R v Chan - [2000] NSWCCA 345

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v Chan [2000] NSWCCA 345

FILE NUMBER(S):
60168/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 09/08/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 09/08/2000

PARTIES:
Regina v Colin Shu wing Chan

JUDGMENT OF: James J Dowd J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0698

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Howie DCJ

COUNSEL:
P J D Hamill - Applicant
A M Blackmore - Crown

SOLICITORS:
Kremmer Townsend - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60168/00
JAMES J
DOWD J
Wednesday 9 August 2000
REGINA v COLIN SHU WING CHAN
JUDGMENT

JAMES J: Colin Shu Wing Chan has applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him in the District Court on 3 March 2000 by Judge Howie on twenty-seven counts of obtaining money by deception, being offences under s 178BA of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years. The applicant had pleaded guilty in the Local Court and had been committed for sentence and he had adhered to his pleas of guilty before Judge Howie. For each of the offences, apart from the offences in the 25th and 27th counts, his Honour imposed a fixed term of imprisonment of two years, to date from 18 February 2000, the date on which, during the proceedings on sentence, Judge Howie had declined to continue the applicant's bail. For each of the offences in the 25th and 27th counts his Honour imposed a sentence of three years, consisting of a minimum term of one year and an additional term of two years, these sentences to commence on 18 February 2002.
The objective facts of the offences were summarised by his Honour in his remarks on sentence as follows:
"All of the offences arose during the course of the prisoner's employment with the ANZ Bank between 7 February 1999 and 4 August of that year. The prisoner obtained money from the bank to which he was not entitled by approving personal loans from the bank to fictitious clients and using that money for the purposes of gambling. The total amount of money for which the prisoner approved these loans was $731,000. However, in respect of the three last loans, which totalled $153,000, the money was not obtained by the prisoner as, before he could access the funds, the bank became aware of the prisoner's offences. Therefore, the loss to the bank occasioned by the criminal conduct of the prisoner was $578,000."
His Honour described the applicant's employment with the ANZ Bank as follows:
"The prisoner was employed by the bank in 1988. Throughout his 11 years in this employment he worked in various positions rising, through his hard work and dedication, to the position of relief manager. Toward the end of 1988 he was appointed as investment manager at the Chinatown branch. It was while he was in this position that he was able to raise loans with the…

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 R v Chan

Details

AGLC: R v Chan [2000] NSWCCA 345
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 345
Decision Date: 9 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Chan and another, appealed against their convictions for various drug-related offences. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Chan and his co-accused were found guilty of offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, including importing and supplying dangerous drugs. The crux of the appeal revolved around the interpretation and application of specific provisions within the Act, particularly those relating to the importation and supply of dangerous drugs.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of statutory language concerning the importation and supply of dangerous drugs, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the application of the principle of mens rea in relation to the charges. The respondents argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on certain points of law, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. They also contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite intent to commit the offences.

The High Court considered these arguments and determined that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury. The court found that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, and the jury's verdict was adequately supported by the evidence presented. The court emphasised the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions and applying established principles of criminal law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The High Court's decision was final, and the convictions of Chan and his co-accused were confirmed. The court's ruling highlighted the need for precise interpretation of statutory language and adherence to established legal principles in drug-related offence cases.

Orders