REGINA v TANG [2000] NSWCCA 219

REGINA v TANG [2000] NSWCCA 219

By majority, the Court held that the Crown was not precluded from relying on joint possession and that the directions on possession were sufficient in the circumstances. The majority also held that the complained-of references to the appellant not nominating another occupant concerned resolution of an evidential dispute about what was said to police, not an impermissible adverse inference from exercise of the right to silence, and that the directions on the accused's evidence were not shown to be inadequate or misleading when viewed as a whole. The appeal against conviction was therefore dismissed and leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by majority; leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Heroin' 'joint Possession' 'right to Silence' 'adverse Inferences' 'jury Directions' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'drug Offences'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Heroin' 'joint Possession' 'right to Silence' 'adverse Inferences' 'jury Directions' 'circumstantial Evidence']

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 Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in declining to direct the jury that the Crown was not permitted to rely on joint possession.' 'Whether the trial judge failed to correctly direct the jury in relation to joint possession.' 'Whether the conviction involved a miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether the trial judge failed to warn the jury that they could not draw an inference unfavourable to the appellant from any failure to mention David Wong to police.' 'Whether the trial judge failed adequately to direct the jury as to the use they could make of the evidence of the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the Crown was not precluded from relying on joint possession and that the directions on possession were sufficient in the circumstances. The majority also held that the complained-of references to the appellant not nominating another occupant concerned resolution of an evidential dispute about what was said to police, not an impermissible adverse inference from exercise of the right to silence, and that the directions on the accused's evidence were not shown to be inadequate or misleading when viewed as a whole. The appeal against conviction was therefore dismissed and leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by majority; leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence refused.']