NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: Fang v R [2010] NSWCCA 254
HEARING DATE(S): 6 September 2010
JUDGMENT DATE: 9 November 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Price J at 86; Fullerton J at 87
(1) Appeal allowed. DECISION: (2) Conviction and sentence of the appellant quashed. (3) New trial ordered.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – Possession of unlawfully imported substance – Mental elements supported only by circumstantial evidence – Whether verdict unreasonable – Whether new trial should be ordered – Whether trial judge misdirected jury concerning mental elements.
LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code (Cth) ss 5.4, 5.6, s 307.5
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
Knight v The Queen [1992] HCA 56; (1992) 175 CLR 495 CASES CITED : M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 R v Ye [2000] NSWCCA 401; (2000) 116 A Crim R 347 Rosenfeld v R [2009] NSWCCA 74
PARTIES: Shang Wen FANG (appellant) CROWN (respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2008/9318
COUNSEL: W G ROSER SC (appellant) I BOURKE (Crown)
SOLICITORS: Lloyd Truman Sadiq (appellant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/11/0561
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sorby DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 20 November 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CCA 2008/9318
HODGSON JA PRICE J FULLERTON J
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