Legal Research
Cases
Han v The Queen

Han v The Queen

Case [2012] NSWCCA 257 5 December 2012

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Han v R [2012] NSWCCA 257
Hearing dates: 7 November 2012
Decision date: 05 December 2012
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at 1
Latham J at 2
Fullerton J at 54
Decision:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave to appeal against sentence refused

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction following plea of guilty - whether circumstances in which applicant came to enter plea caused a miscarriage of justice - whether plea based on erroneous set of agreed facts or misunderstanding as to agreed sentence - whether applicant understood true nature of charges - no miscarriage of justice - appeal dismissed
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence appeal - no suggestion of error or manifest excess - leave to appeal against sentence refused
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code 1995 (Clth)
Cases Cited: Ali v R [2008] NSWCCA 60
Clark v R [2012] NSWCCA 158
Ishac v R [2011] NSWCCA 107
R v Huang [2010] NSWCCA 68
R v Hura [2001] NSWCCA 61
R v Kheng [2001] NSWCCA 85
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Henley Han - (Applicant)
Regina - (Respondent Crown)
Representation: Counsel
Self represented - (Applicant)
C O'Donnell - (Respondent Crown)
Solicitors
Self Represented - (Applicant)
Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - (Respondent Crown)

File Number(s): 2009/62378
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Before:

Solomon DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/62378

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL : I agree with Latham J.

LATHAM J : The applicant, Henley Han, filed a notice of appeal against his conviction and sentence on 21 June 2012. The applicant entered pleas of guilty on 21 April 2010 at Central Local Court to a charge of conspiracy to make false instruments and a charge of using a telecommunications network with intent to commit a serious offence (s 474.14(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Clth)). A schedule containing three further charges under s 474.14(1) was attached to the latter charge and taken into account for the purposes of sentence. The applicant, who is self represented on the appeal, must therefore persuade this Court that there are grounds for a grant of leave to withdraw those pleas of guilty.

The applicant was sentenced by Solomon DCJ on 29 October 2010 to an aggregate non parole period of 2 years and 3 months which expired on 30 September 2011. The aggregate sentence of 3 years and 9 months expires 31 March 2013.

The Offences

The applicant was one of eight co-offenders in a syndicate which manufactured, distributed and used false identity documents and credit cards in order to purchase consumer goods, which were sold for profit. The head of the syndicate was a Mr Hancock. The applicant was responsible for the production of false identity documents, including NSW drivers' licences. Between 18 February 2009 and 1 July 2009, these documents were prepared by the applicant following the provision of fictitious names to him by the head of the syndicate. The documents were collected from the applicant and used by others.

Between 5…

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 Han v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Han v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 257
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 257
Decision Date: 05 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Han versus The Queen, the appellant, Han, was convicted in the County Court of Victoria and subsequently appealed against both his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal. Han had pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery and one count of possessing an unregistered firearm. The primary contention in the appeal was whether the circumstances surrounding the appellant's plea of guilty led to a miscarriage of justice, either due to a misunderstanding or incorrect set of agreed facts, or if he genuinely comprehended the nature of the charges against him. Additionally, Han sought to appeal his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive, although he did not specifically point to any error in the sentencing process.

The court examined the circumstances leading up to the appellant's plea, including the advice provided by his legal representative and the understanding Han had of the charges and potential penalties. It was determined that Han had been fully informed about the charges and the consequences of pleading guilty. The court found no evidence of a misunderstanding or erroneous information that would have led to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, regarding the sentence, the court concluded that there was no suggestion of an error or manifest excess, and therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Consequently, the court held that no miscarriage of justice had occurred in the plea process and the conviction stood. Additionally, the appeal against the sentence was denied as there was no basis to argue that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and Han's conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders