R. v. Le Duc Tien
Read the full judgment text of CACC 35/1995 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 12 May 1995.
1. The applicant was originally charged with murder. He pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The victim was a fellow inmate of the High Island Detention Centre and the offence occurred on 14th November 1992. The admitted facts at trial indicated that the incident occurred after a quarrel about the use of a chess set. The applicant today tells us that the deceased had taken his watch. Whatever may have been the initial cause of the incident, he was seen chasing the deceased holding a knife
|
CACC000035/1995 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1995, No.35 __________
__________ Coram: Hon. Power, Ag. C.J. and Litton, V.-P. Date of hearing: 12 May 1995 Date of judgment: 12 May 1995 __________________ J U D G M E N T __________________ Power, Ag. C.J. (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. The applicant was originally charged with murder. He pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The victim was a fellow inmate of the High Island Detention Centre and the offence occurred on 14th November 1992. The admitted facts at trial indicated that the incident occurred after a quarrel about the use of a chess set. The applicant today tells us that the deceased had taken his watch. Whatever may have been the initial cause of the incident, he was seen chasing the deceased holding a knife and, when the deceased fell, he stabbed him to death. 2. The trial judge when accepting the plea of manslaughter said that it was a borderline case but that he was prepared to accept the plea on the basis that there had been provocation. 3. The applicant in his written grounds advances a suggestion of self defence against an apprehended life-endangering attack. We cannot entertain any such suggestion but must act upon the basis of the record which shows the facts which were admitted before the sentencing judge. 4. Before us today the applicant has stated that he realizes the seriousness of the offence, that he is remorseful, and that he has a wife who is in poor health who finds difficulty in caring for their daughter. He says that both his family and the family of the deceased are suffering hardship in the camp and that an early release would allow him to alleviate, to some extent, that hardship. 5. We take all of these matters into consideration when considering the suggested harshness of the penalty imposed. The judge rightly in our view stated that this was a bad case of manslaughter. Nothing has been placed before us which would suggest that he was in any way wrong in coming to his decision that the appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment for seven years. The application is refused.
Representation: Miss M.A. Crabtree (Crown Prosecution) for Respondent. Applicant in person. |