R v Ramos - [2019] VSC 67

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0094

THE QUEEN

ABELARDO RAMOS

---

JUDGE:	TAYLOR J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 February 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 February 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ramos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 67

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Statutory Murder – Deceased killed in furtherance of armed robbery – Co-offender fired fatal shots– Late plea of guilty – Serious violent offender – Protection of the community – Denunciation – General deterrence – Specific deterrence – Guarded prospects for rehabilitation – Consideration of DPP v Perry (2016) 50 VR 686 – Sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 11 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC with Ms D Manova	John Cain, Solicitor to the OPP
For the Accused	Mr C Mandy SC with Ms A Kapitaniak	Kurnai Legal

HER HONOUR:

Abelardo Ramos, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Phuong The Vuong on 16 June 2017.[1] You agreed with Lawrence Duca to commit an armed robbery on Mr Vuong once you had gained entry to his home. In furtherance of that armed robbery, Duca shot and killed Mr Vuong.
[1]Pursuant to the Crimes Act1958, s 3A (‘Crimes Act’).

The maximum penalty for statutory murder is life imprisonment.

Summary of Offending

At the time of his death, Mr Vuong lived alone in Deer Park. He was self-employed as a sewing machinist, manufacturing garments for high-end fashion labels from his home. He also offered massage services from his home, performed by himself or other Vietnamese males he retained for that purpose. Mr Vuong advertised the availability of those massage services in a Vietnamese newspaper.

Mr Vuong participated in a ‘Hui’, a community loan scheme operating within the Vietnamese community in which members make an initial deposit into a common fund and then take turns borrowing from the combined total. He was known to keep money at home and, at times, loaned money to others with jewellery items taken as security.

Neither you nor Duca had any direct link with Mr Vuong. Rather, you became aware of Mr Vuong’s address via your friend Huey Nguyen in about April 2017. You had the impression, from what you had heard Mr Nguyen say to others, that the Deer Park home of Mr Vuong was a ‘crop house’ – that is, a location in which cannabis was grown hydroponically.

You had previously supplied Duca with hydroponic equipment suitable for cannabis growing from other ex-crop houses which you had renovated. The initial agreement with Duca to steal hydroponic equipment, cannabis and other unspecified valuable items from the Deer Park home of Mr Vuong came about on 16 June 2017, when you visited Duca at his home to repay $1,500 of a $2,000 debt you owed him, and also to collect power tools you had previously loaned to him.

Together you took methylamphetamine in the…

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 Ramos

Details

AGLC: R v Ramos [2019] VSC 67
Case: [2019] VSC 67
Decision Date: 18 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ramos was heard in a higher court where the defendant, Ramos, was convicted of statutory murder in connection with an armed robbery where the deceased was killed. Ramos’ co-offender was responsible for firing the fatal shots, but Ramos was an active participant in the crime. Ramos entered a late plea of guilty. The legal issues before the court were to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature of the crime, Ramos' role, and the need for protection of the community, denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

In assessing the sentence, the court considered the principles laid out in DPP v Perry, which emphasised the importance of proportionality and individualised sentencing. The court recognised Ramos' significant culpability and the violent nature of the crime. Despite his late plea, the court acknowledged it as a mitigating factor. Ramos' status as a serious violent offender and the need to protect the community weighed heavily in the court's decision. The court also considered the possibility of rehabilitation, albeit with guarded prospects.

After weighing these factors, the court sentenced Ramos to 15 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, the degree of Ramos' involvement, and the broader aims of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court's decision was a balanced approach, considering both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were that Ramos was to serve a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. This sentence aimed to address the court’s objectives of punishment, deterrence, and the protection of society while also considering the potential for Ramos’ rehabilitation.

Orders