Hanh Nguyen v R

Where foreign law must be ascertained in a jury trial, section 15 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 requires the judge, rather than the jury, to decide the effect of the evidence. Foreign-law evidence must be properly produced and explained by a suitably qualified witness. An unidentified and ambiguous response to an international request for assistance should not be left to the jury as evidence of foreign law.

An erroneous qualification of a good-character direction may be cured by a later correct and unqualified direction. However, where that error is combined with wrongly admitted evidence bearing on the accused's central credibility, the fairness of the trial may be irremediably compromised and the convictions unsafe.

The appellant was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of three money-laundering offences contrary to section 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The prosecution alleged that she had laundered criminal proceeds through her clothing-export business and bank accounts. She maintained that the transactions arose from legitimate informal value-transfer arrangements connected with her business.

On her appeal against conviction, she challenged the judge's qualified good-character direction and the admission, near the end of the prosecution case, of an unidentified response to an International Letter of Request concerning Vietnamese foreign-exchange law. The issue was whether those errors rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the convictions on counts 1, 2 and 5 and ordered a retrial, which it held to be in the public interest.
2. The trial judge should not have embarked upon a modified good-character direction without first resolving the prosecution's position with counsel. The preamble to the final direction was confusing and potentially prejudicial. Nevertheless, the jury would ultimately have understood that the appellant was to be treated as a person of good character, and the final unqualified direction was correct. That error alone did not make the convictions unsafe.
3. The response to the International Letter of Request was evidence of foreign law. Under section 15 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920, the effect of evidence of foreign law in a jury trial is for the judge alone. The court followed R v Barnett Hammer [1924] 17 Cr. App R 142. Foreign law could not simply be put before the jury without proper explanation from an identified expert, lawyer, or official qualified to speak to it. The ambiguous Vietnamese document should not have been admitted; the court also doubted its admissibility under section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
4. The foreign-law evidence was directed to the central issue of whether the informal transfer arrangements were being used for money laundering. Taken with the good-character error, it irremediably compromised trial fairness. Although there was evidence capable of supporting the prosecution case, the appellant's credibility was central and the court was not satisfied that the convictions were safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the convictions on counts 1, 2 and 5, and directed a retrial: [2023] EWCA Crim 769.
• Southwark Crown Court: On 31 March 2022, convicted the appellant by a majority of three money-laundering counts and imposed concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment.