Ong v The King - [2025] VSCA 21

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL
S EAPCR 2024 0009
AARON ONG	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KENNEDY, BOYCE and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 March 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 21
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Rider & Ong [2023] VSC 466 (Beale J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant convicted of murder – Whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory – Strong circumstantial case – Two offenders shot deceased 11 times following vehicle pursuit – Applicant and offender no.1 left motorcycle club at same time on night of murder – Offender no.1 and offender no.2 alighted from vehicle when pursued by police following murder of deceased – Offender no.2 carrying bag – Offender no.2 dropped bag in course of evading police capture – Bag contained clothing worn by the applicant on night of the murder – Neither the applicant’s phone, nor that of offender no.1, used to make a telephone call or send a text message in hours preceding, during and following murder – Inferences – Application for leave to appeal refused.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 276.

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; R v Van Beelen (1973) 4 SASR 353; R v Chamberlain [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr T Kassimatis KC with Mr S Tovey
Respondent:		Ms EH Ruddle KC with Mr T Bourbon
Solicitors
Applicant:	Fayman Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

KENNEDY JA
BOYCE JA
KAYE JA:

On 9 November 2019, at approximately 2:00am, Paul Virgona (‘Virgona’) left his home at Croydon to attend his business, which involved him first attending Epping Markets. He drove his work van onto Eastlink, driving in the direction of the city.
At approximately 2:15am, shortly after he exited the Melba Tunnel, and just east of the Mitcham Road overpass, a stolen grey Mercedes Benz motor vehicle, that had been following Virgona since he left his home, drove alongside the van. The passenger in the Mercedes discharged 11 rounds from a semi-automatic handgun into the driver’s door of the van, striking Virgona at least seven times below the waist. The Mercedes vehicle then sped off, taking the nearby Springvale Road exit. Virgona’s van spun out of control, and came to rest in the right hand lane of the Eastern Freeway. Virgona died, seated at the steering wheel of the van.
The applicant, and Josh Rider, were subsequently charged with the murder of Virgona. Shortly before the commencement of their joint trial, Rider pleaded guilty to the charge. Following a trial of some three weeks, the jury returned…

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 Ong v The King

Details

AGLC: Ong v The King [2025] VSCA 21
Case: [2025] VSCA 21
Decision Date: 3 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ong, was convicted of murder and appealed against the conviction. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue in the appeal was whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory given the circumstances of the case. The applicant argued that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court examined the evidence presented during the trial, including the fact that two offenders were involved in shooting the deceased 11 times following a vehicle pursuit. Both the applicant and offender no.1 left a motorcycle club at the same time on the night of the murder. Following the murder, offender no.1 and offender no.2 alighted from their vehicle when pursued by police. Offender no.2 was carrying a bag, which he dropped while evading police capture. The bag contained clothing that matched the description of what the applicant was wearing on the night of the murder. The court also noted that neither the applicant’s nor offender no.1’s phone was used to make a call or send a text message in the hours preceding, during, or following the murder. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was strong enough to uphold the conviction.

The High Court found that the applicant's appeal did not demonstrate that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to justify the conviction, and the inferences drawn were reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court confirmed that the conviction would stand as determined by the lower court.

Orders