Lin v R [2019] NSWCCA 171

Lin v R [2019] NSWCCA 171

The directions to the jury conflated the different fault elements of intention and recklessness required by the Commonwealth Criminal Code for the offences charged. As a result, it is possible the jury convicted the appellant on a lesser standard (recklessness as to importation), amounting to a miscarriage of justice; the proviso was inapplicable. Leave to appeal and an extension of time should be granted, the appeal allowed, convictions quashed, and a retrial ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'importation of Border Controlled Drugs' 'jury Directions' 'fault Elements' 'misdirection' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'importation of Border Controlled Drugs' 'jury Directions' 'fault Elements' 'misdirection' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']

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 / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in directions to the jury on the fault elements of the offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code' 'Whether the misdirections constituted a miscarriage of justice' "Whether events after unloading the drugs could amount to 'dealing with the substance in connection with its importation'"]

Ratio Decidendi

The directions to the jury conflated the different fault elements of intention and recklessness required by the Commonwealth Criminal Code for the offences charged. As a result, it is possible the jury convicted the appellant on a lesser standard (recklessness as to importation), amounting to a miscarriage of justice; the proviso was inapplicable. Leave to appeal and an extension of time should be granted, the appeal allowed, convictions quashed, and a retrial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • ['Extend the time within which to appeal to 28 February 2019.' 'Grant leave to appeal, including leave pursuant to r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the convictions on the charges contained on the indictment dated 20 October 2015.' 'Order that the matter be remitted to the District Court...