Yong v The King - [2025] WASCA 37

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   YONG -v- THE KING [2025] WASCA 37
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA
HALL JA

HEARD:   18 JULY 2024
DELIVERED          :   14 MARCH 2025
FILE NO/S:   CACR 34 of 2024
BETWEEN:   KINBOON YONG
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   FIANNACA J
File Number            :   INS 62 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted of importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine - Whether fresh and compelling evidence shows a miscarriage of justice occurred - Whether additional evidence should be admitted in appeal

Legislation:

Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.1

Result:

Extension of time to appeal refused
Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed
Leave to appeal on grounds 1, 2 and 3 refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	L Glenn

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Brar v The Queen [2016] VSCA 281; (2016) 263 A Crim R 67
Clarke v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 14
Law v The Queen [2020] WASCA 196
Luo v The King [2025] WASCA 36
Luo v The Queen [2020] WASCA 184

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

This is an appeal against conviction. On 14 December 2017, after a trial which spanned more than two months before Fiannaca J and a jury, the appellant, Kai Cheong Law, Jie Luo, Fook Choi Ching, Yuen Kuan Chong, Chee Seng Tang, and Teck Kong Wong, were each found guilty of offences arising out of the importation of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine.
The appellant was convicted of an offence that between about 16 October 2015 and 20 May 2016, in the vicinity of Port Denison and elsewhere in the State of Western Australia, he imported a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (the Code). On 26 June 2018, the appellant was sentenced to 26 years' imprisonment, with a 17‑year non‑parole period.
This appeal was filed approximately five years and nine months out of time. Accordingly, an extension of time is required. The delay in bringing the appeal has not been adequately explained. Whether an extension of time is granted will depend upon the merits of the appeal.
At one point in this appeal, the appellant was legally represented. On 9 July 2024, he filed a notice of self‑representation. He represented himself at the hearing of the appeal.
The appellant seeks to advance three grounds of appeal, expressed as follows:
Ground 1: The compelling fresh evidence emerges proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Methamphetamine was not imported by the fishing vessel registration 'M65535A' where Mr Jie Luo was one of three skippers. The said vessel was not the carrier for the importation of subject drug. The vessel was not linked to police investigation into the…

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 Yong v The King

Details

AGLC: Yong v The King [2025] WASCA 37
Case: [2025] WASCA 37
Decision Date: 14 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Yong against The King, where the appellant was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine. The court was tasked with assessing whether fresh and compelling evidence presented by the appellant could demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice had occurred during the original trial. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if additional evidence should be admitted in the appeal process to aid in this evaluation.

The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility and weight of new evidence presented by the appellant in an appeal against conviction. The court had to consider whether the evidence was indeed fresh and compelling, and if it had the potential to significantly alter the outcome of the original trial. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the additional evidence provided a valid basis to grant the appeal and potentially overturn the conviction.

The court found that the new evidence presented by the appellant was neither fresh nor compelling enough to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. The evidence did not substantially challenge the findings of the original trial and did not provide a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt. The court also concluded that the additional evidence did not warrant admission in the appeal process, as it did not meet the necessary criteria for reconsideration. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders