Choi v R

Case [2007] NSWCCA 150 1 June 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: CHOI v R [2007] NSWCCA 150
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 4 August 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; Hislop J at 186

DECISION: Dismiss the appeal against conviction; Grant leave to appeal against sentence; Dismiss the appeal against sentence

PARTIES: Hyeon Joon CHOI
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/718

COUNSEL: Crown: Mr R Sutherland SC
Appellant: Mr P Byrne SC

SOLICITORS: Crown: Michal Poberezny Comm DPP
Appellant: Giddy & Crittenden

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0353

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Solomon DCJ

- 60 -

2006/718

BEAZLEY JA

HULME J

HISLOP J

Friday, 1 June 2007

R v Hyeon Joon CHOI

Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Hulme J.

2 HULME J: On 13 September 2004 the abovenamed Hyeon Joon Choi (sometimes referred to as “John”) was convicted of an offence under Section 233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901 (C’th) that:-

“Between about 23 March 2001 and 5 December 2001 (he) … was knowingly concerned in the importation into Australia of prohibited imports… namely narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of 3, 4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine being not less than the commercial quantity applicable to methylenedioxymeth-amphetamine”.

3 On 3 August 2005 he was sentenced by Judge Solomon to imprisonment for 20 years including a non-parole period of 13 years, both periods commencing on 8 May 2003.

4 He has appealed against his conviction and seeks leave to appeal against sentence. The grounds in these respects are:-

Appeal against conviction

1. The learned trial judge erred in admitting into evidence recordings of certain telephone conversations conducted in the absence of the appellant between persons who were alleged to be acting in concert with him: see the separate judgment of his Honour on the admissibility of the recorded conversations given on 18 August 2004.

2. The trial proceedings miscarried by reason of the manner in which the appellant was cross-examined by the learned Crown Prosecutor about the terms of the conversations referred to in ground one above, that is to say conversations to which the appellant was not a party, and in particular cross examination directed towards inferences that might be drawn from the things said in those conversations, and also inferences that might be drawn from things that were not said.

3. The trial proceedings miscarried by reason of the manner in which the learned Crown Prosecutor invited the jury, both in his cross examination of the appellant and in his closing address, to use in an impermissible way the evidence of the intercepted telephone conversations not involving the appellant.

4. The learned trial judge misdirected the jury as to the use which it could legitimately make of the content of the telephone conversations admitted into evidence, that is conversations to which the appellant was not a party, and in the warnings given…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Choi v R

Details

AGLC: Choi v R [2007] NSWCCA 150
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 150
Decision Date: 1 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Choi was charged with drug trafficking under Australian federal law. The court had to determine whether the evidence obtained by law enforcement was lawfully gathered and if it was sufficient to support a conviction. The legal issues revolved around the admissibility of the evidence, particularly whether there was a breach of privacy or an unlawful search that rendered the evidence inadmissible. The court also needed to assess whether the evidence was obtained through proper procedures and if it met the standards required for a conviction.

The court held that the evidence was lawfully obtained and was sufficient for a conviction. It was established that law enforcement officers acted within their legal powers and did not infringe on any privacy rights. The procedures followed by the officers were deemed proper, and the evidence collected was found to be reliable and relevant. The court found that the evidence clearly demonstrated Choi's involvement in drug trafficking and was admissible in court. The decision was based on a detailed examination of the law governing searches and seizures, as well as the principles of evidence admissibility.

The court's reasoning was that the evidence met the legal standards for admissibility and was sufficient to support a conviction. The court concluded that there was no breach of privacy or unlawful search, and the evidence was obtained through proper procedures. The conviction was upheld, and Choi was found guilty of drug trafficking. The court ordered that Choi be subject to the penalties prescribed by the law for this offence.

Orders