R v Wong

Case [2003] NSWCCA 247 12 September 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Wong [2003] NSWCCA 247

HEARING DATE(S): 03/09/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 September 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Sully J at 6; Kirby J at 9

DECISION: By Majority: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Practice & Procedure - parity - comparison with ring leader who was child - comparison with adult

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987

CASES CITED: R v WKR (1993) 32 NSWLR 447
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Boney [2001] NSWCCA 432
R v Diamond (NSW, CCA, 18.2.93)
Lowe v The Queen 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295

PARTIES :
Regina
Man Kam Wong

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60266/03

COUNSEL: P Miller (Crown)
R Sutherland SC (App)

SOLICITORS: C K Smith (Crown)
K Lo (App)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/0230

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Bellear DCJ

60266/03

MEAGHER JA
SULLY J
KIRBY J
Friday 12 September 2003

REGINA v MAN KAM WONG

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: The facts are appropriately set out in the judgment of Kirby J, which I have read. However, with regret, I am unable to agree with it.

2 The crucial fact in the case is that the appellant, in company with other little thugs, was engaged in the group-terrorising of innocent shopkeepers in the Parramatta area. The way they did it, by demanding protection money and enforcing such demands by violence, is reminiscent of the behaviour of the Nazi thugs in Berlin in the thirties, or of Mafia groups in modern Sicily. If civilised democracy is to survive in this country, such behaviour must be suppressed. The first step to do so is to impose very heavy prison sentences on those who glory in it.

3 In the present case, a magistrate, recreant to her duty, imposed a ridiculously light sentence on one of these thugs. Then Bellear DCJ imposed on another of them a sentence which was only slightly less ridiculous. Then his Honour Bellear DCJ sentenced the present applicant to sentences which totalled two years 6 months, with a non-parole period of one year six months. Now, if you please, he appeals to this Court on the ground that the sentence is too severe, whereas there should have been a Crown appeal on the ground that the sentence was too lenient.

4 In these circumstances it has seemed desirable to Kirby J to accede to the application, disregarding any justified sense of grievance the shopkeeper victims might have felt. His Honour should have dismissed the appeal.

5 I would grant leave to appeal and dismiss the appeal.

6 SULLY J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the differing judgments of Meagher JA and of Kirby J.

7 Like Meagher JA, I would dismiss this appeal. My reasons are as follows.

[1] In my opinion Eric Ng should have been dealt with according to law and not pursuant to the special regime established for minors…

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 Wong

Details

AGLC: R v Wong [2003] NSWCCA 247
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 247
Decision Date: 12 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wong involved the defendant, Wong, who was charged with participating in a criminal offence. The nature of the dispute was whether Wong should be held equally accountable as the ring leader, who was a child at the time of the offence. The case was heard in the higher courts of Australia. The central legal issues were whether Wong should be held to the same standard of accountability as the child ring leader and whether there should be a parity in comparison with an adult offender. The court needed to determine whether the age of the ring leader should influence the degree of accountability for the other participants in the crime.

The court examined the principles of criminal accountability and the relevance of age in determining the culpability of the defendant. It considered whether the age of the ring leader, being a child, should result in a reduced level of accountability for Wong. The court also evaluated whether Wong's level of involvement and knowledge of the crime should be compared to that of an adult offender. The decision required a careful analysis of the legal framework governing criminal liability and the extent to which the age of co-offenders should factor into sentencing and culpability assessments.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that Wong should not be held to the same level of accountability as the child ring leader. It found that the age of the ring leader did not absolve Wong of his own culpability and that his actions should be assessed independently. The court emphasised that the age of the participants should not automatically result in a reduced penalty for Wong, and that his level of involvement and knowledge were critical in determining his accountability. The court concluded that Wong's actions warranted a penalty comparable to that of an adult offender, reflecting his own culpability rather than that of the child ring leader.

The court ordered that Wong be held accountable for his actions in a manner consistent with an adult offender, notwithstanding the age of the ring leader. The judgment underscored the importance of individual culpability in criminal cases and the need to assess each participant's role and knowledge independently. The decision provided clarity on how age should be considered in determining criminal accountability, ensuring that it does not unduly influence the assessment of individual culpability.

Orders