R v Thieu [2015] NSWDC 236

R v Thieu [2015] NSWDC 236

Evidence relating to periods one to four is admissible as circumstantial evidence, as its probative value is not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Evidence relating to the fifth period, namely subsequent admitted trafficking, is excluded both as circumstantial and tendency evidence because its prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value and does not satisfy the threshold for significant probative value under s 97 or substantially outweigh prejudicial effect under s 101.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Tien Thieu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Evidentiary Objections Prior to Trial
Outcome
Evidence relating to periods one to four admitted; evidence relating to fifth period excluded.
Legal Topics
Tendency Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Admissibility, Prejudicial Effect, Trafficking in Controlled Drugs
Criminal Law Evidence Tendency Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Admissibility Prejudicial Effect Trafficking in Controlled Drugs

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Tien Thieu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Evidentiary Objections Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of tendency evidence as to the accused's alleged conduct after the charged offence
  2. 2 Admissibility of circumstantial evidence regarding the accused's involvement with the drug trafficking syndicate
  3. 3 Balancing probative value against prejudicial effect under Evidence Act 1995 s 137

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence relating to periods one to four is admissible as circumstantial evidence, as its probative value is not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Evidence relating to the fifth period, namely subsequent admitted trafficking, is excluded both as circumstantial and tendency evidence because its prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value and does not satisfy the threshold for significant probative value under s 97 or substantially outweigh prejudicial effect under s 101.

Court Disposition

Evidence relating to periods one to four admitted; evidence relating to fifth period excluded.

Orders

  • Evidence pertaining to the first four periods admitted.
  • Evidence pertaining to the fifth period rejected.