The Queen v Pham

The Queen prosecuted Mr. Pham in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where he was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs. Mr. Pham appealed his conviction to the High Court of Australia, arguing that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence of Mr. Pham's prior convictions, which had been admitted at trial, was unfairly prejudicial to him and therefore inadmissible under section 97 of the Uniform Evidence Law (Qld). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the probative value of the evidence, in demonstrating a propensity to traffic in dangerous drugs, was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Mr. Pham.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing Mr. Pham's conviction. The majority of the court held that the evidence of prior convictions was improperly admitted. They reasoned that while the prior convictions might have had some relevance to propensity, their prejudicial effect was substantial, particularly given the similarity of the prior offences to the offence charged. The court emphasised that the admission of such evidence should be approached with caution, and that the onus is on the prosecution to demonstrate that the probative value clearly outweighs the prejudicial effect. The court found that this onus had not been discharged in this instance.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the conviction be set aside and that a new trial be held.