Legal Research
Cases
Cranney v R; Huynh v R

Cranney v R; Huynh v R

Link copied

Case Copied 29 September 2017 83 min read

Contents

On this page

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Cranney v R; Huynh v R [2017] NSWCCA 234
Hearing dates: 22 February 2017
Date of orders: 29 September 2017
Decision date: 29 September 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Latham J at [3];
Price J at [4]
Decision:
(1) Christopher Phillip Cranney’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2) Huy Bao Van Huynh’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeals against convictions – charges of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine contrary to subsections 11.5(1) and 307.11 of the Criminal Code (Cth) – whether trial judge’s directions erroneous as to s 307.11(b)(ii) of the Code – Crown concession of error – whether belief required was that another person had an immediate intention to use the precursor to manufacture a controlled substance – whether evidence failed to establish a single conspiracy – whether more than one conspiracy charged – whether trial judge was required to direct the jury that the Crown must prove a single conspiracy and not two separate conspiracies – whether s 311.16(b) if the Code modifies conspiracy as fixed by the common law – s 311.16(b) considered – whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by Crown Prosecutor’s submissions concerning character – whether trial judge’s refusal to discharge the jury occasioned a miscarriage of justice – whether Crown Prosecutor’s questions of Huynh asking if a Crown witness was lying occasioned a miscarriage of justice – whether evidence of Huynh’s prior involvement with co-offenders admissible – whether evidence was tendency evidence – whether Crown Prosecutor placed his own personal opinions before the jury – whether error by trial judge in not ascertaining from the Crown Prosecutor the use to be made of an asserted lie.
Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 33(2A)
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Act 2015
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 4
Criminal Code 1899 (Q.), s 679
Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.5, 11.5(1), 11.5(2), 141.1(3), 301.6, 307.11, 307.11(1), 307.11(1)(b), 307.11(b)(ii), 311.16, 311.16(b), 311.8, 311.9, 311.18
Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth), s 5F, Sch 3
Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(d)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97, 97(1), 101, 112, 137
Poisons Act 1966 (NSW), ss 4, 32(4)
Cases Cited: Ahmed v R [2012] NSWCCA 260
Ansari v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 299; [2010] HCA 19
ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22
Darwiche v R (2011) 209 A Crim R 424; [2011] NSWCCA 62
Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40
Director of Public Prosecutions v Doot [1973] AC 807
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
FP v R [2012] NSWCCA 182
G, F, S and W [1974] 1 NSWLR 31
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] HCA 26
Gerakiteys v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cranney v R; Huynh v R and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWCCA 234
Decision Date: 29 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cranney v R and Huynh v R, the appellants challenged their convictions in relation to charges of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine. The appeals were heard in the High Court of Australia, which considered a number of legal issues pertaining to the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions and the procedural fairness of the trial. The appellants argued that the trial judge had made errors in his directions to the jury regarding the interpretation of section 307.11(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code, which relates to the importation of precursor substances for the manufacture of controlled drugs. The Crown conceded that there was an error in the interpretation of the statutory provision, but argued that it did not affect the outcome of the trial.

The High Court examined whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was erroneous in relation to the interpretation of section 307.11(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code, and whether the Crown had to prove that the appellants believed that another person had an immediate intention to use the precursor substance to manufacture a controlled drug. The court considered whether the evidence established a single conspiracy or two separate conspiracies. The court also considered whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury that the Crown had to prove a single conspiracy, and whether section 311.16(b) of the Criminal Code modified the common law definition of conspiracy. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction to the jury was not erroneous, and that the evidence did establish a single conspiracy.

The court also considered whether the Crown Prosecutor's submissions concerning the character of the appellants and the alleged lie of a Crown witness had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the Crown Prosecutor's questions to Huynh regarding the alleged lie of a Crown witness did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, and that the evidence of Huynh's prior involvement with co-offenders was not tendency evidence. The court also found that the Crown Prosecutor did not place his own personal opinions before the jury. The court concluded that the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, and that the convictions of the appellants were upheld.

The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the convictions of the appellants. The court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was not erroneous, and that the evidence established a single conspiracy. The court also held that the Crown Prosecutor's submissions did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, and that the evidence of Huynh's prior involvement with co-offenders was not tendency evidence. The court concluded that the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, and that the convictions of the appellants were upheld. The appellants' appeals were dismissed, and their convictions were affirmed.

Orders