R v Nguyen; R v Nguyen [2002] NSWSC 1254

R v Nguyen; R v Nguyen [2002] NSWSC 1254

The statutory requirement to warn the jury about the risks of identification evidence under ss 165 and 116 of the Evidence Act 1995 applies only to positive identification evidence, not to negative identification evidence. Therefore, the judicial direction about care and caution given in relation to the negative evidence of Ms Pham and Mr Loi Vo should be withdrawn.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / On Application to Withdraw a Direction After Summing Up
Outcome
Direction in relation to the negative evidence withdrawn as a matter of prudence.
Legal Topics
['identification Evidence' 'judicial Directions to Jury' 'negative Identification Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['identification Evidence' 'judicial Directions to Jury' 'negative Identification Evidence']

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 / On Application to Withdraw a Direction After Summing Up

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statutory requirement for caution in accepting identification evidence applies to negative identification evidence' "Interpretation of 'identification evidence' under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)"]

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory requirement to warn the jury about the risks of identification evidence under ss 165 and 116 of the Evidence Act 1995 applies only to positive identification evidence, not to negative identification evidence. Therefore, the judicial direction about care and caution given in relation to the negative evidence of Ms Pham and Mr Loi Vo should be withdrawn.

Court Disposition

Direction in relation to the negative evidence withdrawn as a matter of prudence.

Orders

  • ['Direction given in relation to the negative evidence of Ms Pham and Mr Loi Vo concerning the accused and in relation to the assertion made by Ms Pham concerning her identification of the person Minh withdrawn.']