R v Thuok and Khay - [2002] VSCA 124

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No.204 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
PUN THUOK

No.205 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
PRASITH KHAY

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., PHILLIPS, J.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	30 July 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 July 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 124

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – False imprisonment, intentionally causing serious injury, threats to kill – Victim suspected of alienating affections, lured to flat and brutally assaulted – Ear cut off – Co-offenders both sentenced to significant periods of imprisonment – No manifest excess or other sentencing error.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Gyorffy	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant Thuok	Mr P.F. Tehan, QC	Leanne Warren & Associates
For the Appellant Khay	Mr M.J. Croucher	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, P.:

I invite Phillips, J.A. to give the first judgment in this appeal.

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

These two appeals, which have been heard together, are against sentences imposed in the County Court on 27 July 2001. The appellants, who both come from Cambodia, were jointly charged with nine offences and the first appellant with a tenth, some of these, however, in the alternative to others. Both appellants were found guilty, after a trial by jury, on 8 May 2001 of two counts of intentionally causing serious injury, one count of false imprisonment and two counts of threat to kill, all occurring on 19 October 1999 and in respect of which the victim was one Bunthel Phon. It was alleged by the Crown that Phon was at the same time robbed of his jewellery but both appellants were acquitted on the count of armed robbery. The appellant Thuok, however, was convicted of a third offence of threat to kill, this committed on 12 November 1999, when a threat to kill one Pech Choup was made to her by Thuok over the telephone.

The appellants were respectively 30 years old and 39 years old at the time of the offending. They were sentenced, the first to a total effective sentence of six years and six months' imprisonment of which four years and six months were to be served before the appellant became eligible for parole; and the second to a total effective sentence of five years and 10 months' imprisonment with a minimum term of three years and six months.

Leave to appeal was granted on 14 June last, in each case the initial notice of application being heavily amended. I was the judge who granted leave to appeal but having heard now full argument in relation to the amended grounds of appeal, I find myself not persuaded that there is anything in either of these appeals.

As already mentioned, the principal offending occurred on 19 October 1999. Less than a month earlier Pech Choup had left the appellant Thuok after a

relationship of some 13 years during which three children had been born to the couple. Choup left Thuok in Sydney…

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 Thuok and Khay

Details

AGLC: R v Thuok and Khay [2002] VSCA 124
Case: [2002] VSCA 124
Decision Date: 30 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thuok and Khay involved the Crown prosecuting two defendants for a brutal and violent attack on a third party. The incident, which was motivated by the victim being suspected of alienating the affections of one of the defendants, resulted in serious injuries, including the cutting off of the victim's ear. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the defendants were ultimately convicted and sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentences to be imposed on the two defendants for their respective roles in the violent attack. The court had to consider the severity and nature of the crimes committed, including false imprisonment, intentionally causing serious injury, and making threats to kill. The court also had to take into account the circumstances surrounding the attack and the motivations of the defendants.

In determining the appropriate sentences, the court considered various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the degree of culpability of each defendant, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that both defendants played significant roles in the attack and that the crimes committed were of a high degree of seriousness. The court also noted the significant harm caused to the victim, both physically and psychologically. After careful consideration of all the relevant factors, the court concluded that the sentences imposed on both defendants were just and appropriate, and there was no manifest excess or other sentencing error.

The final orders of the court were that both defendants, Thuok and Khay, were to be sentenced to significant periods of imprisonment for their respective roles in the attack. The exact sentences imposed were not specified in the text provided.

Orders