The trial
The Crown case
13To a very significant extent, the Crown case was proved by the admission into evidence of a series of recordings of telephone conversations (Exhibits A and B) that had been lawfully intercepted, recorded and transcribed. The appellant was a party to most, but not all, of these conversations. Some were in the Mandarin language; others in the Shanghainese language, and others in English. Those conversations that were in the Mandarin and Shanghainese languages were translated by an accredited interpreter, Ms Hai Ou (Helen) Wang. A further form of "translation" was provided by the officer in charge of the investigation, Detective Senior Constable Zimmer, who gave evidence, accepted as being expert evidence, of the "argot" of drug dealing, and linguistic practices of drug criminals. This evidence of Detective Zimmer could therefore be said to be a further interpretation of the language (after translation to English) used in the conversations.
14The transcript of the trial proceedings shows that all of the tape recordings (including those in the Chinese languages) were played to the jury, and the jury were provided, expressly by way of aide memoir, with the transcripts of the tape recordings. It was pointed out to them, in the usual fashion, that the tape recordings were the evidence, the transcripts were secondary; and it was also (realistically) pointed out to them that, where the conversations were in one of the Chinese languages, the primacy of the recordings was of little relevance and they were entitled to rely on the transcripts of the conversations as translated.
15In all, the recordings of 39 different telephone conversations were before the jury, numbered, for convenience of reference, 1-39, in chronological order. It was not disputed that the appellant had been a party to 34 of the 39 calls. Of these, the other party to the conversation was, on 14 occasions, Zhang; on 11 occasions the other party was identified as "Hokeo"; on 4 occasions the other party was identified as "Sam"; and on 4 occasions the other party was said to be "an unknown male". The conversations to which the appellant was not a party involved Zhang, Sam, and an unknown male (or unknown males).
16Nine of the conversations took place on or after 27 June 2005, thus post dating the last date mentioned in the indictment as the date on which the offences were alleged to have been committed.
17The transcripts of the conversations disclose many, many references, in one form or another, to money, including to specific amounts of dollars, for example, $500, $700, $1200. In a number of calls, there are requests to borrow money, in the amounts I have just mentioned. There are also references to meetings. There are references to the use of mobile telephones.
18One such conversation (at 3.32pm on 10 June 2005 (Call 6)) can here be mentioned. The conversation was in Mandarin. The transcript of the call shows that Zhang telephoned the appellant, saying that "Hao Ki" (which, I presume, is a different spelling of "Hokeo") did not need to borrow money so he would not see the appellant that day. The appellant asked:
"Why you let him ring me so late? ... Why you use this phone ringing me? ... Which phone are you using?"
Zhang replied that he had no idea; the appellant asked what handset he was holding to which Zhang again replied that he had no idea. Zhang then gave four digits of the number he was using as "8883". Zhang said that he had not made the call; the appellant asked:
"Why you let him use your phone ringing me?"
This was followed by a background sound of "fucking ... fucking ..." which was itself followed by the appellant saying:
"You fucking, fucking you son of bitch! Go dead, you fucking stupid son of bitch, you bloody unteachable!"
19For a different reason, the telephone calls numbered 26 and 30 may also here be noted. The conversation recorded in call number 26 commenced at 11.31pm on 25 June 2005 and was in Shanghainese. The appellant is recorded speaking to an "unknown male", and asking the unknown male to lend him "2000 dollars". The two organised to meet at about midday the following day, 26 June. The unknown male asked the appellant to "give me that stuff". Calls 27, 28 and 29 were also said to relate to this transaction, but need not here be quoted. The conversation recorded in call number 30 took place at 8.49pm on 26 June (the last day of the range of dates of the second offence alleged, and the date on which the third was alleged to have been committed), in Shanghainese. The transcript shows that the appellant telephoned an unknown male, and asked who counted "the 2000 dollars". He is then recorded as asking:
"Didn't you take $2000? Who counted ...?"
to which the unknown male replied:
"I did."
