R v. Nguyen ; R v Le

The respondents, Nguyen and Le, were convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales of various charges related to the supply and trafficking of heroin. The respondents appealed their convictions, arguing that the evidence presented at their trial was insufficient to support their guilty verdicts. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence presented. The court considered the nature of the evidence presented, which was largely circumstantial, and whether it was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents had supplied or trafficked in heroin. The court also considered whether there were any errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the evidence presented at the trial was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts. The court noted that while the evidence did establish a strong suspicion that the respondents were involved in an illegal business, there was no direct evidence linking them to the supply or trafficking of heroin. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury, which may have influenced their verdicts. The court held that the verdicts were unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence, and that the appeal should be allowed. The court set aside the respondents' convictions and verdicts on certain counts and entered verdicts of acquittal on those counts.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the respondents' appeal and set aside their convictions and verdicts on counts 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12, entering verdicts of acquittal on those counts instead. The court held that the evidence presented at the trial was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts, and that the trial judge's directions to the jury may have influenced their verdicts. The court found that the verdicts were unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence, and that the appeal should be allowed. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that evidence presented at a criminal trial is sufficient to support a guilty verdict, and that trial judges provide accurate and unbiased directions to the jury.