Legal Research
Cases
Le v Feakes

Le v Feakes

Case [2018] WASC 331 6 November 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   LE -v- FEAKES [2018] WASC 331
CORAM:   HALL J
HEARD:   17 OCTOBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   6 NOVEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1043 of 2017
BETWEEN:   CHI NGAI LE
Appellant
AND
ANDREW FEAKES
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE WHEELER
File Number             :   PE 43052/15

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Possession of cash reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained - Whether magistrate addressed element of reasonable suspicion - Whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 417

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr M Gunning
Respondent	:	Ms MM Yeung

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Gunning Young
Respondent	:	State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Caratti v Potts [2015] WASC 86
Evans v Kelly [2012] WASC 148
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104
Hoskins v Ramsden [No 2] [2009] WASCA 90; (2009) 196 A Crim R 77
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 559
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
McLennan v Campbell [2003] WASCA 145
Nyoni v Murphy [2014] WASCA 70
Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees [1966] HCA 21; (1996) 115 CLR 266
Ryan v Dimitrovski (1996) 16 WAR 457
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
The State of Western Australia v Olive [2011] WASCA 25; (2011) 57 MVR 269
Whittle v Brown [2011] WASC 143

HALL J:

On 10 July 2017, the appellant was convicted after trial in the Magistrates Court of a charge of being in possession of a thing capable of being stolen, namely $10,400 in cash, that was reasonably suspected to be unlawfully obtained, contrary to s 417(1) of the Criminal Code (WA). He seeks leave to appeal against this conviction on two grounds.
For the reasons that follow I am not satisfied that either of the grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of succeeding.[1] Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
[1] Section 9(2) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA).

The prosecution case

The prosecution case was that on 24 July 2015, Australian Border Force officers intercepted a sealed DHL envelope addressed to the appellant. The envelope stated that the sender was a person in the Czech Republic. A customs declaration stated that the contents consisted of a document. The parcel was opened and found to contain 18 sheets of perforated blotter paper consisting of 5,040 individual blotter tabs that were concealed amongst what appeared to be banking documents. Two pages of the banking documents had been glued together concealing a clipseal bag of powder. The number 10 had been written on the clipseal bag in black marker pen, and the estimated net weight of the powder was…

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 Le v Feakes

Details

AGLC: Le v Feakes [2018] WASC 331
Case: [2018] WASC 331
Decision Date: 6 NOVEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Le v Feakes, the appellant, Mr Le, appealed against his conviction for possession of cash reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the primary judge had correctly applied the law in convicting Mr Le. The appellant contended that the magistrate had failed to address the element of reasonable suspicion in the context of the charge against him. Additionally, Mr Le argued that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence presented at the trial.

The court considered whether the magistrate had adequately considered the element of reasonable suspicion in convicting Mr Le. The court noted that the primary judge had addressed the evidence and concluded that the appellant's possession of cash was reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained. The court held that the primary judge had correctly applied the law and was not required to address each element of the charge separately. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Le's possession of cash was reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained, and therefore the verdict was neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The court found that the primary judge had correctly applied the law and adequately considered the evidence in convicting Mr Le. The court held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant's possession of cash was reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction remained in place.

Orders