Chi Thanh Cao v R [2006] NSWCCA 89

Chi Thanh Cao v R [2006] NSWCCA 89

The first ground failed because the appellant's answers to questions 164 and 165 would not reasonably have suggested to the jury that he refused to answer police questions, no direction was requested, rule 4 applied, and no miscarriage of justice was shown. On the second ground, although the summing up may have been technically in error by not expressly stating that belief in the likelihood of drugs was a basis from which the jury could infer intention, the real issue at trial was whether the appellant had that belief. In the circumstances, if the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant believed the cartons contained or were likely to contain narcotic goods, the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Attempting to Possess Prohibited Imports to Which S 233 B of the Customs Act Applies, Namely Narcotic Goods Consisting of Heroin / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summing Up' 'directions on Intent to Possess Narcotic Goods' 'right to Silence' 'evidence of Silence in Official Questioning' 'criminal Code Fault Elements' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'customs and Narcotic Goods Offences' 'evidence'] ['summing Up' 'directions on Intent to Possess Narcotic Goods' 'right to Silence' 'evidence of Silence in Official Questioning' 'criminal Code Fault Elements' '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 for Attempting to Possess Prohibited Imports to Which S 233 B of the Customs Act Applies, Namely Narcotic Goods Consisting of Heroin / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury that no adverse inference could be drawn from the appellant's answers to questions 164 and 165 in the police interview." 'Whether the trial judge erred in directions on the mental element of the offence by directing that the Crown proved the charge if it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant believed the cartons contained or were likely to contain narcotic goods.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first ground failed because the appellant's answers to questions 164 and 165 would not reasonably have suggested to the jury that he refused to answer police questions, no direction was requested, rule 4 applied, and no miscarriage of justice was shown. On the second ground, although the summing up may have been technically in error by not expressly stating that belief in the likelihood of drugs was a basis from which the jury could infer intention, the real issue at trial was whether the appellant had that belief. In the circumstances, if the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant believed the cartons contained or were likely to contain narcotic goods, the...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']