Legal Research
Cases
Law v The Queen

Law v The Queen

Case [2020] WASCA 196 24 November 2020

Appeal

Breach of Contract

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   LAW -v- THE QUEEN [2020] WASCA 196
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA
MITCHELL JA

HEARD:   20 JULY 2020 & 12 OCTOBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   24 NOVEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   CACR 236 of 2018
BETWEEN:   KAI CHEONG LAW
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

FILE NO/S: CACR 237 of 2018
BETWEEN: KAI CHEONG LAW
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   CACR 237 of 2018
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   FIANNACA J
Citation:   R -v- LAW & ORS [2018] WASCSR 123
File Number            :   INS 62 of 2017
For File No:   CACR 236 of 2018
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   FIANNACA J
File Number            :   INS 62 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Drug offences - Importation of a border controlled drug - Appeal against conviction - Whether trial judge erred in leaving to the jury statements made by the accused as lies evidencing guilt - Whether direction as to when lies may be used to evidence guilt was inadequate - Whether jury should have been directed that lies evidencing a consciousness of guilt had to be established beyond reasonable doubt

Criminal law - Drug offences - Appeal against sentence - Whether judge erred in fact in finding that the appellant exercised authority over his co-offenders - Whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.2A, s 307.1

Result:

Leave to appeal granted in each appeal
Appeals dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CACR 236 of 2018

Counsel:

Appellant	:	B W Standish
Respondent	:	D Renton & J Johnston

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Paul Catalano
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

CACR 237 of 2018

Counsel:

Appellant	:	B W Standish
Respondent	:	D Renton & J Johnston

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Paul Catalano
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Aubertin v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 229; (2006) 33 WAR 87
Corbett v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 97
D'Agostino v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 259
Davidson v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 150; (2009) 75 NSWLR 150
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Evans v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 26; (2020) 55 WAR 310
Hedgeland v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 97
La Fontaine v The Queen (1976) 136 CLR 62
Leung v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 81
Martinez v The Queen [2007] WASCA 143; (2007) 172 A Crim R 389
Newhill v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASCA 121
R v Dookheea [2017] HCA 36; (2017) 262 CLR 402
R v Singh [2019] SASCFC 51
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
Smith v The Queen [2007] WASCA 163; (2007) 35 WAR 201
Tang v The Queen [2020] WASCA 194
Zoneff v The Queen [2000] HCA 28; (2000) 200 CLR 234

JUDGMENT OF…

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 Law v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Law v The Queen [2020] WASCA 196
Case: [2020] WASCA 196
Decision Date: 24 NOVEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Law v The Queen, the appellant, a drug trafficker, appealed both his conviction and sentence for drug importation offences. The dispute centred on the trial judge's handling of the appellant's statements during the trial, as well as the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues were whether the trial judge erred in leaving it to the jury to determine if the appellant's statements were lies that evidenced guilt, and whether the trial judge's direction on when lies may be used as evidence of guilt was inadequate. The court also needed to determine whether the jury should have been directed that lies evidencing a consciousness of guilt had to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge erred in fact in finding that the appellant exercised authority over his co-offenders, and if the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in leaving it to the jury to determine if the appellant's statements were lies that evidenced guilt, as the jury was properly directed on the issue. The court also held that the trial judge's direction on when lies may be used as evidence of guilt was not inadequate. However, the court did find that the jury should have been directed that lies evidencing a consciousness of guilt had to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The court further found that the trial judge did not err in fact in finding that the appellant exercised authority over his co-offenders. Finally, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, while the appeal against sentence was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for resentencing.

Orders