Wong v The Queen - [2011] NSWCCA 94

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wong v R [2011] NSWCCA 94
Hearing dates: 5 April 2011
Decision date: 21 April 2011
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Hoeben J at [71]
Garling J at [72]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to the appellant Thomas See Yue Wong to appeal against his conviction of an offence under Crimes Act 1900 s 52A(1)(c) alleged to have been committed by him on 29 August 2006.
(2) Allow the appeal.
(3) Quash the conviction.
(4) Direct that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - dangerous driving occasioning death - appellant's vehicle entered intersection and collided with vehicle turning across appellant's path - whether jury verdict unreasonable - whether open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that appellant entered intersection against a red light - conviction quashed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
Rasic v R [2009] NSWCCA 202
R v Nguyen [2010] HCA 38; (2010) 85 ALJR 8
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Thomas See Yue Wong (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
S Odgers SC (Appellant)
D Arnott SC (Crown/Respondent)
Solicitors:
S O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission) (Appellant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) (Respondent)

File Number(s): CCA 2007/15361
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2010-03-05 00:00:00

Before:

North DCJ

File Number(s):

2007/15361

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA : At about 3.15 pm on Tuesday 29 August 2006 a tragic accident occurred in Pennant Hills at the intersection of Pennant Hills Road with Copeland and Eaton Roads. A red Mazda car driven by Ms Kate Dodd and a black BMW sports car driven by the applicant collided. Ms Dodd died, apparently instantaneously, as a result of the injuries she sustained in the collision.

At the time of the collision Ms Dodd was turning right from a dedicated right hand turn lane on the northbound side of Pennant Hills Road into Copeland Road. The applicant was driving south on Pennant Hills Road. The cars collided on the southbound side of the intersection.

The applicant was charged with driving in a manner dangerous to another person or persons that occasioned the death of Ms Dodd ( Crimes Act 1900, s 52(A)(1)(c)). A jury found him guilty of this offence at a trial that took place in January 2008, but on 15 April 2009 this Court quashed his conviction and ordered a new trial ([2009] NSWCCA 101). The present application is one by the applicant for leave to appeal against his conviction at a further trial that occurred in February and March 2010. The sole ground of appeal is that the jury verdict of guilty of the offence charged was unreasonable ( Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6). Because an appeal on that ground is not one on "a question of law alone" leave to appeal is required ( Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5(1); Rasic v…

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 Wong v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wong v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 94
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 94
Decision Date: 21 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wong v The Queen, the appellant, Wong, appealed his conviction for dangerous driving occasioning death. The incident occurred when Wong's vehicle collided with another vehicle that was turning across his path at an intersection. Wong was found guilty of dangerous driving occasioning death, and the jury's verdict was the subject of the appeal. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Wong had entered the intersection against a red light.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Wong had entered the intersection against a red light, which was an essential element of the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death. The court also had to assess whether the jury had considered all the relevant evidence and whether the verdict was open to them based on that evidence.

The court held that the jury's verdict was unreasonable because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Wong had entered the intersection against a red light. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the red light was illuminated at the time of the collision, and that the jury had not considered all the relevant evidence in reaching their verdict. The court further found that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Wong had entered the intersection against a red light based on the evidence presented. As a result, the court quashed Wong's conviction and ordered a new trial.

The court's decision in Wong v The Queen highlights the importance of ensuring that the evidence presented in a criminal trial is sufficient to support a guilty verdict, and that the jury considers all relevant evidence in reaching their verdict. The court's quashing of Wong's conviction demonstrates the importance of ensuring that the jury's verdict is based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence, and that the verdict is open to them based on that evidence.

Orders