R v Nguyen - [2021] NSWDC 332

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nguyen [2021] NSWDC 332
Hearing dates: 11 June 2021
Date of orders: 11 June 2021
Decision date: 11 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Coleman SC DCJ
Decision:
I make orders as follows:
1. The jury is to be provided with copies of the transcript of counsels’ closing addresses and my summing‑up.

Catchwords:
Criminal Practice & Procedure – Jury Act 1977 (NSW) s 55 – Supply of Transcripts to a Jury – Discretion of a Trial Judge to Provide a Jury with Transcript of Closing Addresses and Summing‑Up – Trial not lengthy or complex – Specific Request from the Jury Received via a Jury Note

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW) s 55

Cases Cited:
R v Bartle [2003] NSWCCA 329
R v Medich (No 24) [2017] NSWSC 293
R v Quami(No 66) [2016] NSWSC 1403
R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA
R v Taousanis [1999] NSWSC 107
Williams v R [1982] Tas R 266

Texts Cited:
R Howie and P Johnson, LexisNexis, Criminal Practice and Procedure

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Minh Tung Nguyen (Accused)
Representation:
Ms K James, Solicitor Advocate (Crown)

Mr T Edwards of Counsel (Minh Tung Nguyen)

Ms J DiGugliemo, Solicitor (Crown)
Mr P Mitchell, Solicitor (Minh Tung Nguyen)

File Number(s): 2018/00226583
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment (Ex tempore)

At about 10:30am on 10 June 2021, the jury retired in this matter to deliberate on its verdicts. This followed the closing addresses of counsel, which concluded on 9 June 2021, and my summing‑up, which took place in the afternoon of 9 June 2021 and the morning of 10 June 2021.
Late in the afternoon of 10 June 2021, I received a note from the jury. The note was marked MFI 14 and reads as follows:

"Request for transcript from closing arguments and closing address and judge's summing‑up".

On receipt of the note, I reconvened the Court and informed the parties of the note and of its contents. I also informed the parties that, in the limited time available, I had not had time to review any relevant authorities but had reviewed the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) and the notes in the Criminal Practice and Procedure service: see R Howie and P Johnson, LexisNexis, Criminal Practice and Procedure. Having regard to the lateness in the day and the fact that the parties wished to consider the authorities and any submissions they would want to make on the question of whether the jury should have access to the transcript of counsels’ addresses and my summing‑up, and also to the fact that even if the material was to be provided to the jury, it could not have been done so that afternoon, I called the jury back into the Court and separated them for the evening. I informed them that I had received their note and I would provide an answer to them on 11 June 2021.
The parties have now had an opportunity to consider the…

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 Nguyen

Details

AGLC: R v Nguyen [2021] NSWDC 332
Case: [2021] NSWDC 332
Decision Date: 11 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nguyen involved the defendant, Nguyen, who was on trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The nature of the dispute centred on the trial judge's discretion to provide the jury with transcripts of counsels’ closing addresses and the summing-up, under section 55 of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). The trial was not particularly lengthy or complex, but a specific request from the jury, communicated via a note, prompted the legal issue of whether such transcripts should be supplied to assist the jury in their deliberations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had the discretion to provide the jury with transcripts of the closing addresses and summing-up when the trial was not notably lengthy or complex, and a specific request had been made by the jury. The court needed to consider the statutory provisions and existing case law concerning the use of transcripts by juries during their deliberations. The secondary issue was the appropriate circumstances under which such discretion should be exercised.

The court determined that the trial judge does indeed have the discretion to provide the jury with transcripts of counsels’ closing addresses and the summing-up, even if the trial is not notably lengthy or complex. This discretion is outlined in section 55 of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). The court emphasised that the decision to provide transcripts should be guided by the need to assist the jury in their deliberations and the fairness of the trial process. In this instance, the court found that the trial judge should exercise this discretion favourably, given the jury's specific request. The court concluded that providing the jury with the requested transcripts would not only aid in their understanding and recollection of the case but also uphold the principles of fairness and due process.

The court made orders that the jury would be provided with copies of the transcript of counsels’ closing addresses and the summing-up. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that juries have adequate resources to effectively deliberate and reach a just verdict.

Orders

Orders of the court

I make orders as follows:

1. The jury is to be provided with copies of the transcript of counsels’ closing addresses and my summing‑up.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Nguyen [2021] NSWDC 332
Hearing dates:	11 June 2021
Date of orders:	11 June 2021
Decision date:	11 June 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Coleman SC DCJ
Decision:	I make orders as follows: 1. The jury is to be provided with copies of the transcript of counsels’ closing addresses and my summing‑up.
Catchwords:	Criminal Practice & Procedure – Jury Act 1977 (NSW) s 55 – Supply of Transcripts to a Jury – Discretion of a Trial Judge to Provide a Jury with Transcript of Closing Addresses and Summing‑Up – Trial not lengthy or complex – Specific Request from the Jury Received via a Jury Note
Legislation Cited:	Jury Act 1977 (NSW) s 55
Cases Cited:	R v Bartle [2003] NSWCCA 329 R v Medich (No 24) [2017] NSWSC 293 R v Quami(No 66) [2016] NSWSC 1403 R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA R v Taousanis [1999] NSWSC 107 Williams v R [1982] Tas R 266
Texts Cited:	R Howie and P Johnson, LexisNexis, Criminal Practice and Procedure
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Minh Tung Nguyen (Accused)
Representation:	Ms K James, Solicitor Advocate (Crown) Mr T Edwards of Counsel (Minh Tung Nguyen) Ms J DiGugliemo, Solicitor (Crown) Mr P Mitchell, Solicitor (Minh Tung Nguyen)
File Number(s):	2018/00226583
Publication restriction:	N/A