R v Vo - [2001] NSWCCA 67

CITATION: R v Vo [2001] NSWCCA 67 revised - 23/03/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60553/00

HEARING DATE(S): 14/03/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Phuc Tan Vo

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp AJA at 40; Wood CJatCL at 1; Simpson J at 39

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/2221

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sides DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: P.G. Berman SC
Respondent: P.M. Strickland

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
D J Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeals - appeal against conviction - aggravated break and enter and commit robbery - robbery in company - evidence of fingerprints - credibility of witness - whether verdict unreasonable and supported by the evidence

DECISION: Appeal dismissed; Conviction and sentence below confirmed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60553 of 2000

IPP AJA

WOOD CJ at CL

SIMPSON J

WEDNESDAY 14 MARCH 20001

Regina v PHUC TAN VO

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated break and enter and commit a robbery and one count of robbery in company. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years for the first count and to a concurrent fixed term of imprisonment for four years in relation to the second count.

The appellant appeals against the conviction under s 6(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) on the ground that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence. Proof of finding the appellant’s fingerprints and palmprint on the doors of the house and their recency was crucial to the Crown case. The appellant argued that the prints had been left there by him on the occasion of a lawful visit to the house more than nine months before the robbery. The evidence given by the owner of the house and by her son as to the regular cleaning of the doors, in a way that would have removed the appellant’s fingerprints had they been deposited at the time he suggested, was lacking in credibility. On this basis the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant.

Held: (Appeal dismissed and conviction and sentence confirmed):

Ground 1: Verdict of the jury unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence

This is a case which depended entirely upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and particularly on matters such as demeanour, which the jury were best placed to judge. The Jury had a distinct advantage over the Court of Criminal Appeal in that they saw and heard witnesses and were able to make their own impression of them. A doubt of relevant kind was not established.

Jones v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 48 distinguished. Chamberlain v The Queen [N0. 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106; Mayberry (2000) CCA 531 applied.

ORDERS

(1) Appeal dismissed.

(2) Conviction and sentence…

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 Vo

Details

AGLC: R v Vo [2001] NSWCCA 67
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 67
Decision Date: 14 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Vo, the appellant was convicted of aggravated break and enter and commit robbery, in company. The appellant sought to appeal against his conviction, contending that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, specifically questioning the reliability of fingerprint evidence and the credibility of a key witness. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to convict was correct. This involved assessing the weight and significance of the fingerprint evidence and the testimony given by the witness, and whether any errors were made that could have led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.

The legal issues before the court centred on the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial and the correctness of the trial judge's assessment of that evidence. The appellant argued that the fingerprint evidence was not properly corroborated and that the witness's testimony was unreliable, thereby casting doubt on the safety of the verdict. The court needed to evaluate whether the trial judge had properly considered all the evidence, including the weight and reliability of the fingerprint evidence and the testimony, and whether any error was made in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to convict. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the verdict was so unsatisfactory that it ought not be allowed to stand.

In determining the appeal, the court carefully reviewed the evidence presented at trial. It noted that the fingerprint evidence, while not unimpeachable, was corroborated by other factors, including the appellant's presence at the scene and his connection to the crime. The court also assessed the credibility of the witness, finding that despite some inconsistencies, the witness's testimony was reliable and provided a coherent account that was consistent with other evidence. The court concluded that the trial judge had properly evaluated the evidence and that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders