R v Nguyen

Case [2006] VSCA 27


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 153 of 2004

THE QUEEN

v.

ALLAN NGUYEN

---

JUDGES:

CHERNOV, EAMES, JJ.A. and MANDIE, A.J.A.

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING:

20 February 2006

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

20 February 2006

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2006] VSCA 27

---

Criminal Law – Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence – Crown concession as to ground of appeal against conviction – Substantial miscarriage of justice – Retrial ordered.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C. Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr M.J. Croucher and
Mr T. Kassimatis
Robert Stary and Associates

THE COURT:

  1. The applicant, Allan Nguyen, applies for leave to appeal against his conviction on 13 May 2004 on count 3 on Presentment No. CO102433, namely, trafficking in a drug of dependence (heroin), between 5 October and 30 October 2001.  The applicant also seeks leave to appeal against sentence of five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months that was imposed on him on 11 June 2004.

  1. Mr Holdenson for the respondent has essentially conceded that ground 1 of the applicant's grounds in support of his application for leave to appeal against conviction has been made out;  more particularly, that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred by reason of the refusal by the trial judge to accede to the request of the jury to listen to Exhibit B, namely, recordings of a number of telephone intercepts and listening devices involving the applicant and his record of interview with the police.  It was said for the respondent that a re-trial on count 3 is warranted. 

  1. In the circumstances, the Court orders as follows:

1.        The application for leave to appeal against conviction is granted.

2.        The appeal is treated as instituted and heard instanter and is allowed.

3.The conviction sustained by the applicant in the court below is quashed and the sentence passed thereon is set aside.

4.The Court directs a new trial to be held on count 3 of the presentment numbered C0102433.

5.The applicant is remanded in custody pending a new trial without prejudice to any application for bail that may be made by him.

The Court grants to the applicant an indemnity certificate pursuant to s.14 of the Appeal Costs Act 1998 and directs that there be included in that certificate any additional costs that the applicant will pay, or will be ordered to pay, as a consequence of the order for a new trial.

(Discussion ensued.)

The Court indicates that the outline of submissions for the respondent dated 14 November 2005, which has been marked with the letter "A" and placed on the file, should be brought to the attention of the judge conducting the re-trial of this applicant.

---

Details
AGLC
R v Nguyen [2006] VSCA 27
Case
[2006] VSCA 27
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, Nguyen, who had been convicted and sentenced for an offence under the Criminal Code. The respondent sought leave to appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The Crown conceded that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice in relation to the ground of appeal against conviction, which concerned the reliability of certain witness evidence. The case was heard in the appellate court, which had to determine whether the appeal should be granted and if so, whether a retrial should be ordered.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the substantial miscarriage of justice ground of appeal against conviction warranted the grant of leave to appeal. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appeal against sentence was well-founded. The court's task was to assess the merits of the appeal and determine whether the appeal should proceed to a hearing. This involved considering the Crown's concession and the potential impact of the alleged miscarriage of justice on the outcome of the trial.

The court found that the Crown's concession regarding the substantial miscarriage of justice was sufficient to warrant the grant of leave to appeal against conviction. The court held that the reliability of the contested witness evidence was critical to the respondent's conviction and that there was a real possibility that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the evidence not been admitted or had it been differently assessed. Consequently, the court ordered a retrial to address the identified issues. The appeal against sentence was dismissed as the court determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal against conviction was granted, and a retrial was ordered. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision underscored the importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials and the court's role in ensuring justice is served.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.