Nguyen v The Queen [2020] HCA 23

Nguyen v The Queen [2020] HCA 23

The prosecution's obligation to conduct a fair trial ordinarily requires it to tender recorded interviews containing both inculpatory and exculpatory statements (mixed statements) made by an accused when such evidence is admissible and relevant, unless there are demonstrated good reasons not to do so. Failure to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Van Dung Nguyen; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Mixed Statements, Prosecutorial Duty, Admissibility of Records of Interview, Fair Trial, Self Defence, Prosecutorial Discretion
Criminal Law Evidence Mixed Statements Prosecutorial Duty Admissibility of Records of Interview Fair Trial Self Defence Prosecutorial Discretion

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Van Dung Nguyen

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution is obliged to tender a mixed record of interview containing both inculpatory and exculpatory statements when such evidence is relevant and admissible
  2. 2 What constitutes the prosecutorial duty of fairness in conducting a criminal trial, particularly regarding mixed statements

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution's obligation to conduct a fair trial ordinarily requires it to tender recorded interviews containing both inculpatory and exculpatory statements (mixed statements) made by an accused when such evidence is admissible and relevant, unless there are demonstrated good reasons not to do so. Failure to tender such evidence for purely tactical reasons aimed at disadvantaging the accused does not accord with the prosecutorial duty of fairness and can result in an unfair trial and miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the answer given on 29 May 2019 by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to Question 2 of the questions referred to that Court
  • In lieu thereof order that the answer to that question be 'Yes'