JUDGE:	FOX J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 April 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Gonzalez
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 331

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Deceased was ex-girlfriend of offender – Offender attended the deceased’s home and shot her twice in the neck with a double-barrelled shotgun – Immediate confession to police – Early guilty plea - Offender aged 76 at time of offending – Old age – Ill-health – Offender had been diagnosed with terminal cancer at time of offending – Likely to die in prison – No prior convictions – Standard sentence offence – Sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Glynn	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms C Marcs	Anthony Isaacs

HER HONOUR:

Juan Gonzalez, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Thanh Ngoc Truong. The crime of murder carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Background to the offending

Ms Truong was 48 years old at the time of her death. She had two adult children, both in their 20s, and lived in a unit at 2/36 Andrea Street, St Albans. Ms Truong had emigrated to Australia in 2011 and worked full-time. Shortly before her death, she married Lanh Duong. They were married on 7 April 2021.

The previous year, in April 2020, you had commenced a relationship with Ms Truong. During the relationship, you and Ms Truong remained living separately. You would attend her home to fix things around the house, and she would cook for you and visit your home on weekends. You were at times jealous and controlling of her, and the relationship ended in March or April 2021. Ms Truong’s daughter recalls hearing you and her mother arguing and yelling. Ms Truong told her son that she ended the relationship because you tried to control her, and called her constantly. She told a friend and neighbour, Kim, that you became overprotective and controlling, and would insist on driving her places and follow her.

Towards the end of April 2021, you attended Kim’s unit and told her that Ms Truong had ended the relationship, you knew she was seeing another man and you knew who it was. Kim recalls that after this, she would see you on occasion driving up and down the street. There were times Ms Truong would get home from work, and you would approach her in your car and tell her to go inside.

You told Kim’s husband, Nghia, that you knew Ms Truong was seeing Lanh, and you knew he lived in Cairnlea and drove a Mazda CX7. You said you used your daughter’s car to follow Ms Truong, so she would not know it was you. You also told Nghia…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Gonzalez

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Gonzalez [2022] VSC 331
Case: [2022] VSC 331
Decision Date: 9 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Gonzalez involved a dispute over the appropriate sentence for an offence of murder committed by the defendant against his ex-girlfriend. The defendant attended the victim's home and shot her twice in the neck with a double-barrelled shotgun. The offender immediately confessed to the crime and entered an early guilty plea. At the time of the offence, the defendant was 76 years old, in poor health, and had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. The case came before the court to determine the appropriate sentence for the offence, considering the defendant's age, health, and the circumstances of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the mitigating factors of his age, health, and lack of prior criminal history, against the gravity of the offence committed. The court needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need for mercy and rehabilitation in light of the defendant's personal circumstances.

In delivering the judgement, the court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, the mitigating factors presented, and the need to ensure that the sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence. The court noted the defendant's immediate confession and early guilty plea as mitigating factors but also emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need for punishment. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to 24 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 17 years, taking into account the defendant's age, health, and the fact that he was unlikely to survive his sentence.

The court made no further orders in the case.

Orders