R v Lam

Case [2008] VSCA 109 17 June 2008

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN

v
CUONG QUOC LAM – 1^st Applicant	No 389 of 2005
and
HUNG TU VAN – 2^nd Applicant	No 008 of 2006
and
LINH VAN NGUYEN – 3^rd Applicant	No 009 of 2006
and
THANH NHA NGUYEN – 4^th Applicant	No 001 of 2006
and
LONG THANH TRAN – 5^th Applicant	No 392 of 2005
and
HONG BUI – 6^th Applicant	No 002 of 2006
and
HOANG QUANG TRAN – 7^thApplicant	No 390 of 2005

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, VINCENT and KELLAM JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12, 13, 14 and 15 May 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 June 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 109

---

Criminal law – Murder – Separate trials – Judge’s directions sufficient to prevent misuse of evidence – Causation – Final injury did not break the chain of causation between death and earlier injuries which were substantial and operating causes of death – Consciousness of guilt – Availability of a lesser included crime did not preclude reliance on false denials to infer guilt – Directions of trial judge adequate – Aiding and abetting – Mere presence – Evidence incapable of supporting findings that accused intentionally encouraged the principals by their presence – Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdicts – Not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr CJ Ryan SC with Mr DA Trapnell	Ms A Cannon Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the First Applicant	Mr PF Tehan QC with Ms F L Dalziel	Michael Gleeson & Assocs
For the Second Applicant	Mr D A Dann	Haines & Polites
For the Third Applicant	Mr C B Boyce	Valos Black & Assocs
For the Fourth Applicant	Mr F R Gucciardo	Theo Magazis & Assocs
For the Fifth Applicant	Mr M J Croucher with Mr D A Glynn	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Sixth Applicant	Mr G F Meredith	Valos Black & Assocs
For the Seventh Applicant	Mr LC Carter	Robert Stary & Assocs

BUCHANAN JA
VINCENT JA
KELLAM JA:

Introduction

In the early hours of Monday 8 July 2002, a fight broke out among a group of Vietnamese youths at the Salt nightclub in Daly Street, South Yarra, when Hung Van was assaulted by James Huynh, Viet Huynh, Nam Huynh and John Huynh and struck on the head by bottles. Other youths joined in the fight, which was stopped by bouncers.

Some of the protagonists had been involved in an earlier altercation. On Thursday, 4 July 2002, Nam and John Huynh participated in a fight with Hung Van and Cuong Lam and others at a nightclub in the Crown casino.

As a consequence of the fight in the Salt nightclub, the combatants were ejected. The succeeding events led to each of the applicants being charged with murder. Each of the applicants was charged with the murder of James Huynh (count 1). Cuong Lam and Hung Van were also…

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 Lam

Details

AGLC: R v Lam [2008] VSCA 109
Case: [2008] VSCA 109
Decision Date: 17 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder, with a co-accused convicted of the same charge. The case reached the court on the appellant’s appeal against conviction. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning the evidence presented and the legal standards required for conviction. The court was tasked with determining whether the judge's instructions were sufficient to prevent potential misuse of certain evidence, particularly concerning the chain of causation and the inference of guilt from the accused's actions and statements. Additionally, the court examined whether the judge’s directions adequately addressed the principles of aiding and abetting and the implications of mere presence at the crime scene.

The legal issues revolved around whether the judge’s directions were adequate in guiding the jury on the substantial and operating causes of death, and if the evidence supported the inference of guilt from the accused's false denials. The court also considered whether the presence of the accused at the scene was sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting, and if the verdicts reached by the jury were safe and satisfactory given the evidence. The court's analysis involved a detailed examination of the trial judge's directions and the applicability of legal principles to the facts of the case, ensuring that the jury was properly informed about the standards of proof and the implications of the evidence presented.

The court found that the trial judge's directions were sufficient to prevent any misuse of evidence that could lead to an unfair conviction. The judge had clearly instructed the jury on the necessity of establishing causation and the role of the accused’s actions in contributing to the death. The court held that the accused’s false denials, coupled with the other evidence, could reasonably lead the jury to infer guilt. Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that the accused intentionally encouraged the principals through mere presence. The verdicts were deemed unsafe and unsatisfactory because the jury had not been properly guided on the standards of proof required to reach a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was upheld, and a new trial was ordered. The court set aside the convictions and ordered that the accused be retried on the charges of murder. The findings on the adequacy of the judge’s directions and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts were central to the court’s decision, leading to the conclusion that the convictions could not stand.

Orders