R v Tan Phuong LE (No 2) [2010] NSWDC 21

R v Tan Phuong LE (No 2) [2010] NSWDC 21

The evidence is admissible because it was made as part of the common purpose to import methylamphetamine, and there is no risk of unfair prejudice justifying exclusion; however, the jury will be directed not to use the statement that the accused was the 'owner' of the goods as proof of that fact.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
evidence admitted with limitation
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Document' 'common Purpose' 'evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Document' 'common Purpose' '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 / Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the translation of words in Vietnamese tendered by the Crown is admissible as evidence as part of a common purpose under s 87(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 135 and s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 due to risk of unfair prejudice']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence is admissible because it was made as part of the common purpose to import methylamphetamine, and there is no risk of unfair prejudice justifying exclusion; however, the jury will be directed not to use the statement that the accused was the 'owner' of the goods as proof of that fact.

Court Disposition

evidence admitted with limitation

Orders

  • ["The translation is admitted as evidence, subject to a direction to the jury that they cannot use the representation that the accused was the 'owner' of the goods as proving the truth of that statement."]