Zheng v R; Li v R; Pan v R [2021] NSWCCA 78

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zheng v R; Li v R; Pan v R [2021] NSWCCA 78 Hearing dates: 10 February 2021 Date of orders: 23 April 2021 Decision date: 23 April 2021 Before: Bell P at [1]; Button J at [101]; Ierace J at [103] Decision: Appeals dismissed. Catchwords: CRIME – jury – rejection of application to discharge jury and juror – where it was submitted that juror deliberately lied on oath when being examined as to whether or not he participated in an external conversation with another juror and overheard by a court officer as to the meaning of a mandarin expression used by a witness in his evidence – whether sufficient for a finding of misconduct within the meaning of s 53A(1)(c) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) that there was a possibility or reasonable apprehension that juror may have deliberately lied – whether trial judge in fact made a finding to that effect – proper construction of s 53A of the Jury Act. CRIME – jury – rejection of application to discharge jury pursuant to s 53C of the Jury Act – discretionary decision – whether House v The King error demonstrated in exercise of trial judge's discretion – where reasons given in an ex tempore judgment – proper approach to be taken by appellate court on review of such a decision. CRIME – sexual offences – aggravated sexual assault in company – meaning of "in company" – complicity – joint criminal enterprise – meaning of "common purpose" – whether verdicts of guilty were supported by the evidence. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61I, 61J Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 7(2) Jury Act 1977 (NSW) ss 22, 53A, 53B, 53C, 55DA, 68C Cases Cited: Barber v R; Zraika v R [2016] NSWCCA 125 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 Comcare v PVYW (2013) 250 CLR 246; [2013] HCA 41 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22 Dickson v R (2017) 94 NSWLR 476; [2017] NSWCCA 78 Dixon v R [2019] NSWCCA 85 FP v The Queen (2012) 224 A Crim R 82; [2012] NSWCCA 182 Gommesen v R (2012) 62 MVR 196; [2012] NSWCCA 226 Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691; [1940] HCA 20 Hoang v R (2018) 98 NSWLR 406; [2018] NSWCCA 166 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Karout v R [2019] NSWCCA 253 Markou v The Queen (2012) 221 A Crim R 48; [2012] NSWCCA 64 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17 R v ITA (2003) 139 A Crim R 340; [2003] NSWCCA 174 R v Lamb; R v Mason; R v Hill [2016] NSWCCA 135 R v Majors (1991) 27 NSWLR 624 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534 Robertson v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2017] NSWCA 180 Salameh v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 384 Smith v The Queen (2010) 79 NSWLR 675; [2010] NSWCCA 325 State Government Insurance Commission v Stevens Brothers Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 552; [1984] HCA 32 Trieu v R [2012] NSWCCA 169 Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52 Texts Cited: P Herzfeld and T Prince, Interpretation (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2020) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Sonny Zheng (Applicant) Mr Ji Li (Applicant) Mr Hoa Liang Pan (Applicant) The Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: