Legal Research
Cases
Ta-Vuong v The Queen

Ta-Vuong v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 238 9 September 2015

Criminal Liability

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

Redacted

S APCR 2014 0271

PAUL TA-VUONG	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	OSBORN and PRIEST JJA and CROUCHER AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 August 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 September 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 238	1^st Revision, 10 September 2015, page 30 para [107]
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Ta-Vuong [2014] VSC 574 (Emerton J) (12 September 2014 (date of conviction), 13 November 2014 (date of sentence))

---

[Redacted version]
CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Single ground of ‘unsafe or unsatisfactory verdict’ – Whether verdict open on the evidence – Whether jury must have had a reasonable doubt – Relationship evidence – Differing accounts of events from accused – Expert medical evidence – Conviction open on the whole of the evidence – Application dismissed.

EVIDENCE – Reliability – Evidence of confession while in custody – Reliability of evidence of unreliable witnesses – Evidence capable of rational use by a jury properly instructed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Holt QC	Martine Marich & Associates Pty Ltd
For the Respondent	Mr A J Grant	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

OSBORN JA:

The applicant, Paul Ta-Vuong, seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of a 12 month old infant, Silas Leithhead.

Silas died on 15 May 2013 as a result of severe brain injuries sustained during a period of approximately 30 minutes while he was in the care of the applicant.

Both Silas’s mother and the applicant were addicted to heroin. On the morning of Wednesday 15 May 2013, Silas’s mother left Silas with the applicant at her flat; first when she went to the supermarket, and again while she went out to purchase heroin and obtain a Unisom tablet to use with the heroin.

On her return from the second trip out, the applicant put Silas to bed. Silas was discovered dead some four to five hours later.

Post-mortem examination showed that Silas had suffered major fractures to the skull, fatal brain injuries, liver damage, damage to the anterior of the ribs, and extensive bruising to the torso and head.

The Crown case was that the applicant deliberately threw or dropped Silas onto the floor causing the brain injuries which resulted in death.

The defence case was that the death was accidental. The applicant told the first police officer that he spoke to at the scene of the death on 15 May 2013 that he had slipped or tripped over a bathmat when carrying Silas and that, as a result, Silas’s head had hit the tile floor of the bathroom with a thump. He re-enacted the incident in a way that raised the possibility that he had fallen on Silas.

It was not contested at trial that the applicant’s actions had caused Silas’s death. What was put in issue was whether the applicant had acted deliberately in causing 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 Ta-Vuong v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ta-Vuong v The Queen [2015] VSCA 238
Case: [2015] VSCA 238
Decision Date: 9 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by the accused, Ta-Vuong, for leave to appeal against his conviction for murder. The case reached the court following the trial in which Ta-Vuong was found guilty of the murder of an individual. The appeal hinged on the single ground that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory, arguing that the jury should have had a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the jury's verdict was open on the evidence and whether the jury should have entertained a reasonable doubt.

In addressing the appeal, the court considered the reliability and weight of the evidence presented. This included the differing accounts of the events provided by the accused, the relationship evidence, and the expert medical evidence. The court examined whether the evidence, particularly the confession made by Ta-Vuong while in custody and the testimony of unreliable witnesses, was capable of being rationally used by a properly instructed jury. Ultimately, the court found that the evidence, when considered as a whole, supported the jury's conclusion that the accused was guilty of the murder. The court held that the verdict was open on the evidence and that the jury had not erred in convicting Ta-Vuong.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the conviction. The reasoning was that the evidence, despite its contentious nature, was sufficient for a properly instructed jury to find the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The differing accounts and the reliability of certain witnesses did not undermine the overall reliability of the evidence presented. Consequently, the appeal was unsuccessful, and the conviction stood.

Orders