R v Jang - [1999] NSWSC 1153

CITATION: Regina v Jang [1999] NSWSC 1153

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 070062/98

HEARING DATE(S): 18, 19, 21 October, 5 November 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 December 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Soo Duck Jang

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr D Howard (Crown)
Mr H Dhanji (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Prisoner)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE; Sentencing; Murder

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Act 1996
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED: R v Garforth (unreported, NSW CCA, 23 May 1994)
R v Twala (unreported, NSW CCA, 4 November 1994)
R v Holyoak (unreported, NSW CCA, 1 September 1995)
R v Hampton (1994) 44 NSWLR 729

DECISION: See para. 39

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
BELL J

Friday, 3 December 1999

070062/98 - REGINA v Soo Duck JANG

SENTENCE
1    HER HONOUR: On Monday, 18 October 1999 Soo Duck Jang was arraigned on an indictment charging him that (i) on 8 April 1998 at Blacktown he did murder In Ja Yoo and (ii) on the same date at Blacktown he did murder Min Kyoung Kang. He entered pleas of not guilty to both counts and a jury was empanelled.
2    Prior to any evidence being taken Mr Dhanji, who appears for the prisoner, sought a short adjournment in which to confer with his client. Thereafter when the court resumed Mr Dhanji asked to have his client re-arraigned. That was done and the prisoner entered pleas of guilty to both counts in the indictment.
3 I accepted those pleas and, pursuant to s 399A of the Crimes Act 1900, I discharged the jury from giving a verdict in the matter and recorded convictions on both counts.
4    The prisoner is aged 57. He is a Korean national. He was the husband of the deceased, In Ja Yoo, who was aged 48 at the time of her death. The two were married in Korea in October 1995. The deceased, Min Kyoung Kang, who was 27 at the time of her death, was In Ja Yoo's daughter by a previous marriage.
5    In Ja Yoo was a Korean national who had been granted permanent resident status in Australia in 1991. The prisoner was anxious to become a permanent resident of Australia also. In Ja Yoo acted as his sponsor in an application submitted to the Minister for Immigration. Subsequently she withdrew her sponsorship and refused to sign further forms necessary as part of the progress of the prisoner's application.
6    In the months preceding the killings the prisoner made repeated demands to In Ja Yoo that she sign the immigration papers. He threatened to kill her and her family should she not do so.
7    On 18 March 1998 In Ja Yoo called to see her neighbour, Ha Yu Kim. She was holding her stomach with her hands and was unable to speak for about three minutes. She appeared to be in pain…

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 Jang

Details

AGLC: R v Jang [1999] NSWSC 1153
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1153
Decision Date: 3 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jang, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case was brought to the High Court of Australia, where Jang appealed against both conviction and sentence. Jang argued that the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence, which led to the conviction, and that the sentence was excessive given the circumstances. The Crown contended that the trial was conducted properly, and the sentence was proportionate to the crime.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the evidence was admissible and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate. Additionally, the Court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court held that the evidence was properly admitted, and the trial judge's directions were sufficient. The sentence was reviewed and found to be within the appropriate range for a murder conviction. The Court concluded that the trial process was fair, and the sentence was proportionate to the severity of the crime.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court found that the trial was conducted correctly and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The decision underscored the importance of the trial judge's discretion in assessing both the admissibility of evidence and the appropriate sentence. The conviction and sentence were upheld, and Jang's appeal was dismissed.

Orders