R v Lam (No 19)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1505 of 2003

THE QUEEN

CUONG CUOC LAM & ORS

---

JUDGE:	REDLICH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 January 2005 to 19 September 2005
DATE OF RULING:	19 May 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lam & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 293

RULING NO. 19

Whether facts central to any reasoning towards a conclusion of guilt should be identified for the jury – Need for general direction considered – Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Dean S.C. with Mr P. Southey	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Cuong Quoc Lam	Mr S. Grant	Michael Gleeson & Associates
For Hung Tu Van	Mr A. Jackson	Haines & Polities
For Linh Van Nguyen	Mr D. Brustman	Valos Black & Associates
For Thanh Nha Nguyen	Mr F. Gucciardo	Theo Magazis & Associates
For Long Thanh Tran	Mr G. Mullaly	Victoria Legal Aid
For Hong Bui	Mr J. Saunders	Valos Black & Associates
For Hoang Tran	Mr M. Rochford	Brendan Wilkinson

HIS HONOUR:

During the course of the discussion this morning I indicated that the view I formed when I read the outline of submissions filed on behalf of each of the accused was that none of the matters that were listed could properly be described as indispensable links in a sequential chain of reasoning, as it is referred to in Shepherd's case.[1] It is now well recognised that there may be additional facts that can be identified in the course of a trial which are facts so important to any reasoning by a jury towards a conclusion of guilt that those facts ought to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. There are circumstances in which it may be necessary to identify those facts for the jury. I indicated to counsel in the course of argument, without demur, that I did not presently think it necessary to identify any such fact, if there be any, but direct the jury that if the jury thought there were facts which were central to their reasoning towards a conclusion of guilt, then they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about such a fact before it was so used.
[1](1990) 170 CLR 573.

A lot will depend upon how the addresses of counsel are presented and my assessment of the extent to which it will be clear to the jury from the position adopted by the parties whether there are facts that can be so characterised. I will give directions which hopefully will address the issues as they ultimately crystallise in the course of the parties' closing addresses.

The jury must be told of the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in relation to the elements of the offence and those ultimate facts which relate to the basis of each accused’s alleged complicity in these offences. The ultimate fact relating to causation by each accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a matter for the jury as the triers of fact to determine what facts they consider are so important in their reasoning that they ought be established beyond reasonable doubt. A direction that such facts as they consider critical should be proved beyond reasonable doubt will achieve that objective.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lam (No 19) was brought before the High Court of Australia. The matter involved an appeal against a conviction, with the appellant challenging the adequacy of the directions given by the trial judge to the jury concerning the identification of facts essential to establishing guilt. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately on the need to identify the central facts before concluding on the guilt of the accused. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's general directions to the jury on the need to identify key facts before reaching a conclusion on guilt were sufficient, or whether more specific guidance was required. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the directions adequately conveyed the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court examined the trial judge's directions to determine if they were sufficient to ensure the jury understood the necessity of identifying central facts before concluding on guilt. The court highlighted that while general directions on the need to identify facts are important, they must also be sufficiently clear and specific to guide the jury in their deliberations. The court noted that the trial judge's directions did not explicitly require the jury to identify the central facts necessary for a conclusion of guilt, nor did they sufficiently emphasise the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the directions were inadequate as they did not ensure that the jury understood the importance of identifying key facts and applying the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt in their deliberations.

The High Court found that the trial judge's directions were insufficient and that this constituted a significant misdirection. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The court emphasised the importance of clear and specific directions to the jury on the identification of central facts and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case underscores the necessity for trial judges to provide precise and comprehensive directions to ensure that juries understand the foundational elements of criminal liability and the standard of proof required for a conviction.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established