R v Nguyen

In the matter of R v Nguyen, the appellant faced a conviction by a jury in the District Court of one count of rape. The complainant's various accounts of the alleged rape contained inconsistencies, which were not contradicted by other testimony. The appellant argued that the evidence was of such poor quality that the jury could not have been satisfied to the requisite standard of the appellant's guilt, and therefore the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable.

The court had to decide whether the evidence was of such poor quality that the jury could not have been satisfied to the requisite standard of the appellant’s guilt, and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The court considered the significance of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and whether the trial judge failed to give a sufficiently clear and ample “Robinson” direction in light of these inconsistencies. The court also considered whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury in relation to the complainant’s distressed condition, which was led by the Crown as part of the narrative.

The court found that the trial judge did not give a suitable “Robinson” warning, which specified the circumstances as follows: “You will need to scrutinise the evidence of (the complainant) with great care before you could arrive at a conclusion of guilt. That is because of (the following circumstances): - the delay between the time of (each) (the) alleged incident and the time the defendant was told of the complaint, and the lack of any opportunity to prove or disprove the allegation by, for example, a timely medical examination; - the age of the complainant at the time of the alleged incident; - the difference between the accounts the complainant has given; - these other matters (identify them). You should only act on that evidence if, after considering it with that warning in mind, and all the other evidence, you are convinced of its truth and accuracy.” The court found that the trial judge’s failure to outline the actual circumstances which called for scrutiny meant that the trial judge did not lend the “unmistakeable authority of the court” to the significance of the inconsistencies. The court also found that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury in relation to the complainant’s distressed condition, which was led by the Crown as part of the narrative. The court found that there was a perceptible risk of miscarriage of justice.

The court allowed the appeal against conviction and set aside the conviction and verdict. The court ordered a new trial.