REGINA v WAN [2003] NSWCCA 225

REGINA v WAN [2003] NSWCCA 225

The trial judge's directions, though arguably more favourable to the accused, correctly outlined that possession can be sole or joint. The possibility of David Wang's involvement did not require acquittal unless exclusive possession or knowledge could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. There was no...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Appeal From District Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['possession of Prohibited Drugs' 'joint Vs Sole Possession' 'directions to Jury' 'change of Prosecution Case']
['criminal Law'] ['possession of Prohibited Drugs' 'joint Vs Sole Possession' 'directions to Jury' 'change of Prosecution Case']

Source-derived case record

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal, Appeal From District Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's directions on possession were erroneous or inadequate" 'Whether directions on exclusive possession were erroneous for introducing concerted action without evidence' 'Whether prosecution changed its case prejudicially to defence']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions, though arguably more favourable to the accused, correctly outlined that possession can be sole or joint. The possibility of David Wang's involvement did not require acquittal unless exclusive possession or knowledge could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. There was no prejudice from any change in prosecution case or jury direction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']