R v PAEK [1999] NSWCCA 184

R v PAEK [1999] NSWCCA 184

The Evidence Act does not require a corroboration warning for accomplice evidence in this context, and the trial summing-up sufficiently warned the jury of the possibility Nguyen's evidence was unreliable, as required by law. No miscarriage of justice occurred, and the directions given by the trial judge were appropriate.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Appellant: Lenhi Paek
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Directions on Accomplice Evidence, Knowledge of Quantity in Drug Offences, Requirements of Corroboration, Summing Up by Trial Judge
Criminal Law Directions on Accomplice Evidence Knowledge of Quantity in Drug Offences Requirements of Corroboration Summing Up by Trial Judge

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Lenhi Paek

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury that the accused must know the quantity of heroin exceeded the commercial quantity
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice

Ratio Decidendi

The Evidence Act does not require a corroboration warning for accomplice evidence in this context, and the trial summing-up sufficiently warned the jury of the possibility Nguyen's evidence was unreliable, as required by law. No miscarriage of justice occurred, and the directions given by the trial judge were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Appeal dismissed