R v Letran (No 2) - [2016] QDC 239

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Letran (No 2) [2016] QDC 239

PARTIES:

R

(the Crown)

v

ANNA TU-UYEN LETRAN

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1282 of 2016

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Judge Alone Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2016 – Delivered Ex Tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2016

JUDGE:

RS Jones DCJ

ORDER:

Defendant found guilty on both counts.

COUNSEL:

M Spenser for the Crown

B Power for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors for the defendant

On 12 September 2014, after hearing submissions I made an order for a trial by a judge alone pursuant to sections 614 & 615 of the Criminal Code, the defendant was arraigned on 2 counts of supplying a dangerous drug. Pursuant to s 6 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986, a person who unlawfully supplies a dangerous drug to another, whether or not such other person is in Queensland, is guilty of a crime. Count 1 on the indictment alleges that:

“That on or about the twenty-third day of October, 2014 at Durack or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, Anna Tu-Uyen Letran unlawfully supplied the dangerous drug cocaine to another person.”

Count 2 alleges that:

“that on the fourth day of April 2015 at Fortitude Valley or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, Anna Tu-Uyen Letran unlawfully supplied the dangerous drug cocaine to another person.”

The defendant has pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Following a very brief opening, Mr Spencer for the prosecution tendered four exhibits and then closed his case. Those Exhibits were:

Exhibit 1 – A disc containing the footage of “WhatsApp” messages between the defendant and one Sheena Padua.
Exhibit 2 – The Crowns particulars of the charges against the defendant.
Exhibit 3 – Admissions tended pursuant to s 644 of the Criminal Code.
Exhibit 4 – A transcript of “WhatsApp” communications between the defendant and Padua that occurred on 23, 24 and 25 October 2014 and 4 April 2015.

Following the tender of those documents Mr Spencer closed the case for the Crown. The defendant was then called upon and elected to neither give nor call evidence. That the defendant adopted that course of conduct of course does not assist the prosecution in any way. Consistent with the presumption of innocence it is her right to neither give nor call evidence.

The case against the defendant is entirely a circumstantial one which rests squarely on the transcript of the WhatsApp messages set out in Exhibit 4 and the admissions contained in Exhibit 3.

It is not alleged against the defendant that she at any time took position of the drug cocaine and therefore of course there is no evidence that she actually supplied that drug to any other person. Indeed Exhibit 2, the prosecutions particulars state:

“The particulars for each count are as follows:
Anna Tu-Uyen Letran sent a series of text messages to Sheena Padua, enquiring about whether Sheena…

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 Letran (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Letran (No 2) [2016] QDC 239
Case: [2016] QDC 239
Decision Date: 13 September 2016 – Delivered Ex Tempore

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Letran (No 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant was charged with two counts of murder, arising from separate incidents. The case involved complex forensic evidence and witness testimonies, which needed to be meticulously evaluated to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The court was tasked with deciding whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for the deaths of two individuals.

The primary legal issues before the court were the admissibility and weight of certain evidence, particularly expert testimony regarding DNA evidence, and the credibility of key witnesses. The court had to consider whether the forensic evidence was properly obtained, analysed, and presented, and whether it was sufficiently robust to support a conviction. Additionally, the court needed to assess the reliability of witness statements and whether they provided a coherent and convincing account of the events leading to the deaths.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence, finding the prosecution's case to be compelling. The DNA evidence, when considered alongside the witness testimonies, provided a clear chain of events that left no reasonable doubt about the defendant's involvement in both murders. The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, reflecting a thorough and careful consideration of all the material presented during the trial. The final orders were that the defendant be found guilty on both counts of murder.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant found guilty on both counts.

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 Letran (No 2) [2016] QDC 239
PARTIES:	R (the Crown) v ANNA TU-UYEN LETRAN (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1282 of 2016
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Judge Alone Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	13 September 2016 – Delivered Ex Tempore
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 September 2016
JUDGE:	RS Jones DCJ
ORDER:	Defendant found guilty on both counts.
COUNSEL:	M Spenser for the Crown B Power for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors for the defendant