R v Hua - [2002] NSWCCA 384

CITATION: Regina v Bieu Vinh HUA [2002] NSWCCA 384

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60095/02

HEARING DATE(S): 12 September 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 September 2002

PARTIES :

Bieu Vinh HUA - Appellant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 24; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/0348

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Nield DCJ

COUNSEL : H. Dhanji - Appellant
D. Woodburne - Crown

SOLICITORS: D.J. Humphreys - Appellant
S.E. O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - steal from the person - taking into account factors which would constitute robbery - accumulation of sentences.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED:
R v de Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Delk (1999) 46 NSWLR 340
R v Stewart [1929] SASR 500
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

DECISION: See paragraphs 23 and 24

60095/02

WOOD CJ at CL
SMART AJ
Thursday 12 September 2002

REGINA v Bieu Vinh HUA

Judgment

1. SMART AJ: Bieu Vinh Hua seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months for the offence of steal from the person. He was also sentenced to a fixed term of 11 months imprisonment for the offence of demand money with menaces to be served concurrently.

Steal From The Person

2. On 27 July 2001 at 10am the victim, a 19-year-old male, was walking along Deane Street, Burwood when the applicant approach the victim and, after some introductory conversation, said, "Follow me or you'll be in trouble". When the victim did not immediately follow the applicant he said, "Do you want to be friend to me or enemy?"

3. The victim apprehensively followed the applicant for a short distance and at his insistence reluctantly gave the applicant his identification and address. The applicant took the victim's wallet and removed a $50 note and the victim's bank key card. The applicant also took the victim’s mobile phone. He demanded the victim’s PIN number which the victim reluctantly gave him. The applicant left. The victim reported the matter to the police giving a useful description of the applicant. The police officer described the victim as being in shock. Two days later the applicant again accosted the victim. However, he ran off to Burwood Police Station and then accompanied two police officers in a patrol vehicle. The applicant was located and arrested.

Demand Property With Menaces

4. About 2.15 p.m. on 28 July 2001 as the victim crossed Victor Street, Chatswood, the applicant placed his hand on the victim's chest, blocked his path and stated that he wanted to speak to the victim and wanted him to be his friend. If the victim couldn't be the applicant's friend then he would be stabbed.

5. The victim ignored the applicant and continued to walk to the Food Court of the Mandarin Centre. The applicant grabbed the…

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 Hua

Details

AGLC: Regina v Bieu Vinh Hua [2002] NSWCCA 384
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 384
Decision Date: 12 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hua was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. The defendant, Hua, was convicted of stealing from a person, an offence that the court considered to include factors that would otherwise constitute robbery. The prosecution also sought an accumulation of sentences for other related offences. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Hua's crime, considering the circumstances and relevant legal principles.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crime, taking into account the factors that, while not amounting to robbery, still warranted a significant punishment. The court also had to consider whether an accumulation of sentences for related offences was appropriate, and if so, how to balance these sentences with the primary offence.

The court, in delivering its judgment, emphasised the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence. It noted that, although the offence did not reach the threshold of robbery, the circumstances were such that a substantial sentence was warranted. The court also considered the need to balance the sentences for the related offences, ensuring that the overall punishment was proportionate to the crimes committed. Ultimately, the court decided on a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences while also considering the principles of proportionality and deterrence.

The final orders of the court included a sentence for the primary offence of stealing from a person, along with an accumulation of sentences for the related offences. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, the legal principles applicable, and the need to ensure that the sentence served as a deterrent to similar future offences.

Orders