Regina v Jang - [1999] NSWSC 1040

CITATION: Regina v Jang [1999] NSWSC 1040

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 070062/98

HEARING DATE(S):

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 October 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Soo Duck Jang

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr D Howard (Crown)
Mr H Dhanji ( Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: DPP ( Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Prisoner)

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: R v Mankotia (Sperling J, unreported, 27 July 1998)
R v Lock (1997) 91 A Crim R 356

DECISION: Rulings on admissibility of evidence

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

BELL J

Thursday, 21 October 1999

070062/98 - REGINA v Soo Duck JANG

JUDGMENT

1    HER HONOUR: On Monday 18 October 1999 the prisoner, Soo Duck Jang, was arraigned before me on an indictment charging him with two counts of murder. He pleaded not guilty in respect of each count and a jury was duly empanelled. The matter was stood over to Tuesday 19 October to permit Mr Dhanji to confer with the prisoner. Mr Dhanji had come into the matter late and had difficulties arranging for a conference with the prisoner who is in custody.
2 At the commencement of proceedings on 19 October 1999 the accused sought to be re-arraigned. He entered pleas of guilty in respect of each count. I accepted those pleas pursuant to s 399A of the Crimes Act 1900. The jury was discharged without giving a verdict and convictions were recorded upon the pleas of guilty. I embarked on hearing submissions concerning the admissibility of evidence which the Crown seeks to lead at the sentence hearing.
3    On 28 September 1999 the Crown served a Notice pursuant to s 67 of the Evidence Act (NSW) 1995 on the prisoner’s former solicitors. The Notice particularised paragraphs in the statements of fourteen witnesses setting out previous representations made by the deceased, In Ja Yoo and Min Kyoung Kang, which the Crown advised it proposed to lead pursuant to the provisions of s 65(2)(b) and (c) of the Evidence Act.
4    At the commencement of the sentence hearing the Crown Prosecutor stated that he did not intend to lead all the material the subject of the

s 67 Notice. However, it was proposed to lead evidence to establish that on occasions prior to 8 April 1998 In Ja Yoo had complained that the prisoner, in connection with the progress of his immigration application, had threatened to kill her and her children.

5    Mr Dhanji objected to the admission of material of this character. He invited me to make a direction pursuant to s 4(2) of the Evidence Act that the law of evidence in relation to the proof of representations made by In Ja Yoo and Min Kyoung Kang apply in the sentence proceedings.
6    Briefly, the Crown case is that the prisoner went to the home of his estranged wife, In Ja Yoo, on 8 April 1998 to apply pressure to her in connection with an application he then had…

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 Jang

Details

AGLC: Regina v Jang [1999] NSWSC 1040
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1040
Decision Date: 21 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Jang involved a criminal case where Soo Duck Jang was charged with two counts of murder. Jang pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty in respect of each count. The court then proceeded to address the admissibility of certain evidence that the Crown sought to introduce at the sentencing phase. The evidence in question pertained to previous threats made by Jang to the victims and others, which the Crown argued should be considered in determining the appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the previous threats was admissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence met the criteria of sections 65(2)(b) and 65(2)(c) of the Act, which permit the introduction of certain types of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. The court needed to determine whether the statements were made "shortly after" the events they described, as required by section 65(2)(b), or whether they were made in circumstances that made them highly probable to be reliable, as required by section 65(2)(c).

The court examined each piece of evidence in turn, applying the relevant legal tests. It found that some of the statements did not meet the criteria for admissibility because they were not made shortly after the events or were not made in sufficiently reliable circumstances. However, certain statements made by the victims to their children and a neighbour were deemed admissible because they were made shortly after the events or under circumstances that made them highly probable to be reliable. The court allowed the Crown to lead this evidence at the sentencing phase, considering it relevant and significant in determining the appropriate sentence for Jang.

In summary, the court ruled on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence concerning previous threats made by Jang. While some statements were excluded, others were admitted, as they met the criteria set out in the Evidence Act. This decision ensured that the sentencing process would be informed by relevant and reliable evidence concerning the context and nature of Jang's crimes.

Orders