Le Dinh Chuc, one of the defendants in the Dong Tam case, at the court (Photo: VNA)Hanoi (VNA) - The week-long first-instance trial ofsuspects charged with “murder” or “resisting on-duty officers” over a deadly incidentin Dong Tam commune in Hanoi’s My Duc district has concluded, withthe majority of defendants accepting the sentences they were given.
Their deeds were brutaland inhumane, using petrol to burn to death three policemen who were simplyperforming their duties.
Correct indictment
The indictment states that six defendants - Le DinhCong, Bui Viet Hieu, Nguyen Van Tuyen, Le Dinh Doanh, Le Dinh Chuc, and NguyenQuoc Tien - were involved in actively preparing means and equipment for thecrime, assigned tasks to other defendants, and directly conducted the attacks.
Of the six, Cong was the leader and often incited othersto kill police officers by posting video clips and livestreaming on socialnetworks. He also threatened to bomb power stations and kill 300-500 policeofficers, assigned tasks to other defendants, and actively performed illegalacts.
Meanwhile, Chuc, Cong’s younger brother, poured petrolinto the pit where the three policemen had fallen in, and set it on fire, killingthem. His act was the most drastic and the direct cause of the death of the policemen,with an obvious motive of murder and showing great aggressiveness and a lack ofhumanity.
Recognising that there is no possibility of rehabilitationfor the duo, the jury gave them both the death penalty.
Meanwhile, Le Dinh Doanh, the sonof Chuc, poured petrol into pots and together with Chuc set them on fire beforethrowing them into the pit, directly causing the death of the three policemen.
His acts were extremely serious and deservingof a severe penalty. As he pleaded guilty and expressed remorse, however, thejury gave him life imprisonment rather than death, to show the humanity and benevolenceof the law.
According to the procuracy’sindictment, despite the defendants being well aware that the land at Senh field,near where they lived, was used for defence purposes and was under themanagement of the Defence Ministry, as confirmed by the Hanoi Inspectorate andthe Government Inspectorate in 2013, Kinh (born in 1936 and a resident of Hoanhvillage) and others set up a “group of consensus” with the aim of re-occupyingand dividing the land lot among themselves.
They frequently incited local people to file complaints about Dong Tamadministration’s land management and use, used social networks to spread falseinformation that Senh field belongs to Dong Tam commune, andcalled on local people to “struggle to keep the land”.
In late 2019 and early 2020, upon learning that the Hanoi Department of PublicSecurity coordinated with the air defence - air force service of the DefenceMinistry to deploy personnel to protect those building fencing around Mieu Monairfield on Senh field, Kinh and his accomplices bought weapons with the aim ofattacking the force.
In the early hours on January 9, 2020, when police arrived at the gate of Hoanhvillage, about 50 metres from Kinh’s house, the group used hand-made weapons toattack the officers, causing the three to fall into a pit near Kinh’s house. Chuc and Doanh poured gasoline into the pit and set it on fire,killing the three policemen. At the same time, the authorised force found Kinhholding a grenade and calling upon others to resist those on-duty, and took thedecision to shoot him dead.
Law and mercy
After concluding the questioning of the defendants in court,representatives of the People’s Procuracy determined the role and level of crimeof each defendant. Applying the criminal code and the clemency policy of theState, representatives of the People’s Procuracy decided to change the charges for19 defendants from “murder” to “resisting on-duty officers”, meaning theirsentences would be reduced.
Furthermore, the representatives proposed that thejury consider lessening the punishment to the lowest level possible, to showthe humane policy of the State.
In order to issue decisions, the representativesanalysed and considered the specific actions of each defendant as well as theirmotivation and purpose. The defendants themselves said their understanding ofthe law was modest, while they received promises from Le Dinh Kinh and followedhis directions. They were now aware of their criminality, expressing remorse and cooperating with investigators. None fiercely resisted and all had a relativelylow level of engagement in the crimes.
After deliberations, the juryconcluded that the majority of the group had the purpose of resisting on-dutyofficials. Therefore, they agreed with the proposal from the People’s Procuracyon changing the charges and reducing the punishment. Of the 19 defendants, suspended sentences were given to 14, or twice as many as initially proposed by the procuracy.
After the sentences were handeddown, Pham Cong Lam, the father of Pham Cong Huy, one of the three policemenkilled, agreed with the tolerance shown by the jury. He said the sentences givethe defendants a chance to rebuild their lives and become good citizens.
In deciding on the punishment for thesix defendants facing the charge of “murder”, the jury carefully considered anyextenuating circumstances. Along with reducing the sentence for Doanh, the juryalso issued sentences that were less than those proposed by procurators to BuiViet Hieu, who is over 70 years old and did not directly cause the death of anyvictim; Nguyen Van Tuyen, who is disabled and was cooperative; and Nguyen QuocTien, who did not directly cause the death of the policemen, expressed remorse,and cooperated with investigators.
Conscience awakened
Most of the defendants expressed adeep sense of regret and apologised to the families of the three policemen. Somesaid they had little understanding of the law and were enticed to commit crimes.They are now aware that their crimes were clear and indisputable and no furtherinvestigations were needed. They also promised to improve themselves and nevercommit a crime again.
Defendant Bui Thi Duc pled guiltyand asked for forgiveness. She vowed to never commit a crime again.
Meanwhile, Le Dinh Quan admittedhis guilt and sought clemency.
Like Quan, defendants Nguyen ThiBet, Mai Thi Phan, Nguyen Van Tuyen, and Bui Van Nien were repentant andapologised to the victim’s families. They expressed a hope for clemency, so thatthey may return to their families and raise their children to be good citizens.
Justice was observed. It was manifestednot only by the correct punishment being meted out but also by an awakening ofthe defendants’ consciences. Not only recognising their wrongdoings, they were awakened inside about the difference between right and wrong, which motivates them to fixtheir mistakes.
For them, the mostimportant thing is to see the right way ahead./.
VNA
