On 17/7, the Ca Mau Provincial People's Court convened an appellate hearing to consider the appeal filed by Ms. Nhi, 41, seeking a reduced sentence or a suspended sentence for violating road traffic regulations. After deliberation, the appellate panel rejected the appeal, upholding the 18-month prison sentence imposed by the first-instance court.

Pham Hong Nhi in court today. *Photo: An Minh*

The accident occurred after an opening party on the afternoon of 12/9/2024. Ms. Nhi and her husband, Vo Van Dang, hosted an opening celebration at their rented home in An Xuyen Ward. During the party, Ms. Nhi consumed beer. Around 19h that evening, she drove a motorbike, carrying her husband home to Da Bac Commune.

On their way, Ms. Nhi lost control of the vehicle, swerving into the oncoming lane and colliding with a tree by the roadside. The accident resulted in Mr. Dang's death at the scene, while Ms. Nhi sustained severe injuries. Tests confirmed her blood alcohol content was 20,9 mg/100 ml, falling within the lowest violation level (above 0 to 50 mg/100 ml of blood).

On 13/4, the Ca Mau Regional People's Court No. 3 sentenced Ms. Nhi to 18 months in prison for violating road traffic regulations. The first-instance court determined that the defendant was aware that driving after consuming alcohol is illegal but proceeded anyway, leading to a fatal outcome. The court also considered mitigating circumstances for the defendant: sincere declaration, remorse, partial compensation for damages, having a grandfather who contributed to the revolution, and the victim's family representative having previously requested a reduced sentence.

During the appellate hearing, a representative from the Ca Mau Provincial People's Procuracy stated that the 18-month prison sentence from the first-instance court was justified, as all mitigating circumstances had been thoroughly considered. However, the prosecutor argued that the defendant had a good personal background, committed the crime unintentionally, had a clear place of residence, was the primary breadwinner supporting two children attending school, faced difficult family circumstances, and demonstrated the capacity for self-rehabilitation. Given that the victim was the defendant's husband, the accident inflicted immense loss upon Ms. Nhi herself. Consequently, the Procuracy proposed maintaining the 18-month prison sentence but allowing the defendant a suspended sentence.

Tran Hoai Dinh, the lawyer representing Ms. Nhi, contended that the 18-month prison sentence was severe given the nature, extent, and circumstances of the crime. According to the lawyer, after her husband's death, Ms. Nhi became the sole breadwinner in her family, solely responsible for supporting two children in school and caring for elderly parents who are unable to work. The defendant has fully acknowledged her actions, proactively addressed the consequences, and expressed a desire to continue compensating the victim's family within her means.

Pham Hong Nhi travels over 40 km daily from her hometown to the city to sell freshwater fish. *Photo: An Minh*

The lawyer further stated that the victim's family had previously submitted a request for a reduced sentence, proposing a suspended sentence for the defendant. Additionally, the Da Bac Commune Women's Union had sent a written request for leniency in the defendant's criminal liability. Based on these points, the lawyer argued that Ms. Nhi possessed a good personal record, no prior convictions or criminal history, a clear place of residence, sincere declaration, remorse, and met the conditions for consideration for a suspended sentence.

In court, Vo Van Bien, the victim's father, stated that his family had withdrawn their appeal for a reduced sentence before the hearing because Ms. Nhi had not honored her commitment to pay the remaining compensation. He requested the court to judge the case fairly and correctly, while also compelling the defendant to continue providing for his son's three children. He explained that he and his wife were elderly and no longer able to work, while their grandchildren were still attending school.

Addressing the appellate panel, Ms. Nhi stated that she had compensated 148 million VND but still owed approximately 20 million VND as per their agreement. Due to business difficulties, she had not yet been able to make the payment. "I truly want to pay the full amount I promised, but my circumstances do not allow it," the defendant said, expressing her hope for a suspended sentence to continue working, address the consequences, and care for her children.

The appellate panel, in evaluating the appeal, noted that the consequences of the case were exceptionally serious, resulting in one death. Although the victim was the defendant's husband and the outcome was unintended, the direct cause of the accident was Ms. Nhi driving with alcohol in her blood—an act strictly prohibited by law. According to the appellate panel, driving under the influence of alcohol is a primary cause of serious traffic accidents, inflicting significant loss of life and health, and therefore requires strict punishment for deterrence and general prevention.

The court determined that the first-instance court had fully considered mitigating circumstances, such as sincere declaration, remorse, active efforts to address consequences, a request for criminal liability reduction from the victim's legal representative, a good personal background, being a first-time offender, sustaining injuries in the accident herself, and the deceased being her husband. According to point b, clause 2, Article 260 of the Penal Code, the penalty framework for the defendant's actions ranges from 3 to 10 years in prison. However, the first-instance court applied Article 54 of the Penal Code, imposing an 18-month prison sentence, which is below the minimum level of the penalty framework, demonstrating the leniency of the law.

The appellate panel concluded that despite the defendant having many mitigating circumstances and a clear place of residence, granting a suspended sentence would not be commensurate with the nature and severity of the act's danger. It would also fail to meet the requirements for combating and preventing crimes in the field of traffic safety. The defendant also did not provide any new mitigating circumstances at the appellate hearing, so there was no basis to amend the first-instance judgment. Following the hearing, Ms. Nhi announced her intention to file a petition for review of the case under cassation procedures.

An Minh