R v Wong - [2000] NSWCCA 461

CITATION: R v Wong [2000] NSWCCA 461

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60674/99

HEARING DATE(S): 9 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 November 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Darchi WONG

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 37; O'Keefe J at 38

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/2515

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: R Cogswell SC
Appellant: R A Johnson

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Appellant: Collins & Thompson

CATCHWORDS: Whether verdict on second count unsafe or unsatisfactory where first count withdrawn from jury

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61J(1)

CASES CITED:
R v Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v RAT [2000] NSWCCA 77
R v Chidiac (1991) 171 CLR 432
R v McKenzie (1996) 190 CLR 348
R v Stone (unreported, Devlin J, 13 December 1954)

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60674/99

BEAZLEY JA
WOOD CJ at CL
O’KEEFE J
Friday, 3 November 2000

REGINA v Darchi WONG

FACTS

This was an appeal against conviction on one charge of non-consensual intercourse under s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The complainant was a 19 year old woman with a serious intellectual disability. The appellant had been charged with two counts under s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act , but the complainant changed her evidence during cross-examination and the trial judge took one charge away from the jury. Counsel for the appellant contended that as the two alleged incidents were intertwined, and having regard to the high level of the complainant’s intellectual disability and the change in evidence sufficient to cause the withdrawal of the first count, the conviction on the second count was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

HELD

Per Beazley JA (Wood CJ at CL and O’Keefe J agreeing): despite the first count being taken from the jury, it was not “unreasonable or illogical” for the jury to accept the evidence of the complainant and find the appellant guilty on second count.

ORDERS
Appeal dismissed

**************

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60674/99

BEAZLEY JA
WOOD CJ at CL
O’KEEFE J
Friday 3 November 2000

REGINA v Darchi WONG
JUDGMENT

1 BEAZLEY JA: The appellant appeals against his conviction for an offence under s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) of having non-consensual sexual intercourse with LD on the ground that the jury should have had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, having regard to the principles in R v Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439, M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 and R v RAT [2000] NSWCCA 77.
2 The appellant was indicted on two charges under s 61J(1), both offences alleged to have taken place on 12 December 1998, the victim in each case being LD, a 19 year old woman with a serious intellectual disability. The first charge related to an allegation that the appellant fondled and penetrated LD’s vagina with his tongue;…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 461
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 461
Decision Date: 3 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the respondent, Wong, and the Crown. The nature of the dispute was a criminal case, where Wong was charged with four counts, two of which involved drug trafficking. The Crown withdrew the first count, and Wong was acquitted on the second count. Wong appealed the conviction on the second count, arguing that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issue before the court was whether the verdict on the second count was unsafe or unsatisfactory, given that the first count had been withdrawn from the jury. The court had to consider whether the jury was able to properly consider the evidence on the second count, despite the withdrawal of the first count. The court also had to consider the appropriate standard of proof required in criminal cases.

The court held that the verdict on the second count was safe and satisfactory. The court found that the jury was able to properly consider the evidence on the second count, despite the withdrawal of the first count. The court held that the standard of proof required in criminal cases was beyond reasonable doubt, and that the jury had properly applied this standard in reaching its verdict. The court rejected Wong's argument that the withdrawal of the first count had affected the fairness of the trial. The court also held that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsatisfactory, given the evidence presented at trial.

The High Court dismissed Wong's appeal and upheld the conviction on the second count. The court found that the jury had properly considered the evidence and had reached a verdict that was safe and satisfactory. The court held that the withdrawal of the first count did not affect the fairness of the trial, and that the standard of proof required in criminal cases had been properly applied. The final orders of the court were that Wong's appeal be dismissed, and that the conviction on the second count be upheld.

Orders