R v CL Lam, Truong, Duong and VT Lam

In the case of R v CL Lam, Truong, Duong and VT Lam, the appellants were convicted of defrauding the Jupiters Casino through a planned scheme that involved corrupting a croupier. The appeal against their conviction and the application for leave to appeal against their sentences were both dismissed. The case raised several legal issues concerning the joinder of counts in the charge, the admissibility of certain identification evidence, the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the sentencing process.

The court first considered whether the Crown should have charged each dishonest bet made by the appellants separately, or whether it was appropriate to join them in a single count. The court found that the joinder was permissible under sections 408C(2)(d) and 568(3) of the Criminal Code, given that the fraud was part of a continuing process over each game session. The court also addressed the admissibility of identification evidence, which included a pre-recorded interview where the primary witness identified the appellants from photographs. The court held that the procedure, while not conventional, was not unfair and was necessary to assess the reliability of the witness's identification, particularly given their familiarity with the appellants.

Furthermore, the court examined whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on identification evidence and circumstantial evidence were adequate. The court concluded that the directions, although favourable to the Crown, did not undermine the fairness of the trial to the extent of constituting a miscarriage of justice, given the strength of the Crown's case. The court also considered the admissibility of expert opinion evidence regarding the rules and procedures of the card games, finding it appropriately categorised as an aid to the jury.

Finally, the court reviewed the sentencing, determining that the trial judge did not err in treating the appellants as part of an overall scheme that netted a considerable sum of money. The court held that the sentences of three years were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the deliberation, planning, and corruption of others involved in the criminal activity. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.