R v LK; R v RK (cont'd) - [2009] HCATrans 312

[2009] HCATrans 312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S162 of 2009

B e t w e e n -
THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
LK
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S163 of 2009

B e t w e e n -
THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
RK
Respondent

FRENCH CJ
GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 2 DECEMBER 2009, AT 10.21 AM

(Continued from 1/12/09)

__________________

MR GAME: If I could just have one moment, your Honours. I will not interrupt Mr Hughes. We have created the document, we will provide it to the Court and I have discussed with our opponents and our friends on the same side of the Bar table if it is acceptable to the Court we will deal with this when we reply. If there are any other matters arising from it we, of course, would not oppose our opponents having something to say about that. We have agreed that we will go last on the notice of contention so we would imagine that we do those things at the same time. If the Court pleases. I will just provide this document to the Court at this point.

FRENCH CJ: Thank you. You can have that document provided to the Court. Yes, thank you, Mr Game. Yes, Mr Hughes.

MR HUGHES: In my submissions yesterday, your Honours, I had reached paragraph 35 of the filed outline.

FRENCH CJ: You will bear in mind, of course, Mr Hughes, that we have all read the written submissions, so there is no need to take us to those in detail.

MR HUGHES: No, quite. I had mentioned the Act 13 Vic No 8 of New South Wales in paragraph 34. In the file or bundle of documentary material made available to the Court, your Honours will see that the last document in that bundle is the Act and it applied only to appeals against conviction. The Act provided that application could be made during the trial for a reference to the Supreme Court or at the instance of the trial judge. I need say no more about it.

Your Honours, it may be convenient if I, before proceeding with the argument, invite your Honours’ attention to the contents of this bundle of material. The first document, if your Honours have it, is a note on the background to section 80 dealing, inter alia, with the United States constitutional provisions and referring to decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The second document is a collation of brief references to decisions going back to 1660 of English courts on the subject of the authority of an acquittal followed by references to Australian cases on the same topic. I shall not take up the Court’s time by reading from this document but it may provide a useful point of reference. The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v LK; R v RK (cont'd) 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] HCATrans 312
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by LK and RK against their convictions for offences under the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth) and the *Criminal Code Act 1995* (Cth). The central dispute concerned the interpretation and application of provisions relating to unexplained wealth and the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during investigations.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of financial transactions that were alleged to be outside the scope of the indictment, and whether the jury directions regarding the offence of possessing unexplained wealth were adequate. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the prosecution was required to prove that the wealth in question was derived from or related to criminal activity, or if the statutory presumption of unexplained wealth was sufficient for conviction.

The Court's reasoning focused on the statutory framework governing unexplained wealth. It was held that the *Proceeds of Crime Act* creates a distinct offence of possessing unexplained wealth, which does not require proof that the wealth was derived from criminal activity. Instead, the prosecution bears the onus of establishing that the person's wealth exceeds the value of their lawfully acquired wealth, and that the person is unable to give a satisfactory account of how they acquired the difference. The Court found that the admission of the financial transaction evidence was permissible as it tended to show the extent of the accused's wealth, and that the jury directions, when read as a whole, correctly conveyed the relevant legal principles.

The appeals were dismissed.

Orders