DPP v Nguyen - [2008] VSC 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1434 of 2007

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

TUAN DANG NGUYEN

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 October 2007 and 30 January 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Nguyen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 11

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Two victims chopped and stabbed to death in front of four young children – Pleas of guilty – Head sentence of 25 years – Non-parole of 20 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Jones/Ms S. Borg	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. O’Connell	Galbally & O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Tuan Dang Nguyen, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of murder and to one count of theft of a motor vehicle arising out of events that occurred on 1 April 2001 at Robinvale. On that day, you stabbed and chopped to death two women. One was Ba Nguyen, then aged 50. The other was Khanh Le, then aged 26. The two murders have had a devastating effect on people close to the two women.

I refer most specifically to Vu Do and his two daughters Vivian and Valarie. Ba Nguyen was the mother of Vu Do, and thus the grandmother of Vivian and Valarie. Khanh Le was the then girl-friend of Vu Do. The two women were attacked by you in the home in which they were living in Robinvale with Vu Do. The two murders were carried out by you in the presence of four children, all aged under seven. Vivian and Valerie were two of that four. They were, on 1 April 2001, aged 6 and 4 respectively. Ba Nguyen was acting as baby sitter as to them and as to the other two children, who were boys, not then two years of age.

Ba Nguyen and Vu Do ran a business organising grape-pickers for growers in the Robinvale area. You were one of those grape-pickers. You were an illegal immigrant, for whom getting a job was a problem. Grape-picking was one of the jobs available. The opportunity to work was what took you, as it had taken Khanh Le much earlier, to Robinvale.

On the morning of 1 April 2001, Vu Do left the Robinvale house to transport pickers to local farms. Ba Nguyen remained there with Khanh Le, Vivian, Valarie and the two little boys. Just before 10 a.m., Ba Nguyen was preparing to leave the house to get some exercise. You knocked on the front door of the house. The door was opened by Vivian. You asked for Vu Do. Ba Nguyen came to the door. She told you that Vu Do was at work. She asked you to come in. She went to the kitchen, and you followed her. You asked her for a pen and paper. These she provided, and you made use of them. Ba Nguyen…

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 Nguyen

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen [2008] VSC 11
Case: [2008] VSC 11
Decision Date: 8 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) versus Nguyen was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The accused, Nguyen, was charged with two counts of murder after he brutally killed two individuals by chopping and stabbing them in front of four young children. Nguyen pleaded guilty to both charges and was subsequently sentenced. The primary legal issue the court had to address was determining the appropriate head sentence and non-parole period for the crimes committed.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the murders, including the brutality and the presence of children as witnesses. The judge considered the principle of proportionality and the need for the sentence to reflect the gravity of the offences. The court also took into account the plea of guilty, which generally warrants a discount in the sentence. After careful deliberation, the court imposed a head sentence of 25 years imprisonment for each count of murder, to be served concurrently, with a non-parole period of 20 years.

The Supreme Court concluded that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the severity of the crimes while also reflecting the mitigating factor of the guilty plea. The court held that the head sentence and non-parole period adequately addressed the need for punishment, deterrence, and the protection of society. The final orders of the court were that Nguyen would serve 25 years for each murder, to be served concurrently, with a non-parole period of 20 years.

Orders