District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 137 Hearing dates: 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 April 2022 Date of orders: 14 April 2022 Decision date: 14 April 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: The tender of the “stocking texts” in Exhibit VD4 is rejected as against both of the accused; the tender of the “advent 1 texts” in Exhibit VD4 against Mr Webster is admitted; the tender of the “advent 2 texts” in Exhibit VD4 against Mr Webster is rejected; the tender of the “clean laundry texts” in Exhibit VD4 is rejected; the tender of the “tobacco texts” in Exhibit VD4 is rejected; the tender of Exhibit VD5 is rejected pursuant to s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Catchwords: CRIME – VOIR DIRE – EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Prosecutorial duty of disclosure.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Edwards v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 57
Grey v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 1708; [2001] HCA 65
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125
R v Reardon (No 2) (2004) 60 NSWLR 454; [2004] NSWCCA 197
R v Spiteri (2004) 61 NSWLR 369; [2004] NSWCCA 321
S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266
Texts Cited: Criminal Practice and Procedure NSW by Messrs Howie & Johnson
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: R – Crown
First Accused – Canny Leung
Second Accused – Cameron Stewart WebsterRepresentation: Counsel:
Crown – Nightingale, K
First Accused – Boe, A with O’Neill, C.
Second Accused – Ramrakha, T.
Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
First Accused – Nyman Gibson Miralis Defence Lawyers and Advisors
Second Accused – LegalAid
File Number(s): 2019/276597; 2019/276599 Publication restriction: Nil.
Judgment
Background
-
HIS HONOUR: The accused, Ms Canny Leung and Mr Cameron Webster, have been arraigned on an indictment containing eight counts. That indictment is this:
between 5 April 2018 and 5 September 2019, at Birchgrove in the State of New South Wales, Cameron Webster manufactured an amount of a prohibited drug, namely cocaine, which was not less than the commercial quantity of that prohibited drug;
between 5 April 2018 and 5 September 2019, at Birchgrove in the State of New South Wales, Canny Leung knowingly took part in the manufacture of an amount of a prohibited drug, namely cocaine, which was not less than the commercial quantity of that prohibited drug;
In the alternative to Count 2, between 5 April 2018 and 5 September 2019, at Birchgrove in the State of New South Wales, Canny Leung, believing that a serious indictable offence had been committed, namely, the manufacture of an amount of a prohibited drug, namely, cocaine which was not…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 1) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 137
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether specific text messages and documents, which were part of the evidence tendered by the prosecution, met the legal standards for admissibility. This involved a detailed examination of the contents of the text messages and documents, as well as an analysis of the circumstances under which they were obtained and their relevance to the charges against the accused. The court had to consider whether the evidence was obtained in a manner that complied with legal requirements and whether it was reliable and relevant to the case.
In its reasoning, the court made several key findings regarding the admissibility of the tendered evidence. It rejected the tender of certain text messages, such as the "stocking texts," "clean laundry texts," and "tobacco texts," as well as a document referred to as Exhibit VD5. However, the court did admit the "advent 1 texts" against Mr Webster, finding them to be relevant and properly obtained. The court's decisions were based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, the applicable legal standards, and the specific circumstances of each piece of evidence. The court's findings and rulings on the admissibility of the evidence were pivotal in shaping the outcome of the case and the potential defence strategies available to the accused.
The final orders of the court included the rejection of the tender of certain text messages and a document, while allowing the admission of others. Specifically, the court rejected the tender of the "stocking texts," "clean laundry texts," "tobacco texts," and Exhibit VD5 against both Leung and Webster. In contrast, the "advent 1 texts" were admitted against Mr Webster. These rulings were significant as they determined what evidence could be used in the trial, thereby influencing the case's direction and the accused's defence options.
Orders
Orders of the court
The tender of the “stocking texts” in Exhibit VD4 is rejected as against both of the accused; the tender of the “advent 1 texts” in Exhibit VD4 against Mr Webster is admitted; the tender of the “advent 2 texts” in Exhibit VD4 against Mr Webster is rejected; the tender of the “clean laundry texts” in Exhibit VD4 is rejected; the tender of the “tobacco texts” in Exhibit VD4 is rejected; the tender of Exhibit VD5 is rejected pursuant to s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.