Nguyen v The QueenCitation:[2020] HCA 23Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:30 Jun 2020Case Number:D15/2019Read more

Nguyen v The QueenCitation:[2020] HCA 23Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:30 Jun 2020Case Number:D15/2019Read more

The prosecution is not required to tender records of interview containing mixed inculpatory and exculpatory statements unless the interests of fairness and a fair trial so demand. The mere existence of mixed statements does not impose a duty to tender such evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Prosecution
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mixed Statements, Admissibility of Evidence, Prosecutorial Duty, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Evidence Law Mixed Statements Admissibility of Evidence Prosecutorial Duty Fair Trial

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Prosecution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution is obliged to tender records of interview containing mixed inculpatory and exculpatory statements
  2. 2 Whether failure to tender such evidence constitutes a miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution is not required to tender records of interview containing mixed inculpatory and exculpatory statements unless the interests of fairness and a fair trial so demand. The mere existence of mixed statements does not impose a duty to tender such evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.