R v Chan

Case [2002] NSWCCA 217 7 June 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 131 A Crim R 66

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v. CHAN [2002] NSWCCA 217

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60616/00

HEARING DATE(S): 2 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina - respondent
Alex Chan (aka Victor Chan) - appellant

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Levine J at 74; Smart AJ at 75

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0594

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Shillington DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr. D. Patch for appellant
Mr. R. Sutherland QC for respondent

SOLICITORS: Rutland's Law Firm, Chatswood for appellant
Commonwealth DPP for respondent

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Warnings - Evidence of a kind that may be unreliable - Relationship evidence - Not admitted as tendency evidence - Probative value and prejudicial effect - Adequacy of directions - CRIMINAL LAW - Prohibited imports - Knowingly concerned in importation - Elements of offence - Adequacy of directions.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 ss.95, 97, 101, 137, 165

CASES CITED:
Algoma Central Railway Co. v. The King [1903] AC 478
Bernier (1998) 102 ACrimR 44
BRS v. The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275
Clarke (1993) 71 ACrimR 58
Courtney-Smith(No.2) (1990) 48 ACrimR 49
Crofts v. The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427
Domican v. The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 444
El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370
Election Importing Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Courtice (1949) 80 CLR 657
Gipp v. The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106
Harriman v. The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
Lam (1990) 46 ACrimR 402
Leff 86 (1996) ACrimR 212
Leroy [1984] 2 NSWLR 441
Longman v. The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Lyons v. Smart (1908) 6 CLR 143
McGurk Construction & Rigging Co. Ltd. v. Comptroller General of Customs (1987) 73 ALR 381
Pfennig v. The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461
R v Wong and Leung (1999) 48 NSWLR 340
R v. AH (1997) 42 NSWLR 702
R v. AN (2000) 117 ACrimR 176
R v. Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510
R v. Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203
R v. Clark [2001] NSWCCA 494
R v. Drazkiewicz NSWCCA 23/11/93
R v. Fraser NSWCCA 10/8/98
R v. Johnston (1998) 45 NSWLR 362
R V. Kelly (1975) 24 FLR 441
R v. Lissoff [1999] NSWCCA 364
R v. Lock (1997) 91 ACrimR 356
R v. Lonie and Groom [1999] NSWCCA 319
R v. MM (2000) 112 ACrimR 519
R v. Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
R v. Ranato [1999] NSWCCA 396
R v. Shin nan Yong (1975) 7 ALR 271
R v. Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301
R v. Tannous (1987) 10 NSWLR 303
Ryan v. The Queen (2001) 179 ALR 193
Shore (1992) 66 ACrimR 37
Trudgeon (1988 39 ACrimR 252
Wilson v. Chambers & Co. Pty. Ltd. (1925) 38 CLR 131
Wong v. The Queen (2001) 185 ALR 233

DECISION: 1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Leave to appeal against sentence granted, sentence and non-parole period to commence from 11 August 2000, appeal against sentence otherwise…

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 [2002] NSWCCA 217
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 217
Decision Date: 7 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Chan, the appellant was convicted of charges related to the importation of prohibited substances. The dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence and the adequacy of directions given by the trial judge to the jury regarding the elements of the offences and the nature of the evidence. The decision was made by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether certain evidence, including relationship evidence, should have been admitted as tendency evidence and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate. The appellant argued that the evidence was unreliable and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Additionally, the appellant contended that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the essential elements of the charges and the nature of the evidence presented.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in excluding the evidence in question from being admitted as tendency evidence, as it was not of a kind that may be unreliable. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate in informing them about the elements of the offences and the nature of the evidence. The court determined that the jury was properly directed to consider the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence, and that the judge's directions were sufficient for the jury to make an informed decision. The appeal was thus dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders