyer. Liu subsequently inquired whether this could be arranged within three weeks, to which Arour replied that he could not provide a timeline.
Xiao’s Inquiry About Appeal Rights
Lanyue Xiao, Liu’s wife, questioned Ballerau about whether the deported women had been informed of their right to appeal the deportation order. Ballerau explained that the right to appeal expires 42 days after the visa’s expiry date; because all five women had overstayed beyond that period, their appeal rights had already lapsed. This clarification underscored that, procedurally, the women could not challenge their removal through standard immigration channels at the time of deportation.
Counsel’s Confirmation on Witness Protections
Standby lawyer Quentin Duff, representing Xiao, asked Ballerau whether overstayers who are witnesses or involved in criminal proceedings might be permitted to remain in New Zealand. Ballerau confirmed that such individuals can be allowed to stay, noting that the same provision applies to witnesses. However, he reiterated that the decision to deport the five women was made exclusively by immigration authorities, independent of police input, once police indicated they were no longer needed for the investigation.
Current Status of the Trial
The trial remains ongoing, with the jury having heard testimony regarding the alleged abuse, the women’s silence during interviews, and the procedural handling of their deportation. The prosecution continues to argue that Liu’s religious authority translated into physical control over Wang and the other women, culminating in Wang’s death. The defense, acting without legal representation but aided by standby counsel, challenges the Crown’s narrative, questioning the reliability of witness accounts and the motivations behind the women’s deportation. As proceedings continue, the court will weigh the evidence of servitude, the circumstances surrounding Wang’s death, and the immigration authorities’ actions in determining the guilt or innocence of the four accused.