R v Jung

Case [2006] NSWSC 658 29 June 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v. JUNG [2006] NSWSC 658

HEARING DATE(S): 19 - 23 June 2006; 26 - 28 June 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
29 June 2006

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Hall J at 1

DECISION: The opinion evidence of Dr. Sutisno is admissible

CATCHWORDS: Admissibility of expert opinion evidence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: R v Tang [2006] NsWCCA 167
R v BLM (Blanch, CJ. unreported 14 September 2005)
R v Gilmore (1977) 2 NSWLR 935
Makita (Australia) Pty. Limited v. Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
R v Murdoch (No. 4) [2005] NTSC 78
R v McHardie & Danielson (1983) 2 NSWLR 733
Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (No. 7) (2003) 130 FCR 424
R v Smith (2001) 206 CLR 650
McNeil v. Commissioner of Taxation (2003) 202 ALR 35
Murphy v The Queen (1994) 62 SASR 121
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
Idoport Pty Limited v National Australia Bank Limited [1999] NSWSC 828
Adler v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2003] NSWCA 131
Davie v Lord Provost, Magistrates and Counsellors of the City of Edinburgh (1953) SC 34
Bell v FC & U Industrial Benefit Society Limited
(McLelland, J., unreported 9 September 1987)
Lewis v The Queen (1987) 88 FLR 105
Trade Practices Commission v. Arnott's Limited (No. 5) (1990) 21 FCR 324
Pollock v. Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1
HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 415
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 75 ALJR 992
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112
R v Blick (2002) 111 A. Crim. R. 326
R v Yates [2002] NSWCCA 520
R v Lissoff [1999] NSWCCA 364

PARTIES: REGINA v.
JUNG, Myoung Il

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 2005/657

COUNSEL: Crown: M. Barr
Accused: W. Terracini, SC./B. Murray

SOLICITORS: Crown: S. Kavanagh
Accused: Marsdens Law Group

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

HALL, J.

THURSDAY 29 JUNE 2006

2005/657

REGINA v. MYOUNG IL JUNG

JUDGMENT
(On admissibility of expert opinion evidence)

1 HIS HONOUR: Myoung Il Jung has pleaded not guilty on the presentation of an indictment charging him with the murder of Duck Huan Kim and Dok Su Kim on 30 January 1997. The trial is to proceed before me sitting with a jury that was empanelled on Monday 26 June.

2 The trial of these proceedings was listed to commence on 19 June 2006. Junior counsel for the accused had foreshadowed on 2 June 2006 that a voir dire examination would be required in relation to material obtained by police through forensic procedures purportedly conducted pursuant to the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000.

3 Senior counsel for the accused, Mr. Terracini, in due course also challenged the admissibility of expert evidence which the Crown had indicated it proposed to rely upon to establish the identity of the accused as the alleged offender. The Crown had served upon the accused’s solicitors two reports of Dr. Meiya Sutisno, consultant forensic anatomist,…

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 Jung

Details

AGLC: R v Jung [2006] NSWSC 658
Case: [2006] NSWSC 658
Decision Date: 29 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the Crown, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the respondent, Jung. The dispute centred around the admissibility of expert opinion evidence presented by the Crown in relation to the interpretation of a foreign language document. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Jung, was charged with possessing a document containing a false statement, and the Crown sought to rely on expert evidence to interpret the document in question.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the expert opinion evidence was admissible and whether it was necessary for the Crown to prove the content and meaning of the document. The court needed to assess the relevance and reliability of the expert opinion evidence, as well as the weight to be given to it in the context of the case. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the expert opinion evidence was necessary for the Crown to discharge its burden of proof.

The court held that the expert opinion evidence was both relevant and reliable and, therefore, admissible. The court found that the expert's qualifications and expertise in the relevant language were sufficient to establish the admissibility of the evidence. Furthermore, the court determined that the expert opinion evidence was necessary for the Crown to prove the content and meaning of the document, as it was not possible for the jury to interpret the document without the assistance of the expert. The court also emphasised that the weight to be given to the expert opinion evidence was a matter for the jury to determine. Ultimately, the court found the expert opinion evidence to be a crucial element in establishing the Crown's case against the respondent.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ruled in favour of the Crown, admitting the expert opinion evidence presented by the prosecution. The court's decision enabled the jury to consider the interpretation of the foreign language document in assessing the charges against Jung. The court's determination of the admissibility of the expert opinion evidence played a significant role in the outcome of the case.

Orders