R v Hannarong - [2017] VSC 264

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0148

THE QUEEN

CHARAN HANNARONG

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 April 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 May 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hannarong
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 264

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempted murder – Victim sustained multiple stab wounds to upper chest and left hand – Offending occurred in context of relationship breakdown – Guilty plea entered at first reasonable opportunity – Mid-range example of offence of attempted murder – Limited degree of premeditation – No prior or subsequent convictions – Good prospects of rehabilitation – 9 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Brown	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Fitzgerald	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Charan Hannarong, you have pleaded guilty to attempted murder, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.

Circumstances of offending

At your plea hearing, the prosecution tendered a detailed summary of facts. Your counsel indicated that you did not take issue with any of the facts alleged in that summary.

In these sentencing remarks, my summary of the facts will be briefer but will include some passages from the prosecution summary.

Both you and your victim, Ms Pentakarn Yoosuan, are Thai nationals.

In early 2013, you, Mr Hannarong, came to Australia to undertake farm work. You left behind a pregnant defacto wife. You hoped to improve your family’s financial situation.

In mid 2014, Ms Yoosuan came to Australia to undertake the same sort of work and for the same reason. She left behind 3 young children.

In late 2014, the two of you met working on a farm near Wangaratta. A relationship developed between you, although it was understood that you would both return to your respective families when you each returned to Thailand.

In early 2015, you and Ms Yoosuan moved in together.

On 6 November 2015 — a couple of weeks before your offence — the two of you were at party. Around 8pm, you wanted to go home as you had work the next day. Ms Yoosuan wanted to stay longer. You punched her once to the head. You later told a psychologist, Guy Coffey, from whom your lawyers commissioned a report, that you were very intoxicated at the time you punched Ms Yoosuan to the head.[1] After this incident, Ms Yoosuan stayed with friends, and despite your entreaties over the next few weeks, she refused to return to you.
[1]Report of clinical psychologist Guy Coffey dated 2 April 2017 at [73].

On 21 November 2015 — the day of the offence — you contacted Ms Yoosuan, wanting to talk. She told you there was nothing to talk about. That same evening, you attended a party at which she was present. I will now quote paragraphs 7 to 11 of the prosecution summary.

[7] … About…

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 Hannarong

Details

AGLC: R v Hannarong [2017] VSC 264
Case: [2017] VSC 264
Decision Date: 18 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hannarong, the defendant was charged with the attempted murder of their former partner. The victim sustained multiple stab wounds to the upper chest and left hand during the altercation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant entered a guilty plea at the first reasonable opportunity, and the court proceeded to determine an appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offence of attempted murder, considering the circumstances of the case. Factors such as the degree of premeditation, the context of the relationship breakdown, the defendant's criminal history, and prospects for rehabilitation were taken into account. The court also considered the severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the defendant's guilty plea and the limited degree of premeditation involved. The court also noted the absence of any prior or subsequent convictions, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court ultimately determined that the case fell within the mid-range of the sentencing spectrum for attempted murder. Consequently, the defendant was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders