R v Wong (Rulings 1 & 2) - [2023] VSC 153

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0342

Between:
THE KING
-and-
ALEXANDER MIN VUI WONG	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	20 & 21 December 2021
DATE OF RULINGS:	23 December 2021
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REASONS:	30 March 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Wong (Rulings 1 & 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 153

---

CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — Murder trial — Admissions by accused — Making of admissions neither taped nor confirmed on tape subsequently — Whether police suspected, or ought reasonably to have suspected, accused of murder — Evidence admissible — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 464H & 465.

CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — Murder trial — Shoeprint impressions in blood at locus in quo — Expert opines that shoes of same brand and size as owned by accused’s wife could have made impressions — Shoes not common — Evidence that accused’s wife left shoes at accused’s home two weeks before murder — Shoes not found after murder — Accused wears one size bigger shoe than wife’s shoes — Accused’s wife believes accused “could not fit into [the] shoes” — Whether probative value of shoeprint evidence outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice — Evidence provisionally admissible — Whether, before shoeprint evidence may be used against accused, jury must be satisfied that shoes left at his home at relevant time — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), s 137; Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 61-63.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M Gibson QC with Ms B Goding	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Williams with Mr R De Vietri	Gallant Law

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

At about 11:09 p.m. on 31 January 2020, Yoke Onn (“Vincent”) Chi’s bloodied and lifeless body was found, by one of his sons, in the entrance hall of his home in Templestowe Lower. Mr Chi had been battered to death with a blunt object, but no weapon was ever found. His wallet, mobile phone and the day’s takings from his business (which he carried in a satchel) were all missing. Thus, at first glance, it appeared that Mr Chi may have been the victim of a burglary or robbery gone wrong.

However, after police received, on that night, a hearsay account of a confrontation between Mr Chi and Alexander Min Vui Wong a couple of weeks earlier, they pursued that line of inquiry. And so it was that, early the next morning (i.e., 1 February 2020), Mr Wong was spoken to by police at the front door of his home in Heidelberg West. He was taken to a police station and formally interviewed. He denied any involvement in the killing of Mr Chi, and was released without charge.

After further investigation, on 9 June 2020, Mr Wong was arrested and formally interviewed again. He repeated his denial of killing Mr Chi. On this occasion, however, police…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Wong (Rulings 1 & 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] VSC 153
Decision Date: 30 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Wong, was convicted of the murder of his wife. The trial judge made a number of evidentiary rulings, which the Court of Appeal was asked to review. The first ruling concerned the admissibility of admissions made by the appellant during his police interviews. The second concerned the admissibility of evidence of shoeprints found at the crime scene.

The legal issues before the court were whether the admissions made by the appellant during police interviews were admissible and whether the evidence of the shoeprints was admissible. The court considered whether the police ought to have suspected the appellant of murder when they took the admissions, and whether the shoeprint evidence should be excluded because of a danger of unfair prejudice. The court also considered whether the jury should be directed that it must be satisfied that the shoes left at the appellant’s home were the shoes that made the shoeprints before the evidence could be used against him.

The court found that the admissions made by the appellant were admissible because there was no requirement that the police must have suspected him of murder for the admissions to be admissible. The court found that the evidence of the shoeprints was admissible, despite the danger of unfair prejudice, because the probative value of the evidence outweighed the danger. The court found that the trial judge was not required to direct the jury that it must be satisfied that the shoes left at the appellant’s home were the shoes that made the shoeprints, because the jury could consider whether the appellant or his wife made the shoeprints.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions against the appellant.

Orders