Alex Kwong Wong v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 53/2007
[2007] NZSC 78
ALEX KWONG WONG
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:F C Deliu for Applicant

A Markham for Crown

Judgment:24 September 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS GRANTED.
BThe approved ground of appeal is whether there were “exceptional circumstances relating to the trial” in terms of s 374(4A) justifying the decision that the trial should proceed with only 10 jurors.

REASONS

[1]       Leave is restricted to the “10 jurors” point. None of the other proposed grounds raises any arguable issue of general or public importance or any appearance of a miscarriage of justice.
[2]       We are satisfied that there is no realistic prospect that the event which gave rise to the discharge of the 11th juror, being unrelated to the trial, could have affected the verdicts, some of which were in favour of the defendants, including the applicant. The guilty verdicts do not appear unreasonable nor inconsistent with the acquittals.
[3]       We agree with the submission for the Crown that the proposed argument that the offence of money laundering is “not designed to deal with the proceeds of specific substantive crimes which are alleged” is plainly unsustainable and that there is no basis for challenging the decision against severance.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Alex Kwong Wong against a decision to allow his criminal trial to proceed with only 10 jurors. The Crown opposed the appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the trial proceeding with only 10 jurors, as permitted by section 374(4A). The court considered the nature of the juror's discharge, which was unrelated to the trial, and whether this event could have affected the verdicts. The court also examined the argument that the offence of money laundering was not designed to deal with the proceeds of specific substantive crimes.

The court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the trial proceeding with only 10 jurors. The discharge of the 11th juror, which was unrelated to the trial, did not realistically affect the verdicts. The guilty verdicts did not appear unreasonable or inconsistent with the acquittals. The court rejected the argument that the offence of money laundering was not designed to deal with the proceeds of specific substantive crimes as plainly unsustainable. The court also found no basis for challenging the decision against severance.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the specific ground of the "10 jurors" issue. The court did not find any other proposed grounds to raise any arguable issue of general or public importance or any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The court's decision was that the appeal was allowed on the specific ground of the "10 jurors" issue.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established