Vo v The Queen

The appellant, Vo, was convicted by a jury of importing a commercial quantity of a controlled precursor contrary to s 307 of the Criminal Code (Cth). Vo appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Court of Criminal Appeal, which comprised Mildren ACJ, Kelly and Blokland JJ. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial and whether the conviction was unsafe.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine Vo about her character, particularly in light of evidence elicited by the defence suggesting she had no prior criminal history. The Court also considered whether the prosecution could rely on a statutory presumption and whether the conviction was unsafe given that Vo's evidence was not contradicted in cross-examination. Further grounds of appeal, added by leave, concerned the failure to seek leave to cross-examine on character and the trial judge's duty to warn Vo about her privilege against self-incrimination.

The Court accepted that by eliciting evidence that Vo had no prior convictions, the defence had put her good character in issue. This meant that the prosecution was entitled to cross-examine her on matters that might suggest bad character, provided the trial judge exercised their discretion appropriately. The Court noted that the appellant had deliberately provided false addresses on incoming passenger cards to protect Centrelink payments, a fact that was explored in cross-examination. The Court found that the evidence concerning the false addresses was relevant to Vo's credibility and propensity to engage in dishonest conduct, and therefore admissible. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's directions or rulings.