R v Anna Zhang [2005] NSWCCA 437 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):
16 September 2005
JUDGMENT DATE:
14 December 2005
JUDGMENT OF:
Basten JA at 1; Simpson J at 73; Buddin J at 187
DECISION:
Appeal against convictions dismissed; Leave granted to appeal against sentences, appeals dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
EVIDENCE – s98 and s101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – coincidence evidence – attempted importation of narcotics – possession of narcotics – whether evidence of importation admissible in relation to the count of possession and vice versa – whether two or more related events established under s98 – consideration of ‘related events’ – whether the evidence had significant probative value – whether substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned - EVIDENCE – standard of proof – whether reference in trial judge’s summing up to ‘it was likely that she knew’ undermined the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt
Mr G. Nicholson QC (Appellant) Ms W. J. Abraham QC (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
Andrew Liu Lawyers (Appellant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/11/0961
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Finnane DCJ
CCA 1125/2005
BASTEN JA SIMPSON J BUDDIN J
14 December 2005
REGINA v ANNA ZHANG
The appellant was convicted of attempting to import a large quantity of narcotics, (crystal methylamphetamine) in contravention of s233B(1)(c) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and possession of a quantity of a narcotic in contravention of s233B(1)(ca) of the Customs Act.
The offence of attempted importation was said to have been committed with Tony Tu, who was tried separately.
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 Zhang
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Zhang [2005] NSWCCA 437
Case
[2005] NSWCCA 437
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Zhang was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the respondent, Zhang, was charged with two counts: the attempted importation of narcotics and the possession of narcotics. The central issue before the court was whether evidence relating to the attempted importation could be admissible in relation to the count of possession and vice versa, under sections 98 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Specifically, the court needed to determine if the two events were related and if the evidence had significant probative value, while also considering whether admitting such evidence could occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The court addressed these issues by examining the nature of the events and their relationship. It was established that the attempted importation and possession of narcotics were part of a series of related events, satisfying the criteria under section 98. The court further evaluated the probative value of the evidence, concluding that it was significant in establishing the context and circumstances surrounding the charges. Additionally, the court considered the potential for a miscarriage of justice and determined that the benefits of admitting the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effects. Finally, the court examined the trial judge's summing up, finding that the reference to "it was likely that she knew" did not undermine the standard of proof required for criminal cases, which is beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the convictions, finding that the evidence of the attempted importation was admissible in relation to the possession charge and vice versa. The reasoning provided ensured that the probative value of the evidence was properly balanced against the risk of a miscarriage of justice. The final orders of the court were to confirm the convictions on both counts, with no appeal against conviction or sentence permitted.