R v Li

Case [2003] NSWCCA 407 23 December 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Li [2003] NSWCCA 407

HEARING DATE(S): 03/12/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Dunford J at 2; Hidden J at 18

DECISION: Appeal allowed, new trial ordered.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Appeal against conviction - detain for advantage, common assault - complainant former wife of appellant - evidence of prior incidents of violence - whether admissible as tendency evidence - whether directions adequate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act, 1912
Crimes Act, 1900
Evidence Act, 1995

CASES CITED: R v AH (1997) 42 NSWLR 702
R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
Pfenning v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461

PARTIES :
Crown - Respondent
Wu Li - Appellant

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60276/03

COUNSEL: Mr G Rowling - Respondent Crown
Mr P Strickland/Mr Theiring - Appellant

SOLICITORS: CK Smith - Respondent Crown
DJ Humphreys - Appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0504; 02/11/0505

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Williams DCJ

60276/03

SPIGELMAN CJ
DUNFORD J
HIDDEN J
Tuesday, 23 December, 2003

REGINA v Wu LI

judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Dunford J, including in each of the respects in which his Honour adopts the judgment of Hidden J. I agree with the orders proposed by Hidden J.

2 DUNFORD J: In this matter I have had the opportunity of reading in draft form the judgment of Hidden J where the evidence in the trial and the issues in the appeal are sufficiently set out.

3 In my opinion the evidence, which his Honour admitted of the previous events, was all admissible as relationship and background evidence. It showed a deteriorating marriage which had at times been accompanied by some violence and attempts by the appellant to control the complainant (e.g. the incident at Sydney University in 1998), allegations of affairs, separation, divorce, requests by the appellant to revive the marriage and the complainant’s refusal.

4 It also showed conduct on the part of the appellant comprising violence, domination and control of the complainant. Although disavowing same, the Crown sought to use this evidence in relation to the first count as showing that the appellant had a tendency to act in a particular way, namely to use violence towards the complainant, which explained why she did not attempt to leave the apartment by walking past him to the front door, but instead went to the balcony and attempted to climb to the lower level.

5 As far as I can tell the Crown did not seek to rely on this evidence in respect of the second count (common assault) and did not in terms ask the jury to infer that because he had assaulted her in the past, he had also assaulted her on this occasion.

6 As his Honour said in his judgment on the voir dire (at pp 7-8):

“Secondly, the evidence would tend to provide proof that in some circumstances, particularly in dealing with marriage issues, and I use…

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 Li

Details

AGLC: R v Li [2003] NSWCCA 407
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 407
Decision Date: 23 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Li involved the appellant, who was convicted of detaining his former wife for his own advantage and common assault. The dispute arose from incidents involving the appellant and his former wife, leading to his criminal charges. The matter was heard in the appellate court, which was tasked with reviewing the conviction and any associated legal issues.

The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence regarding prior incidents of violence between the appellant and his former wife. The court had to determine whether this evidence was admissible as tendency evidence under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate in handling this evidence. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which the prior incidents could be considered.

The appellate court examined the evidence and the trial judge's directions in detail. It found that the evidence of prior incidents was indeed admissible as tendency evidence, as it was relevant to the character of the appellant in relation to the charges. The court concluded that the trial judge provided sufficient directions to the jury to ensure that the evidence was not improperly used. As a result, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld. The court did not make any further orders beyond affirming the conviction.

Orders