R. v. Tran (Q.D.), (1992) 116 N.S.R.(2d) 300 (CA)

• Judge: Jones, Matthews and Freeman, JJ.A.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: September 22, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1992), 116 N.S.R.(2d) 300 (CA)

R. v. Tran (Q.D.) (1992), 116 N.S.R.(2d) 300 (CA);

  320 A.P.R. 300

MLB headnote and full text

Quoc Dung Tran (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(S.C.C. No. 02629)

Indexed As: R. v. Tran (Q.D.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Appeal Division

Jones, Matthews and Freeman, JJ.A.

September 22, 1992.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for sexual assault on the grounds that the identi­fication evidence was flawed and de­ficiencies in translation of evidence effec­tively denied him his right to be present at his trial. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 2803

Language - Assistance of an interpreter - Criminal proceedings - [See Criminal Law - Topic 127 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 127 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3137

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right to be present at trial - [See Crimi­nal Law - Topic 127 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 127

Rights of accused - To be present at trial - A Vietnamese accused was charged with sexual assault - The court-appointed translator was called as a defence witness and gave brief testimony of limited probative value - The translator translated only a summary of the examination and cross- examination - The accused did not object - There was no evidence that the accused did not understand the nature of the evidence against him - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that the accused was entitled to a full translation and not mere summaries - Translation by a witness of his own evidence was not to be encouraged - However, the procedure employed did not deprive the accused of his right to be present at trial or his right to make full answer and defence.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Quercia (1990), 41 O.A.C. 305; 75 O.R.(2d) 463; 1 C.R.(4th) 385; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Petrovic (1984), 4 O.A.C. 29; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 416 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 271(2) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Kevin G. Coady, for the appellant;

Robert E. Lutes, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 22, 1992, before Jones, Matthews and Freeman, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division.

On September 22, 1992, Freeman, J.A., delivered the following judgment orally for the Court of Appeal.