R v Tuan Minh Nguyen [2003] NSWSC 1068

R v Tuan Minh Nguyen [2003] NSWSC 1068

Having regard to the cumulative frailties in L's identification, the flawed and reinforcing photographic identification procedures, the delay, L's circumstances and incentives, inconsistencies and demonstrated unreliability, and the broader Crown case implicating other possible offenders, the probative value of the identification evidence was extremely low and was outweighed by substantial unfair prejudice; warnings could not adequately cure that prejudice, so the evidence had to be excluded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder / Fresh Application During Trial Objecting to Identification Evidence
Outcome
Evidence ruled inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['identification Evidence' 'photographic Identification' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'jury Warnings']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['identification Evidence' 'photographic Identification' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'jury Warnings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Murder / Fresh Application During Trial Objecting to Identification Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge should revisit the earlier ruling admitting L's identification evidence after further material became available." "Whether L's identification evidence should be excluded because its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice." 'Whether warnings to the jury could adequately address the frailties and prejudice associated with the identification evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the cumulative frailties in L's identification, the flawed and reinforcing photographic identification procedures, the delay, L's circumstances and incentives, inconsistencies and demonstrated unreliability, and the broader Crown case implicating other possible offenders, the probative value of the identification evidence was extremely low and was outweighed by substantial unfair prejudice; warnings could not adequately cure that prejudice, so the evidence had to be excluded.

Court Disposition

Evidence ruled inadmissible.

Orders

  • ["L's identification evidence is excluded."]