R v Nguyen - [2005] VSCA 120

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 124 of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
SANG NGUYEN

---

JUDGES:	BATT, CHERNOV and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 April 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 May 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 120

---

Criminal Law – Conviction – Affray – Crown case that applicant deliberately lied for the purpose of avoiding responsibility for his participation – Incorrect estimates of time by applicant – Whether trial judge properly instructed jury in relation to consciousness of guilt – Possible motivations for lying omitted by trial judge in his charge – Edwards v. The Queen (1993) 178 C.L.R. 193 – Fundamental that alleged deliberate lies are identified and isolated for the jury – Reasoning process in determining applicant’s consciousness of guilt not identified for the jury – Requirement to identify lies with greater specificity - Trial judge’s failure to identify possible motivations for making untrue statements to the jury – Application allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms. R.E. Carlin	Mr. S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. M.J. Croucher	Victoria Legal Aid

BATT, J.A.:

I agree with Vincent, J.A.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

I agree, for the reasons given by Vincent, J.A., that the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be disposed of as he proposes.

VINCENT, J.A.:

The applicant was, on 1 May 2003, found guilty by a jury in the County Court on one count of affray.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction, relying upon the following grounds:

“1. The learned trial judge failed to adequately charge the jury about how a lie or lies could be used to infer guilt of the crime charged.
2.The learned trial judge failed to identify such lie or lies as constituting an admission against interest.
3.The learned trial judge failed to instruct the jury or adequately instruct the jury that such lie or lies if proved could only be taken into account if they revealed a knowledge and consciousness of the offence charged and the reason the accused said such lie or lies.
4.The learned trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury that there may be reasons other than consciousness of guilt for the telling of a lie or lies by the accused person.
5.The learned trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury as to the difference between lies going to credibility and lies which could be used to establish guilt.
6.The learned trial judge erred in saying the following to the jury in the course of his charge …
‘And it seems to me, and this is a comment by me that does not bind you, it seems to me that in the context in

which the accused man was found by members of the police force when he was arrested you ought to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the account he gave was false, and that his only reason for giving that false account was his…

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 [2005] VSCA 120
Case: [2005] VSCA 120
Decision Date: 18 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Nguyen, the defendant stood accused of engaging in an affray, with the Crown asserting that Nguyen deliberately lied to avoid accountability for his involvement. The case was adjudicated in a court of appeal, where the primary focus was on the adequacy of the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding the defendant's alleged consciousness of guilt. The defendant contested the correctness of the trial judge's charge to the jury, particularly in relation to the omission of certain possible motivations for his alleged untruthfulness and the requirement to identify specific lies with greater precision.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge had appropriately directed the jury concerning the elements of consciousness of guilt and the necessity of pinpointing the alleged lies with specificity. The court had to determine if the trial judge's instructions were sufficient to allow the jury to consider the defendant's potential motivations for lying and if the Crown's case was effectively presented to the jury for their consideration. The case referenced Edwards v The Queen, which underscored the importance of isolating and identifying deliberate lies for the jury's evaluation.

The appellate court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently instructed the jury on the specific lies made by the defendant or the possible motivations behind these falsehoods. The court emphasised that it is fundamental for the jury to be clearly guided in identifying and isolating alleged deliberate lies. The failure to do so meant that the jury's consideration of the defendant's consciousness of guilt was not properly informed. Consequently, the appellate court allowed the application, finding that the trial judge's omissions were significant enough to warrant a new trial.

Orders