R v Park

Case [2003] NSWCCA 203 23 July 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Sung Eun PARK [2003] NSWCCA 203 revised - 24/07/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 25/06/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Buddin J at 2; Shaw J at 3

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - conviction appeal - whether reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt - directions on propensity - directions on silence - fresh evidence

CASES CITED: Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50;
Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82;
BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275;
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555;
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414;
Palmer v The Queen [1971] AC 814;
Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107;
R v Clarke (1995) 78 A Crim R 226;
R v Dinnick (1909) 3 Cr App R 77;
R v Dudko [2002] NSWCCA 336;
R v Elfar [2000] NSWCCA 225;
R v Tillman [1962] Crim LR 261;
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620;
Van dan Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158;

PARTIES :
Regina (NSW)
Sun Eun Park - Appellant

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60581/00

COUNSEL: D Frearson - Crown
P Byrne, SC with G Bashir - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor - Crown
G Goold Solicitors - Appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70085/98

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Sperling J

60581 of 2000

Ipp JA
Buddin J
Shaw J
23 July 2003

Regina v Sung Eun PARK

Judgment

1 Ipp JA: I agree with Shaw J.

2 Buddin J: I agree with Shaw J.

3 Shaw J: On 27 August 1997 the skeletal remains of three bodies were found inside suitcases in the Watagan State Forest in Quorrobolong. The bodies were later identified as Quan Qin (Susan) Park and her two children, Andrew Eun Park and Amy Sarah Park.

4 The decomposed remains had plastic shopping bags knotted around the head of each deceased. The remains were also bound with rope. It was the opinion of the examining pathologist that each of the deceased had been suffocated.

5 On 31 January 2000 the appellant pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with the murder of his wife and two children on or about 17 October 1996 at the flat of Susan Park in Eastwood, New South Wales.

6 The jury returned verdicts of guilty to all charges on 7 March 2000.

The Crown case

7 The Crown case was a circumstantial one. It alleged the following circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant:

(b) there was a motive for the appellant to murder his wife and children;

(d) the deceased were likely to have died on the night of 17-18 October when the appellant had the opportunity to be at the Eastwood flat;

(e) the appellant knew…

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 Park

Details

AGLC: R v Park [2003] NSWCCA 203
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 203
Decision Date: 23 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Park, the respondent, Park, appealed against his conviction for various offences including assault occasioning bodily harm, aggravated break and enter, and aggravated robbery. The decision was handed down by the High Court of Australia. Park was convicted following an incident where he assaulted and robbed an elderly woman in her home. The primary issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that the evidence was susceptible to a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt, whether the judge gave inadequate directions about the use of propensity evidence, and whether the judge gave inadequate directions about the use of evidence of silence.

The court considered whether the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt, which would have required the jury to entertain the possibility that the respondent was not guilty of the offences. The court found that there was no error in the trial judge’s direction as the evidence was not susceptible to such a hypothesis. The court also found that the trial judge gave adequate directions on the use of propensity evidence, which concerned the respondent’s previous convictions for similar offences. The court concluded that the directions were sufficient to allow the jury to properly evaluate the evidence. The court further considered whether the trial judge should have given a direction about the use of evidence of silence. The court found that no direction was necessary because there was no evidence of silence that could have been properly admitted.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the trial judge did not err in failing to give a direction to the jury about a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt, nor in giving directions on the use of propensity evidence and evidence of silence. The convictions were therefore upheld. The court did not make any orders as the appeal was dismissed.

Orders