R v Vong, Cam Lam

[2001] NSWCCA 20

CITATION:	R v VONG, Cam Lam [2001] NSWCCA 20 revised - 20/03/2001
FILE NUMBER(S):	CCA 60216/00
HEARING DATE(S):	7 February 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	7 February 2001
PARTIES :	REGINA v Cam Lam VONG
JUDGMENT OF:	Giles JA at 1; James J at 4; Hulme J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	98/11/0388
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Latham DCJ

COUNSEL :	L M B Lamprati - Crown T A Game SC - Appellant
SOLICITORS:	S E O'Connor - Crown Naomi Hamilton - Appellant
CATCHWORDS:	CONVICTION APPEAL - prejudicial material accidentally went to jury - Crown conceded - conviction quashed and new trial ordered.
DECISION:	Appeal is allowed. The convictions are quashed and a new trial ordered.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

CA 60216/00

DC 98/11/0388

GILES JA

JAMES J

HULME J

Wednesday 7 February 2001

REGINA v CAM LAM VONG

JUDGMENT

1    GILES JA: The appellant was found guilty on three charges to do with the supply of heroin. The Crown relied on telephone conversations which it said should be so understood as to establish the appellant's knowing involvement in the supply. A video of the execution of a search warrant on the appellant's premises was tendered and admitted and went with the jury for the jury's deliberations. It came to light after the verdicts were returned that the same video tape contained a video of the execution of a search warrant of the premises of a person from whom the heroin was alleged to have been obtained. On the video this person made admissions as to the possession of heroin and the discovery of the heroin was seen.

2    The appellant submitted, and the Crown agreed, that the accidental provision of this inadmissible and prejudicial material to the jury was an irregularity bringing unfairness to the trial and possibly affecting the verdicts.

3    We accept that this is so. The appeal is allowed. The convictions are quashed and we order a new trial.

(Matter proceeded with James J sitting as single Judge.)

4    JAMES J: On the charges of knowingly taking part in the supply of prohibited drugs I grant bail on the conditions which are set out in the document which I have dated 7 February 2001, initialled and placed with the papers. Those conditions are that she reside at Hampton Street, Fairfield, that she report to the officer-in-charge of the police station at Fairfield daily, and that there be a surety with security in the sum of $250,000. The security previously lodged will be sufficient security.

_________