R v Tang - [2018] VSC 460

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0136

THE QUEEN

PHUC THIEN TANG

Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	03 August 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 August 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Tang
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 460

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Use of weapons – Accused with significant criminal history – Accused with significant history of drug use – Accused on methamphetamine at time of offence – Accused on bail at time of offence – Plea of Guilty – Remorse – Significant weight given to general deterrence and denunciation – Need for specific deterrence – Guarded prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 20 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms F Dalziel	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G Casement	Stary Norton Halphen

HER HONOUR:

Phuc Thien Tang, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Hoa Thi Huynh, known as Lina Huynh, on 7 September 2017.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Summary of Offending

You and Ms Huynh had been in and out of a relationship since 2012. In mid-June 2017 you were both living together in the sunroom of a house in St Albans. Two others were also living in that house. None of you were there with the permission of the owner. Adjoining the house were two bungalows which were occupied by lawful tenants.

At some stage between mid-June and early September 2017, the owner of the premises became aware of you and the other squatters in the house and ordered you to leave.

On Thursday 7 September 2017, you and Ms Huynh went to the ANZ ATM in Alfrieda Street, St Albans at about 12.10 am. Ms Huynh conducted a balance enquiry for her account. It returned a zero balance. You both returned to the ATM at about 1.25 am. Ms Huynh attempted to withdraw $590.00 from her account, however, there were insufficient funds for that transaction to be completed.

Shortly thereafter you and Ms Huynh parted ways, briefly. She returned directly to the squat house. You went to another St Albans address where you injected methamphetamine before also returning to the squat house at about 3.00 am. You have had a very long standing and stubborn drug addiction and, since about 2013, you had been injecting between 0.1 and 0.2 grams of methamphetamine daily. As you well knew, the effect of that drug upon you was to augment your anger.

Ms Huynh disliked your drug habit. Upon your return to the squat house during the early hours of 7 September 2017, you both argued about it. You told Ms Huynh to stop nagging you. Nonetheless, she continued to voice her concerns.

In anger you picked up a metal vacuum cleaner pole and struck Ms Huynh several times about the head until she stopped breathing. You also stabbed her…

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 Tang

Details

AGLC: R v Tang [2018] VSC 460
Case: [2018] VSC 460
Decision Date: 20 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the accused, Tang, who was charged with murder. The victim was fatally stabbed during a confrontation, and Tang pleaded guilty to the charge. Tang had a significant criminal history and a history of drug use, including methamphetamine. At the time of the offence, Tang was on bail. The court was required to consider the appropriate sentence for Tang, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, Tang's criminal history, and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The court considered the factors in aggravation and mitigation, including the use of a weapon, Tang's criminal history, and his history of drug use. The court also considered Tang's guilty plea, his age, and his prospects of rehabilitation. The court held that the offence was particularly heinous due to the use of a weapon and Tang's significant criminal history. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and denunciation, as well as the need for specific deterrence. The court held that Tang's prospects of rehabilitation were guarded, and that a significant sentence was necessary to achieve specific deterrence.

The court sentenced Tang to 25 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years. The court held that this sentence was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence, Tang's criminal history, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also held that the sentence was sufficient to achieve the aims of denunciation and rehabilitation. Tang's prospects of rehabilitation were considered guarded, and the court held that a significant sentence was necessary to achieve specific deterrence. The court took into account Tang's guilty plea and his age, but held that these factors did not outweigh the need for a significant sentence. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed.

Orders