Kong v R [2024] NSWCCA 230

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Kong v R [2024] NSWCCA 230 Hearing dates: 22 November 2024 Date of orders: 13 December 2024 Decision date: 13 December 2024 Before: Hamill J at [1] N Adams J at [109] Coleman J at [125] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal on grounds (1) and (2) granted. (2) Leave to appeal on ground (3) refused. (3) Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL APPEAL – unreasonable verdict – circumstantial case – correct approach to review on appeal – armed robbery of private poker game – Texas Hold'em – whether trial judge erred in refusing to direct acquittal – relevance of trial judge's "inclination" expressed in argument that prosecution case not strong – joint criminal enterprise – where applicant alleged to be "inside man" – participation in card game a ruse – evidence that applicant entered the building with robber – Honda Jazz – analysis of prosecution's case on appeal – forensic evidence and timing of events – erroneous piecemeal approach to circumstantial evidence – unwarranted criticism of concessions made by trial counsel – whether inferences consistent with non-participation excluded beyond reasonable doubt CRIMINAL LAW – "in company" – joint criminal enterprise – proper direction to jury – where no objection to directions at trial – where directions fashioned to issues litigated at trial – sole issue whether applicant joined and participated in joint criminal enterprise – where enterprise alleged was to commit armed robbery in company – no error in circumstances of the case – leave granted but ground not sustained CRIMINAL LAW – requirements of summing up – whether trial judge failed to explain elements and legal principles – whether trial judge failed to summarise cases of the parties – no complaint at trial – no substance in ground of appeal – leave to rely on ground refused Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(2) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5A(2), 6(1) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15 Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; [1984] HCA 7 Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432; [1991] HCA 4 Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15 Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51 Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68 GBF v The Queen [2020] HCA 40; (2020) 94 ALJR 1037 Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495; [1992] HCA 56 Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29; (2023) 413 ALR 389 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; [1936] HCA 23 Mitchell v The King (2023) 276 CLR 299; [2023] HCA 5 Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; [1971] HCA 20 R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39 R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74; (1989) 44 A Crim R 404 R v Wisher (1896) 7 QLJ 52 RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3 The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13 Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657; [1983] HCA 42 Wong v R [2009] NSWCCA 101 Zheng v R; Li v R; Pan v R (2021) 104 NSWLR 668; [2021] NSWCCA 78 Zhou v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 278 Texts Cited: N/A Category: Principal judgment Parties: Deting Kong (Applicant) Rex (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: G Reynolds SC and G Stanton (Applicant) H Roberts SC and F Sullivan (Respondent)