R. v. VO VAN HUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No.417
(Criminal)

___________

________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant was convicted after trial before Leong J. and a jury of murder. It was the Crown case that after an earlier quarrel about a stove the applicant had deliberately stabbed the victim causing his death. The applicant states that he was 13 or 14 at the time of the incident. A medical report indicates, however, that he was about 17.

2. In his written grounds the applicant says that he had no intention to kill and that he had, given his age, no ability to make such a plan. Those grounds were filed on 24th August 1994. On 2nd May 1995, he wrote a letter to this court which did not raise any further grounds but was a plea for leniency. Today he has addressed the court in a moving way again pleading his youth and asking for leniency. Given that the conviction was a proper one the sentence of imprisonment for life was mandatory and it does not lie in the power of this court to grant any leniency.

3. It is clear from the summing-up that there was ample evidence to support a conviction for murder. The most telling evidence came from the first prosecution witness who was another inmate of the detention centre. He said that he saw the defendant hurriedly go into hut 1, search under the bed, fetch something and tuck it inside his body. He said that he thereafter watched the defendant and saw him go out of hut 1, approach the deceased and tap him on his shoulder. He said that he heard him say, "Hey, you told me to have a fight this afternoon one and one." He said the deceased turned his body half-way, the defendant then stepped back and then dashed forward and gave one blow to the deceased's stomach. He said that the deceased then walked away holding his stomach and approached him and said, "Cannot make it any more. He had the knife.".

4. Evidence as to the incident came also from the second prosecution witness, who said that he saw the deceased and the applicant in close proximity and that he thought from what he saw that the applicant was about to strike a blow, and from the eighth prosecution witness said that he was unable to see who it was but he saw the movement of the person who struck the blow who was standing and with one hand was thrusting towards the deceased. He said that he saw that person stretch his arm forward to strike. It was the defence as indicated by the judge in his summing-up that the deceased had threatened to beat the applicant and the applicant had by chance a knife in his pocket at that time, that he then produced a knife, holding it in his hand, stretched out his arm pointing and thrusting the knife at the deceased to warn him not to come near. The applicant said both in his statement and in his evidence that the deceased pounced and leaned forward and he was then stabbed. He indicated that he was not aware of the stabbing until he saw there was blood on the knife.

5. The trial judge carefully directed as to self defence and as to the alternative verdict, if no intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm was established, of manslaughter. The jury can have been left in no doubt as to the way in which they should approach the evidence. There is, we are satisfied, nothing which would allow this court to interfere in the jury's verdict and the application for leave to appeal against conviction must therefore be refused.