Regina v AB - [2006] NSWSC 69

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v AB [2006] NSWSC 69

HEARING DATE(S): 16/09/05; 28/11/05; 05/12/05; 10/02/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 February 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J at 1

DECISION: SENTENCE IMPOSED

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT TO MURDER - INTENTION TO CAUSE GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM BY APPLYING ACID TO FACE - FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ASSESSED - NO SPECIAL POINT OF PRINCIPLE FOR DETERMINATION

LEGISLATION CITED: Firearms Act 1996

PARTIES: Regina v AB

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/1367

COUNSEL: P. Power SC (Crown)
D. Dalton (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
Freemans (Prisoner)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

MICHAEL GROVE J

Friday 17 February 2006

2005/1367 - REGINA v A.B.
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: AB, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment charging that you were accessory before the fact to the murder of Dominic Li. As such you are in the category of what was once described as a principal in the third degree and, by Act of Parliament, you are liable to the same punishment as any principal offender. The available punishment extends to imprisonment for life. You ask me, and I shall, take into account on sentence pursuant to the Form 1 procedure, a further offence of possessing a firearm, namely a .32 Browning semi automatic pistol, contrary to the Firearms Act 1996.

2 There is an agreed Statement of Facts and I draw largely from it to recount this summary.

3 It is necessary to identify and describe the participation of others in circumstances which led to the murder in order to place your participation into context.

4 The findings I make are, of course, for the purpose of imposing sentence on you and the establishment of culpability of some others in the context of charges against them remains for determination.

5 Yong Kee Tan, amongst other things, operated a restaurant called the Warung Bandung. His other activities included dealing in illicit drugs. In that aspect of his activities there was an association with a person described as his boss, Emil Chang.

6 As well as for other reasons, you were known to Tan and Chang as the brother of a man who installed some airconditioning in the restaurant.

7 The victim Dominic Li was a partner in a firm of accountants which performed professional services for Tan in respect of legitimate business enterprises, which included the arrangement of student visas.

8 Tan approached Mr Li for assistance in investing a large amount of money which he had available. I am satisfied that this money was obtained by illicit activity, and it was Tan and Chang’s desire to, as it is usually termed, launder it. Mr Li declined the approach and told Tan that he had no expertise as an investment adviser but recommended his brother-in-law Philip Ma.

9 During 2002 Tan gave Ma several hundred thousands of dollars, which it was apparently intended to launder by…

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 Regina v AB

Details

AGLC: Regina v AB [2006] NSWSC 69
Case: [2006] NSWSC 69
Decision Date: 17 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent against a conviction for being an accessory before the fact to murder. The respondent had been charged with purchasing the acid used by the appellant to attack a woman, with the intention that the acid be used to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in relation to the respondent's knowledge and intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The court considered whether the trial judge had erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for the offence of being an accessory before the fact to murder.

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the respondent had the requisite mens rea. The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the respondent's purchase of the acid and the intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the respondent had the intention to cause grievous bodily harm by applying acid to the victim's face. The court rejected the respondent's argument that there was no evidence of a special point of principle for determination. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for the offence of being an accessory before the fact to murder.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the respondent had the intention to cause grievous bodily harm by applying acid to the victim's face. The court rejected the respondent's argument that there was no evidence of a special point of principle for determination. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for the offence of being an accessory before the fact to murder.

Orders