The transcript then attributes to the appellant the following:
"One of the issues ... they are very fragmented ... all in half pieces, very crushed ..." [the word "crushed" has been struck out, and a handwritten "broken" inserted]
The appellant is recorded as saying:
"9 are short in total ... now I ... (indecipherable) ... around 10 plus ...
...
Now after weighing the stuff is 11 ...... right? ..... which means the whole ... whole pieces .. 11 whole pieces short ....... altogether .... might be 21 .., or 22 ... I have gathered all the crushed ones ......" [again, "crushed" has been struck out and the word "broken" handwritten]
The unknown male is then recorded as saying:
"Okay, now, you give all the crushed ones back to me, put them Together, give them back to me, I will have them Exchanged ........." ["crushed" is again struck out and "broken" substituted in handwriting]
20At the commencement of proceedings on 27 March, the Crown Prosecutor told the judge that the alteration of "crushed" to "broken" was made by Ms Wang, after she had considered an alternative translation proposed on behalf of the appellant.
21The content of some of the remaining conversations will be referred to below, in the context of the appellant's explanations.
22Also in evidence (Exhibits P and Q, admitted over objection) were tape recordings and transcripts of a second series of telephone conversations to which the appellant was not a party. These were between Zhang and a man named Heng (or Henry) Zou who gave evidence in the trial. These conversations were in English, and took place between 1 and 22 July 2005.
23The first witness in the Crown case was Detective Senior Constable Matthew Zimmer, who was the officer in charge of the investigation. Detective Zimmer gave detailed evidence concerning his expertise in criminal investigation, specifically drug investigations. He had been engaged as an investigator for the State's Crime Command Drug Squad of the NSW Police Service, as part of an investigation into the manufacture of prohibited drugs. He said that he had been involved in and had led a number of overt and covert investigations targeting the production, importation and distribution of prohibited drugs in various divisions of the Police Service; in a number he had coordinated covert operations involving various law enforcement authorities, targeting persons involved in prohibited drugs of different kinds. His investigations had included the use of physical and electronic surveillance, undercover police operatives and other methods. He said that he had monitored thousands of recorded conversations relating to the manufacture and distribution of prohibited drugs and was therefore familiar with the terms and procedures used by persons involved in the manufacture and supply of prohibited drugs and the methods they used to avoid detection. He gave specific evidence about ecstasy, and the manner in which it is supplied; in particular, he said it is common for ecstasy tablets to be supplied in "number quantities" rather than by weight. In his experience ecstasy was the only drug commonly supplied in large quantities in tablet form and in number quantities. He said that, in his experience, it was not uncommon for persons involved in the supply of prohibited drugs to use two or more mobile telephones at any one time, in order to "alleviate" or hinder police investigations. He gave evidence about the nature of coded conversations which, he said, vary, but he said that codes were generally terms used to describe prohibited drugs and arrangements to facilitate the supply of prohibited drugs. He said:
"Persons who engage in coded conversations will usually attempt to disguise any drug related talk by making the conversation appear legitimate in the event that the conversation may be subject to lawful interception. The terms money, and borrowing money, are common codes used by persons involved in the supply of prohibited drugs."
He said that, because ecstasy is sold in number quantities, that was an appropriate code to use in relation to that drug.
24Objection was taken to the admissibility of Detective Zimmer's evidence. The basis of the objection was articulated in a pre-trial hearing as a challenge to the Detective's expertise. I will deal with this, and the ruling, when I come to the relevant ground of appeal.
25Having established his expertise to the satisfaction of the trial judge, Detective Zimmer answered a global question about the recorded conversations by saying that they were "consistent with" references to drug transactions. When asked what particular words were consistent, he said:
"The words money - in these discussions - conversations there is never any discussion in relation to why a person wishes to borrow money. Never any discussion in relation to paying money back. Whenever the borrowing of money is discussed, the arrangements and meeting locations in these conversations are generally conversed into guarded conversation. In my experience money does not fragment and does not divide into half pieces. Also during these previous investigations that I've been involved in I have seen this code utilised."
The penultimate sentence was a reference to what was recorded in call numbered 30 (see above).
