Lau v R [2014] NSWCCA 179

Lau v R [2014] NSWCCA 179

No miscarriage of justice occurred regarding the interpreter, as the differences in interpretation were minor and not material. The circumstantial evidence provided ample support for the jury’s finding of knowledge regarding the drugs. Evidence of flight was properly admitted as it was capable of indicating consciousness of guilt. The sentence disparity with the co-offender was unjustifiable under the parity principle, warranting resentencing to reduce the appellant’s sentence.

Parties
Appellant: Nam Leung Lau; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision
Outcome
Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed; applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
Conviction Appeal, Sentence Appeal, Miscarriage of Justice, Interpreter Qualifications, Consciousness of Guilt, Principle of Parity, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Conviction Appeal Sentence Appeal Miscarriage of Justice Interpreter Qualifications Consciousness of Guilt Principle of Parity Admissibility of 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nam Leung Lau

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to unqualified expert interpreter
  2. 2 Whether the conviction was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether evidence of flight was properly admitted

Ratio Decidendi

No miscarriage of justice occurred regarding the interpreter, as the differences in interpretation were minor and not material. The circumstantial evidence provided ample support for the jury’s finding of knowledge regarding the drugs. Evidence of flight was properly admitted as it was capable of indicating consciousness of guilt. The sentence disparity with the co-offender was unjustifiable under the parity principle, warranting resentencing to reduce the appellant’s sentence.

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed; applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • Extension of time granted for leave to appeal against conviction
  • Leave granted to appeal against conviction