R v Tran

The appellant Tran was convicted of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a controlled drug. A co-accused made an agreed statement of facts which included representations of Tran. The appellant sought to exclude these representations from evidence under s65 of the Evidence Act. The court had to determine whether the representations were admissible under s65(1) and, if so, whether the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect under s65(2). The court examined the legislative history and the purpose of s65, which aims to balance probative value and prejudicial effect. It concluded that the representations were admissible under s65(1) but could be excluded under s65(2) if they had substantial prejudicial effect. The court found the prejudicial effect was not substantial enough to exclude the representations. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court ordered that the appeal against sentence be heard after the appeal against conviction, with directions for the sentencing judge.