Bingul v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 239

Bingul v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 239

The conviction appeal failed because the defence objection to identified tendency evidence was argued globally, the trial judge was not required to examine each conversation individually, and the jury directions adequately confined the permissible use of the tendency evidence and warned against reasoning from other criminality or bad character. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge properly treated later drug possession offences as relevant to leniency under s 21A(3)(e), was aware that Count 1 was made up of two supplies totalling a commercial quantity, and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive having regard to the objective seriousness, maximum penalty,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2009
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 Convictions and Sentence in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'drug Supply Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (nsw) S 21 A' 'criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) S 6']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['tendency Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'drug Supply Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (nsw) S 21 A' 'criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) S 6']

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 Convictions and Sentence in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial miscarried because tendency evidence was admitted despite alleged unfair prejudice.' 'Whether the trial judge was required to examine each intercepted conversation individually when the defence objection to tendency evidence was argued globally.' 'Whether the jury directions adequately identified the permitted and prohibited uses of tendency evidence and evidence of other criminal activity or bad character.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A(3)(e) in relation to Count 1.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider that the commercial quantity of MDMA was reached by accumulating two separate supplies.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction appeal failed because the defence objection to identified tendency evidence was argued globally, the trial judge was not required to examine each conversation individually, and the jury directions adequately confined the permissible use of the tendency evidence and warned against reasoning from other criminality or bad character. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge properly treated later drug possession offences as relevant to leniency under s 21A(3)(e), was aware that Count 1 was made up of two supplies totalling a commercial quantity, and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive having regard to the objective seriousness, maximum penalty,...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

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