R v Vu - [2018] VSC 613

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0081

THE QUEEN
v
HUNG ANH VU	Accused

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 October 2018
DATE OF RULING:	17 October 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Vu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 613

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Admissibility of evidence – Evidence as to maximum depth of wound tract – Evidence of abrasion on skin surface – Whether relevant – Whether probative value outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – Both pieces of evidence admitted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K Doyle	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Bayles	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Pre-trial rulings were required in respect of the admissibility of two aspects of the evidence of Dr Gregory Young, the pathologist who carried out the autopsy on the body of the deceased in this case. On 1 October 2018, I heard the submissions of both sides in respect of the matters in question. On 2 October, I informed counsel of my decision to permit the prosecution to lead the two pieces of evidence and indicated I would provide reasons in due course. These are my reasons.

Background

The accused is charged with the murder of Viet Hung Nguyen (‘the deceased’) and attempted murder of Laura Chan, as well as with alternate offences in respect of Ms Chan. The offences are alleged to have been committed on 5 August 2017.

At the time of the events, the accused and his partner Ms Chan lived at 10 McGregor Court in Sunshine. They had been together as a couple since 2001, but had never married. They had two children together, William and Kevin Vu.

In July 2013, the accused was imprisoned in NSW for drug trafficking. In 2014, while the accused was still in custody, Ms Chan formed a relationship with the deceased and he moved into 10 McGregor Court, premises in which Ms Chan and the accused had been living before his incarceration. The deceased remained living in the premises with Chan and her two children until 31 August 2016, when the accused was released from custody. On 18 September 2015, Chan and the deceased got married. The relationship and the marriage were kept secret from the accused.

When the accused was released from prison on 31 August 2016, he returned to live with Chan at 10 McGregor Court. At some time after this, Chan introduced the deceased to the accused as a friend who had helped her while the accused had been away from the home in prison. The accused and Chan became friends.

In the ensuing year, the accused became suspicious about the deceased and Chan. On the day of the alleged offences, the accused spoke with his mother about whether Chan had been cheating on him. His sons Kevin and William were present and heard this conversation. The accused later questioned William about…

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 Vu

Details

AGLC: R v Vu [2018] VSC 613
Case: [2018] VSC 613
Decision Date: 17 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a criminal trial, with the accused, Vu, facing charges that required the court to consider the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence regarding the maximum depth of a wound tract and an abrasion found on the skin surface. The trial judge admitted both pieces of evidence, a decision which Vu appealed. The appeal raised the question of whether such evidence was relevant and, if so, whether its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

The court was required to determine the relevance of the evidence concerning the maximum depth of the wound tract and the abrasion. Additionally, it had to assess whether the probative value of this evidence was sufficient to justify its admission, given the potential for unfair prejudice to the accused. The court considered the nature of the evidence, its relevance to the issues in the case, and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial.

In examining these issues, the court found that the evidence in question was indeed relevant to the case. The court reasoned that the depth of the wound tract and the presence of an abrasion were pertinent to understanding the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, which was central to the prosecution's case. The court also concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential for unfair prejudice. The court was satisfied that the evidence was necessary to assist the jury in reaching a just and accurate decision, and that proper measures, such as warnings to the jury, could mitigate any prejudicial effects.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence was upheld. The court's ruling confirmed that both pieces of evidence could be considered by the jury in determining the accused's guilt or innocence.

Orders