R. v. Vu
- Citation
- 1999 BCCA 59
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 27 January 1999
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (narcotics Conviction) / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons / Judgment (appeal Heard and Allowed)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 27 January 1999
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (narcotics Conviction) / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons / Judgment (appeal Heard and Allowed)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal is allowed because the interpreter's incompetence at trial deprived the appellant of a fair trial, warranting setting aside the conviction.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Respondent Counsel: C. StolteHong Anh Vu
Appellant Counsel: N. Cobb03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (narcotics Conviction) / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons / Judgment (appeal Heard and Allowed)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial interpreter was competent to interpret Vietnamese English
- 02
Whether incompetent interpretation deprived the accused of a fair trial
- 03
Whether the conviction should be set aside on that ground
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant submitted the trial interpreter was hopelessly incompetent and that the inadequate interpretation rendered the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe.
- Respondent
- The Crown effectively conceded that, whether or not 'hopelessly' is the correct descriptor, the interpretation did not meet the standard required to provide the accused with a fair trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law and general Charter principles concerning fair trial rights
An accused is entitled to a fair trial; language interpretation must be competent to secure that fairness.
- 02
Court of Appeal reasoning and established appellate review principles
If interpretation at trial fails to meet the required standard and undermines fairness, the conviction must not stand.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal is allowed because the interpreter's incompetence at trial deprived the appellant of a fair trial, warranting setting aside the conviction.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside
Source and reliance status
British Columbia Court of Appeal · 27 January 1999
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.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Judgment· 27 January 1999
Citation: R. v. Vu Date: 19990127 1999 BCCA 0059 Docket: CA023283 Registry: Vancouver
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Before: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SOUTHIN January 27, 1999 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HALL THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MACKENZIE Vancouver, B.C. BETWEEN:
R E G I N A
RESPONDENT AND:
HONG ANH VU
APPELLANT N. Cobb appearing for the Appellant C. Stolte appearing for the (Crown) Respondent [1] SOUTHIN, J.A.: This is an appeal by the appellant, who was convicted of a narcotics offence. [2] The essential ground of appeal is that the interpreter at the trial, who was there to interpret from the Vietnamese language to the English language and vice versa, was hopelessly incompetent. [3] The Crown, I assume, has concluded that whether "hopelessly" is the right word or not, the interpretation was not conducted according to a standard which provided for the accused a fair trial. [4] On that footing, I would allow the appeal. [5] HALL, J.A.: I agree. [6] MACKENZIE, J.A.: I agree. "The Honourable Madam Justice Southin"
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.