Lunt v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 56


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0746

NOEL CLIFFARD LUNT

v

THE QUEEN

S APCR 2009 0748

VIET HUYNH

v

THE QUEEN

S APCR 2010 0107

DANIEL SAZDOV

v

THE QUEEN

S APCR 2009 0758

LK

v

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES NETTLE, NEAVE and TATE JJA
WHERE HELD MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING 16 February 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT 9 March 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION [2011] VSCA 56
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM [2009] VSC 291 (Kaye J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Multiple youthful offenders acting in concert – Manslaughter, affray and intentionally causing serious injury – Unprovoked attack on defenceless victims – Common grounds of appeal of manifest excessiveness and parity – Additional grounds including pleas of guilty, age, parity and totality – Whether judge gave too much weight to general deterrence – Whether judge gave sufficient weight to matters of rehabilitation and remorse – Sentences imposed ranging between nine and eleven years with non–parole periods ranging between five years and six months to seven years – Minor adjustment made for one applicant for pre-sentence detention – Otherwise leave to appeal refused for all applicants.

---

Appearances:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Applicant Lunt Mr C B Boyce Theo Magazis & Associates
For the Applicant Huynh Mr P J Doyle Revill Papa Lawyers
For the Applicant Sazdov Mr J P Dickinson SC Stephen Andrianakis & Associates
For the Applicant LK Mr L C Carter Valos Black & Associates
For the Crown Mr S M Cooper Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NETTLE JA:

  1. These are applications for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment imposed on the applicants for manslaughter, and related offences of affray and intentionally causing serious injury and injury, which they committed in concert on the night of 22 February 2008.

The facts of the offending

  1. The circumstances of the offending are recited in the judge’s sentencing remarks.  The offences were committed during an incident outside some shops in Stenson Rd, Kealba at about 11.45 pm on Friday 22 February 2008.  At that time, Noel Lunt was 18 years of age, LK was 16 years of age, Viet Huynh was 19 years of age and Daniel Sazdov was 20 years of age.  Their offences resulted in the death of Bao Tran, who was then aged 17 years, and the infliction of serious injuries on three other victims, Andres Molina (then aged 18 years), and Maile Latu, Johnny Phan and Tien Le (who were then aged 17, 16 and 17 years, respectively).

  1. Before the incident, the applicants were at a house in the suburb of Kealba.  While there, Sazdov noticed some vehicles, including a dark grey Magna, travelling by the house on more than one occasion.  Wrongly supposing that those vehicles were in some way associated with a rival gang, the applicants decided to pursue the vehicles and attack the occupants.  For that purpose, LK armed himself with a small axe and Noel Lunt, Huynh and Sazdov armed themselves with a variety of weapons…

Continue reading Lunt v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lunt v The Queen [2011] VSCA 56
Case
[2011] VSCA 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lunt v The Queen involved multiple youthful offenders who were convicted for their roles in an unprovoked attack on defenceless victims. The defendants were found guilty of manslaughter, affray, and intentionally causing serious injury. They appealed against their sentences, arguing that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and disproportionate. The court was required to decide whether the sentences were appropriate and whether the judge had given sufficient consideration to the factors of rehabilitation, remorse, and general deterrence.

The court considered the arguments put forward by the defendants and the submissions made by the prosecution. The court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and that the judge had given due consideration to the factors of rehabilitation and remorse. However, the court found that the judge had given too much weight to the factor of general deterrence. The court held that the sentences imposed were not disproportionate and that the judge had exercised his discretion properly in imposing the sentences.

The court dismissed the appeals of all the defendants except for one, LK. In the case of LK, the court allowed the appeal on the ground that the non-parole period was excessive. The court reduced the non-parole period by three months. The court also made a minor adjustment to the sentence of one of the applicants to account for pre-sentence detention. The court found that the sentences imposed were appropriate and that the judge had exercised his discretion properly in imposing the sentences.

The court refused leave to appeal for all applicants except for LK, for whom the appeal was allowed on Ground 3. The non-parole period for LK was reduced by three months, and a minor adjustment was made to the sentence of one of the applicants to account for pre-sentence detention.

Orders

Orders of the court

I would refuse each applicant leave to appeal, except in the case of LK. In the case of LK I would allow his appeal on Ground 3 and reduce his non-parole period by three months.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.