Regina v Khanh Hung Vu - [2005] NSWSC 271

CITATION:
Regina v Khanh Hung Vu [2005] NSWSC 271

HEARING DATE(S): 24 November 2004 - 1 December 2004, 11 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

1 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Barr J at 1

DECISION:
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of eighteen years. A non-parole period of thirteen years and six months is fixed commencing on 23 July 2003 and expiring on 22 January 2017 and a balance of the term of four years and six months expiring on 22 July 2021.

PARTIES:
Regina, Khanh Hung Vu

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2004/30

COUNSEL:
J Dwyer
L Flannery

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

1 APRIL 2005

2004/30 REGINA v KHANH HUNG VU
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 31 March 2004 the offender, Khanh Hung Vu, was committed for trial on a charge that on 1 December 2003 at Sydney he murdered Yong Ling. At the commencement of his trial he pleaded not guilty of the murder of the deceased but guilty of her manslaughter. The Crown did not accept the plea in discharge of the indictment and the trial proceeded. On 1 December 2004, part way through the trial, the offender asked to be arraigned again and changed his plea to guilty.

2 The deceased, Yong Ling, came from a Chinese family and grew up in Sarawak. She settled in Australia in about 1990. She married a Chinese man, but the relationship ended in fact when he took their infant child and returned permanently to China. The deceased met the offender in about 2000 when she was living and working in Campsie. They began to live together and on 3 June 2001 the deceased gave birth to their child, Joseph. The deceased was still married, so she and the offender did not marry.

3 The offender began to act violently towards the deceased. In September 2002 she reported to the police that he had hit her many times. The police had to be called a number of times to the unit where the couple were living. The deceased became afraid of the offender and obtained an Apprehended Violence Order which restrained him from going to the place where she and the child were living. He disobeyed the order and repeatedly went to the deceased’s home. He assaulted her a number of times.

4 One such occasion was on 1 June 2003. The deceased was at home with their child and the offender went to the unit. He told the deceased that he wanted her to let him live with her and not to tell the police about it. She refused. He punched her several times in the face, causing swelling and bruising. She had to be taken to hospital for treatment.

5 On the evening of 16 June 2003 the offender knocked on the deceased’s door but she would not open it and told him to go…

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 Khanh Hung Vu

Details

AGLC: Regina v Khanh Hung Vu [2005] NSWSC 271
Case: [2005] NSWSC 271
Decision Date: 1 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Khanh Hung Vu was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Khanh Hung Vu was charged with the murder of Yong Ling. Initially pleading not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter, Vu later changed his plea to guilty of murder. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for Vu, considering the circumstances of the offence and mitigating factors.

The court considered several legal issues, including the nature and extent of the offender's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the offender's plea of guilty. The court noted that while there was no intent to kill, the attack was vicious and sustained, indicating intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court also considered the offender's previous history of violence and his conditional liberty at the time of the offence, which were aggravating factors. The offender's guilty plea, while mitigating to some extent, was seen as having a modest utilitarian value rather than evidence of genuine remorse.

The court reasoned that the standard non-parole period for murder would not apply due to the offender's guilty plea and the lack of intent to kill. Instead, the court set a non-parole period of thirteen years and six months, reflecting the severity of the crime and the offender's history of violence. The total sentence was set at eighteen years, with the balance to be served post parole.

The final orders of the court were that Khanh Hung Vu be sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen years, with a non-parole period of thirteen years and six months, and the remainder of the sentence to be served post parole.

Orders