NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 112 A Crim R 344
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION : Regina v Heeng UNG [2000] NSWCCA 195 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60461/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 18/02/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 May 2000
PARTIES : Regina v Heeng UNG JUDGMENT OF : Ireland J at 1; Hulme J at 2-5; Smart AJ at 6-72
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0901 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Solomon DCJ OFFICER :
G.P. Craddock (on conviction only) - Appellant COUNSEL : In person (sentence) R.F. Sutherland - Crown SOLICITORS : Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales - Appellant Commonwealth D P P - Crown CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law - Admissibility of evidence of knowledge of co-offender and offender - statements made out of Court - whether hearsay - purpose for which evidence admitted - circumstantial evidence directions - directions as to use of co-offender's evidence - no request for warning - sentence not excessive. LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 Walton v The Queen (1988-1989) 166 CLR 283 R v Chin (1985) 69 ALR 1 Lee v The Queen (1998-1999) 195 CLR 594 CASES CITED: R v Sandford (1994) 72 ACrimR 160 El Karhani (1991) 51 ACrimR 123 Lee Vanit v R (1997) 190 CLR 378 R v Olbrich (1999) 73 ALJR 1550 DECISION : Appeal against conviction dismissed.; Leave to appeal against sentence granted.; Appeal against sentence dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60461/98 IRELAND J HULME J SMART AJ Monday, 29 May, 2000 REGINA v Heeng UNG
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate