Cranney v R; Huynh v R [2017] NSWCCA 234

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cranney v R; Huynh v R [2017] NSWCCA 234 Hearing dates: 22 February 2017 Date of orders: 29 September 2017 Decision date: 29 September 2017 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Latham J at [3]; Price J at [4] Decision: (1) Christopher Phillip Cranney's appeal against conviction is dismissed. (2) Huy Bao Van Huynh's appeal against conviction is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeals against convictions – charges of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine contrary to subsections 11.5(1) and 307.11 of the Criminal Code (Cth) – whether trial judge's directions erroneous as to s 307.11(b)(ii) of the Code – Crown concession of error – whether belief required was that another person had an immediate intention to use the precursor to manufacture a controlled substance – whether evidence failed to establish a single conspiracy – whether more than one conspiracy charged – whether trial judge was required to direct the jury that the Crown must prove a single conspiracy and not two separate conspiracies – whether s 311.16(b) if the Code modifies conspiracy as fixed by the common law – s 311.16(b) considered – whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by Crown Prosecutor's submissions concerning character – whether trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury occasioned a miscarriage of justice – whether Crown Prosecutor's questions of Huynh asking if a Crown witness was lying occasioned a miscarriage of justice – whether evidence of Huynh's prior involvement with co-offenders admissible – whether evidence was tendency evidence – whether Crown Prosecutor placed his own personal opinions before the jury – whether error by trial judge in not ascertaining from the Crown Prosecutor the use to be made of an asserted lie. Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 33(2A) Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Act 2015 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1) Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 4 Criminal Code 1899 (Q.), s 679 Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.5, 11.5(1), 11.5(2), 141.1(3), 301.6, 307.11, 307.11(1), 307.11(1)(b), 307.11(b)(ii), 311.16, 311.16(b), 311.8, 311.9, 311.18 Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth), s 5F, Sch 3 Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(d) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97, 97(1), 101, 112, 137 Poisons Act 1966 (NSW), ss 4, 32(4) Cases Cited: Ahmed v R [2012] NSWCCA 260 Ansari v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 299; [2010] HCA 19 ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22 Darwiche v R (2011) 209 A Crim R 424; [2011] NSWCCA 62 Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40 Director of Public Prosecutions v Doot [1973] AC 807 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63 FP v R [2012] NSWCCA 182 G, F, S and W [1974] 1 NSWLR 31 George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] HCA 26 Gerakiteys v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 317; [1984] HCA 8 Germakian v R (2007) 70 NSWLR 467; [2007] NSWCCA 373 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590; [1989] HCA 50 Hughes v R [2015] NSWCCA 330 Jeyavel Thangavelautham v R [2016] NSWCCA 141 Kamara [1974] AC 104 KNP v R (2006) 67 NSWLR 227; [2006] NSWCCA 213 Krakouer v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 202; [1998] HCA 43 Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37 Picken v R [2007] NSWCCA 319 Popovic v R; Hristovski v R; Bubanja v R; and Koloamatangi v R [2016] NSWCCA 202 Prior v Mole [2017] HCA 10 R (Cth) v Standen [2011] NSWSC 1046 R v B (2008) 76 NSWLR 533; [2008] NSWCCA 85 R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450 R v Fuge (2001) 123 A Crim R 310; [2001] NSWCCA 208 R v Healy [2008] NSWCCA 229 R v ITA (2003) 139 A Crim R 340; [2003] NSWCCA 174 R v Leak [1969] SASR 172 R v LK; R v RK (2010) 241 CLR 177; [2010] HCA 17 R v Quach (2002) 137 A Crim R 345; [2002] NSWCCA 519 R v Rich (1998) 102 A Crim R 165 R v RK; R v LK (2008) 73 NSWLR 80; [2008] NSWCCA 38 R v Soto-Sanchez (2002) 129 A Crim R 279; [2002] NSWCCA 160 R v Trudgeon (1988) 39 A Crim R 252 Raumakita v R (2011) 210 A Crim R 326; [2011] NSWCCA 126 Sanchez v R (2009) 196 A Crim R 472; [2009] NSWCCA 171 Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 29 Sio v R (2015) 249 A Crim R 533; [2015] NSWCCA 42 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 Standen v DPP (Cth) (2011) 218 A Crim R 28; [2011] NSWCCA 187 Standen v R (2015) 253 A Crim R 301; [2015] NSWCCA 211 Stanoevski v The Queen (2001) 202 CLR 115; A Crim R 247 Tekely v R; Nagle v R [2007] NSWCCA 75 Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77; [1996] HCA 26 Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christopher Phillip Cranney (Applicant) Huy Bao Van Huynh (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms G Bashir SC, Mr C McGorey (Applicant Cranney) Mr Huynh (Self-Represented) Mr Crowley, Ms P McEniery (Respondent)