Regina v Han Hoai Huynh - [2004] NSWSC 627

CITATION: Regina v Han Hoai Huynh [2004] NSWSC 627

HEARING DATE(S): 6, 13, 17, May; 24 June; 9, 16, July 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 July 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Newman AJ at 1

DECISION: I impose a head sentence of 7 years and 6 months (which rounds off my discount of 15% in favour of the prisoner), commencing on 25 March 2002 and expiring on 24 September 2009 and a non-parole period of 4 years, commencing on 25 March 2002 and expiring on 24 March 2006, when the prisoner will be eligble for release on parole.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act (1900) NSW

CASES CITED: R v Lowe (1984) 154 CLR 606

PARTIES :
Regina
Han Hoai Huynh

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70108/03

COUNSEL: Mr P Conlon SC (Crown)
Mr F Santisi (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: State DPP
NSW Legal Aid Commission

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

NEWMAN AJ

16 JULY 2004

70108/03 REGINA V HAN HOI HUYNH

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Han Hoi Huynh is to be sentenced today for his participation in events which led to the death of Luu Khiem Lu on 20 March 2002. While originally charged with Mr Lu’s murder, the prisoner’s plea of manslaughter was accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment.

2 Section 24 of the Crimes Act (1990) NSW prescribes a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment for the crime of manslaughter.

3 It is now my task to find the objective facts relating to the commission of the crime. In so doing I shall utilise the criminal standard of proof in finding facts, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt.

4 I should say at the outset that the Crown case against the prisoner was based on the concept of joint criminal enterprise.

5 On Wednesday 20 March 2002 the prisoner was residing at a granny flat at 16 Kingslea Place, Canley Heights. On that afternoon he was present at the flat together with three others. They were Terry Chau, VDN and Loc Dac Nguyen.

6 Following a suggestion made by one of the number that they sould go and get some money the group left the flat and entered a motor vehicle. The prisoner undertook the driving of the motor vehicle with Terry Chau sitting along side him the front passenger seat with the other two sitting in the back. The quartet had with them a loaded Beretta 9mm handgun and knives, which had been taken from the flat.

7 They drove to Canley Vale Road in the suburb of Canley Heights. There, at least one of the group observed the deceased Luu Khiem Lu, and his wife Thao Phuong Lu, closing their grocery store at 233A Canley Vale Road.

8 The prisoner then drove the car to Peel Street, Canley Vale, an adjacent street, and parked it.

9 Mr and Mrs Lu had also parked their white panel van in Peel Street, Mr Lu entered his vehicle by the driver’s door and his wife…

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 Regina v Han Hoai Huynh

Details

AGLC: Regina v Han Hoai Huynh [2004] NSWSC 627
Case: [2004] NSWSC 627
Decision Date: 16 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Han Hoai Huynh was sentenced by the Supreme Court of New South Wales for his involvement in the events that led to the death of Luu Khiem Lu on 20 March 2002. Huynh was originally charged with murder, but the Crown accepted a plea of manslaughter. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence under the Crimes Act (1900) NSW for manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court included establishing the facts of the crime based on the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt, determining the extent of Huynh's involvement in the crime, and considering mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing. The court found that Huynh was aware that some of his accomplices were armed during the attempted robbery, which contributed to the severity of his criminal culpability. The court also considered Huynh's personal circumstances, including his young age, limited criminal history, expressions of remorse, and his participation in another armed robbery shortly after the incident.

The court decided to impose a head sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment for Huynh, with a non-parole period of 4 years. The sentence was backdated to the date of Huynh's initial custody. This sentence was slightly longer than that imposed on a co-offender, taking into account differences in their respective ages and charges. The court aimed to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the potential for rehabilitation, given Huynh's age and prospects for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were to impose a head sentence of 7 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years, both commencing on 25 March 2002. Huynh would be eligible for release on parole on 24 March 2006.

Orders