NGUYEN -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 215

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 215
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:167/2001	Heard:	25 JULY 2002
Coram:	MURRAY J TEMPLEMAN J McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	25/07/02
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Conviction quashed Retrial ordered
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SANG TRUONG NGUYEN THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Trial for doing grievous bodily harm with intent Admissibility of surveillance video showing accused in fight with another member of victim's group Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	O'Leary v The King (1947) 73 CLR 566 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 Macri v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940015 Martin v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940417 McCormack v The Queen [2000] WASCA 139 Mippy v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 5019 R v Chikonga, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950089 R v Cooper (1987) 30 A Crim R 19 R v Edwards (1993) 67 A Crim R 186 R v Preston (1992) 58 A Crim R 328 Thompson v The Queen (1993) 8 WAR 387

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NGUYEN -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 215 CORAM : MURRAY J

TEMPLEMAN J

McKECHNIE J

HEARD : 25 JULY 2002 DELIVERED : 25 JULY 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 167 of 2001 BETWEEN : SANG TRUONG NGUYEN

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Trial for doing grievous bodily harm with intent - Admissibility of surveillance video showing accused in fight with another member of victim's group - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Conviction quashed
Retrial ordered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr M R Gunning

Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

Applicant : Gunning Young

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

O'Leary v The King (1947) 73 CLR 566

Case(s) also cited:

Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
Macri v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940015
Martin v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940417
McCormack v The Queen [2000] WASCA 139
Mippy v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 5019
R v Chikonga, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950089
R v Cooper (1987) 30 A Crim R 19
R v Edwards (1993) 67 A Crim R 186
R v Preston (1992) 58 A Crim R 328
Thompson v The Queen (1993) 8 WAR 387

(Page 3)

1 MURRAY J: The matter before the Court is an appeal as of right against the appellant's conviction in the District Court at Perth on 15 November 2001 of an offence that on 5 March 2000, with intent to do grievous bodily harm to one Maua Paul Aiesi,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Nguyen v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Nguyen v The Queen [2002] WASCA 215
Case: [2002] WASCA 215
Decision Date: 25 JULY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nguyen v The Queen was before the court, where the appellant was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The primary dispute centred around the admissibility of a surveillance video that captured the appellant in a fight with another member of the victim's group. The footage was pivotal to the prosecution's case, as it provided visual evidence linking the appellant to the crime scene. The court had to determine whether the video's content was relevant and admissible under the rules of evidence, particularly in light of the appellant's own conduct being captured in the video.

The legal issues revolved around the admissibility of the surveillance video, focusing on whether the video was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the jury. The court needed to assess whether the footage depicted the appellant committing the act of grievous bodily harm and if it could be used to prove the necessary intent. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the video's prejudicial effect on the jury could be mitigated through proper judicial direction.

The court held that the video's admissibility was dependent on its relevance and probative value, which was directly tied to proving the appellant's involvement in the grievous bodily harm incident. The footage was found to be highly prejudicial as it showed the appellant in a different context, potentially leading the jury to draw adverse inferences. The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of the video substantially outweighed its probative value, leading to the exclusion of the video from the evidence presented at the trial. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, as the exclusion of the video was deemed to have significantly impacted the trial's fairness and outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Conviction quashed

Retrial ordered

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.