Regina v Danny Sum Mok - [2003] NSWSC 424

CITATION: Regina v Danny Sum Mok [2003] NSWSC 424

HEARING DATE(S): 31 May, 2001
8 June, 2001
7 May 2003
9 May 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1

DECISION: Stated questions answered : 1(a) - yes; 1(b) - no; 1(c) - unnecessary to answer; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs; exhibits may be returned

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Assets Recovery Act
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1988) 171 CLR 167 at 179
Reg v Lau (1998) 105 A Crim R 167
Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks (1957) 97 CLR 367

PARTIES :
Regina
Danny Sum Mok

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 10959/99

COUNSEL: P. Singleton - NSW Crime Commission
G. Jones/B. Clark - Defendant

SOLICITORS: J. M. Giorgiutti - NSW Crime Commission
D'Angelo, Solicitors - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

SULLY J

22 May 2003

10959/99 – NEW SOUTH WALES CRIME COMMISSION v DANNY SUM MOK
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: By an amended summons filed on 21 April 1999 the New South Wales Crimes Commission, [“the plaintiff”], seeks, among other orders:

”…………a proceeds assessment order pursuant to s.27 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 requiring Danny Sum Mok to pay to the Treasurer an amount assessed by the Court as the value of the proceeds derived from any illegal activity of Danny Sum Mok that took place not more than six years before the making of the application for a proceeds assessment order.”

2 On 7 May 2001 Kirby J made a number of consent orders. The first of them was:

“1. Subject to any contrary direction by the trial judge, the hearing of this matter on 30 May 2001 deal with the following three issues only:

Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990

(b) whether the Defendant received, on 21 January 1999, from registered informant 3027 the sum of $84,000 or the sum of $83,000 or any other sum; and

(c) whether the sum referred to in sub-paragraph (b) above was acquired by the Defendant because of an illegal activity (within the meaning of illegal activity set out in section 4 of the Act).”

3 In what follows herein a reference to “the defendant” is a reference to Danny Sum Mok; and a reference to “RI 3027” is a reference to the registered informant.

4 On 31 May 2001 a hearing commenced accordingly. It continued on 8 June 2001, and after a lengthy lapse of time caused in part by controversial subpoena proceedings which went on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the hearing resumed on 7 May…

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 Danny Sum Mok

Details

AGLC: Regina v Danny Sum Mok [2003] NSWSC 424
Case: [2003] NSWSC 424
Decision Date: 22 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Danny Sum Mok, the New South Wales Crime Commission sought a proceeds assessment order under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. The court was required to determine whether the defendant, Danny Sum Mok, was engaged in serious crime-related activities, received a sum of $84,000 from a registered informant, and if so, whether that sum was derived from illegal activities. The court found that Mok was involved in serious crime-related activities, but the evidence was insufficient to determine if he received the $84,000 from the informant or if the money was derived from illegal activities. The evidence, primarily from the informant, was deemed unreliable and insufficient to meet the balance of probabilities standard. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs and that the exhibits may be returned.

Orders