R v To - [2001] VSC 257

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1402 of 2001

THE QUEEN

VAN HOANG TO

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12-18 July 2001
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 July 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Van Hoang To
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 257

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Attempted Murder – Stabbed wife in back – Breach of Intervention Order – Sentence of 7 years, minimum of 5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G. Horgan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. J. Kaufman	Victorian Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Van Hoang To. You have been convicted by a jury of the attempted murder of Loc Thi Duong on 16 October 2000. Loc Thi Duong is your wife, For many years, the two of you lived together in a flat in Highett St Richmond. You lived there with your five children, including daughters Tran and Jenny.

In about January 1998, there was a parting. It came about because of your violence towards your wife. The violence also led to her obtaining an intervention order against you. On some occasions after the order was made, she showed you compassion. She allowed you to return to the flat. But even then, you hit her and made threats to her, and she was obliged to contact the police.

Twice last year, you were taken to court, and convicted of offences including breaches of the intervention order. Despite those convictions, you would still come often to the flat, demanding to be let in. You would say to your wife that if she would not let you in, you would kill her. You accused her of sleeping around and neglecting the children.

On the morning of 16 October of last year, she left her flat to walk with your daughter Jenny to school. She exited the ground floor door to the flats building. She walked down a path towards Highett St. As always, she was concerned about you and what you might do. She saw you walking towards her. You called out to her that you wanted to talk. She kept walking. You called out again. She then stopped. You and she argued. You said that you would stab and kill her. She turned her back on you to run towards Highett St. You stabbed her in the back. You kept saying to her: “I will stab you to death”. To try to stop that happening, she held your hand with the knife in it. There was a struggle as you tried to stab her again and she tried to stop you. She called for help. Your daughter Tran ran down from the flat and pushed you off your wife. You walked off taking the knife with you. It was not recovered later. Your wife was treated at St Vincent’s Hospital for the stab wound in her back that had been inflicted by you. The wound…

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 To

Details

AGLC: R v To [2001] VSC 257
Case: [2001] VSC 257
Decision Date: 24 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of R v To, the respondent stood trial for the attempted murder of his wife. The incident occurred after the respondent had been served with an intervention order, prohibiting him from approaching his wife. Despite this, he stabbed his wife in the back with a knife. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the respondent's actions, which involved a serious breach of an intervention order and a violent attack on his wife. The court had to consider the severity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court examined the nature of the attempted murder, noting the significant harm inflicted and the respondent's breach of a legal order designed to protect his wife. The severity of the attack and the breach of the intervention order were highlighted as key factors in determining the appropriate sentence. Additionally, the court considered the respondent's criminal history and the need to deter similar offences in the future. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that a sentence of seven years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years, was appropriate. This sentence aimed to reflect the seriousness of the crime, provide deterrence, and contribute to the rehabilitation of the respondent.

The court's reasoning focused on the gravity of the attempted murder and the breach of an intervention order, which indicated a significant disregard for the law and the safety of the victim. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that would adequately reflect the severity of the crime and serve as a deterrent to others who might consider similar actions. The decision underscores the importance of intervention orders in protecting victims and the severe consequences that can result from their breach. The final orders of the court mandated a seven-year sentence with a non-parole period of five years, ensuring that the respondent would face significant time behind bars before being eligible for parole.

Orders