R v Lam (No 4) - [2005] VSC 278

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1505 of 2003

THE QUEEN

CUONG QUOC LAM & ORS

---

JUDGE:	Redlich J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 January 2005
DATE OF RULING	1 February 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Lam & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 278

RULING NO. 4

---

Evidence – Video recording - Circumstantial identification evidence relating to motor vehicle via surveillance camera – Video evidence of poor quality – Admissibility – Discretion to exclude – Likely exposure of any deficiencies in the evidence-whether risk of video evidence being given undue weight or leading to false or misleading conclusions.

---

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:

Application is made on behalf of Long Thanh Tran to exclude evidence taken from two video cameras outside the Salt Nightclub between 2.47 a.m. and 2.57 a.m. on 8 July 2002 which the Crown submits captures Long Tanh Tran’s vehicle being parked outside the nightclub.

Videotape evidence and the risk of over-persuasion

The admission of video evidence taken from surveillance cameras is now commonplace.[1] Video evidence is highly persuasive because of the perception as to its reliability. Jurors will regard themselves as competent to interpret video evidence. Consequently there is a danger of uncritical acceptance by the jury when video evidence is employed. A jury may be persuaded that what the prosecution claims is clearly shown on the tape and give insufficient weight to contradictory evidence in more traditional forms.[2]
[1]Kajola v Noble (1982) 75 Cr App R 149; R v Cook (1998) 130 NTR 28; Police v Dorizzi (2002) 84 SASR 403; Mundarra Doolan Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650; R v Hassan [2004] VSC 84; R v Arden [2004] VSCA 131; R v Audsley [2004] VSCA 221.
[2]Elliott, D.W., (1998), ‘Video-Tape Evidence: The Risk of Over-Persuasion’, Criminal Law Review 159.

The discretion to exclude evidence will arise when it has been shown that the reception of the evidence will be unfair to the accused. In Ruling One[3] in the present trial I considered the relationship between the scope of the general discretion to exclude evidence which would be unfair to the accused and the “Christie” discretion to exclude evidence where its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The degree of risk that the jury will attach more weight to such video evidence than is warranted in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Lam (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Lam (No 4) [2005] VSC 278
Case: [2005] VSC 278
Decision Date: 1 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lam (No 4) involved the appellant, Lam, who was facing charges related to a motor vehicle offence. The primary dispute centred around the admissibility of a video recording obtained from a surveillance camera that purported to show Lam committing the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The crux of the legal issue was whether the video evidence, which was of poor quality, could be admitted and if there was a risk that any deficiencies in the video might lead to it being given undue weight or result in false or misleading conclusions.

The court was required to consider the principles governing the admissibility of circumstantial identification evidence, particularly when the evidence was in the form of a video recording. A key consideration was whether the poor quality of the video would expose its deficiencies and potentially lead to an unjust outcome. The court also had to weigh the discretionary power to exclude evidence against the public interest in ensuring that all available evidence was considered.

The court concluded that while the video was of poor quality, it was still admissible. The judge reasoned that the deficiencies in the video were apparent and could be evaluated by the jury, thus mitigating the risk of undue weight being placed on the evidence. The court emphasised that the jury's role was to assess the reliability of the evidence and that any potential for misleading conclusions could be managed through proper instructions and consideration of all evidence. The court found that the public interest in admitting the video outweighed the risk of it being given undue weight.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the quality of evidence in the context of its overall reliability and the jury's capacity to make informed judgments.

Orders