R v Vu - [2018] VSC 732

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0081

THE QUEEN

HUNG ANH VU

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 November 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 November 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Vu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 732

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter and recklessly causing serious injury – Stabbing of partner and her husband in circumstances of infidelity – Partner suffered serious injury, and her husband died – Previous offer to plead guilty to manslaughter – Extent of discount to be allowed on account of that – Plea offer not an indication of remorse or other subjective criteria in the circumstances – Serious example of crime of manslaughter – Mid-range example of recklessly causing serious injury – Total effective sentence of 15 years – Non-parole period of 11 years.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Hung Anh Vu, following a trial which occupied two weeks of Court time, and following three days of deliberations, you were found guilty by a jury on 18 October 2018 of the manslaughter of Hung Viet Nguyen (‘Viet’) and recklessly causing serious injury to Laura Chan (‘Laura’). The crimes took place on 5 August 2017.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 20 years. The maximum penalty for recklessly causing serious injury is imprisonment for 15 years.

Background

Your killing of Viet and causing of serious injury to Laura took place in the context of their having carried out a relationship behind your back, and your becoming angry and resentful upon finding out about that fact.

At the time of the events, you were living in a relationship with Laura at 10 McGregor Court in Sunshine West. Also living at the premises and present on the evening of the offending were the two sons you had with Laura, Kevin, aged 15, and William, aged 13.

During a period of time during which you were serving a sentence in NSW for drug trafficking, which had you away from Laura and your two children for some years, Laura commenced a relationship with Viet. He moved in with her and the children at McGregor Court. They even took the step of getting married in September 2015, an event which was kept from you and from all but their closest friends.

Upon your release from prison in late August 2016, you returned home to live with Laura and your children at the McGregor Court property. Viet moved out before your return and for the last year of his life, he lived a short distance away, maintaining his relationship with Laura behind your back. In that time, he had been introduced to you by Laura as a friend, and he became a friend and work colleague to you as well.

Evidence indicated that in the months…

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 732
Case: [2018] VSC 732
Decision Date: 26 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Vu, who was charged with manslaughter and recklessly causing serious injury. The charges stemmed from an incident where Vu stabbed his partner and her husband. The partner suffered serious injuries, and the husband tragically died. The matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. Prior to the trial, Vu had made an offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, which led to a discussion regarding the extent of the discount to be applied to his sentence for that plea.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Vu, considering the nature and circumstances of the crime. Specifically, the court had to decide on the appropriate discount for the plea offer and whether this plea constituted an indication of remorse or met other subjective criteria. Additionally, the court had to classify the severity of the manslaughter and the recklessly causing serious injury offenses and determine the total effective sentence and non-parole period.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the plea offer did not constitute an indication of remorse or meet other subjective criteria, given the circumstances of the case. The court characterised the manslaughter as a serious example and the recklessly causing serious injury as a mid-range example. After considering all relevant factors, the court imposed a total effective sentence of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years. This sentence reflected the gravity of the offenses and the need for deterrence and retribution.

Orders