R v Tran - [2003] VSC 165

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1502 of 2002

THE QUEEN

TAN LIEM TRAN

---

JUDGE:	REDLICH J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 March 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 May 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R -v- Tran
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 165

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Killing of partner – Loss of self-control.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen	Ms Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Taft	David Grace & Co.

HIS HONOUR:

Tan Liem Tran, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Phung Kim Nguyen on 5 February 2002. The deceased, Phung Kim Nguyen was born in Danang, Vietnam on 1 February 1976 being the eldest of three children. Her father fled Vietnam after a lengthy period in a re-education camp and made his way to Australia where the family was able to reunite. Phung came to Australia in 1994 and became an Australian Citizen. She attended Deakin University and completed a Computer Science Degree in 1999. She was at the time of her death, an analyst programmer with Premier Technologies. She is survived by her father Tu Ngoc Nguyen, her mother Thi My Dung Tran, her younger sister Thi Diem Huong Nguyen and her younger brother Duc Thong Nguyen.

You were born in Vietnam on 26 July 1969. Your father, following his “re-education” after the war was killed in a motor car accident in Vietnam when you were aged 15. You attended university in Vietnam, studying Marine Engineering but did not complete those studies when you were able to join your mother in Australia in 1994, she having lived in Melbourne since 1992. Upon your arrival in Melbourne, you resided with your mother and brother in Footscray and worked for two years as a machinist in a clothing factory whilst undertaking English studies. You then took employment as a dye colourer in a leather factory in Footscray where you worked for about a year and a half before commencing a Diploma of Building Construction and Building Surveying at Sunshine TAFE which you completed over a two year period. During this time, you were able to work part time for Don’s Smallgoods and upon completion of your studies, you commenced to work there on a full time basis.

In approximately 1995 you met Phung whilst she was still studying at Deakin University. Over time you formed a close and intimate relationship. In late 2001 you purchased a home with Phung at 24 Mountain View Avenue in Avondale Heights. The house was in the deceased’s name as she was able to qualify for the Home Buyers’ Scheme. You already owned premises at 6 Lily Street, Braybrook. You and Phung obtained a joint loan for the property at Avondale Heights and contributed a significant amount of your own funds towards this purchase. Within a short time after its acquisition Phung decided to end 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 Tran

Details

AGLC: R v Tran [2003] VSC 165
Case: [2003] VSC 165
Decision Date: 23 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tran involved a dispute between the Crown and the accused, Tran, who was charged with the murder of his partner. The facts of the case were that the accused and his partner had been in a tumultuous relationship, culminating in a violent incident during which the accused killed his partner. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Crown sought a sentence of life imprisonment, arguing that the murder was premeditated and that Tran showed no remorse. Tran, on the other hand, pleaded for a lesser sentence, citing mitigating factors such as his partner’s abuse towards him and the loss of self-control at the time of the incident.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Tran, considering the mitigating factors and the severity of the crime. The court had to assess the impact of Tran’s history of abuse, the loss of self-control, and whether the murder was premeditated or an impulsive act. The court also considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing. The Crown argued for a lengthy sentence to reflect the gravity of the crime and to deter similar acts of violence. Tran’s legal team argued that the mitigating factors warranted a more lenient sentence, reflecting his diminished capacity and the context of the relationship.

The court, in its judgment, found that while the murder was undoubtedly a grave crime, the mitigating factors presented by Tran’s defence were significant. The court acknowledged the history of abuse and the loss of self-control, which played a role in the incident. The judges concluded that although the murder was severe, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that balanced justice and rehabilitation. The court sentenced Tran to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, taking into account both the need for punishment and the potential for Tran’s rehabilitation. This decision reflected a careful consideration of the facts, the law, and the principles of sentencing.

The final orders of the court included the sentence of imprisonment for Tran, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The court also directed that Tran’s history of abuse and the circumstances of the murder be taken into account in any future parole considerations. The decision highlighted the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, particularly in cases involving complex mitigating factors.

Orders