R v. Le - [2007] QCA 259

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Le [2007] QCA 259

PARTIES:

R
v
LE, Nguyen Chi
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 69 of 2007
DC No 1168 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 August 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Mackenzie J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted of arson and attempted fraud – where during the trial the trial judge allowed the jury to have possession of the transcript of the appellant's interview with police – whether the learned trial judge erred in allowing the jury to possess the transcripts

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant made some exculpatory statements – where the learned trial judge made it clear that, even if the jury were not disposed to accept the statements as reliable, they must still take them into account in considering whether, on the totality of the evidence, they entertained a doubt as to the appellant's guilt – whether the learned trial judge erred in giving such a direction

Butera v DPP(Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180, applied
R v Tichowitsch [2006] QCA 569, CA No 280 of 2006, 22 December 2006, applied

COUNSEL:

S Nguyen for the appellant
T A Fuller for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Southside Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 22 March 2007, the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of arson, and one count of attempted fraud to the value of more than $5,000. He was sentenced to an effective term of three years imprisonment, and 22 June 2008 was fixed as his parole release date.

The appellant seeks to appeal against the convictions on the following grounds:

(a) that the learned trial judge erred in allowing the jury to have possession of the transcripts of Mr Le's interview with the police; and

(b) that the learned trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that if statements made by Mr Le that he did not light the fire raised a reasonable doubt, then they should acquit.

These grounds of appeal should be considered after first describing the case made at trial.

The case at trial

The appellant was charged with setting fire to a restaurant known as "Chi Chi's Cuisine" within Pacific Centre at Sunnybank Hills on 22 March 2005. He was also charged with attempted fraud on 19 April 2005 as a result of his claim to recover upon the fire insurance in respect of the shop.

The appellant…

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 [2007] QCA 259
Case: [2007] QCA 259
Decision Date: 10 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of arson and attempted fraud. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to have possession of the transcript of the appellant's interview with police during the trial. The appellant argued that this decision violated the common law principle which prevents juries from having access to such transcripts. The appellant further contended that the trial judge erred in giving a direction to the jury that they must consider the exculpatory statements made by the appellant, even if they did not find them reliable.

The court held that the trial judge's decision to allow the jury to have the transcript did not amount to an error that would warrant a new trial. The court reasoned that the trial judge had acted within the bounds of his discretion and did not find that such a decision undermined the fairness of the trial. The court also found that the direction given to the jury did not constitute an error, as it was consistent with the principles of criminal trial law that require the jury to consider all evidence, including exculpatory statements, in determining the guilt of the accused.

Given the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions were upheld. The court found no merit in the appellant's contentions and affirmed the decisions of the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Le [2007] QCA 259
PARTIES:	R v LE, Nguyen Chi (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 69 of 2007 DC No 1168 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 August 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 August 2007
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Mackenzie J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted of arson and attempted fraud – where during the trial the trial judge allowed the jury to have possession of the transcript of the appellant's interview with police – whether the learned trial judge erred in allowing the jury to possess the transcripts CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant made some exculpatory statements – where the learned trial judge made it clear that, even if the jury were not disposed to accept the statements as reliable, they must still take them into account in considering whether, on the totality of the evidence, they entertained a doubt as to the appellant's guilt – whether the learned trial judge erred in giving such a direction Butera v DPP(Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180, applied R v Tichowitsch [2006] QCA 569, CA No 280 of 2006, 22 December 2006, applied
COUNSEL:	S Nguyen for the appellant T A Fuller for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Southside Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent