Legal Research
Cases
Mohana v R

Mohana v R

Case [2023] NSWCCA 61 22 March 2023

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mohana v R [2023] NSWCCA 61
Hearing dates: 10 October 2022
Date of orders: 22 March 2023
Decision date: 22 March 2023
Before: Simpson AJA at [1]
Davies J at [111]
Wilson J at [112]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal dismissed

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – supply of prohibited drug – trial by judge alone – unreasonable verdict – application of Dansie v The Queen – inutility of a ground asserting inadequacy of reasons or fact-finding where verdict is said to be unreasonable
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – Crimes Act ss 93S(1) and 93T(1) – knowingly participate in a criminal group – whether proof of a “criminal group” requires proof of a “shared objective” – whether shared objective must relate to commission of a single serious indictable offence rather than a series of connected offences – where asserted participants in criminal group included both vendors and purchasers of prohibited drug – that purchasers sought to engage in further and distinct supply of drugs does not preclude finding of shared objective – no error
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – knowingly take part in supply of prohibited drug not less than a large commercial quantity – no drugs found by investigating authorities – recorded and intercepted audio and video surveillance sufficient to ground conviction
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – trial by judge alone – failure to make a necessary finding of fact – unreasonable verdict – knowingly deal with the proceeds of crime – asserted failure by trial judge to identify moneys with which applicant dealt – relevant moneys sufficiently identified despite no explicit reference – no error

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 93S, 93T, 193B
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 53A, Pt 4 Div 1A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 132, 133, 166
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25, Sch 1
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Czako v R [2015] NSWCCA 202
Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25; (2022) 96 ALJR 728
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MFA v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 499; [2011] HCA 13
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bilal Mohana (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lange (Applicant)
I Nash (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Kings Law Group (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/315559
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

26…

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 Mohana v R

Details

AGLC: Mohana v R [2023] NSWCCA 61
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 61
Decision Date: 22 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mohana v R, the appellant was convicted by a judge sitting alone in the County Court of Victoria for multiple drug-related offences, including knowingly participating in a criminal group and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to make certain factual findings rendered the verdict unreasonable, and whether the appellant's conviction for dealing with the proceeds of crime was properly grounded.

The court considered whether the appellant's conviction for knowingly participating in a criminal group was unreasonable, particularly whether a shared objective among participants must relate to a single serious indictable offence or a series of connected offences. The court found that the appellant's participation in a group with a shared objective to supply prohibited drugs was not precluded by the fact that some participants also sought to engage in further drug supplies. The court also held that the absence of physical evidence of drugs did not preclude a conviction based on audio and video surveillance.

The court examined the trial judge's reasoning and determined that there was no error in the judge's failure to explicitly identify the moneys with which the appellant dealt. The court held that the relevant moneys were sufficiently identified in the trial judge's reasons, and the failure to explicitly reference these findings did not render the verdict unreasonable.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, finding that the verdict was not unreasonable and that the trial judge's findings were sufficient to support the conviction. The orders of the County Court were affirmed.

Orders