R v Lim & Yeung [2002] NSWCCA 293

R v Lim & Yeung [2002] NSWCCA 293

There was reasonable evidence of preconcert between the appellants, Tan and others, including the transfer and recovery of the same black suitcase containing ecstasy, the appellants' conduct, the intercepted calls, shared travel and accommodation, and the cash found on them. The common purpose to possess the drugs did not end when physical possession passed to Tan, so the challenged conversations were capable of being in furtherance of the continuing joint enterprise and were admissible. Their probative value, and the probative value of the cash evidence, was not outweighed by unfair prejudice, and the cash evidence was not tendency evidence. The evidence strongly supported the jury's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeals Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed. Leave granted to Yeung to appeal against sentence; sentence appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['possession of Prohibited Imports' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'intercepted Telephone Calls' 'admissions Made in Furtherance of a Common Purpose' 'unfair Prejudice and Probative Value' 'tendency Evidence' 'unsafe or Unreasonable Verdict' 'knowledge of Drug Quantity in Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['possession of Prohibited Imports' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'intercepted Telephone Calls' 'admissions Made in Furtherance of a Common Purpose' 'unfair Prejudice and Probative Value' 'tendency Evidence' 'unsafe or Unreasonable Verdict' 'knowledge of Drug Quantity in Sentencing']

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 Appeals Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether intercepted telephone conversations to which an appellant was not a party were admissible against that appellant as statements made in furtherance of a joint criminal enterprise.' 'Whether the probative value of the intercepted telephone conversations was outweighed by unfair prejudice under ss135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether evidence of cash found strapped to the appellants' legs was admissible and whether a tendency direction was required." 'Whether the guilty verdicts were unsafe, unsatisfactory or unreasonable.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating the jury verdict as entailing a finding that Yeung knew the actual quantity of drugs was in excess of the commercial quantity.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was reasonable evidence of preconcert between the appellants, Tan and others, including the transfer and recovery of the same black suitcase containing ecstasy, the appellants' conduct, the intercepted calls, shared travel and accommodation, and the cash found on them. The common purpose to possess the drugs did not end when physical possession passed to Tan, so the challenged conversations were capable of being in furtherance of the continuing joint enterprise and were admissible. Their probative value, and the probative value of the cash evidence, was not outweighed by unfair prejudice, and the cash evidence was not tendency evidence. The evidence strongly supported the jury's...

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed. Leave granted to Yeung to appeal against sentence; sentence appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['In each case, the appeal against conviction is dismissed.' 'Leave be granted to Yeung to appeal against sentence, but that the appeal be dismissed.']