BLACK CJ, WEINBERG and KENNY JJ 22 DECEMBER 2000 MELBOURNE (HEARD IN CANBERRA)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY
A 32 OF 2000
On appeal from a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN APPELLANT
AND:
VIET DUNG TRAN RESPONDENT
A 33 OF 2000
AND BETWEEN:
VIET DUNG TRAN APPELLANT
AND:
THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
BLACK CJ, WEINBERG and KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
22 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE (HEARD IN CANBERRA)
CORRIGENDUM
Amendment to the Reasons for Judgment of the Court delivered on 22 December 2000.
Paragraph 157 on page 35 the last sentence should read:
“It seems highly improbable that the appellant would have told Khoa and Binh that he intended to buy a knife when, on the Crown case, he had already done so.”
Associate
8 January 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
The Queen v Tran [2000] FCA 1888
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE – murder and intentional wounding – appeal – irregularities in relation to conduct of trial – prosecutor’s opening not supported by evidence – Crown case presented on basis of unsustainable theory – prosecutor not resiling from theory – whether miscarriage of justice.
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE – grounds of appeal – verdicts said to be “unsafe and unsatisfactory” – whether appropriate to formulate grounds in these terms – considerations governing ordering of new trial.
BLACK CJ, WEINBERG and KENNY JJ 22 DECEMBER 2000 MELBOURNE (HEARD IN CANBERRA)
IN THE…
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 Tran v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Tran v The Queen [2000] FCA 1888
Case
[2000] FCA 1888
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tran was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault. The trial judge found him guilty of all three counts and sentenced him to imprisonment. Tran appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of Tran's sexual history with the complainant, which the defence argued was inadmissible and prejudicial. The appeal court held that the trial judge did indeed err in admitting this evidence, as it was not relevant to the case and had the potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against Tran. The court found that this error was significant enough to potentially have affected the outcome of the trial. Given this, the appeal court allowed Tran's appeal against his conviction, quashed his convictions and sentence, and ordered that the matter be set down for retrial before a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal against conviction be allowed.
2. The convictions and sentence recorded against the appellant be quashed.
3. The matter be set down for retrial before a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.