R v Nguyen - [2010] HCATrans 185

[2010] HCATrans 185

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
Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 30 JULY 2010, AT 10.07 AM

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

MR P.F. TEHAN, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR. P.J. MATTHEWS, for the respondent in this matter. (instructed by Michael J Gleeson & Associates)

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr Gyorffy.

MR GYORFFY: Your Honour, the first matter that has to be dealt with is that the application was filed out of time. There is an affidavit by Marjorie De La Fuente setting out the basis of that.

HAYNE J: If time were counted from the delivery of reasons, you would be within time. If time is counted from the date of the order, which I suspect is the right time, you are well out of time.

MR GYORFFY: Yes, your Honour.

HAYNE J: Yes. Perhaps if we hear your argument more generally and then later we will hear from Mr Tehan whether this question of time alone is reason enough to meet it.

MR GYORFFY: Yes, your Honour. Essentially, your Honour, this is an application brought within the concepts that are found in paragraph 54 of this Court’s decision in R v Hillier. It is appreciated that it is a high hurdle to overcome to succeed on that ground. The essence of the ground is that what occurred before the Court of Appeal was not in accordance with law and, therefore, what is sacrosanct, namely, a conviction by a jury, has been set aside not in accordance with law and, therefore, falls within that principle.

HAYNE J: Now, presumably, it is said that it is in the interests of justice in the particular case that there be a grant of leave. One question which may bear upon that is the chronological question presented by the face page of the reasons in the court below. Am I right to understand this man stood his trial in 2007?

MR GYORFFY: Yes, your Honour.

HAYNE J: Stood for sentence just in December 2007?

MR GYORFFY: Yes.

HAYNE J: Is there any explanation for why his appeal against conviction and sentence comes on for hearing in July 2009?

MR GYORFFY: No, your Honour, other than it is fairly average in the court in Victoria for a conviction appeal to take about two years to get on.

HAYNE J: Is there anything revealed by the papers which would explain why, having been heard in July, orders were made as late as December 2009 and reasons not published until…

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 185
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Nguyen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for a criminal offence. The specific nature of the dispute and the parties involved beyond the Crown and the appellant, Nguyen, are not detailed in the provided text.

The High Court was required to determine the legal issues arising from the appellant's conviction. While the precise nature of these issues is not explicitly stated, the context of an appeal to the High Court suggests that the determination likely involved questions of law, potentially concerning the interpretation or application of criminal statutes, evidentiary rules, or principles of criminal procedure.

The judgment of Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ indicates that the Court considered the legal arguments presented. The reasoning and legal principles applied would have been directed towards resolving the identified legal issues and assessing the correctness of the lower court's decision. The specific legal principles invoked would depend on the nature of the appeal, but would likely include established doctrines of Australian criminal law and appellate review.

Orders