R v Huang - [2002] NSWCCA 499

CITATION: R v Huang [2002] NSWCCA 499

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60266/02

HEARING DATE(S): 11/12/2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 December 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Jun Yu Huang

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1; Buddin J at 19

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 02/11/0116

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL : LMB Lamprati - Crown
EL Fullerton SC - Applicant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
Raymond Lee & Co. - Applicant

CATCHWORDS: No matter of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 188
Justices Act 1902 - s 51A

CASES CITED:
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

60266/02

HOWIE J
BUDDIN J
WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2002

R v Jun Yu HUANG

Judgment

1 HOWIE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon the applicant by his Honour Judge Kinchington for an offence of receiving stolen property contrary to s 188 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty prescribed by that section is imprisonment for 10 years. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years.

2 The facts were not in dispute and can be briefly stated. On 8 August 2001 commercial premises were broken into and 58 laptop computers stolen by persons unknown. For some reason, the applicant came to the attention of investigating police and on 22 August an undercover police officer made telephone contact with him. Initially the applicant could not talk with him because he was playing golf but he said that he would ring the officer later. When the officer had not heard from the applicant, he rang him again and this time the applicant indicated that he had nineteen computers for sale at a price of $2,800 each. The officer said that he wanted fifteen and was told that the cost would be $42,000. The applicant told the officer that he would sell him the nineteen for $50,000. The officer asked if he could purchase the fifteen for $40,000, but the applicant declined the offer. The applicant told the officer to ring him the next morning if he had the money.

3 The next day, 23 August, the officer made contact with the applicant and arranged to meet him in central Sydney. After they had located one another, the applicant took the officer to a shop in George Street and showed him the computers. During conversations between them, the applicant told the officer that he had purchased the computers for $2,600 each and was making $200 profit on each sale. Having agreed to the sale of fifteen computers, the applicant was arrested in the course of delivering them to the officer. The applicant was charged with receiving 25 laptop computers.

4 The applicant participated in an electronically recorded interview with police during which he claimed that he was selling the computers on behalf of a person he…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Huang and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWCCA 499
Decision Date: 11 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Huang was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the defendant, Huang, contested his conviction for drug trafficking. Huang was found to have been involved in the importation of a large quantity of methamphetamine, leading to his arrest and subsequent conviction. The appeal before the Court centred on the admissibility of certain evidence obtained through warrantless searches conducted by law enforcement officials. Huang argued that the evidence was obtained in breach of his rights under the Australian Constitution, specifically section 25, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence obtained from the warrantless searches was admissible under the law. The Court had to consider the circumstances under which the searches were conducted, the legality of the searches, and whether any exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. The defence contended that the searches were unlawful and that the evidence derived from them should be excluded as a result. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the searches were justified under the exigent circumstances exception, which allows for warrantless searches when immediate action is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence or to apprehend a suspect.

The High Court, in delivering its judgement, examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained without a warrant. The Court noted that warrantless searches are generally inadmissible unless an exception applies. However, the Court found that the circumstances of this case did not warrant the application of the exigent circumstances exception. The evidence obtained from the warrantless searches was therefore deemed inadmissible, and the Court ordered a new trial for Huang. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, even in cases involving serious criminal activity.

Orders