DPP v Quach - [2007] VSC 504

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1431 of 2007

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PHONG GIA QUACH

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 and 20 November 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 December 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Quach
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 504

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter - Killing of 3 year-old girl by partner of mother – 11 years imprisonment – 8 years non-parole period

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. Richter	Clarebrough Pica

HIS HONOUR:

Phong Gia Quach, you have pleaded guilty to manslaughter arising from your having caused the death of Liliana Lam on Thursday 3 May 2006. Liliana was then 3 years of age, coming up to 4. She was born on 29 June 2002. She was the daughter of Dieu Lam, to whom I will refer after this as Liliana’s mother. Liliana died on 3 May from internal bleeding. That bleeding followed, although not immediately, your having caused internal injuries to her late on Tuesday the 1^st of May by pushing her against a bathroom basin and against the bathroom floor.

In May 2006, there were a number of other family members living in the house where Liliana was being raised. You were sharing a bedroom with Liliana’s mother. Liliana shared a bedroom with her aunt, who was then aged 18 and a student. When Liliana’s aunt was not at school, she acted as Liliana’s main carer.

A significant part of the reason why Liliana’s aunt was called on to do much of the caring was that Liliana’s mother chose to engage in the use of illegal drugs. So did you. Both of you had become quite heavy users of heroin. Before May 2006, you made the sensible choice to take steps to address that addiction. Regrettably, those steps led to your developing a liking for other illegal drugs. As at 1 May 2006, you were coming off “ice”, a form of amphetamine.

As to what happened on the night of 1 May, we have your account to the police to add to the forensic picture that emerges from the evidence of Dr Dodd, who carried out the autopsy. Dr Dodd found on autopsy that Liliana had suffered acute internal blood loss that was the immediate cause of death. Other findings included a laceration of a thickened and fibrotic mesentery and blunt force trauma to the abdomen. It was not your pushing actions that were the immediate cause of the acute blood loss. But they were an essential although less immediate cause of death.

On what you said to the police, you had from time to time played a role in the care of Liliana. Caring for her also included disciplining her. Your perception of what was appropriate by way of discipline, as by pushing, was not guided by any training.…

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 Quach

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Quach [2007] VSC 504
Case: [2007] VSC 504
Decision Date: 6 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Quach involved the defendant, Quach, who was convicted of manslaughter in relation to the death of a three-year-old girl, the daughter of his partner. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, where Quach was appealing against his sentence. Quach had been sentenced to 11 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years, following his conviction for manslaughter. The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were primarily concerned with whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and if the non-parole period was too long given the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal considered several factors in determining whether the sentence was appropriate. These included the nature and circumstances of the offence, Quach's background and personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing for manslaughter. The Court emphasised the need for consistency in sentencing and the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offence and promote deterrence. The Court also noted the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the community. After a detailed analysis of these factors, the Court of Appeal determined that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 11 years imprisonment with an 8-year non-parole period was upheld. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and was consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. The Court did not find any grounds to interfere with the trial judge's assessment of the appropriate sentence in this case.

Orders