THE HAI PHAN

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal against the convictions of The Hai Phan and Khanh Hoi Phan, brothers who were found guilty of cultivating and possessing cannabis for supply. The central issue in the appeal was the exclusion of certain evidence relating to Tat Thang (Andy) Nguyen, the landlord of the property where the cannabis growing operation was discovered. The appellants argued that the exclusion of this evidence was an error that impeded their ability to present a viable alternative narrative and led to a miscarriage of justice.

The key legal issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act 2006. The appellants' counsel contended that the evidence about other cannabis growing operations on properties owned by Mr Nguyen was crucial to their defence, as it suggested that the landlord and the property manager might have been involved in the operation at the Property. The Court had to determine whether the exclusion of this evidence unfairly prejudiced the appellants' ability to mount a defence and whether it resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal found that while the evidence about Mr Nguyen's other properties was relevant, its exclusion did not render the trial unfair or result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the jury was already aware of the similarity in set-ups across the properties and the proximity of the search dates. Furthermore, the jury was also exposed to evidence suggesting Mr Nguyen’s possible involvement in cannabis cultivation. The Court concluded that the appellants had sufficient means to argue that Mr Nguyen could have been involved in a wider cannabis growing operation, but this did not negate the substantial evidence against them, including fingerprint evidence and other incriminating circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals.