R v Huynh - [2003] NSWSC 1066

CITATION: R v Huynh [2003] NSWSC 1066

HEARING DATE(S): 28/07/03 - 31/07/03
01/08/03
04/08/03 - 07/08/03
11/08/03 - 15/08/03
18/08/03 - 22/08/03
25/08/03
24/10/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 November 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division
Criminal List

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

DECISION: Penal servitude for 6 years; Non Parole Period 3 years 6 months

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Manslaughter by Criminal Negligence - deceased died after fire - hardship on dependent - whether truly exceptional - offer of plea

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

CASES CITED: R v Palu (2002) 131 A Crim R 174
The Queen v Wirth (1975) 14 SASR 291
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Niga (unreported, CCA, 13.4.94)
R v Day (unreported, CCA, 23.4.98)
R v Wilmot (unreported, CCA, 20.7.94)
R v Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103
R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
R v Cardoso [2003] NSWCCA 15
R v Elliott (unreported, CCA, 14.2.91)
R v Bryant [1999] NSWCCA 181
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 443
R v Lever [2001] NSWSC 1131
R v Olig [2002] NSWCCA 249
R v Blacklidge (unreported, CCA, 12.12.95)
R v MacDonald (unreported, CA, 12.12.95)

PARTIES :
Regina
Duan Tich Huynh

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70111/02

COUNSEL: B Knox SC (Crown)
T Golding (Accused)

SOLICITORS: N Olender, sol (Crown - DPP)
T Sellthambu, sol (Accused - LAC)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

DAVID KIRBY J

Friday 21 November 2003

70111/02 REGINA -v- DUAN TICH HUYNH
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1 KIRBY J: Duan Tich Huynh was charged with the murder of his former wife, Tuoi Ngoc Huynh. Tuoi Ngoc Huynh died of thermal burns on 22 July 2002. On 25 August 2003, after a trial lasting some weeks, a jury found Mr Huynh not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. It remains for me to pass sentence. I must first determine the facts relevant to the sentencing discretion in a manner consistent with the jury verdict. Where the facts are adverse, they must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Where they favour Mr Huynh, it is enough that they should be proved on the balance of probabilities.

2 Mr Huynh was born in Vietnam on 26 July 1974. He came to Australia when he was five years old. Having been educated in Australia, he returned to Vietnam for a holiday. He there met Tuoi Ngoc Huynh. They married in July 1996 and then lived with his parents at Bonnyrigg. Within a relatively short time his wife had a miscarriage. According to Mr Huynh, she then appeared to change. She returned briefly to Vietnam.

3 On 22 June 1999 a son, Patrick, was born. The relationship between Mr Huynh and his wife was already troubled by the time of his birth. After the birth, his wife again returned to Vietnam. She took Patrick with her. She remained in Vietnam for two months.

4 Having come back to Australia in February 2001, the relationship remained troubled. Tuoi Ngoc…

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 Huynh

Details

AGLC: R v Huynh [2003] NSWSC 1066
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1066
Decision Date: 21 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Huynh, the defendant was charged with manslaughter by criminal negligence after a fire in his home resulted in the death of a person. The defendant's wife, who was the dependent of the deceased, sought to argue that the circumstances of the case were truly exceptional, warranting a plea offer. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to decide whether the circumstances of the case were truly exceptional, such that they warranted a plea offer. The court considered the statutory criteria for determining exceptional circumstances, including the defendant's background, the impact of the crime on the deceased's family, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also considered the legal principles governing plea offers in criminal cases, including the need to balance the interests of justice with the need for efficiency in the criminal justice system.

The court found that the circumstances of the case were not truly exceptional. While the death of the deceased was tragic, the court found that the defendant's actions did not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances required for a plea offer. The court emphasised the importance of holding defendants accountable for their actions, and noted that the deceased's family had suffered significant hardship as a result of the fire. The court rejected the plea offer and ordered the defendant to stand trial for manslaughter by criminal negligence.

The court's decision in this case provides important guidance for lawyers dealing with similar cases. It highlights the importance of carefully considering the statutory criteria for determining exceptional circumstances, and emphasises the need to balance the interests of justice with the need for efficiency in the criminal justice system. The decision also serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of criminal negligence, and the need to hold defendants accountable for their actions.

Orders