R v Sok - [2012] VSC 229

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. S CR 2012 0008

THE QUEEN

THY SOK

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Shepparton
DATE OF HEARING:	28 May 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 June 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sok
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 229

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Murder – Single stab wound to the upper chest – Plea of guilty – Plea accepted on the basis that, at the time of the stabbing, the accused intended to cause really serious injury – Sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment with minimum term of 14 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M. Williams SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Dempsey	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Thy Sok, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Lakhwinder Singh. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

On Thursday 21 April 2011, Mr Singh and a friend drove from Melbourne to Rushworth to pick fruit over Easter. They arrived at the Miner’s Pick Caravan Park in Rushworth shortly before midnight to stay with a friend. On the way to Rushworth, Mr Singh arranged to visit his friend in the caravan park, Tania Wichman. When Mr Singh arrived at the caravan park, he walked to the site at which Ms Wichman was living.

You and Ms Wichman had been in a relationship from January to March 2011. As at 21 April 2011, Ms Wichman slept in the annexe at the site, and you in the caravan. When Mr Singh arrived at the site, Ms Wichman was with a friend, sitting on Ms Wichman’s bed looking at Facebook on a laptop computer. Ms Wichman, Mr Singh and the friend all went outside to smoke cigarettes. They returned to the annexe and the friend left about ten minutes later.

Ms Wichman and Mr Singh sat on Ms Wichman’s bed with the computer between them and a blanket wrapped around them. Mr Singh was showing Ms Wichman some photos of his family in India. The television was on, as was a bedside light.

You came out of the caravan and, without speaking to Ms Wichman or Mr Singh, returned to the caravan, and then came into the annexe less than a minute later. At this stage, it was approximately 1.15am on Friday 22 April 2011. You walked over to the bed and stabbed Mr Singh near the left clavicle with a knife. You said nothing before doing this.

You then told Mr Singh to get out. At this stage, Ms Wichman yelled, “You just stabbed him”. Mr Singh fell back on the bed. Ms Wichman put pressure on the wound to try and stem bleeding. She called her employer, who also lived in the caravan park. You went back to the caravan and, shortly afterwards, drove away (ultimately being arrested and taken into custody in Springvale at 8.25am that morning).

An ambulance was called. While waiting for 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 Sok

Details

AGLC: R v Sok [2012] VSC 229
Case: [2012] VSC 229
Decision Date: 4 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sok, was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria and appealed against his sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years. The case arose from a single stab wound to the chest of the victim, which proved fatal. The accused entered a plea of guilty on the basis that he intended to cause really serious injury, rather than death, at the time of the stabbing.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder where the plea was entered on the basis of intent to cause serious injury, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offence with the accused’s plea of intent to cause serious injury, rather than death, and consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

The court noted that while the plea accepted a serious degree of intent, it was not a mitigating factor in the sentencing process. The gravity of the offence, the circumstances under which the stabbing occurred, and the impact on the victim’s family were critical in determining the appropriate sentence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and upheld the original sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The court did not make any orders altering the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court.

Orders