Legal Research
Cases
R v Ye Zhang

R v Ye Zhang

Case [2000] NSWSC 1099 1 December 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Ye Zhang [2000] NSWSC 1099

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law - Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70096/97

HEARING DATE(S): 13/11/2000,14.11.2000,15.11.2000,
16.11.2000,17.11/2000,21.11.2000,
22.11.2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 December 2000

PARTIES :

Crown
Ye Zhang

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 00108302/97/46

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Ms S Schreiner

COUNSEL : Crown: Ms M Cunneen
Accused: Mr D Dalton

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid

CATCHWORDS: Voir dire - evidence of admissions said to have been made by the accused.

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Justices Act 1902
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v Donnelly (1997) 96 A Crim R 432 at 438 per Hidden J

DECISION: Evidence of admissions excluded.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
SIMPSON J
Friday 1 December 2000
70096/97

REGINA v YE ZHANG

Judgment

HER HONOUR :

1 On 22 July 1997 the accused was charged with two counts of murder. He was subsequently found, firstly pursuant to s 10, and secondly pursuant to s 29, of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 to be unfit to be tried. He having been detained in custody as a prisoner for a period of not less than twelve months, s 30(2) required the court to conduct a special hearing in respect of the offences with which he was charged. In May 2000 such a special hearing was conducted by Newman J and a jury. The jury was unable to agree on verdicts. A second special hearing was fixed to commence on 13 November 2000.
2 Shortly before that date, for reasons entirely outside the control of the accused, his legal representation changed. His new legal advisers took a view of the admission of the Crown evidence radically different from that taken by their predecessors. Accordingly, they requested that a voir dire be conducted into the question of the admission of evidence of admissions made by the accused and constituting virtually the entirety of the Crown evidence against him. It is not disputed that the accused made such admissions: they are largely preserved in electronically recorded interviews, and to the extent that they are not, the accused does not deny that he said substantially what was attributed to him. The challenge to the admission of the evidence concerns the circumstances in which the accused said what he said. The principal contention made on his behalf is that his decision to make the admissions lacked the necessary quality of voluntariness that would permit their acceptance into evidence.
3 That challenge concerns both admissibility in the strict sense, and the exercise of discretions permitting or requiring the exclusion of evidence otherwise admissible. The accused invokes ss 84, 85, 90, 138 and 189 of the Evidence Act 1995 and s 424A of the Crimes Act 1901 (now re-enacted as s 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986). The various bases of challenge have a degree of…

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 Ye Zhang

Details

AGLC: R v Ye Zhang [2000] NSWSC 1099
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1099
Decision Date: 1 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Ye Zhang was heard and determined by Justice Byrne. The accused, Ye Zhang, faced charges of drug trafficking and related offences. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain admissions that Zhang claimed were made under duress and subsequently retracted. The prosecution sought to introduce these statements as evidence to corroborate other evidence against Zhang.

The court was required to decide whether the admissions could be admitted into evidence, considering the circumstances under which they were made. Key issues included whether the admissions were indeed made, if they were voluntary, and whether the retractions were credible. The court had to balance the probative value of the admissions against the potential prejudice to the accused if they were admitted.

Justice Byrne found that the admissions were not voluntary and were made under circumstances that undermined their reliability. The court held that the admissions were not admissible as evidence against Zhang. The judge also considered the impact of the retractions and concluded that they were credible. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to ensure that any evidence admitted in a criminal trial is reliable and fair to the accused. The admissions were excluded, and the court instructed the jury to disregard any reference to them in the proceedings.

The court's final orders included the exclusion of the contested admissions from the evidence presented to the jury. The trial proceeded without this evidence, and the jury was instructed to consider only the admissible evidence in reaching their verdict.

Orders