Regina v Lu - [2007] NSWSC 1259

CITATION: Regina v Lu [2007] NSWSC 1259

HEARING DATE(S): 18 October 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 November 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Price J at 1

DECISION: Convicted. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 2 months which is to commence on 30 April 2009 and is to expire on 29 June 2015. Balance of term 3 years and 2 months which is to commence on 30 June 2015 and expire on 29 August 2018. Earliest date of eligibility for release to parole is 29 June 2015.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act - sentence - plea of guilty

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 12,
s 21A(2)(i), s 21A(2)(n) s 21A(3)(i)
Evidence Act 1995 s 131(5)(b)

CASES CITED: Ahmad v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 177
Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616
R v Blacklidge (unrep, NSWCCA 12 December 1995)
R v Buddle [2005] NSWCCA 82
R v Close (1992) 31 NSWLR 743
R v Elyard [2006] NSWCCA 43
R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28
R v M.A.K, R v M.S.K [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Previtera (1997) 97 A Crim R 76
R v Simpson (1992) 61 A Crim R 58
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Regina v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377

PARTIES: Regina
Hoang Quang Lu

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/1992

COUNSEL: Mr R Button SC - Prisoner
Mr G Tabuteau - Crown

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

PRICE J

9 November 2007

2006/1992 Regina v Hoang Quang LU
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 15 August 2007 Hoang Quang Lu was arraigned on an indictment which contained a single count that he on 1 October 2005 did murder Phillip Anthony Rousianos. After entering a plea of not guilty to murder, the prisoner entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The Crown accepted the plea in full discharge of the indictment for the offence of murder.

2 The maximum sentence for the crime of manslaughter is 25 years imprisonment.

3 A statement of agreed facts was tendered at the sentencing hearing on 18 October 2007 by consent and marked as exhibit B.

The Agreed Facts

4 The agreed facts are:

hours of the morning, Phillip Anthony Rousianos (the deceased) and his girlfriend, Naomi Malcolm, drove over to the nearby premises of the offender, Hoang Quang Lu, at 3 Goulburn Street, Liverpool.

Naomi Malcolm knocked at the door. The offender’s girlfriend, Helena Hudson came to the door. There was an argument between the two women. Naomi Malcolm wanted Helena Hudson to wake up the offender so she could talk to him directly. Helena Hudson refused. There was a verbal exchange.

Naomi Malcolm returned to the car. Helena Hudson followed her out of the…

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 Lu

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lu [2007] NSWSC 1259
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1259
Decision Date: 9 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved Regina versus Lu, heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Lu had pleaded guilty to manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. The incident occurred when Lu drove recklessly, causing a fatal accident. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, Lu's culpability, and any mitigating factors in determining the sentence.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the severity of the offence, the circumstances under which the unlawful act was committed, and Lu's remorse and cooperation with authorities. The court also needed to consider the impact of the offence on the victim's family and the community. The primary focus was on whether the sentence should reflect deterrence, retribution, or rehabilitation.

The court, in delivering its judgment, emphasised the gravity of the offence and the significant impact on the victim's family. It acknowledged Lu's early guilty plea and expressed remorse as mitigating factors. However, the court found the offence to be of high culpability due to the dangerous nature of the act. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would be one that adequately reflects the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating factors. The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence with specific conditions and a non-parole period.

Orders