26Detective Zimmer repeated that the conversations were "consistent with references to the prohibited drug ecstasy" and said that he based that opinion upon:
"The fact that during some of these conversations there is references to a number of - there is references to money and amounts of money and the amounts mentioned are not consistent with any other drugs, it's by weight so there's reference to quarters and ounces and halves. There is references to money which is consistent to an individual drug item and in my experience the only drug that is sold in large quantities in an individual item is ecstasy." (AB 441)
27After that evidence was given, the various tape recordings were played to the jury, accompanied by their transcripts (as, where relevant, translated).
28A good deal of evidence of the appellant's financial dealings was also given. This appears to have been uncontroversial, and, as it does not feature in any of the grounds of appeal, it can safely be passed over.
29Other evidence, relevant to the grounds of appeal, was given by Ms Wang (the interpreter), Mr Henry Zou, and Ms Tasesa Tui.
30Ms Wang's evidence concerned her translation of the recorded conversations. I will return to this when dealing with the grounds of appeal.
31Mr Zou gave the bulk of his evidence under the protection of a certificate under s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995, issued after he objected to answering questions on the ground that the answers might incriminate him. The substance of his evidence was that he was acquainted with Zhang, and that Zhang had, by arrangement and on more than one occasion, provided him with ecstasy tablets. He gave evidence that, at the commencement of the arrangement, they had agreed not to use the word "ecstasy" in telephone conversations and, instead, to use code. The code word upon which they agreed, as a substitute for "ecstasy", was "tuition"; a reference to a specified number of hours of tuition would be a reference to that number of ecstasy tablets.
32On one occasion in the company of Ryan McPherson-Fenn and Richard King, Zou met Zhang at Canterbury Station. Zhang supplied him with 18 ecstasy tablets, for which he paid $300 or $400. On a subsequent occasion (the date of which he did not give) he again arranged to meet Zhang at Canterbury Station, but was unable to attend. He arranged for McPherson-Fenn to attend in his place.
33Zou identified Exhibits P and Q as tape recordings and transcripts of conversations he had had with Zhang. The conversations contain many references to "tuition", often accompanied by a reference to a number of hours. There are also many references to arranged meetings.
34One of the calls (numbered 7, of 15 July) he identified as the call arranging the first meeting at Canterbury Station, and for the purpose of arranging for the supply to him by Zhang of the 18 ecstasy tablets. Another (call 8, of 22 July) he identified as arranging the second meeting at Canterbury Station, for the supply to him of 6 ecstasy tablets. This was the meeting that he was unable to attend, and at which McPherson-Fenn stood in for him.
35The transcripts of these calls contain, respectively, references to 18 hours and 6 hours of "tuition".
36Ms Tui had herself been charged with and pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying ecstasy tablets. She was arrested on 23 August 2005 (the same day as the appellant). At that time she was in possession of 245 ecstasy tablets. Some of the tablets were stamped with a "bird logo". Others were stamped with a "dolphin logo". The second count to which she pleaded guilty was of actual supply of 50 tablets to a person. On sentencing, another two offences were taken into account. These were of actual supply of 50 tablets to the same person. After reduction, by reason of her pleas of guilty, of the sentences, a non-parole period of 15 months was imposed. (She did not give evidence that she had received any benefit in sentencing by reason of her agreeing to give evidence against the appellant.)
37Ms Tui said that she first met the appellant in 2001, at his home in Canterbury. His wife was present, as was Zhang. She visited the appellant there until she and her husband (Mr He) moved to an apartment in Forest Road, Hurstville. It was the appellant who made the arrangements for Ms Tui and Mr He to move into the apartment, and who, with Mr He, paid the rent. Shortly after that, again by the arrangement of the appellant, Ms Tui and Mr He moved into another apartment (apartment 197) in the same building. They shared this apartment with the appellant.
38In this apartment, Ms Tui observed ecstasy tablets "on some occasions ... thousands", loose on the coffee table. Some of these were marked with a "dove logo". The appellant and Mr He supplied Ms Tui with ecstasy tablets for her own use, and for the purpose of supply to others. When she supplied others with ecstasy tablets, she paid the money to the appellant. It was the appellant who had supplied her with the ecstasy that led to the charges to which she pleaded guilty.
