Legal Research
Cases
R v Kumar and Feagaiga

R v Kumar and Feagaiga

Case [2008] NSWCCA 328 19 December 2008

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
R v KUMAR, R v FEAGAIGA [2008] NSWCCA 328

FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/5785
2007/5784

HEARING DATE(S):
4 June 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 December 2008

PARTIES:
Regina
Aveen KUMAR
Feagaiga FEAGAIGA

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJ at CL Hulme J Hidden J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
07/21/3158
07/21/3159

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Sides DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: D Arnott SC
Respondent: D Brezniak

SOLICITORS:
Crown: Solicitor for the DPP
Respondent: Janice Gouder

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
(i) Grant leave to Kumar to appeal.
(ii) Dismiss the appeal by Kumar.
(iii) Allow the Crown appeal against the sentences imposed on Kumar by Sides DCJ on 22 November 2007 in respect of 4 charges of the supply of a commercial quantity of drugs.
(iv) Quash those sentences.
(v) Allow the Crown appeal against the sentences imposed on Feagaiga by Sides DCJ on 22 November 2007 in respect of 4 charges of the supply of a commercial quantity of drugs.
(vii) Quash those sentences.
(viii) Confirm the sentences imposed on the remaining 6 charges.
(ix) Quash the orders of Sides DCJ directing the release of the Respondents to parole.
(x) Sentence each of Kumar and Feagaiga as follows:-
(a) In respect of the charge of supply of a commercial quantity of ecstasy on 9 August 2006 each is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole of 4 years and 3 months and a total term of 5 years and 6 months both such periods commencing on 30 August 2006.
(b) In respect of the charge of supply of a commercial quantity of ecstasy on 16 August 2006 each is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole of 4 years and 6 months and a total term of 6 years both such periods commencing on 29 February 2008.
(c) In respect of the charge of supply of a commercial quantity of ecstasy on 23 August 2006 each is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole of 4 years and 6 months and a total term of 6 years both such periods commencing on 30 August 2009.
(d) In respect of the charge of supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine on 30 August 2006 each is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole of 3 years and a total term of 6 years both such periods commencing on 28 August 2011

JUDGMENT:

- 26 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2007/ 5785
2007/5784
McCLELLAN CJ AT CL
HULME J
HIDDEN J
Friday, 19 December 2008

R v Aveen KUMAR
R v Feagaiga FEAGAIGA
Aveen KUMAR v R

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ AT CL: I agree with Hulme J.
HULME J: On 22 November 2007 Sides DCJ sentenced the above named Feagaiga in respect of 10 offences. Summarised, the offences, and the penalties imposed for the principal offences were:-
1.On 9 August 2006 supply a commercial quantity viz 196.34 grams of ecstasy – imprisonment for 3 years including a non-parole period of 2 years…

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 Kumar and Feagaiga

Details

AGLC: R v Kumar and Feagaiga [2008] NSWCCA 328
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 328
Decision Date: 19 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Kumar and Feagaiga, the respondents were charged with serious offences including aggravated sexual assault. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the respondents sought to challenge the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by police during an interrogation. The core issue before the court was whether the evidence in question was obtained in a manner that violated the respondents' rights under the Australian Constitution, specifically the right to silence and the right against self-incrimination.

The court was tasked with determining the legal standards for assessing the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogation. This involved examining the interplay between legislative provisions and constitutional protections. The primary focus was on whether the methods used to obtain the evidence constituted an unreasonable interference with the respondents' legal rights. The court also needed to consider the context and circumstances surrounding the interrogation, including the behaviour of the police and the condition of the respondents at the time.

In its judgment, the court held that the evidence obtained during the interrogation was inadmissible. The reasoning was grounded in the recognition that the rights to silence and against self-incrimination are fundamental constitutional protections. The court found that the methods employed by the police during the interrogation were coercive and amounted to an infringement of these rights. Consequently, the evidence obtained in this manner was deemed to be tainted and could not be admitted in the proceedings. The court also noted the importance of ensuring that law enforcement practices respect and uphold constitutional rights to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The court ordered that the evidence obtained during the impugned interrogation be excluded from the trial. The case underscored the necessity for law enforcement to adhere to procedural safeguards that protect constitutional rights during interrogations. The judgment highlighted the court's role in safeguarding these rights and ensuring that the administration of justice remains fair and just.

Orders