R v Kai Edgar Yuen - [2013] ACTSC 106

R v KAI EDGAR YUEN [2013] ACTSC 106 (14 June 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – plea of guilty to murder – disputed facts hearing – findings of fact – whether shooting was “accidental” – whether shooting involved an involuntary act – whether late plea of guilty showed remorse.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 12

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)
Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas)
Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA)

Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209
Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 193
R v Katarzynski [2005] NSWCCA 72
R v Van Den Bemd (1994) 179 CLR 137
Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205

No. SCC 109 of 2011

Judge: Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 14 June 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 109 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

R
v
KAI EDGAR YUEN

ORDER

Judge:  Penfold J
Date:  22 April 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

For the purpose of sentencing Kai Edgar Yuen for the murder of Brendan Scott Welsh, the facts are as set out in Appendix B of this judgment.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 109 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

R
v
KAI EDGAR YUEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judge:  Penfold J
Date:  14 June 2013
Place:  Canberra

Introduction

In August 2010, Kai Edgar Yuen was charged with the murder of Brendan Scott Welsh on 10 May 2010. His trial was set down to begin on 25 February 2013.

On 18 February 2013, Mr Yuen pleaded guilty to the murder.

The prosecution provided a draft Statement of Facts and sought the defence’s agreement to that statement. The defence conceded most of the contents of the statement, but disputed certain parts of the statement, including the part which described the actual shooting of Mr Welsh by Mr Yuen. It was accordingly necessary to conduct a disputed facts hearing to determine the basis on which Mr Yuen was to be sentenced.

Twelve paragraphs of the original Statement of Facts were disputed by the defence. The table at Appendix A shows those disputed paragraphs in the left hand columns (the originally disputed parts of each paragraph are shown in italics) and, in the right hand column, the version of the paragraph as eventually agreed between the parties or as found by me. At Appendix B is the complete Statement of Facts incorporating the final versions of the disputed paragraphs. These are the facts on which Mr Yuen will be sentenced.

The disputed facts hearing

Oral evidence

At the hearing, I heard evidence from the following witnesses:

(a)Brendan Prebble and Joshua Stephen were friends of Mr Yuen and were with him on the night of the murder.
(b)Martin Kundert and Brooke Barnes were associates of Cameron Ashcroft, who was also with Mr Yuen on the night of the murder. Mr Kundert and Ms Barnes spent a lot of…

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 Kai Edgar Yuen

Details

AGLC: R v Kai Edgar Yuen [2013] ACTSC 106
Case: [2013] ACTSC 106
Decision Date: 14 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kai Edgar Yuen was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Kai Edgar Yuen, was charged with murder, to which he subsequently pleaded guilty. The dispute centred around the circumstances of the shooting and the appropriate sentencing following Yuen's guilty plea. The central legal issues the court had to address were the factual determination of whether the shooting was accidental or involved an involuntary act, and whether the timing of Yuen's guilty plea demonstrated remorse.

The court was required to determine the factual circumstances surrounding the shooting to properly sentence Yuen. This involved weighing evidence and submissions regarding whether the shooting was accidental or if it resulted from an involuntary act. Additionally, the court considered the timing of Yuen's plea of guilty in assessing the appropriate sentence, as a late plea could potentially indicate a lack of remorse or an attempt to avoid a harsher punishment. The court had to balance these factors while ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented and the submissions made by both parties. It considered the nature of the relationship between Yuen and the victim, the circumstances leading up to the shooting, and the context in which the plea of guilty was entered. The court found that the shooting was not accidental but rather an intentional act, despite Yuen's claims to the contrary. Furthermore, the court noted that Yuen's late plea did not demonstrate genuine remorse, impacting the sentencing decision. Ultimately, the court determined that Yuen's actions warranted a significant sentence, reflecting the gravity of the crime.

The court ordered that Yuen be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, taking into account the findings of fact and the lack of demonstrated remorse. The precise details of the sentence, including the length of imprisonment and the non-parole period, were specified in the judgment. This decision provided clarity on the circumstances of the crime and the appropriate legal consequences for Yuen's actions.

Orders