R v Dinh

The case of R v Dinh involved the defendants Dinh and Le, who were jointly charged with possession of a dangerous drug, heroin. The Crown intended to rely on section 129(1)(c) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) to establish the defendants' possession of the drug. The legal issues before the court were whether the Crown should be permitted to lead similar fact evidence of Le's 2002 conviction for possessing heroin to rebut a possible defence and whether the high standard for admissibility of propensity evidence, as established in Pfennig v R, applied to the case. Additionally, Le applied for a separate trial under section 597B of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) in case the evidence of Le’s previous offending was admitted. Both defendants applied for a certificate under section 22(1)(c) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) to receive financial assistance for their appeals.

The court held that the Crown’s application to lead similar fact evidence should be dismissed as the evidence did not meet the threshold for admissibility under section 140 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The court found that the evidence did not have sufficient probative value to outweigh the prejudicial effect it would have on the defendants. However, the court allowed Dinh's application to lead evidence of Le's 2002 conviction and guilty plea to establish that she did not know or reasonably suspect that the drugs were on the premises. The court concluded that the evidence was relevant for a particular purpose and not solely for propensity purposes. The court further ordered that Le and Dinh be tried separately to prevent any potential prejudice that might arise from the admission of Le's previous conviction.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the Crown’s application to lead similar fact evidence, allow Dinh's application to adduce evidence of Le's previous conviction and guilty plea, order that Le and Dinh be tried separately, and grant the certificates under section 22(1)(c) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) to both defendants. The court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence when considering its admissibility, and the need to prevent any potential prejudice in joint trials.