R v Tran

[2017] SASCFC 99

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Propensity, tendency and coincidence
4. › Admissibility and relevancy
5. › Proof of system
6. › Whether trial judge correctly applied s 34P of Evidence Act 1929 (SA)
7. › Whether adequate direction as to permissible and impermissible uses of discreditable conduct evidence
8. › Whether warning against propensity reasoning required where evidence admitted to prove pattern or system
9. › Evidence Act 1929 (SA), ss 34P, 34R
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Credibility
4. › Rejection of accused's evidence
5. › Whether rejection of denial of knowledge capable of proving the converse
6. › Two mutually exclusive propositions
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal
4. › General principles
5. › Adequacy of reasons
6. › Judge sitting alone without jury
7. › Whether adequate reasons given for findings of guilt on money laundering counts
8. › Whether adequate reasons for finding money was tainted and appellant knew it was tainted
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal
4. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdicts
5. › Circumstantial case
6. › Whether verdicts unreasonable
7. › Whether evidence capable of excluding reasonable possibility that appellant did not know money was tainted

Quick Take

Where discreditable conduct evidence is admitted under s 34P(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) to prove a pattern or system of conduct (such as money laundering), the trial judge's obligation under s 34R(1) to identify impermissible uses does not necessarily extend to a specific warning against bare propensity reasoning under s 34P(1)(a), provided the permissible use is clearly identified and the mode of reasoning engaged is conceptually distinct from propensity reasoning. The obligation under s 34R(1) is dictated by the circumstances of the case and the real issues at trial. Additionally, where an accused denies knowledge and the truth lies between two mutually exclusive alternatives, rejection of the denial is capable of proving the converse.