R v Lam

Case [2005] VSC 296 6 June 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1505 of 2003

THE QUEEN

CUONG QUOC LAM & ORS

---

JUDGE:	Redlich J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 January 2005 to 19 September 2005
DATE OF RULING:	6 June 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cuong Quoc Lam & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 296

RULING NO. 22

---

Causation – Victims chased by persons with swords – To escape victims jump into river and drown - Whether conduct of accused caused the deaths – Intervening acts – Whether necessary that accused chased deceased all the way to the river.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Dean S.C. with Mr P. Southey	Mr. S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Cuong Quoc Lam	Mr S. Grant	Michael Gleeson & Associates
For Hung Tu Van	Mr A. Jackson	Haines & Polities
For Linh Van Nguyen	Mr D. Brustman	Valos Black & Associates
For Thanh Nha Nguyen	Mr F. Gucciardo	Theo Magazis & Associates
For Long Thanh Tran	Mr G. Mullaly	Victoria Legal Aid
For Hong Bui	Mr J. Saunders	Valos Black & Associates
For Hoang Tran	Mr M. Rochford	Brendan Wilkinson

HIS HONOUR:

This ruling concerns a question of causation in relation to Counts 2 and 3 on the presentment. The Crown case is that the deceased, Viet and Nam Huynh were chased by Cuong Lam and Hung Van, or one or other of them and that to escape their pursuers the deceased jumped into the river. The prosecution alleges that Cuong Lam and Hung Van were acting in concert. It says that one or more other persons may also have participated in the chase of both deceased to the river, but it does not allege that such other persons were acting in concert with Cuong Lam or Hung Van.

The Crown submits that it should be permitted to put its case to the jury on the basis that it is not necessary that the accused Cuong Lam and Hung Van chased the deceased Nam and Viet Huynh to the river. The prosecution submits that if the jury find that they chased the deceased to the bus stop and there attacked James Huynh, it is open to the jury to find that the accused caused the deceased to flee to the river to escape. Thus the prosecution submits that the accused Cuong Lam and Hung Van were responsible for and caused the death of Viet and Nam Huynh by drowning in the river even if it was not either of them who chased them to the river bank from the bus stop.

It was the prosecution case in opening that the two accused men were acting in concert with one another in relation to all three counts of murder. In opening Mr Dean said:

“they had reached an agreement or understanding of the type explained to you in relation to James Huynh, pursuant to that agreement or…

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 [2005] VSC 296
Case: [2005] VSC 296
Decision Date: 6 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lam involved the prosecution of Lam for the deaths of several individuals who drowned after jumping into a river to escape Lam and others who were chasing them with swords. The incident occurred in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Lam was charged with murder. The legal issues before the court were whether Lam's conduct was the cause of the deaths and whether the victims' decision to jump into the river constituted an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The court had to determine if Lam's actions directly led to the deaths or if the victims' decision to flee into the river, which was ultimately fatal, constituted an intervening act. The prosecution argued that Lam's conduct in chasing the victims with swords was the direct cause of their deaths, as it forced them to take the desperate measure of jumping into the river. The defence contended that the victims' decision to enter the water was a voluntary act that broke the chain of causation, and thus, Lam could not be held responsible for their deaths.

In its reasoning, the court held that the accused's conduct need not have been the sole or continuous cause of death for liability to attach. The court found that the victims' decision to flee into the river was a foreseeable response to the immediate threat posed by Lam and his accomplices. The court held that the accused's actions were a significant contributing factor to the deaths, as the victims were fleeing from them when they drowned. The court found that Lam's conduct was the cause of the deaths, rejecting the argument that the victims' decision to jump into the river broke the chain of causation.

The court found Lam guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court held that the accused's actions were a significant contributing factor to the deaths, and therefore, he was responsible for the deaths of the victims. The court emphasised that the victims' decision to flee into the river was a foreseeable response to the immediate threat posed by Lam and his accomplices.

Orders