REGINA v PHAM [2004] NSWCCA 190

REGINA v PHAM [2004] NSWCCA 190

The appeal succeeded because Phong Pham's recorded interview, although admissible only against Phong, was highly damaging to the appellant, corroborated the principal Crown witnesses against him, and was central to the jury's assessment of those witnesses in the joint trial. In the circumstances, especially after the interview was admitted and relied on in the Crown address, there was no practicable way for the jury to assess the witnesses' reliability differently as between Phong and the appellant or to disregard the interview in the appellant's case despite clear directions. The joint trial therefore miscarried and a separate trial should have been ordered. The separate ground that the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal From Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; verdict quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['joint Trial' 'separate Trials' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'inadmissible Co Offender Interview' 'jury Directions' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'witness Credibility']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['joint Trial' 'separate Trials' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'inadmissible Co Offender Interview' 'jury Directions' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'witness Credibility']

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 Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal From Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to order that the appellant be tried separately from his co-offenders.' "Whether the admission of Phong Pham's recorded interview in the joint trial caused the appellant's trial to miscarry despite directions that it not be used against him." 'Whether the jury verdict convicting the appellant was unreasonable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because Phong Pham's recorded interview, although admissible only against Phong, was highly damaging to the appellant, corroborated the principal Crown witnesses against him, and was central to the jury's assessment of those witnesses in the joint trial. In the circumstances, especially after the interview was admitted and relied on in the Crown address, there was no practicable way for the jury to assess the witnesses' reliability differently as between Phong and the appellant or to disregard the interview in the appellant's case despite clear directions. The joint trial therefore miscarried and a separate trial should have been ordered. The separate ground that the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; verdict quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Verdict quashed.' 'New trial ordered.']