Em v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 336

Em v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 336

Police were not responsible for the appellant's erroneous belief; covert recording alone does not amount to unfairness; admissions prior to p 25 of the transcript are admissible; no error in exercise of discretion under s 90; unreliability of admissions was sufficiently addressed in the trial; sentencing was within discretion considering seriousness and circumstances; no justifiable sense of grievance or breach of parity principles.

Parties
Appellant: Sophear Em; Respondent Crown: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Conviction and Sentence Appeals
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Admission of Evidence, Discretion to Exclude Admissions, Sentencing, Concurrence of Sentences, Parity in Sentencing, Reliability of Admissions
Criminal Law Evidence Admission of Evidence Discretion to Exclude Admissions Sentencing Concurrence of Sentences Parity in Sentencing Reliability of Admissions

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 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophear Em

Appellant

Regina

Respondent Crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Conviction and Sentence Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admissions made by the appellant on 15 May 2002 should have been excluded under s 90 Evidence Act for unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to warn the jury that admissions may be unreliable
  3. 3 Whether sentences for Kress offences were manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

Police were not responsible for the appellant's erroneous belief; covert recording alone does not amount to unfairness; admissions prior to p 25 of the transcript are admissible; no error in exercise of discretion under s 90; unreliability of admissions was sufficiently addressed in the trial; sentencing was within discretion considering seriousness and circumstances; no justifiable sense of grievance or breach of parity principles.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • In the conviction appeal, appeal dismissed.
  • In the sentence appeal, grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.