Zany Wong v The Queen - [2012] NSWCCA 39

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zany WONG v R [2012] NSWCCA 39
Hearing dates: 9 December 2011
Decision date: 05 April 2012
Before: Meagher JA at [1]
Hoeben J at [2]
Rothman J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted;
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL - unreasonable verdict allegation - inconsistent verdict alleged - no reasonable doubt not resolved by juries capacity to observe the evidence - appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Alramadan v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2007] NSWCCA 322
Brendon Singh v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 100
Jones v The Queen (1997) HCA 56; 191 CLR 439
Krishna v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2007] NSWCCA 318
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Zany Wong (appellant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation: Counsel
K Averre (for the appellant)
T Smith (for the respondent)
Solicitors
Legal Aid (for the appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (for the respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/66126
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2010-10-01 00:00:00

Before:

Williams DCJ

Judgment

MEAGHER JA: I have considered the evidence and addressed the respects in which there was competing evidence. I agree for the reasons given by Rothman J that it was open on the whole of that evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Zany Wong (the appellant) was guilty of each of the offences charged.

HOEBEN J: I agree with Rothman J and the order which he proposes.

ROTHMAN J: The appellant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated sexual assault in 2002 (Count 1), one count of indecent assault in 2002 (Count 2) and a third charge, being a count of aggravated sexual assault in 2004 (Count 3). Counts 1 and 3 are a contravention of s 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 and Count 2 is a contravention of s 61L of the Crimes Act. The Indictment charged the third offence in the following terms:

"3. Between 1 January, 2004 and 27 December, 2004 at Marrickville in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with [XXX] without her consent and knowing that she was not consenting, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that [XXX] was under the age of 16 years, namely 14 years."

The appellant pleaded not guilty to each charge and was found guilty on Counts 1 and 2 and not guilty on Count 3. He was convicted by unanimous verdict of the jury. The appellant appeals against his convictions. The single ground of appeal relied upon is that "the verdicts of guilty are unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence".

The appellant's submission is, in general, based on two related issues, being: first, that guilt depended on the complainant's testimony and 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 Zany Wong v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Zany Wong v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 39
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 39
Decision Date: 05 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zany Wong appealed against his conviction and sentence for armed robbery and related offences. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. Wong argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and inconsistent, contending that there was no reasonable doubt that he was not the offender. The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and inconsistent and whether the verdict could be overturned based on the lack of reasonable doubt.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that the jury's capacity to observe the evidence and reach a verdict was not in question. The court found that the jury had considered the evidence thoroughly and that there was no basis to interfere with their verdict. The court held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or inconsistent, and there was no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury. The appeal was dismissed, and Wong's conviction and sentence were upheld. The court found that the jury had followed the correct legal principles and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The verdict was consistent and reflected the jury's assessment of the evidence.

Orders