WONG -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 32
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 32 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:127/1998 | 23 OCTOBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J PIDGEON J MURRAY J | 16/02/01 | |
| 29 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Leave to appeal against sentence refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WAYNE FEE WONG THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of heroin of an amount 11.548 kg pure Evidence of co-conspirator to establish agreement Corroborative evidence before the jury Warning by trial Judge that it was "not desirable" to convict on uncorroborated evidence Whether warning should use the term "dangerous" Accused dismissed counsel at commencement of trial Trial proceeded with accused person unrepresented Whether trial should be adjourned Whether conviction unsafe Agreement made outside Australia to import heroin into Australia Whether Court had jurisdiction Evidence Conspiracy to import heroin Accomplice evidence to establish conspiracy Evidence capable of amounting to corroboration adduced Whether warning should include term "dangerous" Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of heroin 11.548 kg of pure heroin Sentence of 24 years' imprisonment with non-parole term of 14 years 37 year old resident of Canada |
Legislation: | Customs Act 1901 s 233B(1) (cb) |
Case References: | Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315 Chew v The Queen (1991) 4 WAR 21 Crampton v The Queen (2000) 75 ALJR 133 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 DPP v Doot [1973] AC 807 Liangsiriprasert v United States Government [1991] 1 AC 225 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658 R v Fan (1991) 56 A Crim R 189 R v Frawley (1993) 69 A Crim R 208 R v Galluzzo (1986) 23 A Crim R 211 R v Greer (1992) 62 A Crim R 442 R v Small (1994) 72 A Crim R 462 R v Tripodi [1961] VR 186 at 190 Aydlett v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920346; 25 June 1992 R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510 R v Zorad (1990) 19 NSWLR 91 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WONG -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 32 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- PIDGEON J
MURRAY J
- CCA 154 of 1999
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of heroin of an amount 11.548 kg pure - Evidence of co-conspirator to establish agreement - Corroborative evidence before the jury - Warning by trial Judge that it was "not desirable" to convict on uncorroborated evidence - Whether warning should use the term "dangerous" - Accused dismissed counsel at commencement of trial - Trial proceeded with accused person unrepresented -…
Continue reading Wong v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wong v The Queen [2001] WASCA 32
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 32
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Wong v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia. The heroin, weighing 11.548 kilograms in its pure form, was intended for importation from abroad. The appellant dismissed his counsel at the start of the trial, leading to the trial proceeding with the appellant unrepresented. The court had to determine whether the trial should have been adjourned due to the appellant's lack of representation, whether the conviction was safe and sound, and whether the court had jurisdiction given the conspiracy was agreed upon outside Australia. Furthermore, the court examined whether the warning given by the trial judge, stating that it was "not desirable" to convict based on uncorroborated evidence, should have included the term "dangerous," and whether the evidence of a co-conspirator and any corroborative evidence was sufficient for conviction.
The legal issues revolved around the sufficiency of accomplice evidence in establishing the conspiracy, the need for corroborative evidence, and the admissibility and weight of such evidence. The court considered whether the trial judge's warning was adequate and whether it should have included the term "dangerous." Additionally, the court had to decide whether the appellant's dismissal of counsel necessitated an adjournment and whether this impacted the safety of the conviction. Jurisdiction was also a concern given the conspiracy was formed outside Australia.
The court found that the evidence provided by the co-conspirator, coupled with other evidence, was sufficient to corroborate the agreement and establish the conspiracy. The warning given by the trial judge was deemed adequate despite not using the term "dangerous." The court held that the appellant's dismissal of counsel did not warrant an adjournment and that the conviction was safe. Jurisdiction was confirmed as the conspiracy's intended effect was to import drugs into Australia. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and to refuse leave to appeal against the sentence. The appellant's sentence of 24 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole term of 14 years, was upheld.
The legal issues revolved around the sufficiency of accomplice evidence in establishing the conspiracy, the need for corroborative evidence, and the admissibility and weight of such evidence. The court considered whether the trial judge's warning was adequate and whether it should have included the term "dangerous." Additionally, the court had to decide whether the appellant's dismissal of counsel necessitated an adjournment and whether this impacted the safety of the conviction. Jurisdiction was also a concern given the conspiracy was formed outside Australia.
The court found that the evidence provided by the co-conspirator, coupled with other evidence, was sufficient to corroborate the agreement and establish the conspiracy. The warning given by the trial judge was deemed adequate despite not using the term "dangerous." The court held that the appellant's dismissal of counsel did not warrant an adjournment and that the conviction was safe. Jurisdiction was confirmed as the conspiracy's intended effect was to import drugs into Australia. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and to refuse leave to appeal against the sentence. The appellant's sentence of 24 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole term of 14 years, was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave to appeal against sentence refused
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.