Regina v Heeng UNG [2000] NSWCCA 195

Regina v Heeng UNG [2000] NSWCCA 195

The challenged statement was correctly admitted because it was not hearsay when used as evidence bearing on Mrs Vo's knowledge and the appellant's knowledge, and in any event was admissible under s60 of the Evidence Act 1995 and as part of the res gestae. Mrs Vo's knowledge was relevant to the alleged common enterprise and to proof of the appellant's knowledge. No objection or request for a warning was made at trial, the trial judge's directions on circumstantial evidence were sufficient, and no error of fact or law was shown in the sentencing exercise for a very serious heroin importation involving about 54.504 kilograms of pure heroin.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['importation of Heroin' 'knowingly Concerned in Importation' 'hearsay' 'previous Representations' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'warnings About Co Offender Evidence' 'severity of Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['importation of Heroin' 'knowingly Concerned in Importation' 'hearsay' 'previous Representations' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'warnings About Co Offender Evidence' 'severity of Sentence']

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 / Judgment of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of Mrs Vo saying to the appellant, "Too many, hey" and "Hey, hey, you don\'t know which one, hey" was inadmissible hearsay or otherwise inadmissible under the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether the trial judge erred in summing up on circumstantial evidence or by failing to warn the jury about the use of evidence concerning Mrs Vo's knowledge and conduct." 'Whether the sentence of 16½ years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years was too severe.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged statement was correctly admitted because it was not hearsay when used as evidence bearing on Mrs Vo's knowledge and the appellant's knowledge, and in any event was admissible under s60 of the Evidence Act 1995 and as part of the res gestae. Mrs Vo's knowledge was relevant to the alleged common enterprise and to proof of the appellant's knowledge. No objection or request for a warning was made at trial, the trial judge's directions on circumstantial evidence were sufficient, and no error of fact or law was shown in the sentencing exercise for a very serious heroin importation involving about 54.504 kilograms of pure heroin.

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.']