R v Lam (No 21) - [2005] VSC 295

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1505of 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:	2-3 June 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cuong Quoc Lam & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 295

RULING NO. 21

---

Criminal law – Aiders and abettors – No case submission – Circumstantial evidence – Whether evidence that accused charged as aiders and abettors were present when accused charged as principal offenders inflicted injuries – Whether open to jury to exclude all innocent hypotheses as irrational or unreasonable.

Whether evidence that accused were present when principal offenders inflicted injuries which contributed substantially to the deceased’s death – United force of all circumstances – Whether competing inference consistent with the innocence could be excluded as not being reasonably open.

Causation – No case submission - Whether supervening act which caused death when aiders and abettor not present – Whether break in chain of causation.

---

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:

Whether evidence that aiders and abettors present when accused charged as principal in first degree inflicted injury

The accused Long Tran and Hong Bui, who the prosecution allege are principals in the second degree, have submitted that there is no case to answer on the grounds that the evidence does not establish that the acts of aiding and abetting relied upon by the prosecution, if committed, were performed at a time when a charged principal in the first degree was present and inflicting any injury to the deceased James Huynh.

The prosecution case against Long Tran and Hong Bui is that they assisted or encouraged the crime of murder by one or more of the principals in the first degree, their co-accused, Cuong Lam, Hung Van and David Nguyen. The submission advanced on behalf of the both accused is that there is no evidence of any act performed by Cuong Lam, Hung Van or David Nguyen at a time when they were present.

Although the evidence was examined in some detail during the course of submissions, it is sufficient that I summarise the arguments put on behalf of the prosecution and accused. In doing so, it must be remembered that there is a vast amount of circumstantial evidence which bears upon these issues including the evidence of witnesses who made observations at different times…

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 (No 21)

Details

AGLC: R v Lam (No 21) [2005] VSC 295
Case: [2005] VSC 295
Decision Date: 3 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lam (No 21) involved multiple defendants charged with various criminal offences, including aiding and abetting the infliction of grievous bodily harm leading to the death of a victim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was tasked with determining the admissibility of evidence against the accused individuals, specifically whether they were present when the principal offenders inflicted the injuries that contributed substantially to the victim's death. The court also needed to decide if the evidence allowed for the exclusion of all innocent hypotheses as irrational or unreasonable, and whether a supervening act that caused death while the aiders and abettors were not present constituted a break in the chain of causation.

The legal issues at hand focused on the nature of the evidence presented against the accused, particularly the circumstantial evidence and whether it was sufficient to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The court had to examine if the evidence provided a united force that would allow the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were present during the infliction of injuries. Additionally, the court considered whether the jury could reasonably exclude the inference that the accused could have been innocent, given the competing narratives presented.

In its reasoning, the court found that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was sufficient to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. The presence of the accused at the scene where the injuries were inflicted was a critical factor, as was the substantial contribution of those injuries to the death of the victim. The court held that the circumstantial evidence, when considered together, provided a compelling narrative that supported the conclusion that the accused were present and played a significant role in the events leading to the victim's death. The court also ruled that the supervening act did not break the chain of causation, as the initial injuries inflicted by the principal offenders, with the aid and abetment of the accused, were a substantial contributing factor to the death.

The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the no case submissions made by the accused, allowing the case to proceed to the jury. The court's decision hinged on the substantial contribution of the injuries to the death of the victim and the reasonable exclusion of any hypothesis of innocence based on the circumstantial evidence. The final orders of the court were to allow the case to proceed to the jury, ensuring that the accused would have the opportunity to defend themselves against the charges brought against them.

Orders