JUDGE:	Redlich J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 January 2005 to 19 September 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 December 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cuong Quoc Lam & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 495

---

Sentence – Murder – Principals in the first degree – Youthful offenders - Unlawful possession of weapons in a public place

Aiders and abettors – Youthful offenders - Choosing to remain when expectation of a violent confrontation – Encouragement of violent conduct by conduct or presence – Good prospects of rehabilitation

---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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General................................................................................................................................................. 1

Cuong Quoc Lam, Hung Tu Van, Linh Van Nguyen (Johnny), Thanh Nha Nguyen (David), Long Thanh Tran, Hong Bui, Hoang Tran........................................................................................... 1

Groups of friends-not gangs....................................................................................................... 1
Youthful Offenders and very serious crime................................................................................ 2
Fixing a non-parole period.......................................................................................................... 3
False accounts given to investigators and in pre sentence interviews....................................... 3
Approach to disputed facts......................................................................................................... 4

Cuong Quoc Lam.......................................................................................................................... 5

(i) Circumstances of offending................................................................................................ 5
(ii) Personal Circumstances................................................................................................. 9

Hung Tu Van............................................................................................................................... 12

(i) Circumstances of offending.............................................................................................. 12
(ii) Personal circumstances................................................................................................ 14

Linh Van Nguyen (Johnny)........................................................................................................ 17

(i) Circumstances of offending.............................................................................................. 17
(ii) Personal circumstances................................................................................................ 20

Thanh Nah Nguyen (David)...................................................................................................... 24

(i) Circumstances of offending.............................................................................................. 24
(ii) Personal circumstances................................................................................................ 26

Long Thanh Tran......................................................................................................................... 32

(i) Circumstances of offending.............................................................................................. 32
(ii) Personal circumstances................................................................................................ 36

Hong Bui...................................................................................................................................... 40

(i) Circumstances of offending.............................................................................................. 40
(ii) Personal circumstances................................................................................................ 45

Hoang Tran.................................................................................................................................. 48

(i) Circumstances of offending.............................................................................................. 48
(ii) Personal circumstances................................................................................................ 51

Sentencing......................................................................................................................................... 54

Victim Impact Statements........................................................................................................ 54

Cuong Quoc Lam and Hung Tu Van....................................................................................... 55
David Nguyen............................................................................................................................. 58
Johnny Nguyen............................................................................................................................ 59
Long Thanh Tran and Hong Bui............................................................................................... 60
Hoang Tran.................................................................................................................................. 61

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 61

HIS HONOUR:

General
Cuong Quoc Lam, Hung Tu Van, Linh Van Nguyen (Johnny), Thanh Nha Nguyen (David), Long Thanh Tran, Hong Bui, Hoang Tran

On 19 September 2005 following a trial which commenced on 24 January 2005 each of you were found guilty of the murder of James Huynh. Cuong Lam and Hung Van you were also guilty of murdering Viet Huynh and Nam Huynh on 8 July 2002.

Groups of friends-not gangs

Some reporting of the trial wrongly suggested that the seven of you were members of a gang and that the deceased were members of another gang. There was no evidence to suggest that was…

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 & Ors

Details

AGLC: R v Lam & Ors [2005] VSC 495
Case: [2005] VSC 495
Decision Date: 23 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the case of R v Lam & Ors involved four defendants charged with various offences, including murder and unlawful possession of weapons in a public place. The defendants were all youthful offenders. The prosecution argued that the accused were principals in the first degree in the murder of a victim, and that they had unlawfully possessed weapons during the commission of the crime. The defendants, however, argued that they were only aiders and abettors, and that they had not intended for the murder to occur.

The court was required to determine the respective roles of the defendants in the crime, and to assess whether the defendants were principals in the first degree or merely aiders and abettors. The court also had to consider the impact of the defendants' youth and prospects of rehabilitation on their sentences.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the defendants were indeed principals in the first degree in the murder, as they had all chosen to remain present during the violent confrontation, and had encouraged the violent conduct by their conduct or presence. However, the court also took into account the defendants' youth and good prospects of rehabilitation in determining their sentences. As a result, the court imposed sentences that were less severe than those that might have been imposed on adult offenders, taking into account the defendants' age and potential for rehabilitation. The court also noted that the defendants' unlawful possession of weapons in a public place was an aggravating factor in the sentencing process.

The court ordered that the defendants be sentenced to terms of imprisonment, with the specific lengths of the sentences varying depending on the individual circumstances of each defendant. The court also noted that the defendants would be eligible for parole after serving a certain proportion of their sentences, in recognition of their youth and prospects of rehabilitation.

Orders