R v Chey

Case [2021] VSC 843 17 December 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0256

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
EVAN CHEY	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 November 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 December 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Chey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 843

---

MURDER – Attempted Murder – 15-year-old offender murdered mother and attempted to murder grandmother and three-year-old half-sister – Major Depressive Episode – Autism Spectrum Disorder (level 1) – Both conditions undetected prior to offending – Principles 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Verdins engaged – Plea of guilty at first reasonable opportunity – No criminal antecedents – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Youth – Totality - Avoidance of crushing sentence - R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Dickie	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Gibson	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

Evan, you pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity to murdering[1] your mother Vanna Soun and attempting to murder[2] your maternal grandmother Sothy Soun and your three-year-old half-sister Caitlin Soun. You stabbed each of them repeatedly in your family home on the afternoon of 30 November 2020. When police attended the home that afternoon, they found you in your bedroom where you proceeded to try and kill yourself, stabbing yourself repeatedly in the neck and torso until restrained.
[1]The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.
[2]The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 25 years’ imprisonment.

You were only 15 years and three weeks old at the time of these shocking events. To some extent, they remain inexplicable. But it has since been discovered that you were suffering from two conditions at the time of your offences — a Major Depressive Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder. I am satisfied that, at the very least, the undetected interaction of these two conditions over an extended period of time substantially contributed to your tragic outburst of violence on the day in question.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCES

I turn now to a more detailed account of the immediate circumstances of your offending. Before doing so, I note that it is not alleged that you were ever abused by any family members.

On 29 November 2020, you recorded the following two messages on your computer, the first headed ‘If I ran away’ and the second headed ‘If I killed my family’:

If I ran away
I ran away for my own family’s safety. I ran away because I wanted to kill them. I used the remaining ounce of self control to not kill my family. I’ve beared hatred towards my family for a very long time. I’ve had persistent thoughts of killing my family and really wanted to do it. But in the end I ran away. Do not come looking for me. I’m a fucking scumbag, pathetic, with no life, retarded bitch. I shouldn’t have been born.…

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 R v Chey

Details

AGLC: R v Chey [2021] VSC 843
Case: [2021] VSC 843
Decision Date: 17 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, a 15-year-old boy, was convicted of murder and attempted murder. He murdered his mother and attempted to murder his grandmother and three-year-old half-sister. The Supreme Court of Victoria heard the appeal against sentence. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, considering the principles outlined in Verdins, particularly principles 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, which stress the importance of avoiding crushing sentences, recognising the offender’s youth, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the offender’s mental health conditions.

The court examined the appellant's mental health, which included a Major Depressive Episode and Autism Spectrum Disorder (level 1), both of which were undetected prior to the offending. The court noted the appellant had no criminal antecedents, a plea of guilty at the first reasonable opportunity, and good prospects of rehabilitation. The court found that the sentence of 18 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years was manifestly inadequate. The principles from Verdins required a sentence that balanced the need for retribution and deterrence with the need to provide the appellant with an opportunity for rehabilitation.

After re-sentencing, the court imposed a sentence of 18 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years, acknowledging the totality of the circumstances and the appellant's youth. The court found that this sentence was appropriate, avoiding a crushing sentence and providing the appellant with an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence was proportionate to the severity of the offences and the principles set out in Verdins.

Orders