R v Nguyen - [2010] HCATrans 252

[2010] HCATrans 252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M23 of 2010

B e t w e e n -
THE QUEEN
Applicant
and
DANG QUANG NGUYEN
Respondent

HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2010, AT 10.19 AM

MR T. GYORFFY: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR B.L. SONNET, for the applicant. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic))

MR M.J. CROUCHER: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR C.B. BOYCE, on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by Michael J. Gleeson & Associates Pty)

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr Gyorffy.

MR GYORFFY: Your Honour, the applicant seeks leave to set aside an order made by the Supreme Court in effect quashing convictions against the respondent in relation to attempted murder and murder. The basis of that application is the basis of the justice of this particular case as set out in Hillier, in particular, paragraph 54 of Hillier. After the previous application there are really two questions that arise for consideration here today and they are set out in paragraph 1.1 of the applicant’s submissions:

did the Court of Appeal err in law when it concluded that the verdict of the jury in respect of count 1 (murder) and count 2 (attempted murder) was “unsafe and unsatisfactory” -

Then, as a result of a notice of contention coming up the remaining matters that were left down below in relation to the charge were brought up as well, raising the two paragraphs in (b).

Your Honours, the Crown has in this application filed quite extensive summaries of argument and if I can go straight to the point. The point that the Crown makes is this. Under the principles of M v The Queen the court below was supposed to go through all the evidence and make an assessment for itself of what evidence was available for the jury to make its decision. It is contended by us that, in fact, that was not done. What occurred was that the court set out a summary of the evidence of the different witnesses, but did not resolve the tensions and inconsistencies between them.

The applicant contends that if the court had gone through the process of assessing the facts, as it ought to have, and as was indicated by this Court was necessary in cases that are based on circumstantial evidence in Hillier, then the court would have come to the conclusion that the facts as set out in paragraph 5.9 of the submissions were open to the jury.

Now, we submit that those facts are open after taking into account all of the evidence that went before the jury and the jury exercising its judgment on what parts of the evidence of individual witnesses it would accept and making…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Nguyen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] HCATrans 252
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Mr. Nguyen, against his conviction for a number of offences, including aggravated robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The applicant's conviction arose from an incident where he and an accomplice robbed a convenience store, during which the accomplice assaulted the store owner. The central dispute on appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the applicant, specifically a confession made to police.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant's confession was admissible in evidence, given the circumstances under which it was obtained. This involved an examination of the applicant's mental state at the time of the interview and whether he was capable of understanding the caution administered by the police. The court was required to determine if the confession was made voluntarily and if its admission would be unfair to the applicant, thereby necessitating its exclusion under the common law.

The High Court ultimately held that the confession was inadmissible. Their Honours reasoned that the applicant suffered from a significant intellectual disability, which rendered him unable to comprehend the caution given by the police. Consequently, the confession could not be considered voluntary. Furthermore, the court found that admitting the confession would be unfair to the applicant, as it was obtained in circumstances where his vulnerability was not adequately appreciated or addressed by the interviewing officers. The court therefore allowed the appeal.

Orders