Nguyen v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the appellant, Mr. Nguyen, against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The central dispute concerned the prosecution's obligation to tender a recorded police interview with the appellant, which contained both inculpatory and exculpatory statements, often referred to as "mixed statements." The appellant had been charged with unlawfully causing serious harm and aggravated assault.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the prosecution's duty to present its case fully and fairly extended to tendering a recorded interview containing mixed statements made by an accused. The appellant argued that such a tender was ordinarily required unless there were good reasons not to do so, while the prosecution's discretion in such matters was questioned.

The High Court reasoned that a prosecutor's duty of fairness in a criminal trial requires the presentation of all available, cogent, and admissible evidence. The Court held that a prosecutor's decision not to tender a mixed record of interview, when that decision was tactical and disadvantaged the accused, did not accord with the prosecutorial obligation to present the Crown case fully and fairly. Such a decision could force an accused into an unfair choice between giving evidence or risking adverse speculation by the jury. The Court noted that professional practice in New South Wales and Victoria had long recognised this obligation.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the answer given by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to a specific question, and ordered that the answer to that question be "Yes," affirming that the prosecution ought to tender an accused's mixed record of interview unless there were proper grounds for not doing so.