Wong v The Queen

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.