R v Ta Vuong - [2014] VSC 574

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0010

THE QUEEN

PAUL TA-VUONG

---

JUDGE:	EMERTON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18-22, 25-26, 28-29 August 2014, 1-5, 8-12, 15 September 2014 and 13 October 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 November 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ta Vuong
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 574

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Killing of 12 month infant by mother’s partner –Accused maintained infant’s death accidental – Confession evidence from prison informers - Accused’s expression of remorse over accidental death irrelevant in the sentencing exercise for Murder – Sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment imposed – Non-parole period of 20 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms F Bitcon, Solicitor	Martine Marich & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Paul Ta-Vuong, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Silas Leithhead in Richmond on 15 May 2013. Silas was the infant son of your girlfriend, Kate Leithhead, and he was entrusted to your care when you murdered him. Silas turned one in the week before his murder. He was, by all accounts, a lively and happy baby, full of the joys of life.

You and Ms Leithhead met the previous year at Odyssey House. You were both recovering heroin addicts. You formed a relationship. You left Odyssey House within six weeks of one another. You went to live with your parents in Burwood; Ms Leithhead returned to live in her Housing Commission flat in Richmond with Silas. You visited Ms Leithhead at the Richmond flat most evenings after work, returning to your parents’ house on the last tram late at night. Your practice was generally to stay over at Ms Leithhead’s flat one or two nights a week, usually on a Friday and/or a Saturday.

Your relationship with Ms Leithhead was initially a happy one. You shared thoughts of a future together and Ms Leithhead, at least, felt herself to be falling in love. Ms Leithhead told a friend that you doted on her and Silas and that she described you as ‘her angel’. SMS messages, photographs and a video shot on a mobile phone, as well as the evidence of Ms Leithhead herself, paint a picture of a happy family at this point in your relationship.

However, within two to three weeks of leaving Odyssey House and returning to the Richmond flat, Ms Leithhead had started using heroin again. At first, she kept this from you, but when you did find out – quite soon after she began using again – you suggested that you and she use together and you started to use heroin with her. It was not long before the two of you were injecting heroin together daily.

It is clear from the SMS messages, as well as from Ms Leithhead’s records of interview and your own, that this drug use had…

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 Ta Vuong

Details

AGLC: R v Ta Vuong [2014] VSC 574
Case: [2014] VSC 574
Decision Date: 13 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ta Vuong, the defendant was convicted of the murder of a 12-month-old infant, the child of his partner. The defendant claimed the infant's death was accidental, while the prosecution argued it was a deliberate act of murder. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of the state. The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to impose for the murder conviction, given the defendant's insistence that the death was accidental and his expression of remorse for what he believed was an unintended tragedy.

The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing for murder, including the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and retribution. The prosecution argued that the defendant's remorse was not a mitigating factor, as the death was not accidental. The court had to weigh the defendant's expression of remorse against the objective circumstances of the crime and the need to uphold the law's deterrent effect. The court also considered the confession evidence obtained from prison informers, which supported the prosecution's case.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the murder was 25 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years. The court held that the defendant's remorse was irrelevant in the sentencing exercise for murder, as the death was not accidental but a deliberate act. The court found that the sentence imposed was sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing for murder, including deterrence and retribution, while also taking into account the defendant's expression of remorse. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders