Crown Solicitor Nikola Velcic & Associates - Accused
CATCHWORDS:
accessory after fact of murder - disposal of a murdered body - mitigating circumstances - plea of guilty - assistance to authorities - special circumstances - suspended sentence
Sentenced to imprisonment for a period fo two years, commencing 17 December 2002 and expiring on 16 December 2004; execution of the sentence suspended for a period of one year and nine months, from 16 March 2003; direct that Phuc Hang Quach be released from custody on 16 March 2003 on condition that he enters into a good behaviour bond for a period of one year and nine months commencing 16 March 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION CRIMINAL LIST
SIMPSON J
17 December 2002
70226/02 REGINA v Phuc Hang QUACH
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
1 HER HONOUR: Phuc Hang Quach appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to an indictment alleging that, between 6 and 7 December 2001, he was an accessory after the fact of the murder of Ms Yoke Phin Loh, committed by an acquaintance of the present offender, Phuc Hao Tran.
2 Evidence about the facts of the murder is rather sketchy. Tran allegedly murdered Ms Loh during the evening of 6 December or the early hours of the following day. It appears that Tran and Ms Loh had had a sexual relationship and had been in bed together in a bedroom ordinarily occupied by the offender in the offender’s brother’s home. Tran had fallen asleep. He awoke to find Ms Loh scratching him and he responded by holding her tightly and putting his hands over her mouth to prevent her screaming. He lay on top of her until she ceased moving. He realised she was dead, and went to another room in the house where the offender was sleeping. Tran woke the offender and asked for his help. The offender went to his bedroom and saw Ms Loh’s body, wrapped in plastic bags. Tran had already wrapped the body. At Tran’s request, the offender assisted to secure the body in the plastic wrap by using sticky tape. Both men then carried the body to Tran’s car and placed it in the boot. Tran drove for some distance, in a direction chosen by him, to an area of bushland in or near Moorebank. Together the two men removed the body from the car. At this point they were wearing gloves. The offender assisted Tran by helping to carry…
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 Quach
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Quach [2002] NSWSC 1205
Case
[2002] NSWSC 1205
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Quach involved a dispute where the accused, Quach, was charged as an accessory after the fact in relation to the disposal of a murdered body. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key issues for the court to determine were the appropriate sentence for Quach, who had pleaded guilty, and whether any mitigating circumstances should be taken into account. The court also needed to consider Quach's assistance to authorities and the special circumstances surrounding the disposal of the body.
The court began by acknowledging Quach's guilty plea and his assistance in locating the body and providing information to the police. The sentencing principles applicable in this case were considered, with particular attention given to the severity of the offence and the role Quach played in the disposal of the body. The court recognised that Quach's assistance to the authorities could be considered a mitigating factor. However, the court also noted that the disposal of a body was a serious matter that warranted a significant penalty.
After weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors, the court determined that a suspended sentence was appropriate. The court took into account Quach's cooperation with the authorities and his remorse, as well as the severity of the offence. The final orders included a suspended sentence for Quach, with conditions such as regular check-ins with authorities and participation in a rehabilitation program.