DPP v Le - [2000] VSC 348

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	Not Restricted

No. 1535 of 1999

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

TONY LE

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 August 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 August 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Tony Le
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 348

---

Criminal law - Sentencing - Causing serious injury intentionally, burglary and theft - Late plea after vigorous denial - Considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr S.M. Cooper	OPP
For the Accused	Mr M.P. Bourke	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Le, you have pleaded guilty before me to three counts, one of burglary, one of intentionally causing serious injury and one of theft, all of which occurred on 19 November 1998 at Deer Park. You had been arraigned before me also on a count of attempted murder arising out of the same circumstances, which count was not proceeded with by the prosecution. You were also arraigned before me on a count of attempting to pervert the course of justice by a letter you wrote on 8 July 1999 directed at the victims of the crime. Again, that matter was not proceeded with by the prosecution. I put that matter completely aside, and I have ordered that it be permanently stayed. Thus, you come before me for sentence for the three counts I have stated. They all arose on 19 November 1998 in the home of Mrs Biet Pham in Stevenston Street, Deer Park.

At the time of the offences Mrs Pham was 44 years of age, having been born on 2 May 1954, and is now 46 years of age. You were at the time 30 years of age, having been born on 13 February 1968, and are now 32 years of age.

On 19 November 1998, Mrs Pham was in her home, working and listening to the SBS radio program broadcast in Vietnamese. Your wife came to the premises and invited Mrs Pham to go shopping with her at Big W in Sunshine. Mrs Pham innocently accepted the invitation and went to Sunshine with your wife to do shopping. Unknown to Mrs Pham, you then unlawfully entered her premises at Stevenston Street, Deer Park, and commenced to search through them.

Mrs Pham returned home at about 12.30 lunch-time. She came inside the house. You were in the house. She went into the kitchen, put down her purchases and was about to go into her bedroom when she saw a man in the premises, whose head was covered with grey fabric. It had two holes cut into the front of it around the eyes. She immediately sought to walk out of the rear door. You, who were the person with the hood, said nothing, but as she sought to leave, you grabbed her from behind around the neck and pushed her to the ground. You knew her, as she was a family friend. She did not know your identity, because of…

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 Le

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Le [2000] VSC 348
Case: [2000] VSC 348
Decision Date: 17 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Le was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Le, was charged with causing serious injury by intent, as well as burglary and theft. The dispute involved the circumstances surrounding the crime, including the defendant's plea of not guilty which was only changed after a period of vigorous denial. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentencing for the defendant, taking into account the nature of the offence, the defendant's history, and the circumstances of the crime.

The central legal issue for the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, given the gravity of the crimes committed and the late plea of guilty. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as the circumstances of the offence and the defendant's history. The court also had to weigh the mitigating factors against the aggravating factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the severity of the crimes, the defendant's lack of remorse, and the need for general deterrence. The court acknowledged the late plea of guilty as a mitigating factor but noted that it did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences. The court ultimately decided that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the crimes committed. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, considering the need to protect the community and deter similar offences in the future.

The court ordered that the defendant be detained in custody for a specified period, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence. The sentence also included provisions for the defendant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society upon release from prison. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing to ensure justice is served and the community is protected.

Orders