39Also during the time she shared the apartment with Mr He and the appellant, Ms Tui observed:
"a bundle of money five centimetres high on the glass table next to the ecstasy pills in front of [the appellant]."
40Ms Tui gave evidence that the appellant had asked her to register a mobile telephone for him, using (as identification) a "fake licence" bearing a photograph of the appellant, but in a false name. On other occasions, the appellant gave Ms Tui or Mr He money to purchase mobile telephones for him - about 10 in all. He asked her to dispose of the telephone she had been using because he feared that it was being intercepted. The appellant told Ms Tui not to call him on his telephone, and not to mention "pills" on the telephone, but to see him in person. He told her that, if she did need to speak to him on the telephone, because she wanted ecstasy, she was to say that she wanted something to eat.
41Ms Tui's evidence was vigorously contested. Objection was taken to its admission, but was overruled. It will be necessary to consider the objection in relation to the grounds of appeal.
42Detective Damien Beaufils gave evidence of events of 22 July. Police had Zhang under surveillance. They observed him meet McPherson-Fenn at Canterbury Station and saw what appeared to be an exchange of items between them. Mr McPherson-Fenn was arrested almost immediately after, in possession of 6 ecstasy tablets.
43Detective Zimmer also gave evidence of events of 23 August 2005, on which date the appellant was arrested. At about 8.00am on the morning of that day, with other police officers, he participated in the execution of a search warrant at the residential premises of the appellant (which he shared with Ms Tui and Mr He). At the time of their arrival the appellant was in bed asleep. Also present was a "Mr Wang".
44The execution of the search warrant was videotaped; the video and the transcript of what was audio-recorded were, respectively, in evidence as Exhibits E and F. During the course of the search, in answer to questions asked of him by police officers, the appellant directed the officers to where they located a small quantity of methylamphetamine, and one ecstasy tablet, which he said was for "self-use only". He said that he had about $6000 in cash, to pay "rental fees", and that Mr Wang was to travel to China three days later, and he (the appellant) had prepared some cash for him to take to his (the appellant's) mother. He directed police to where the money was contained in a wallet, concealed under a pillow. In fact, it contained $7400.
45Detective Beaufils gave evidence of the execution of the search warrant on the appellant's premises. As a result of that search, more than 20 mobile telephones, some with and some without SIM cards, were located. A number of SIM cards were located separately, some in the appellant's motor vehicle.
46After a conversation with him, Detective Zimmer arrested the appellant. Later that day, at the Hurstville Police Station and with the assistance of an interpreter, he formally interviewed the appellant. The interview was electronically recorded and transcribed. The transcript of the interview contains, inter alia , the following questions and answers:
"Q41. Our investigation focuses upon your alleged involvement in the supply of the prohibited drug ecstasy.
A. ... I don't think you have used the correct term. You mentioned the word supply. Who did I supply to?
Q42. Okay. That's - that's what I want to speak to you about ...
A. At the point of time when the police - when the police entered my room I was half asleep, half awaken and I - and I found the police was quite - not ... (indistinct) ... enough. And now I am thinking the police have to show me the search warrant.
...
Q47-48. I wish to inform you that as a result of our investigation we have intercepted a number of mobile telephone conversations ... and a number of those telephone services that were intercepted we believe belong to you.
A. Why do you say it's mine?
Q49. Okay. That's what we're alleging ...
A. Could you play it to me?
Q50. At this particular time of the investigation I do not have electronic copies to play to him. They can be made available at a later time.
A. Yeah, I would like to have a listen.
...
Q54. ... these are notes that have been recorded by a person who has listened to the phone calls and translated to English.
A. Yeah. How are you so sure that this words was spoken by me?
...
Q57. ... as a result of our investigation we believe that the person talking in some of these conversations is Mr CHEN ...
A. So do you mean that in the conversation - telephone conversation I'm, um, talking about - I was talking about supplying drugs to a party?
Q58. That's what we'll be alleging, yeah.
