R v Ung

Case [2002] VSCA 101 26 June 2002

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 53 of 2001

THE QUEEN

SOKCHIET UNG

---

JUDGES:	ORMISTON, CALLAWAY and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 June 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 June 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 101	1^st Revision – 7 August 2003

---

Criminal law - sentence - intentionally cause serious injury - applicant 18 years old - no prior convictions - 'gang' attack with machete on crowded train - parity - sentence of 4 years 6 months with 3 years non parole - not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Gyorffy	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr M.J. Croucher	Clarebrough Pica

ORMISTON, J.A.:

I will ask Eames, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

EAMES, J.A.

On 23 February 2001 the appellant Sokchiet Ung and a number of other offenders each pleaded guilty to a single count of intentionally cause serious injury contrary to s.16 of the Crimes Act 1958. The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years' imprisonment.

On 6 March 2001 a judge of the County Court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for a term of four years and six months and fixed a non-parole period of three years. On 1 March 2002 a judge of this Court granted leave to appeal against sentence.

Five grounds of appeal are raised by the appellant. Those grounds are as follows:

1. That the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
2.That his Honour erred in failing to place sufficient weight on the fact that I am a young offender.
3.That his Honour erred in failing to place sufficient weight on the fact that I do not have any prior convictions.
4.The sentence imposed upon the appellant offends the principle of parity amongst co-offenders.

5. The learned sentencing judge:
(a)erred in concluding that "principles of specific and general deterrence are of paramount significance in the sentencing process for this offence" (sentence at 17);
(b)in failing to regard rehabilitation as being more important than general deterrence and specific deterrence;
(c)in giving excessive weight to specific and general deterrence and/or insufficient weight to rehabilitation.

In the course of his submissions Mr Croucher addressed grounds 1, 2, 3 and 5 together, there being substantial overlap in those grounds.

The appellant was initially committed for trial on two counts, intentionally cause serious injury and affray. The count of affray was not proceeded with by the Crown.

The offence to which the appeal relates occurred in the early hours of Saturday 17 June 2000 but its more proximate origin arose during the evening of Friday 16 June 2000.

The appellant, an Australian citizen of Cambodian descent, was in the company of a group of five of his friends, all of whom were of Thai or Cambodian ancestry. At about 8 or 9 p.m. on the Friday evening the appellant and his group boarded a train at Dandenong railway station intending to travel to Clayton to attend a party. The…

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 Ung

Details

AGLC: R v Ung [2002] VSCA 101
Case: [2002] VSCA 101
Decision Date: 26 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ung involved the applicant who, at the age of 18 and with no prior criminal record, participated in a group attack on a crowded train, wielding a machete that resulted in serious injuries to the victim. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months in prison, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The applicant contested the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, given his age and the absence of any prior convictions. The matter was brought before the court for the purpose of reviewing the sentence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the applicant's background and the nature of the offence. Key issues included the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing, as well as the severity of the crime and the role the applicant played in it. The court had to weigh these factors to decide if the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court carefully considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for consistency in sentencing similar offences. It noted that the applicant's involvement in a group attack using a dangerous weapon resulted in significant harm to the victim. Despite the applicant's age and lack of prior convictions, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It was held that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and aligned with sentences imposed in similar cases. Therefore, the application to reduce the sentence was dismissed.

The court confirmed the original sentence of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, finding that it was an appropriate reflection of the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

Orders