A CCTV still of Li Yicheng that was featured on television programme 'Police Ten 7'.
A CCTV still of Li Yicheng that was featured on television programme 'Police Ten 7'.
A shoe fetish bandit who was featured on Police Ten 7 after he “stalked” and attacked three women while attempting to steal their footwear has failed to get his conviction overturned.
Li Yicheng was sentenced in November to 200 hours of community work, but Auckland District Court Judge Keith de Ritter denied his applications for permanent name suppression and discharge without conviction.
During an appeal hearing earlier this month in the High Court at Auckland, the international student’s lawyer argued that a conviction was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending when considering the potential risk to Li’s immigration status.
Li had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, and one count of attempted robbery.
The first incident was in September 2020, when he followed a woman into a lift at her central Auckland apartment.
“I like your feet; I really like your feet,” the defendant, who was hiding his face behind a scarf, is alleged to have said before dropping to his knees and wrapping his arms around the stranger’s legs. The victim struggled to get free and the man ran off with both of her shoes as soon as the elevator door opened, court documents state.
The second and third incidents happened minutes apart from each other in June 2021, nine months after the first robbery.
This time wearing a face mask, he followed another woman into her central Auckland apartment and into the lift. After she exited on her floor, he violently tackled her and took one of her shoes, according to court documents. He ended up giving the shoe back after other residents heard the woman screaming and intervened.
Police released CCTV images of Li Yicheng in an effort to identify him.
Ten minutes after leaving that building, he followed another woman into the stairwell of her nearby building and wrestled her to the ground. She fought back, but he managed to flee with her left shoe.
Police didn’t initially know the identity of the attacker, and the investigation was featured in August 2021 on Police Ten 7. Detective Sergeant Rob Lemoto, who hosts the television programme, urged the public to help identify the assailant “before he strikes again”.
“This guy’s not afraid to do a lot of harm, all for a shoe,” he said. “I’m concerned at how his behaviour could escalate if he’s not brought before the courts.”
Li was arrested less than two weeks later.
During Li’s district court sentencing last year, defence lawyer Joon Yi said his client first realised he had a foot fetish at 10 years old. For years, he was able to manage it by buying used shoes and focusing on his hobbies, the lawyer said. But he had three days of weakness during Auckland’s Covid-19 lockdown, after being isolated in a university dorm with no support from his overseas family, Yi said.
The district court judge noted during the sentencing that the offending was repeated and deliberate, and he took issue with saying the defendant “approached” the women - suggesting that he instead stalked vulnerable young women and laid in wait for them. He initially characterised the offending as “very serious”, but downgraded it to “moderately serious” when taking into account Li’s apologies, reparation payments, counselling and a psychiatric report suggesting he was unlikely to commit further offending.
But the judge noted that with immigration authorities already aware of the case, any immigration consequences would likely stem from the offending itself - not necessarily from a conviction.
Li’s previous lawyer argued that a conviction was likely to have an impact on his client’s attempt to get his student visa extended. That visa has since been approved, allowing him to stay in New Zealand until 2024 so he can finish his degree. During his appellate hearing, lawyer Todd Simmonds argued a conviction could derail his future application for a post-study work visa.
For Li’s appeal to have succeeded, High Court Justice Peter Andrew would have needed to agree that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
CCTV footage showed one of the attacks taking place inside a central Auckland lift.
During the appeal, Simmonds argued that the incidents shoudn’t have been viewed as “moderately serious” when taking into account that Li was motivated by a foot fetish, not a desire to physically or sexually assault the women. Justice Andrew agreed that shoes alone might have been his sole motivation, which is a relevant factor.
“However, it should not be overstated,” the judge added in his reserved decision, which was issued this week. “Regardless of his motivations, Mr Li assaulted each victim. Importantly, the victims were not to know that he was motivated solely by a desire to take their shoes.
“They would likely have apprehended far worse consequences. Their victim impact statements refer to the physical and emotional harm done to them, and it is clear that they feel strongly about the outcome of these proceedings. It is clear that Mr Li targeted vulnerable young women on their own in the evening and used force to steal their shoes.”
Justice Andrew also stated bluntly that he “rejects” any indication that the women weren’t “stalked” and Li didn’t lay in wait.
Justice Andrew agreed that the district court judge erred in initially characterising the offending as “very serious” given that none of the victims were physically injured. It should have instead been characterised simply as “serious”, he concluded.
“However, there was no error in the ultimate conclusion reached by the judge that the consequences of the convictions, namely immigration consequences, are not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending,” Andrew wrote. “In my reassessment ... I reach the same ultimate conclusion.”
