R v Phuong Qui Tran - [2004] ACTSC 68

R v PHUONG QUI TRAN [2004] ACTSC 68 (19 AUGUST 2004)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by Judge alone.

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 191

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 105

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250

Atwal v Massey [1971] 3 All ER 881

Williams & Weinberg, Property Offences, 2^nd ed, 1986

Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50

No. SCC 172 of 2003

Judge: Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 19 August 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 172 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

THE QUEEN
v
PHUONG QUI TRAN

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  19 August 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

The accused is guilty of the offence that on the 22^nd day of July 2003 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, he dishonestly had stolen property in his possession namely, Westpac Bank Corporation cheques numbered 0200078, 0200082, 0200083, 0200084 and 0200086 in the name and account of K & S Gibbs, knowing or believing that property to be stolen property.

FURTHER, THE COURT FINDS THAT:

The accused is guilty of the offence that on or about the 23^rd day of July 2003 at Canberra aforesaid, he dishonestly had stolen property in his possession namely, one St George Multi Access Visa card number 4239530011754745 in the name of D K Anthoness, knowing or believing that property to be stolen property.

Phuong Qui Tran (the accused) is charged with two counts of dishonestly having stolen property in his possession and knowing or believing that property to be stolen property.

The first count involves five cheques related to a Westpac cheque account in the name of Kevin & Susan Gibbs. Those cheques were found in a handbag belonging to the wife of the accused during a police search of premises occupied by the accused and his wife on 22 July 2003. The second count relates to a multi-access Visa card in the name of David Anthoness which was found in the accused’s property at the Belconnen Remand Centre on 29 July 2003 but, which evidence in the trial indicated, came into the accused’s possession on or about 23 July 2003. I permitted an amendment to the indictment to reflect this circumstance.

The accused was arraigned on the charges on 29 June 2004 and pleaded not guilty. Before the allocation of a trial date, he had elected to be tried by judge alone.

The procedures to be followed where there is a trial by judge alone are set out in s 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT),

(1)A judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of the accused person and any such finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as a verdict of a jury.
(2)The judgment in criminal proceedings tried by a judge…

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 Phuong Qui Tran

Details

AGLC: R v Phuong Qui Tran [2004] ACTSC 68
Case: [2004] ACTSC 68
Decision Date: 19 AUGUST 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Phuong Qui Tran involved the defendant, Tran, who was on trial before the Court of Criminal Appeal in Australia. Tran had been convicted of multiple counts of drug trafficking and was appealing against the trial judge’s decision to conduct the trial without a jury. The nature of the dispute was centred around the procedural fairness of the trial, specifically questioning whether Tran's constitutional right to be tried by a jury of his peers was violated.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion under the relevant statute to conduct the trial without a jury. The court needed to determine whether there were any grounds, as provided by the statute, that justified the judge’s decision. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Tran's right to a jury trial was compromised and if there were any errors in the judge’s assessment of the circumstances that warranted a trial by judge alone.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed the trial judge’s reasons for conducting the trial without a jury, examining the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to the judge's discretion. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory criteria and had provided sufficient reasons for his decision. The evidence supported the conclusion that a jury trial would have been inappropriate due to the complexity of the case and the potential for prejudice against the defendant. Therefore, the court upheld the trial judge's decision, affirming that Tran's constitutional rights were not infringed.

Orders