R v Ng - [2002] VSC 562

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1412 of 2002

THE QUEEN

EDWARD SHANE NG

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25-28 November 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 December 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Edward Shane Ng
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 562

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Shooting of taxi driver in course of robbery – Killing intended but not long planned – Guilty plea - Nineteen years imprisonment – fourteen years non-parole period

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S Pullen	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Montgomery	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Edward Shane Ng. You have pleaded guilty to the murder of Cameron Rudd at Dandenong on 14 November 2000. You did not know the deceased personally. Cameron Rudd was a taxi driver, doing his job.

For two years or so into the year 2000, you worked as a baker at Tip Top Bakeries on the Cranbourne side of Dandenong. In that time, you acquired a 9 millimetre handgun. In November 2000, you had left your job as a baker. You were living in your car, an old Commodore, at Cranbourne and elsewhere. On the night of 14 November 2000, you left your car parked off the South Gippsland Highway near the race track. You had no money and you were hungry. You walked around the Cranbourne shopping centre trying to get some food or some money. You had with you your handgun. It was loaded and cocked and ready to fire. You decided to rob someone to get some money. Cameron Rudd was your chosen victim.

His taxi was at a taxi rank in Cranbourne. You got inside and sat in the rear nearside seat. You got him to drive you from Cranbourne to Dandenong. You were later to tell the police that he drove you first to the Tip Top Bakeries factory, and then to Centre Kirkham Road. I do not accept that. I am satisfied that the deceased drove you into James Street, Dandenong. I am not able to make precise findings as to what happened there. I am satisfied that you shot the deceased when the taxi was in that vicinity. I am also satisfied that you had at that time the intention to kill him.

Once having shot the deceased, you were left with dilemmas. How to dispose of the body? How to get his wallet? How to get back to Cranbourne? How to minimise the prospect of being caught? The dilemmas were the greater because the fatal shot to the head of the deceased had caused bleeding.

You released the deceased’s seat belt. You moved the deceased sufficiently to the centre area of the front seat to enable you to drive the taxi. You then drove it to Centre Kirkham Road, Dandenong. You parked it there at the end of what is a cul de sac in an…

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 Ng

Details

AGLC: R v Ng [2002] VSC 562
Case: [2002] VSC 562
Decision Date: 12 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ng arose in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the accused, Ng, was found guilty of the murder of a taxi driver during the course of a robbery. Ng shot the victim, intending to kill, but the killing was not premeditated over a long period. Ng entered a guilty plea to the charge of murder, and sentencing was the central issue before the court. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the nature and circumstances of the crime, as well as the principles of sentencing for murder.

The primary legal issue was the appropriate sentence for a murder committed during a robbery, where the killing was intentional but not meticulously planned in advance. The court had to weigh various factors, including the severity of the crime, the intent behind the killing, the plea of guilt, and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing for murder, particularly the need to ensure sentences are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed.

The court, in delivering its judgment, considered the brutal nature of the crime, the lack of premeditation over a long period, and Ng's guilty plea. The court found that the appropriate sentence was nineteen years imprisonment with a non-parole period of fourteen years. This sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to provide adequate punishment, deterrence, and protection for society. The court emphasised the importance of sentencing in reflecting the seriousness of the crime while also taking into account the mitigating factors present in the case.

The final orders of the court were that Ng be sentenced to nineteen years imprisonment for the murder, with a non-parole period of fourteen years. The sentence was designed to reflect the severity of the crime, the intent behind the killing, and the principles of sentencing for murder. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering both the gravity of the offence and the specific circumstances in which it was committed when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders