R v Chie - [2019] NSWDC 346

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chie [2019] NSWDC 346
Hearing dates: 4 February 2019 – 6 February 2019; 14 May 2019
Date of orders: 06 June 2019
Decision date: 06 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Hunt DCJ
Decision:
The accused is acquitted and discharged in relation to count 3 on the indictment

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Judgement – Judge alone trial – Proceeds of crime - Verdict by direction – Provenance of money found – No particularity to nature of criminal offence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 NSW
Criminal Code Commonwealth.
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 NSW.
Cases Cited: Chen v Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) [2011] NSWCCA 205
Dean v R [2019] NSWCCA 27
R v Hall 2013 NSWCCA 47
R v Mackellar (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 106
Sills v R 2011 NSWCCA 271
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
Zachary Adam Chie
Representation:
Counsel:
L Rowan – Accused
J Paingakulam - Crown
Solicitors:
Aaron Kernaghan – Accused
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) - Crown

File Number(s): 2017/341164

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 4 February 2019 at Wollongong District Court before me the Commonwealth presented an amended indictment against Zachary Adam Chie and he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to count 3. For current purposes I will refer to Mr Chie as the accused.

CHRONOLOGY

On 9 November 2018 before Judge Haesler the accused when arraigned entered pleas of guilty for counts 1, 2 and 4 on an indictment presented by the Commonwealth being count 1: between 9 October 2017 and about 10 November 2017, at Oak Flats in New South Wales, attempt to possess a substance, the substance having been unlawfully imported, the substance being a border controlled drug, namely cocaine and the quantity being a commercial quantity - Contrary to subs 307.5 and 11.1(1) of the Criminal Code Commonwealth.
Count 2: on or about 10 November 2017, at Dapto in New South Wales did supply a prohibited drug, namely cocaine in an amount of 85 grams -Contrary to subs 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) with s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (New South Wales).
Count 4: on or about 10 November 2017, at Albion Park in the State of New South Wales, did possess a prohibited firearm, namely a shortened rimmed fire .22 rifle that was not registered - Contrary to s 36(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 NSW.
The sentence proceedings in relation to those matters have been adjourned to a later date for the resolution of the defended proceedings in relation to count 3.
On 9 November 2018 the accused pleaded not guilty to count 3 which then averred: on or about 10 November 2017, at Dapto in New South Wales, did possess proceeds of crime being $128,400 in Australian denominations, in circumstances where he knew that the cash was the proceeds of crime - Contrary to subs 193B(2) of the Crimes Act

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 Chie

Details

AGLC: R v Chie [2019] NSWDC 346
Case: [2019] NSWDC 346
Decision Date: 06 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chie was heard by a judge alone in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Chie, faced charges under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Vic). The primary dispute centred around the provenance of money found in his possession, specifically whether it constituted proceeds of crime. The case also considered the appropriate procedure when a verdict is directed by the judge in such trials.

The central legal issues were whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the definition of proceeds of crime and whether the verdict was properly obtained. Chie's counsel argued that the prosecution had not sufficiently established the particularity of the criminal offence from which the money derived, and that the jury's verdict lacked the required particularity. The court had to determine if these procedural errors rendered the verdict invalid.

In delivering the decision, the court found that the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the definition of proceeds of crime. The judge had not sufficiently particularise the nature of the criminal offence from which the proceeds were derived. The court held that the verdict was therefore obtained through an irregular process, lacking the necessary particularity. Consequently, the court acquitted and discharged the defendant on count 3 of the indictment.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be acquitted and discharged in relation to count 3 on the indictment. This outcome highlights the importance of procedural correctness in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

The accused is acquitted and discharged in relation to count 3 on the indictment

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Chie [2019] NSWDC 346
Hearing dates:	4 February 2019 – 6 February 2019; 14 May 2019
Date of orders:	06 June 2019
Decision date:	06 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Hunt DCJ
Decision:	The accused is acquitted and discharged in relation to count 3 on the indictment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgement – Judge alone trial – Proceeds of crime - Verdict by direction – Provenance of money found – No particularity to nature of criminal offence.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 NSW Criminal Code Commonwealth. Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 NSW.
Cases Cited:	Chen v Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) [2011] NSWCCA 205 Dean v R [2019] NSWCCA 27 R v Hall 2013 NSWCCA 47 R v Mackellar (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 106 Sills v R 2011 NSWCCA 271
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	The Crown Zachary Adam Chie
Representation:	Counsel: L Rowan – Accused J Paingakulam - Crown Solicitors: Aaron Kernaghan – Accused Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) - Crown
File Number(s):	2017/341164