R v Le

Case [2002] NSWCCA 193 24 May 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 130 A Crim R 256

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v LE [2002] NSWCCA 193

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60413/01

HEARING DATE(S): 6 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 May 2002

PARTIES :

Anh Tuan LE - Appellant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Levine J at 110; Simpson J at 111

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70046/00

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : McClellan J

COUNSEL : M C Ramage QC/CJC Dowd - Appellant
P G Ingram - Crown

SOLICITORS: Voros and Associates - Appellant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: MANSLAUGHTER - S6(1) of Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s116 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - statements read to jury - warning about weight to be given to deposition evidence - dock/court identification - warning about weight to be given to identification - verdict of jury unreasonable - dangerous to allow conviction to stand

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
R v Prasard (1979) 23 SASR 161
R v Mendham & Foster (1993) 71 A Crim R 382
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Davies & Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
R v Saxon (1998) 1 VR 503
Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297
Carusi v R (1997) 92 A Crim R 52
Gordon (Bankrupt) Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Pike (No 1) (Federal Court of Australia, 1 September 1995, unreported)
Commonwealth of Australia v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389
R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131

DECISION: 1 Appeal upheld; 2 Verdict of 15 March 2001 quashed; 3 Direct a judgment and verdict of acquittal to be entered.

60413/01

SHELLER JA
LEVINE J
SIMPSON J

R v Anh Tuan LE

The appellant was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by a jury on 15 March 2001. The appellant was sentenced to a term of six years imprisonment with a non parole period of four years. He appealed against his conviction and against the severity of the sentence.

The offence with which the appellant was convicted arose from a fight between two groups of people which included the deceased, his brother and the appellant. The deceased was stabbed with a knife. The appellant did not dispute that he was involved in the fight, had taken up a knife during the fight and that he had run away afterwards. The primary issue at the trial was whether the appellant was the person present who had stabbed the deceased. The appellant could not affirm or deny that he stabbed the deceased.

The brother of the deceased was to give evidence at the trial but he…

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 Le

Details

AGLC: R v Le [2002] NSWCCA 193
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 193
Decision Date: 24 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in the Supreme Court involved an appeal by the accused, Le, against a conviction of manslaughter. The trial judge had directed the jury to consider the weight to be given to deposition evidence, the defendant's presence in the dock, and court identification evidence. The appeal concerned the adequacy of these warnings and whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable. Le argued that the jury should have been more thoroughly directed about the weight to be given to deposition evidence, the implications of the defendant's presence in the dock, and the reliability of identification evidence. He also contended that the verdict was unreasonable and dangerous to allow it to stand.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury regarding the weight to be given to deposition evidence, court identification, and the presence of the accused in the dock. It was also necessary to assess whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable. The court considered whether the warnings provided were sufficient to ensure the jury properly evaluated the evidence and whether the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence presented. The court examined whether the trial judge's directions were deficient and whether this deficiency was so significant that it rendered the verdict unreasonable.

The court found that the trial judge's directions were inadequate, particularly in relation to the weight to be given to deposition evidence and identification evidence. The court held that the warnings did not fully address the importance of these factors in the jury's deliberations. Additionally, the court found that the verdict was unreasonable and that it was dangerous to allow it to stand. The inadequate directions significantly affected the fairness of the trial, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should succeed. The court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction of manslaughter and ordered a new trial. The court determined that the trial judge's warnings to the jury were insufficient, particularly concerning deposition evidence and identification evidence. The court held that these deficiencies rendered the verdict unreasonable and dangerous to allow it to stand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders