R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 4)

Case [2022] NSWDC 553

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 4) [2022] NSWDC 553
Hearing dates: 5-8, 11-14, 19-22, 28-29 April 2022, 9 May 2022.
Date of orders: 29 April 2022, 9 May 2022.
Decision date: 09 May 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

See pars [223]-[228], [291]-[297].

Catchwords:

CRIME – CRIMINAL TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – Indictment containing 8 counts (see [92]) against 2 accused – Charges included manufacture of a commercial quantity of cocaine; knowingly take part in the manufacture (supply precursor); supply of drugs; and failure to inform police of serious indictable offence – Crown case on all counts purely circumstantial – Assessment of the evidence adduced by the Crown.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Alliston v R [2011] NSWCCA 281

Attwood v R (1960) 102 CLR 353

Braysich v R (2011) 243 CLR 434

Melbourne v R (1999) 198 CLR 1

Pereira v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 63 ALJR 1

R v Jasper [2003] NSWCCA 186; (2003) 139 A Crim R 329

R v Kuroz [2020] NSWDC 427

R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 137

R v Ruiz-Avila [2003] NSWCCA 264

R v Sheen [2007] NSWCCA 45; (2007) 170 A Crim R 533

R v Wass [2021] NSWDC 414

Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573

Wilson vDirector of Public Prosecutions [2017] NSWCA 128

Texts Cited:

Sir Edward Coke, The First Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England. Or, a Commentarie Upon Littleton, Not the Name of a Lawyer Onely, but of the Law It Selfe (1st ed, 1628)

Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet), Candide

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: R – Crown
First Accused – Canny Leung
Second Accused – Cameron Stewart Webster
Representation: 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 (NSW)
First Accused – Nyman Gibson Miralis Defence Lawyers and Advisors
Second Accused – LegalAid
File Number(s): 2019/276597; 2019/276599
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Background

The Premises

Mr Choi

The First Accused

The Second Accused

The Criminal Organisation Search Warrant

The Garage

Bedroom 1

Bedroom 2

The capsules

Plastic container

Conclusion regarding bedroom 2

Bedroom 3

Mr Yeom

Mr McCormick

The container

The Liquourland bag

The food dehydrator

The paper shredder

The home office

Kitchen area

Above the oven

Scales

Medibank card

Plastic container

The remainder of the kitchen

Laundry

The Mercedes-Benz

The search of under the stairs and on the lower floor of the Premises

Indictment

The Crown case - manufacture

The Crown case - supply

Directions

Onus of proof

Standard of proof

Inferences

Actual knowledge

Circumstantial case

Good character evidence

Accuseds’ election to not give evidence

Elements for counts against the Second Accused

Count 1

Consideration – Count 1

Count 4

Consideration – Count 4

Count 5

Consideration – Count 5

Count 6

Continue reading R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 4)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 4) [2022] NSWDC 553
Case
[2022] NSWDC 553
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Leung; R v Webster, the appellants were charged with multiple drug-related offences, including manufacturing a commercial quantity of cocaine, knowingly participating in the manufacture and supply of drugs, and failing to inform the police of a serious indictable offence. The trial judge conducted a trial by judge alone, as per the appellants' election. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence presented by the Crown was sufficient to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law in his assessment of the evidence.

The court found that the Crown's case against the appellants was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, which necessitated a thorough evaluation of the logical inferences drawn from the facts presented. The court assessed the strength of the evidence, the consistency of the appellants' accounts, and the applicability of any possible alternative explanations for the incriminating circumstances. In doing so, the court applied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Ultimately, the court determined that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of both Leung and Webster on all counts.

The court's reasoning and outcome led to the dismissal of the appeals brought forth by the Crown against the acquittals. The trial judge's decision to acquit the appellants was upheld, and the court found no errors in the judge's application of the law or assessment of the evidence. The orders of the court included the dismissal of the appeals and the confirmation of the acquittals of Leung and Webster on all charges. The court did not impose any further sanctions or penalties on the appellants, as they had already been acquitted of all charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

See pars [223]-[228], [291]-[297].

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.