R v Chie [2019] NSWDC 346

R v Chie [2019] NSWDC 346

The Crown's failure to particularise an identified criminal offence or identified criminal offences from which the money was said to be proceeds, instead relying on generic references to drug activities and related expressions in circumstances involving multiple possible offences, failed to meet the particularity required by Chen and Mackellar and denied the accused natural justice. A directed acquittal on count 3 was therefore required.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Judge Alone Trial on Count 3 Alleging Possession of Proceeds of Crime Contrary to Subs 193 B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW / Application for Verdict by Direction After Close of Evidence
Outcome
The accused was acquitted and discharged in relation to count 3 on the amended indictment.
Legal Topics
['judge Alone Trial' 'verdict by Direction' 'particularisation of Proceeds of Crime Offence' 'possession of Proceeds of Crime' 'natural Justice']
['criminal Law' 'proceeds of Crime' 'criminal Procedure'] ['judge Alone Trial' 'verdict by Direction' 'particularisation of Proceeds of Crime Offence' 'possession of Proceeds of Crime' 'natural Justice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Judge Alone Trial on Count 3 Alleging Possession of Proceeds of Crime Contrary to Subs 193 B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW / Application for Verdict by Direction After Close of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown was required to identify with particularity the serious offence or offences from which the alleged proceeds of crime were substantially derived or realised.' "Whether the Crown's reliance on generic descriptions such as drug activities, drug offending, drug supply crime or drug dealing activities provided sufficient particularity for a charge under subs 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW." 'Whether the failure to specify a particular quantum of money required a directed acquittal.' 'Whether the accused should be acquitted by direction on count 3.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown's failure to particularise an identified criminal offence or identified criminal offences from which the money was said to be proceeds, instead relying on generic references to drug activities and related expressions in circumstances involving multiple possible offences, failed to meet the particularity required by Chen and Mackellar and denied the accused natural justice. A directed acquittal on count 3 was therefore required.

Court Disposition

The accused was acquitted and discharged in relation to count 3 on the amended indictment.

Orders

  • ['The judge directed himself to acquit Zachary Adam Chie of count 3.' 'A verdict of not guilty was recorded in relation to count 3.' 'Zachary Adam Chie was discharged in relation to count 3 on the amended indictment on which he was arraigned on 4 February 2019 at Wollongong District Court.']