...
Q66. There is a phone call where you ask a male if you can borrow two thousand dollars.
...
A. Buy two thousand dollars?
...
Q68. Do you agree that you borrowed two thousand dollars?
A[69] Yes, I often borrowed money from my friends since I need to pay the rent ...
A[71] ... um, private matters and I borrow money from others. I don't want to tell."
At this stage the interview was suspended. Detective Zimmer said that the appellant's solicitor wished to speak to him. A short time later some formal questions, were asked by a senior police officer not involved in the investigation, and the interview terminated.
The defence case
47The appellant gave evidence through an interpreter. He said that he had, for many years, and before he came to Australia (in 1988) been a coin collector. He produced photocopies of various coins, four books containing coins, and various packets of coins.
48One unresponsive answer of the appellant is of some interest. He was asked:
"... in relation to the other coins you have there did you buy them in packets or individually?"
His non-responsive answer to this was:
"When it comes to coins business when we make a phone call I will say in a habitual Chinese way that can I borrow 1000 or 2000." (AB 589)
49He gave an explanation for each of the telephone conversations recorded in Exhibits A and B, to which he was a party. It is here necessary to set out some more of the content of the transcripts of the conversations, together with the appellant's explanations.
50The first three telephone calls were said to relate to count 1. Each was in Mandarin. They were in the following terms:
Call 1
51At 8.01pm on 3 June 2005 the appellant telephoned Zhang. He asked where Zhang was, and whether he was "coming back". Zhang said he had just left home. The appellant asked if he had taken any money, to which Zhang replied in the negative. The appellant said:
"didn't touch nothing?"
Zhang replied:
"No, no, didn't touch anything."
52The appellant asked what time he would be home and whether somebody called "Hequi" (again, probably the person also referred to as "Hokeo") would be coming. Zhang replied that that person was with him then but that he did not think he would be coming over later.
53The appellant's explanation for this call was transcribed as:
"Because I separate from him (sic) mother who was my ex-girlfriend in 2003. Then I moved out but my stepson was still very close to me. Then I asked him where he had gone. He said he had just left. Even though I separated from him (sic) mother the mortgage and bills were still shared equally. Then when I got there I found that there was something wrong with the $300 so I just rang him and asked him whether he had touched the money. And besides the person by the name of Hau Qu (?) [as recorded in the trial transcript] who was brought up with him because Hau Qu was a Korean and we talk about the DVD discs and I asked him to come here to pick some of them."
Call 2
54Nine minutes later, at 8.10pm on the same day, the appellant again telephoned Zhang. The following conversation took place:
"Appellant: It seems the money downstair is not correct ... the money downstairs is not correct.
Zhang: No, I didn't touch it.
Appellant: It was originally 300 dollars right? ... 4 were taken ... 4 dollars ... how come only 218 ... 18 dollars left now?
Zhang: No ... I will tell you when come back, I might have put it somewhere else.
Appellant: I need it now ... understand? I have only 218 dollars left here, where is the rest of the money?
Zhang: The rest of the money ... I have all ... but I might have ... (indecipherable) but I have all paid back ... at the time.
Appellant: That's not right then ... it totals ...
Zhang: Yesterday he took 50, I have paid back.
Appellant: What time took 50 dollars?
Zhang: You remember you had your friend at our home ... Last night ...?
...
I then called you out ...
Appellant: ... 10 dollars, another 50 dollars, that becomes 60 dollars ...?
Zhang: There is a lot more ...
Appellant: How come there is so much short?
Zhang: No, no ... I don't think ...
Appellant: It's about more than 20 dollars short now.
Zhang: Let me look into it ... Let me calculate again ...
Appellant: You think about it, we work it out when you come back home ... ok?
Zhang: Ok, fine."
55Of this call, the appellant said:
"This phone call should be the continuation of the previous phone call. When I went downstairs I found that some money was missing from $300, and actually there was only $218. Then I asked him, because he previously had mentioned to me that he took $4 at a time for four times, then he went across the street to buy Coca-Cola four times. Then I figured out he must have lent money to his friend or friends. He like lending money to someone like $20 or $50. Then I asked him to go through the account when he came back, and when he came back he found that the money he was going to lend to someone was actually in his pocket, and then we actually just went through the account and it was balanced after deducting the money he spent on Coca-Cola."
