Chen v The Queen - [2015] VSCA 71

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0178

TIAN XIAO CHEN	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG and PRIEST JJA, and DIXON AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 April 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 71
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Chen (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Allen, 16 July 2014 (Conviction))

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Appellant convicted of intentionally causing serious injury — Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory — Whether open on evidence for jury to be satisfied that appellant stabbed victim — Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr S Wilkinson	Lloyd Truman Sadiq Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms D Piekusis	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA

I will invite Priest JA to deliver the first judgment.

PRIEST JA:

Introduction

The appellant claims that his conviction for intentionally causing serious injury is unsafe and unsatisfactory. For reasons upon which I will later elaborate, I do not agree. In my view it was well open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt. Indeed, having for myself examined all of the evidence, I do not harbour any reasonable doubt.

Overview of the circumstances

As long ago as 28 October 2007, when he was aged 23 years (he is now 31), the appellant went to Charlton’s Pool Hall, situated in Coverlid Lane, Melbourne, ostensibly to meet up with some friends. He was only there a short time before he had a conversation with the complainant, Hui Lin (‘Lin’). It was the appellant’s case that Lin used intimidating language. The appellant claimed that he felt threatened and decided to leave. CCTV footage shows that, as the appellant walked in the direction of the exit, Lin was close by and walking in the same direction.

The CCTV footage also shows — despite its poor quality — that the appellant then grabbed Lin’s right shoulder with his left hand. He then swung his right clenched fist at Lin, and appeared to make contact with Lin’s torso at the front. One can then observe Lin recoiling, as if in severe pain. Thereafter he can be seen to clutch his stomach.

Witnesses present at the scene described Lin stumbling around, clutching his torso. He was seen to be bleeding. Eventually he slumped to the floor. He had suffered a single stab wound to his abdomen just above the navel. Medical

intervention revealed that the surface wound was of about 15 millimetres in length, and penetrated to a depth of about six centimetres. Lin’s liver had been penetrated from front to back, requiring surgical repair.

The appellant fled the pool hall, and, five days later, on 2 November 2007, left the country for China. He remained in China for five years, until returning in late 2011.

Upon his return, the appellant was contacted by the police. He voluntarily attended the police station and was arrested and charged with the present (and…

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 Chen v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chen v The Queen [2015] VSCA 71
Case: [2015] VSCA 71
Decision Date: 21 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chen has appealed against his conviction for intentionally causing serious injury to a person. The case came before the court on appeal, with the appellant arguing that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and that it was not open on the evidence for the jury to be satisfied that he stabbed the victim. The appeal hinged on the sufficiency of the evidence and the reliability of the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator.

The court examined the evidence presented at the trial, including witness testimonies and forensic evidence. It considered whether the evidence was such that no reasonable jury could have found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court also assessed whether the identification of the appellant as the attacker was reliable and whether there were any discrepancies or inconsistencies in the evidence that would have led a reasonable jury to entertain a doubt as to the appellant’s guilt.

The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The identification of the appellant was deemed reliable, and the court found that no reasonable jury could have entertained a doubt as to the appellant’s guilt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the verdict was both safe and satisfactory, and that it was open to the jury to be satisfied that the appellant was the person who stabbed the victim.

Orders