Nguyen v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the prosecution against a decision of the Court of Appeal which had favoured Nguyen. Nguyen sought to uphold the Court of Appeal's orders, arguing that his appeal to that court should have been allowed on the ground of a misdirection to the jury by the trial judge. This misdirection concerned the failure to direct the jury to consider whether, if Bill Ho was found guilty of murder, Nguyen and another party might be guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to leave manslaughter as an available verdict for Nguyen, even if Bill Ho was found guilty of murder. This question arose in the context of the evidence presented at trial, which suggested that Nguyen was aware that Bill Ho had produced and manipulated a firearm in a threatening manner before a shooting occurred.

The High Court reasoned that if Nguyen was a party to an agreement, or had contemplated or provided assistance directed towards a lesser assault than one intended to kill, then it would have been open to the jury to conclude that, despite not being guilty of attempted murder, a verdict of manslaughter should be returned on the murder charge. The Court found that the trial judge's directions did not allow for this possibility, constituting a wrong decision on a question of law. Consequently, the High Court ordered that Nguyen should have special leave to cross-appeal, his cross-appeal be allowed, his convictions on both counts be quashed, and a new trial be had.