REGINA v. GAO [2003] NSWCCA 390

REGINA v. GAO [2003] NSWCCA 390

The appeal against conviction failed because the appellant's Cantonese speech during interview was admissible as material for voice identification and was not rendered inadmissible as an unrecorded representation or admission; the trial judge was entitled to find no impropriety and to admit Detective Lee's voice identification evidence. The sentence appeal failed because the trial judge was entitled not to distinguish the appellant's culpability from Lo's, had considered the relevant s.16A matters, and no error of law or principle or basis for a lesser sentence was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'voice Identification Evidence' 'intercepted Telephone Calls' 'admissions and Representations' 'impropriety in Police Questioning' 'commercial Quantity Heroin Importation' 'severity of Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'voice Identification Evidence' 'intercepted Telephone Calls' 'admissions and Representations' 'impropriety in Police Questioning' 'commercial Quantity Heroin Importation' '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 / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of Detective Lee identifying the appellant's voice from Cantonese speech was inadmissible because the appellant's reply during interview was a representation or admission not recorded at the time." 'Whether there was impropriety in Detective Lee speaking to the appellant in Cantonese during the interview after the appellant had declined to answer questions about the alleged offence.' "Whether the detective's voice identification opinion was admissible in circumstances involving intercepted Cantonese telephone conversations." "Whether the sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years was too severe having regard to the appellant's role compared with Lo."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction failed because the appellant's Cantonese speech during interview was admissible as material for voice identification and was not rendered inadmissible as an unrecorded representation or admission; the trial judge was entitled to find no impropriety and to admit Detective Lee's voice identification evidence. The sentence appeal failed because the trial judge was entitled not to distinguish the appellant's culpability from Lo's, had considered the relevant s.16A matters, and no error of law or principle or basis for a lesser sentence was shown.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']