R v Lam (No 28)

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:	15 July 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lam & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 413

RULING NO. 28

Principals in the first degree - Alternative of manslaughter open.

---

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:

In relation to the principals in the first degree, I will leave the alternative of manslaughter open in each of their cases on the bases I have just indicated. In David Nguyen’s case, manslaughter may be open if the jury concluded he did make the admissions alleged but they were admissions to no more than an unlawful and dangerous act and that he did not have the necessary intent for the crime of murder.

Counsel will address the jury as they see fit in relation to those alternatives.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lam (No 28) involved multiple defendants who were charged with various crimes, with the primary focus being on charges of murder. The defendants were Cuong Quoc Lam, Hung Tu Van, Linh Van Nguyen, Thanh Nha Nguyen, Long Thanh Tran, and Hong Bui. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria's Criminal Division, presided over by Justice Redlich. The proceedings took place over an extensive period from January 24, 2005, to September 19, 2005, culminating in a ruling on July 15, 2005. The case was significant in addressing the legal principles surrounding principals in the first degree and the potential for alternative charges such as manslaughter.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal instructions for the jury in relation to the charges against the defendants. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the alternative charge of manslaughter should be left open to the jury for consideration. This decision was crucial as it involved the interpretation of the defendants' intent and actions in relation to the alleged crimes. The court had to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to support the argument that the defendants' actions, while severe, did not meet the threshold for a murder charge.

Justice Redlich concluded that the alternative of manslaughter should be left open for the jury to consider in the cases of each defendant. This decision was based on the possibility that the jury might find the defendants' admissions to be related only to an unlawful and dangerous act, without the requisite intent for murder. The court instructed counsel to address the jury as they saw fit in relation to these alternatives, allowing for the possibility of a manslaughter conviction if the jury determined that the defendants' actions did not meet the criteria for murder. This nuanced approach ensures that the jury has the flexibility to consider all aspects of the evidence and determine the appropriate charge based on the facts presented.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established