R. v. Huynh
- Citation
- 2001 BCSC 1688
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 4 December 2001
- Posture
- Criminal / Application Hearing (pre Trial)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 4 December 2001
- Posture
- Criminal / Application Hearing (pre Trial)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was refused because the applicant failed to file material establishing that language issues would be significant at trial and therefore failed to justify the exceptional measure; the precedent relied upon was distinguishable as language was central in that earlier matter.
Court disposition
Application refused
Orders
- Application to install a separate microphone for the translator and to permit transcription of the translation is refused
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Crown Counsel: H.G. LoeppkyPhong T. Huynh
Accused Counsel: S. GoldbergAmounts and remedies
- Year of Decision: 2,001
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Application Hearing (pre Trial)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court should order a separate microphone to permit transcription of the translator
- 02
Whether the applicant provided sufficient material to establish that language issues would be significant at trial
- 03
Whether any order should include controls on security and use of the transcription
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Defence counsel sought a separate microphone so a transcription could be made of the translation to verify quality of the translation; relied on prior order in R. v. Ansary where such a measure was ordered with strict controls.
- Respondent
- Crown had no materials supporting the application and no foundation was filed; court record shows no evidence that language would be a significant trial issue, so the order was unnecessary.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Ansary (referred)
Court may order measures to ensure accurate translation where language issues are central to the trial
- 02
Reasons of Thackray J.
Applicant must file material establishing necessity before special courtroom measures will be granted
- 03
Practice described in R. v. Ansary (referred)
Orders permitting transcription of translation should include tight controls on security and usage of the transcription
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was refused because the applicant failed to file material establishing that language issues would be significant at trial and therefore failed to justify the exceptional measure; the precedent relied upon was distinguishable as language was central in that earlier matter.
Obiter and limits
- Reference to R. v. Ansary where an order was made after extensive preliminary motions and included tight controls on the transcription tape
- Court noted that no information before it suggested language skills would be 'at the top of the pyramid' in this trial
Court disposition
Application refused
- Application to install a separate microphone for the translator and to permit transcription of the translation is refused
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 4 December 2001
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 4 December 2001
2001BCSC1688 Citation: H.M.T.Q. v. Huynh Date: 20011204 2001 BCSC 1688 Docket: CC010684 Registry: Vancouver
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
AGAINST PHONG T. HUYNH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THACKRAY Counsel for the Crown: H.G. Loeppky Counsel for the Accused: S. Goldberg Date and Place of Hearing: November 25, 2001 Vancouver, BC
SEPARATE MICROPHONE AND TRANSCRIPTION FOR THE TRANSLATOR [1] Counsel for Mr. Huynh applied to have a separate microphone installed in the courtroom for the trial. This would be to allow a transcription to be made of the translation as provided by the translator. [2] Mr. Goldberg, when asked as to why he was making the request, informed the Court it was so as to be able to, if necessary, verify the quality of the translation. The Court asked defence counsel as to precedents for this procedure. Mr. Goldberg said that in a criminal trial on which he was defence counsel it was so ordered by Mr. Justice Davies. Mr. Goldberg did not elaborate. [3] I spoke with Mr. Justice Davies. He informed me that the case was entitled R. v. Ansary. He sat on preliminary motions for some weeks before he made the order. During that time it became apparent that the matter of language skills was "at the top of the pyramid" regarding the trial issues. He therefore made the order but he put tight controls upon the security of the transcription tape and upon its potential use. [4] In the case at bar I have no information suggesting that the matter of language will be a significant issue in the trial. Indeed, no material was filed giving a foundation for the order requested. [5] The application is refused. "A.D. Thackray, J." The Honourable Mr. Justice A.D. Thackray
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.