R v Pan - [2021] VSC 703

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0206

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
PAGUIR PAN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	13 and 14 September 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 October 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Pan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 703

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Deceased shot at point blank range in car park – Denunciation, general deterrence, protection of community – Accused aged 19 – Impact of youth – Significant criminal history – Limited remorse – Current prospects for rehabilitation guarded – Standard sentence – Interests of justice served by shorter non-parole period – Sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 16 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Fisher	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Dr M Gumbleton	Milides Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Paguir Pan, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Winis Atem Apet on 10 March 2019.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Summary of offending

On the evening of 10 March 2019 you and Mr Apet were with five other friends at a house in Dandenong. You were all consuming alcohol. You also consumed ‘ice’ and Xanax. At some stage the group decided to go to the Asmara Café in Springvale and drove there in a number of cars. You, Mr Apet and Mr Deng travelled in Mr Apet’s car, picking up a young woman en route. You arrived at about 11.03pm and parked in a side laneway. Your group of four then socialised with the others, both in the café and outside in the carpark and laneway.

At about 11.10pm Mr Mijak, one of your friends present, heard a scuffle in the carpark and saw you drive away in Mr Apet’s car. Mr Apet told Mr Mijak that you and he had had a play fight in the carpark during which you punched him a couple of times and he hit you back. Mr Apet reported that you did not like that.

Mr Mijak made two short telephone calls to you. You told him to tell Mr Apet to wait for you and that you would return. Mr Apet also used Mr Mijak’s telephone to call you. Another person present heard Mr Apet say ‘bring the car back’, apparently angrily.

By about 11.47pm you had returned to the scene. CCTV footage showed you walking down the rear laneway towards the carpark. You were carrying a blue bag. The hood of your hoodie was over your head. You were wearing a mask. Mr Apet was seated with Mr Mijak and Ms Puok in a vehicle in the side laneway, but then got out and walked to its rear.

You produced a 12 gauge shotgun from the bag and, from about one metre away, pointed it at Mr Apet. He said ‘what are you doing?’. You discharged the gun. Mr Apet was hit in the chest.

Mr Mijak exited…

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 Pan

Details

AGLC: R v Pan [2021] VSC 703
Case: [2021] VSC 703
Decision Date: 29 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a criminal prosecution against the accused, Pan, for the murder of the deceased. The incident occurred when the deceased was shot at point blank range in a car park. The case was heard in the higher court, where the accused had been found guilty of murder. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the offence committed.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the standard sentence for murder and the imposition of a non-parole period. In considering the standard sentence, the court took into account the need for denunciation, general deterrence, and protection of the community. Additionally, the court considered the impact of the accused’s youth, their significant criminal history, and the limited remorse shown. The court also evaluated the accused’s current prospects for rehabilitation, which were deemed guarded.

In delivering its judgment, the court recognised that the interests of justice would be best served by imposing a sentence that includes a shorter non-parole period. The court found that the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder in this case was 24 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years. The court emphasised that this sentence strikes a balance between the need for punishment and the opportunity for rehabilitation, taking into account the unique circumstances of the accused and the impact of their actions on the victim and the community.

The court further outlined that the sentence imposed ensures that the principles of denunciation and general deterrence are upheld, while also providing a degree of protection for the community. The court concluded that the sentence appropriately reflects the gravity of the offence and the need to balance the interests of justice with the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders