Luong v DPP (Cth)

Luong brought an appeal against his conviction and sentence for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the elements of the attempted offence, whether absolute liability applies in attempt offences, and the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the law of possession. The court also considered whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory and if the trial miscarried due to trial counsel's failure to lead evidence of good character.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury as to the elements of the attempted offence or the law of possession. The court distinguished Onourah v The Queen and held that absolute liability does not apply in attempt offences. The court also found that the verdicts were not unsafe or unsatisfactory and that the trial did not miscarry. The High Court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was in accordance with Kural v The Queen. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had regard to the principles of totality and proportionality.

The High Court refused Luong's application for leave to appeal against his conviction. The court also dismissed Luong's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was appropriate and that the verdicts were not unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had regard to the principles of totality and proportionality.