R v Tan Phuong LE (No 2) [2010] NSWDC 21

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Tan Phuong LE (No 2) [2010] NSWDC 21

HEARING DATE(S): 25 February 2010

JUDGMENT DATE: 25 February 2010

JURISDICTION: District Court Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Evidence to be admitted

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - Admissibility of document - Common purpose

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995

PARTIES: The Crown Tan Phuong Le

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2008/00018555001

COUNSEL: Mr M Johnston - Crown Mr F Santisi - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions Tsambas & Co Solicitors

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Objection has been taken to the tender of a translation of some words in Vietnamese. The factual circumstances in which the document is proposed to be tendered by the Crown are apparent from the transcript and I will not take time by going over the relevance of the document.

2 The Crown says that the statement made by Mr Loc Phuoc Trieu was a representation made as part of a common purpose he had with the accused to import methylamphetamine; thus, says the Crown, is admissible under s 87(1) (c) of the Evidence Act.

3 It is clear that someone was proposing or attempting to import methylamphetamine. I have heard evidence of the finding by customs officers and, more importantly, police officers, of a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine inside three suitcases. There is substantial evidence to suggest even at this early stage that the accused was involved in that common purpose. I refer in particular to the telephone intercepts, translations of which were tendered and appear as Exhibit 5 in the trial. There is evidence that the person who has been called Phuong in those transcripts is in fact the accused. Not only does the person identified as Phuong identify himself as Phuong in the calls, but there was evidence called yesterday, I think, from a person who compared the voice on the intercepts with the voice of the accused in an interview, and that evidence was that it was the same person. So it is clearly open to me find – (in fact, if necessary, I would be able to make a finding to a higher standard) - that the accused was part of the common purpose to import the methylamphetamine.