Call 3
56The third call in this series was made on 6 June 2005 at 9.34pm. The appellant telephoned Zhang. The following conversation is recorded:
"Appellant: Where are you?
Zhang: I have just left the library.
Appellant: I have put 400 dollars there, how come so much short?
Zhang: I didn't touch it. It should be more than 300 left.
Appellant: No, it is now 70, 80 short.
Zhang: ... 70, 80 ...?
Appellant: Didn't the big tall guy take 20 last time ... Ok, say, bits by bits ... make them 10 then 30, now only just over 300 dollars ... It was 400 dollars, what a hell right?
Zhang: 400 dollars ... I lent him 50 dollars, you remember?
Appellant: You lend him 50 dollars?
Zhang: NO, not today, it was on Sat. ... yes, the day before yesterday.
Appellant: Where is the money?
Zhang: Didn't he pay you back? 750 dollars ... no, 725 dollars when you were talking in your room, you remember? ... oh, ... it was on Fri. then. The 750 dollars ... 725 dollars ... when you were in ..........
Appellant: What a nonsense you are talking! I put 400 dollars there on Sat. his birthday. I put it in a good order ... the 50 dollars you took has nothing to do with it at all! I was on ... Sat ... was the birthday on Sat.?
Zhang: NO, it was on Fri. ...
Appellant: On the day of the party, before you guys came in the evening, I put 400 dollars there, I had counted.
Zhang: I talk to you when I come back.
Appellant: Talk about it when you come back ..."
57Of this call, the appellant gave the following explanation:
"After we finish the account of $300 on the last occasion, I add another $100 which made the amount to $400 because the mortgage payment and also the other bills like water charge and the electricity bills were to be paid on the 10 th . Then I said if you have got some time, just ask your mother also to take some money to pay the bills. I became aware on the night of the 6 th that some money was once again missing from the $400. That guy, well because his mother never gave him any money, and when he was a young boy I just spoil him. I gave him whatever he asked for and I was pretty relaxing to him because he become successfully involved in a law course in the university. But when I became aware that some money was missing, I have to go through the amount with him and by asking him when the money had gone, and he said the money had been lent to that person, or that person. Sometimes when he got money, he just brought some of his mates and had drinks in the room, because I had already moved out and his mother never mind his business."
58Call 6 was the conversation which I have extracted above, concerning the use of a mobile telephone, in which the appellant had expressed anger that Zhang had allowed another person access to the telephone. Of this, the appellant said:
"After I separated from my ex-girlfriend in 2003 her son still listened to what I said and I was able to control him. His mother namely my ex-girlfriend would keep making phone calls once she knew our phone number. Also her problem was that once she ring you, you can't just hang up otherwise she would become suicidal. Sometimes in order to avoid accidents from happening I had to listen to what she had to say. For instance when I was on the way to Canberra in 2003 after our separation she made a phone call to me and as a result I ran over a kangaroo and I nearly lost my own life. That's why I didn't let her know my phone number.
I am such a person who likes new model of mobile phones. When the new model comes onto the market I would purchase one, and as a result I end up having different phone numbers because I need to make monthly payment for each individual phone. Because I notice that she made a lot of phone calls, therefore I gave her one of the phone numbers which was 0404 058 883. Then I give - actually I should say that I give the phone number to my stepson, not the woman.
Just a few days after I gave that number to my stepson his mother found out that number. On that day she asked a solicitor to ring me. What happened at the time was that according to the asset settlement part of the house goes to mortgage repayment, the other half should be distributed equally between the two of us. But she just took the excuse of having to support her son, she demanded a 75% of the share ... My solicitor explained to her on numerous occasions that that was son was not the product of the lady - the relationship between the lady and myself. She then became very unreasonable by saying that her son had called me Daddy for more than ten years. That was why she was demanding 75 percent, that was why she kept ringing me and arguing with me. When I realised that she knew that number I just blamed her son why he never remembered what I said."
