R v Tang - [2010] VSC 604

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2009 1484

THE QUEEN

TAI SHUM TANG

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	8,9,10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 November and 14 December 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 December 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Tang
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 604

---

MURDER – Late plea of guilty – Intention to cause really serious injury – Post-mortem incineration of body an aggravating feature.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs C Quin	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Johns	Balmer & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Van Nguyen was 23 when she died. She lived on level 3, 110 Elizabeth Street Richmond with her parents and suffered from a mild intellectual disability. The cause of her death was blunt force trauma to the head. Findings consistent with manual neck compression were also made by the pathologist Dr Dodd. Van Nguyen’s partially incinerated body was found on 14 September 2008 in a metal rubbish skip at the rear of a Fasta Pasta restaurant in Cheltenham Road Keysborough.

You worked at that time at a restaurant called Eat Asia, situated in the Parkmore Shopping Centre, Cheltenham Road Keysborough, opposite the Fasta Pasta restaurant. You also lived in Elizabeth Street Richmond, a short distance from the deceased.

You were arrested on 18 September 2008. As a result of thorough and highly competent investigation a very strong case had been assembled against you. On 13 September 2008 you telephoned the deceased at 4.46pm. The call lasted about one and a half minutes. At 10.53pm you entered the foyer area of 110 Elizabeth Street Richmond. At 10.54pm you entered a lift in that building and ascended to the third floor. At 10.55pm you telephoned the deceased’s mobile phone. This call lasted for twenty-two seconds. At 11.29pm you and the deceased entered the lift at 110 Elizabeth Street and travelled to the foyer. You left the building together. This is the last recorded sighting of the deceased.

At 4.38am on the 14 September 2008 your silver Toyota Rav4 was filmed by surveillance cameras in the Parkmore Shopping Centre driving around the car park and loading bays. It stopped at an area of rubbish bins before departing the scene. This is a short distance from where the deceased’s burning body was later discovered. Your vehicle was further filmed in the vicinity of the Fasta Pasta restaurant at 4.59am. A fire in a rubbish skip at the back of the restaurant was reported to the Fire Brigade at 5.44am. The deceased’s partially incinerated body was discovered once the fire was extinguished. Her body was partly clad.

You drove your vehicle home before returning to work at Keysborough at 10.00am. Although rostered to work until 5.00pm you left at about 1.30pm. Your explanation for leaving work at that time was false.

During your interview with police you accepted you knew the deceased and maintained…

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 [2010] VSC 604
Case: [2010] VSC 604
Decision Date: 17 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tang was heard by the High Court of Australia, which heard an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland. The accused, Tang, was convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of Queensland and his appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Tang appealed to the High Court on the grounds that the evidence did not support the jury’s conclusion that he intended to cause really serious injury to the victim, and that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the relevance of the post-mortem incineration of the body as an aggravating factor. The central issue before the High Court was whether the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Tang intended to cause really serious injury to the victim and whether the trial judge's direction regarding the relevance of the post-mortem incineration of the body was correct.

The High Court found that the evidence did support the jury’s conclusion that Tang intended to cause really serious injury to the victim. The court noted that the evidence showed that Tang had acted in a violent and aggressive manner towards the victim, and that there were indications that Tang had premeditated the attack. The court also found that the trial judge’s direction regarding the relevance of the post-mortem incineration of the body was correct, as it was an aggravating feature of the crime. The High Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that Tang intended to cause really serious injury to the victim, and that the trial judge’s direction on the relevance of the post-mortem incineration of the body was not erroneous.

As a result of the High Court's decision, Tang's appeal was dismissed. The court found that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Tang intended to cause really serious injury to the victim, and that the trial judge's direction on the relevance of the post-mortem incineration of the body was correct. The court also found that there were no errors in the trial that would warrant a new trial. The High Court's decision upheld Tang's conviction and sentence for murder.

Orders