Wong v The Queen - [2014] NZCA 240

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA70/2014
[2014] NZCA 240

BETWEEN	THYSSEN CARTER WONG Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	28 May 2014
Court:	Stevens, Courtney and Lang JJ
Counsel:	S J Gray and C G Wright for Appellant J M Jelas for Respondent
Judgment:	13 June 2014 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Lang J)

Mr Wong faced charges in the indictable jurisdiction of the District Court for being in possession of methamphetamine for supply; and supplying methamphetamine. The jury found him guilty on the charge of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply, but not guilty on the charge of supplying methamphetamine. On 21 January 2014, Judge Sinclair sentenced Mr Wong to seven months home detention.[1]
[1]R v Wong DC Auckland CRI-2012-090-001401, 21 January 2014 (Notes of Judge P Sinclair on Sentencing).
Mr Wong appeals against conviction on the ground that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent with each other. He also contends that the Judge failed to direct the jury adequately regarding the manner in which they should draw inferences when reaching their verdicts.

Background

On the evening of 28 February 2012, Mr Wong was riding a motorcycle when he was pulled over by a police patrol vehicle. One of the officers saw Mr Wong get off his motorcycle and walk over to the grass verge, where he dropped something on the ground. The officer approached Mr Wong and found a flick-knife lying on the ground. The police officer then arrested Mr Wong, and searched him and his motorcycle. In a bag strapped under the pillion seat of the motorcycle the officer found two plastic zip lock bags containing a total of 2.6 grams of methamphetamine. The black bag also contained six new and unused zip lock bags of a type commonly known as “point bags”. These are often used by methamphetamine dealers to package .1 of a gram of methamphetamine. Mr Wong was also found to be wearing a money belt containing a cut down drinking straw and $6,530.00 in cash.
The police then transported Mr Wong to the police station, where they searched him again. On this occasion they found three cellphones, a bank deposit slip recording a deposit in the sum of $2,500, a small bottle containing a liquid giving off a strong chemical smell and a small set of electronic scales with white crystal residue on them. All of these items were found in Mr Wong’s jacket and in a Camel cigarette packet that Mr Wong was carrying under his top.
The police subsequently executed a search warrant in respect of Mr Wong’s home, but the only items of interest that they located there were four empty zip lock bags and some needles.

The respective cases at trial

The Crown opened and closed its case against Mr Wong on the basis that he was a drug dealer, and that he had acquired the cash found in his…

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 [2014] NZCA 240
Case: [2014] NZCA 240
Decision Date: 13 June 2014 at 3.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal of Thyssen Carter Wong, who was convicted of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The conviction was challenged on the basis that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on how to draw inferences from the evidence presented. Wong was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine for supply but not guilty of supplying it. The court examined whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the use of circumstantial evidence were adequate.

The Court of Appeal found that the verdicts were not inconsistent, as the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Wong was in possession of methamphetamine for supply but left them with a reasonable doubt regarding the supply charge. The court held that the trial judge provided a balanced and helpful summing up, emphasising that the jury could not find Wong guilty unless the factors relied upon by the Crown left them sure of his guilt. The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's direction on the use of circumstantial evidence and dismissed the appeal against conviction.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against Wong's conviction.

Orders