59The explanations for the remaining telephone conversations were in similar vein and, except for that numbered 30, do not need to be outlined.
60Call number 30, it will be recalled, was the conversation in which the appellant was recorded as saying that "they" are "very fragmented ... all in half pieces, very crushed [broken]".
61His explanation for call 26 was:
"I was in the business of trading in coins, which is somehow different from other businesses. Usually when I said can you lend me $2000 or $1000 I was referring to the Australian dollar requirements of this $2000 or $1000 coins. Because the value of these coins all depends to the different years, and the different countries that make them. So usually the value of these coins are higher than the original values of these coins, and they never the equivalent, I mean at the same value when they were coins. Sometimes even the equivalent $1000 Australian dollars, which really means a lot because they - all the differences in the years, and in their original value, that were all different ...
So in my telephone call to my friend, I ask him to bring the coin that's worth $2000 Australian dollars equivalent for then for me to have a look at first.
So I just tried to make a selection of all these coins that he brought to me and if anything that I don't like or I feel that's useless i just simply return to him and pick up the useful ones I like. Also in this call my friend ask me to give back to him for the two previous occasions when he brought some of these coins for me to select, and some ones that I don't want and want to return to him." (AB 607-608)
62The appellant's explanation for call 30 was as follows:
"So that just refer to my asking my friends to bring about the coins, equivalent of $AU2,000, and after he bought these coins to me and then I check then I find that this money for these coins were not a complete set, sometimes they just miss some coins not being a complete set. Also I told my friend that there is nine different variety were missing, nine different type of coins were missing. Can I just request for the two bags of small coins and I want to show it to the jury ... So yes, that's correct, because when my friends brought to me all these bags of coins and I check and I found some of these bags' seals become loosened, and as a result almost half of these coins contained in the bag were missing. Because at the time when I ordered for 50 of these bags and they supposed to be 39 kilos, because each bag of them have a fixed weight. Then I weighed all of these bags and they add up all together 30.5 kilos instead of 39 kilos ... I weighed them at the time and I found that they altogether weighed 30.5 kilos instead of 39 kilos. I found that there is a shortage of about 8.5 kilos, and for each one cent coin should weigh about 2.6 kilogram, milligram, yeah 2.6 milligram - gram, sorry, grams, 2.6 grams. For the two cent coin they should weigh about 5.2 grams. I ask my friend to deliver me about 100 one cent coins and 100 two cent coins, and I know that the supposed weight for a bag is 780 grams. So for a 8.5 of these bags is roughly about 11 of these bags. Because also I remember that last time, on the last delivery and there is a shortage of roughly about 10 bags of - shortage of 10 bags when I ordered about 21 or 22 bags, and I also ring my friend about this. So to my query my friend told me just wait on the next time when he come and he collect whatever I don't want and then he will settle this with me. That's it, sir." (AB 610)
The appellant was cross-examined at some length about this evidence. He identified the "unknown male", the other party to the conversation, as "James", a friend and also a coin collector (AB 655). "James" was also the "unknown male" who was party to the conversation in calls 26, 27, 28 and 29. The appellant maintained that both conversations recorded in calls 26 and 30 related to the purchase by him of Australian coins from James. He said that when he received the coins on 26 June, he expected coins to the value of $2000 Australian, but received coins to the value of only $1100. His complaint to James that "they are fragmented, all in half pieces, very broken" was a complaint that when the bags of coins arrived they were not a complete set, and that one bag had lost half of its contents because the seal was broken (AB 669).
63When asked about the reference to "fragmented" he said that he thought that the translation was wrong something he repeated from time to time.
64The appellant was then asked if knew Ms Tui. He said that he did, but only because he knew her husband, Mr He, and that he could not really communicate with her because his English was limited (but he agreed that they had lived in the same apartment). He denied that he supplied her with ecstasy and denied that he paid the rent on the apartment; he denied asking Ms Tui to purchase mobile telephones for himself.
65The appellant also said that he knew Zou, again through Mr He.