R v Goo [2023] NSWDC 631

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Goo [2023] NSWDC 631 Hearing dates: 3 - 4 July 2023 Date of orders: 4 July 2023 Decision date: 04 July 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: Appeal from Local Court – Issue whether the appellant was the driver of a motor vehicle which collided with a parked vehicle, whilst driver attempting to park his vehicle next to one already parked – Appellant and two Crown witnesses are Korean – Appellant gave evidence in Local Court – Magistrate accepted evidence of the two Korean ladies but did not believe appellant's evidence – Magistrate in position of advantage over Judge, who did not see or hear the witnesses. Legislation Cited: Road Transport Act 2013 Cases Cited: Nil. Texts Cited: Nil. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crown – R (NSW) Appellant – Seoungjin Goo Representation: Counsel: Appellant – Mr Park, J. Crown – Mr Guazzo, T. File Number(s): 2021/00205325 Publication restriction: Nil. Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Local Court Jurisdiction: Criminal Date of Decision: 1 August 2022 Before: Acting Magistrate Still File Number(s): 2021/00205325

Judgment

Background 1. HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal against a conviction recorded by Acting Magistrate Still, sitting in the Local Court at Burwood on 1 August 2022. 2. The appellant was charged: "That between 10.15pm and 10.30pm on 15 October 2021 at Rhodes in this State he did drive a motor vehicle New South Wales registration DDN 56L on a road namely Shoreline Drive at Rhodes whilst there was present in his breath the high range prescribed concentration of alcohol." 1. The reading actually recorded by the breathalyser machine was 0.165 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath. 2. The sole issue tendered for the decision of the learned Magistrate was whether the appellant was the driver of the vehicle known as DDN 56L as at the time pleaded in the Court Attendance Notice. 3. There were four people involved in the relevant action. The first was a lady known as See Yeon Yuou. Her surname is the last of those three names. She also uses an English name "Chica" and for ease I will use that moniker. That lady was for most of the time in question in the company of Min Sun Baek, another Korean lady who also uses the English name Emma. I trust I shall be forgiven if I refer to her using that name. The third person involved in the action was of course the appellant Mr Goo. 4. The fourth person I do not have a name for. He has been described as the man in the suit or the man in the blue suit. Video film taken at the scene was Exhibit 3 in the Local Court. That has been displayed in this Court. The gentleman is Korean, that is proved by the evidence of the two ladies Chica and Emma, and he was much shorter than Mr Goo, younger than Mr Goo and Mr Goo has grey hair whereas the other man had black or very dark hair. The unnamed man was wearing a blue suit jacket, or it could have been a blue blazer. He is referred to by Chica as the suit man and a similar terminology was used by Emma. I shall refer to the second man as 'blue suit'.