NGUYEN -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 181
| (2002) 26 WAR 59 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 181 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:53/2001 | 14 FEBRUARY 2002 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J STEYTLER J | 27/06/02 | |
| 51 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed and application for leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | HUY DUC NGUYEN THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Evidence Identification Voice recognition Circumstantial evidence and evidence of intercepted telephone calls in Vietnamese language Admissibility of evidence of interpreter that the voice of a person identified as "Huy" was heard on nine telephone calls of which six incriminated the appellant Voice comparison based on interception of some 600 calls to and from the appellant's mobile telephone Whether direction to the jury adequate Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Drug importation Appellant knowingly concerned in importation of heroin equivalent to 134.8 grams pure Appellant also attempted to obtain possession after importation Concurrent sentences of 12 years with parole not manifestly excessive |
Legislation: | Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(c), (d) |
Case References: | Osland v The Queen [1998] HCA 316 HG v The Queen [1999] HCA 2 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 815 Aconi v The Queen [2001] WASCA 211 Barker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 127 Bulejcik v The Queen (1995) 185 CLR 375 Bulejcik v The Queen (1996) 185 CLR 375 Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486 Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 Farich v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1292 Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; (2001) 185 ALR 394 Milirrpum v Nabalco Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94 Quach v R [1999] WASCA 210 R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45 R v Brownlowe (1986) 7 NSWLR 461 R v Foster and D'Anna (1992) 59 A Crim R 14 R v Harris (No 3) [1990] VR 310 R v Leung (1999) 47 NSWLR 405 R v Leunig (1999) 47 NSWLR 405 R v Morgillo, unreported; SCt of NSW; 28 July 1992 R v Smith (1986) 7 NSWLR 444 R v Smith [1984] 1 NSWLR 462 R v Smith, Ashford and Schevella (1990) 50 A Crim R 434 R v Turner [1975] QB 834 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Roser v The Queen (2001) 24 WAR 254 Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21 Smith v The Queen (1990) 64 ALJR 588 The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NGUYEN -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 181 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- ANDERSON J
STEYTLER J
- CCA 73 of 2001
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Evidence -…
Continue reading Nguyen v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Nguyen v The Queen [2002] WASCA 181
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Nguyen v The Queen, the appellant, Nguyen, faced charges related to drug importation and attempted possession after importation. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was the admissibility of voice recognition evidence, which was used to link the appellant to intercepted telephone calls. The court had to determine if the evidence provided by the interpreter that the voice of a person identified as "Huy" was heard on nine telephone calls, six of which implicated the appellant, was admissible and reliable.
The court examined whether the direction given to the jury regarding the voice recognition evidence was adequate. It also assessed the reliability of the evidence based on the comparison of the appellant's voice with intercepted calls, which amounted to around 600 calls in total. The court considered the context of the intercepted calls, which were in Vietnamese, and the interpreter's role in identifying the voice of the appellant. The reasoning of the court included a detailed analysis of the reliability and admissibility of voice recognition evidence, the weight of circumstantial evidence, and the adequacy of the jury direction.
The High Court concluded that the evidence was admissible and the direction to the jury was adequate. The court also found that the evidence, when considered in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction. The court further determined that the sentence imposed, concurrent terms of 12 years with parole, was not manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offence. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and while leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, the appeal itself was ultimately dismissed.
The court examined whether the direction given to the jury regarding the voice recognition evidence was adequate. It also assessed the reliability of the evidence based on the comparison of the appellant's voice with intercepted calls, which amounted to around 600 calls in total. The court considered the context of the intercepted calls, which were in Vietnamese, and the interpreter's role in identifying the voice of the appellant. The reasoning of the court included a detailed analysis of the reliability and admissibility of voice recognition evidence, the weight of circumstantial evidence, and the adequacy of the jury direction.
The High Court concluded that the evidence was admissible and the direction to the jury was adequate. The court also found that the evidence, when considered in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction. The court further determined that the sentence imposed, concurrent terms of 12 years with parole, was not manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offence. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and while leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, the appeal itself was ultimately dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed and application for leave to appeal against
sentence granted but appeal dismissed
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.