Legal Research
Cases
R v Huang

R v Huang

Case [2000] NSWCCA 238 9 June 2000

Criminal Liability

Customs Act 1901

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v HUANG [2000] NSWCCA 238

FILE NUMBER(S):
60116/99

HEARING DATE(S): 03/12/1999
09/06/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 09/06/2000

PARTIES:
Regina

Chin Ming Huang

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ Newman J Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0053

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: English DCJ

COUNSEL:
G Farmer (Crown)
T Bailey (Appellant)

SOLICITORS:
M Poberezny (Commonwealth DPP)
Hovan & Co (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Customs Act 1901

DECISION:
Grant leave to appeal
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60116/99

SPIGELMAN CJ
NEWMAN J
ADAMS J

FRIDAY 9 JUNE 2000

REGINA v CHIN MING HUANG

JUDGMENT

SPIGELMAN CJ: I invite Justice Adams to deliver the first judgment.
ADAMS J: On 11 March 1999 the appellant, Chin Ming Huang, pleaded guilty to the following offence -
"For that he between 21 September 1998 and 22 September 1998 at Sydney and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales did without reasonable excuse attempt to obtain possession of a prohibited import to which s 233B of the Customs Act 1901 applied, namely narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of heroin being not less than a trafficable quantity applicable to heroin which was imported into Australia in contravention of the Act."
The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years, commencing 22 September 1998, subject to an order that he be released after serving five years, namely on 21 September 2003, to be of good behaviour during the balance of his sentence and to appear to receive sentence if called upon to do so at any time in respect of any breach during that period. The appellant seeks leave to appeal in respect of this sentence.
The circumstances of the case were these. The applicant, who is a citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan), resident in Hong Kong, had made a number of short visits to Australia, during one of which he had rented premises in Hurstville, a suburb of Sydney for a few months. On 21 September 1998, one Chung King Lim, a Singaporean national, arrived at Brisbane on a flight from Bali. He was travelling on a false passport. He was detained by Customs officers and, on being searched, something over a kilo of a heroin admixture was found divided between pouches inserted in each of his shoes. The admixture had an average purity of almost 78 per cent. The quantity of pure heroin was 809.5 grams. By virtue of Schedule 6 to the Customs Act 1901, this was a trafficable quantity the attempted possession of which attracts a maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $100,000, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 25 years or both: s 235(2)(d)(i) Customs Act 1901.
Acting by arrangement with the Australian Federal Police, Lim telephoned a person named David in Bangkok, Thailand, to confirm his arrival in Australia, and was instructed to travel to Sydney as previously arranged. Later that day, Lim, accompanied by Federal Police officers flew to Sydney, together…

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 Huang

Details

AGLC: R v Huang [2000] NSWCCA 238
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 238
Decision Date: 9 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Huang, the defendant was charged with several offences under the Customs Act 1901 for allegedly importing goods into Australia without proper authorisation. The court was tasked with determining whether Huang had contravened the provisions of the Act by importing certain items that were not declared or had been misdeclared. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court had to resolve involved the interpretation of the Customs Act 1901 and whether the actions of Huang constituted an offence under the legislation. The court needed to consider the specific sections of the Act that related to the importation of goods and whether these sections had been breached. The court also had to examine the defences, if any, that Huang could potentially raise in relation to the charges against him.

The court examined the provisions of the Customs Act 1901 and found that Huang had indeed imported goods without the necessary declarations or authorisation. The court held that the defendant had failed to comply with the requirements of the Act, which resulted in a breach of the legislation. The court dismissed the defences presented by Huang, finding that they did not apply to the facts of the case. Consequently, the court found Huang guilty on all charges.

The Federal Court of Australia convicted Huang on all counts and ordered that he be subject to the penalties and sanctions provided for under the Customs Act 1901. The court also directed that Huang be liable for any costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders