Criminal Law—Procedure—Reopening of Crown case after closing of defence—Rule against splitting of case by prosecution. Evidence—Cross-examination by prosecution to elicit evidence that could have been tendered in chief—When permissible—Proof of document in cross-examination—Tender of document.
Decisions
GIBBS C.J. and WILSON J. The respondent, Louise Chin, was convicted in the District Court of New South Wales on a charge that on or about 29 August 1982 at Sydney he was knowingly concerned in the importation into Australia of prohibited imports to which s.233B of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), as amended, applied, to wit, narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of heroin, and was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years with a non-parole period of seven years. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal which allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. From that decision the Crown now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.
2. The appeal was taken to the Court of Criminal Appeal on a number of grounds. The Court found in favour of the present respondent on the first group of grounds, which related to the course followed by the trial judge in allowing cross examination on certain documents and later admitting one of those documents in evidence as part of the Crown's case in reply, and did not find it necessary to consider the other grounds.
3. The accused was indicted together with one Choo Pen Ben, who was charged that on or about 29 August 1982 at Sydney he did, without reasonable excuse, have in his possession prohibited imports to which s.233B of the Customs Act applied, to wit, narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of heroin which had been imported into Australia in contravention of the said Act. Choo was found not guilty. A second count in the indictment laid against the respondent charged him that on or about 30 August 1982 at Sydney he did without reasonable excuse attempt to obtain possession of prohibited imports to which s.233B of the Customs Act applied, to wit, narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of heroin which had been imported into Australia in contravention of the said Act. He was acquitted of that charge.
4. The Crown case, briefly stated, was as follows. The respondent, who is a resident of Penang, arrived in Australia from Malaysia on 23 August 1982. Choo, who also lives in Malaysia, was, on 29 August 1982, apprehended at Sydney Airport on his arrival from Singapore and was found to be in possession of a suitcase in which was concealed 3.126 kgs of heroin. Choo gave more than one explanation for his possession of the bag; amongst other things, he said that a friend in Singapore had asked him to take the bag to the Hyatt Hotel in Sydney where a man would ring him and arrange to collect it. The police took Choo…
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 Chin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Chin [1985] HCA 35
Case
[1985] HCA 35
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of R v Chin, which concerned the interpretation and application of provisions within the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) relating to the offence of receiving stolen property. The central dispute revolved around whether the appellant had knowledge that the property he received was stolen at the time of receipt.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the issue of the appellant's knowledge. Specifically, the Court had to determine the correct test for establishing the requisite mental element for the offence, particularly in circumstances where the appellant claimed ignorance or a lack of belief that the property was stolen.
The Court analysed the wording of the relevant section of the *Crimes Act*, focusing on the requirement that the accused must have received the property "knowing that it has been stolen or is reasonably suspected of being stolen." The majority held that the jury's attention should have been drawn to the fact that the prosecution bore the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had actual knowledge that the property was stolen, or that he suspected it was stolen. A mere failure to inquire, without more, was not sufficient to establish the necessary guilty knowledge. The Court distinguished between actual knowledge and constructive knowledge, emphasizing that the former was required.
The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.