Sun v R [2023] NSWCCA 147

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sun v R [2023] NSWCCA 147 Hearing dates: 3 April 2023 Date of orders: 21 June 2023 Decision date: 21 June 2023 Before: Kirk JA at [1]; Button J at [68]; Hamill J at [86] Decision: (1) If necessary, grant leave to appeal against conviction. (2) Dismiss the appeal against conviction. (3) Grant leave to appeal against the sentence. (4) Dismiss the appeal against the sentence. Catchwords: CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Whether jury was properly constituted — 15 jurors empanelled — Jury room did not meet government requirements for 15 jurors — Ballot was conducted to remove 3 of the 15 jurors — Whether power to remove jurors under s 53B(d) Jury Act 1977 (NSW) is confined to a reason pertaining to the individual juror personally — Whether a reason affecting the ability of each and all of the jurors to perform their functions as jurors falls within s 53B(d) CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Application of proviso — Whether error is of a kind that cannot be cured because there was a failure to observe the requirements of the criminal process in a fundamental respect — Error at trial not of that kind — Applicant was tried by a representative and randomly selected jury — Each member of jury was eligible and properly summoned under the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence — Whether sentencing judge failed to take into account that the COVID-19 pandemic makes conditions of imprisonment more onerous — Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account that the applicant was suffering from a mental illness at the time of offending — Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account that the applicant was particularly vulnerable to safety in prison — Whether sentencing judge erred by punishing the applicant twice for the same conduct — Whether sentencing judge erred by punishing the applicant twice for the same conduct — Whether sentencing judge erred in his exercise of discretion in not including any of the balance of parole already served — Whether sentencing judge erred by making the order that the offender pay to the State of New South Wales a drug proceeds order Legislation Cited: Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW), s 29 Coroner's Act 2009 (NSW), ss 46-48 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 43 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 126 Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25(1), 25A Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 545(1) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 33ZF(1) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 8(b), 33, 34, 35(2), 35(5) Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 19, 19(2), 22, Pt 7A, ss 53A, 53A(1), 53B, 53B(a)-(c), 53B(d), 53C, 53C(1), 55G Jury Amendment Act 2008 (NSW), sch 1 Cases Cited: 2 Elizabeth Bay Road Pty Ltd v Owners – Strata Plan No 73943 (2014) 88 NSWLR 488; [2014] NSWCA 409 Achurch v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 141; [2014] HCA 10 Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41 Attorney-General (Cth) v Oates (1999) 198 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 35 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2018) 262 CLR 157; [2018] HCA 3 Black v R (2022) 107 NSWLR 225; [2022] NSWCCA 17 Blue Metal Industries v Dilley (1969) 117 CLR 651; [1969] HCA 23 BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster (2019) 269 CLR 574; [2019] HCA 45 CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384; [1997] HCA 2 Cody v J H Nelson Pty Ltd (1947) 74 CLR 629 at 647-649; [1947] HCA 17 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57 Fantakis v R [2023] NSWCCA 3 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503; [2012] HCA 55 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Independent Commission Against Corruption v Cunneen (2015) 256 CLR 1; [2015] HCA 14 Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; [1989] HCA 46 Johns v The Queen (1979) 141 CLR 409; [1979] HCA 33 Katsuno v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 40; [1999] HCA 50 Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v BPS Shipping (1997) 190 CLR 181; [1997] HCA 55 Maher v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 221; [1987] HCA 31 Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503; [2012] HCA 55 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Mayer (1985) 157 CLR 290; [1985] HCA 70 Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (2020) 271 CLR 495; [2020] HCA 29 Owners of Ship "Shin Kobe Maru" v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404; [1994] HCA 54 PMT Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301; [1995] HCA 36 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507; [2019] HCA 35 R v Brown; R v Tran (2004) 148 A Crim R 268; [2004] NSWCCA 324 R v Chaouk (1986) 23 A Crim R 463; [1986] VR 707 R v Dempster [1924] SASR 299 R v Hall [1971] VR 293 R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; [2005] NSWCCA 281 R v Lamb [2002] NSWSC 322 R v Petroulias (2007) 73 NSWLR 134; [2007] NSWCCA 134 R v Phan (2001) 53 NSWLR 480; [2001] NSWCCA 29 R v Reardon (2002) 186 FLR 1; [2002] NSWCCA 203 R v Richards & Bijerk [1999] NSWCCA 114 R v Short (1898) 19 LR (NSW) 385 R v Smith [1954] QWN 49 R v Sun [2021] NSWDC 515 Reg v Hambery [1977] 1 QB 924 (CA) Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page (2021) 106 NSWLR 1; [2021] NSWCA 204 The Queen v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507; [2019] HCA 35 Thompson v Duffin (2009) 105 SASR 181; [2009] SASC 270 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 Western Sydney University v Thiab [2023] NSWCA 57 Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365; [1988] HCA 6 Winsor v The Queen (1866) LR 1 QB 390 Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52 Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 15 May 2008. NSW, Law Reform Commission, Jury Selection, (September 2007). P Herzfeld and T Prince, Interpretation (2nd ed, 2020, Thomson Reuters) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Young Hoon Sun (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: K H Averre (Applicant) S Traynor (Respondent)