Legal Research
Cases
Cheng v Zhuang

Cheng v Zhuang

Case [2016] VSC 24 5 February 2016

Criminal Liability

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2013 0038

IN THE MATTER of Section 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991

SHUI YING CHENG	Applicant
v
HUAJIAO ZHUANG	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 February 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 February 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Cheng v Zhuang
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 24

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Crimes Compensation – Application for crimes compensation order pursuant to Sentencing Act 1991 s 85B – Applicant the mother of murder victim.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms A Ryan	Michael J Smith
For the Respondent	Appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Shui Ying Cheng, makes this application for compensation, pursuant to s 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘the Act’), in respect of the death of her daughter Dan Lin (known as ‘Selina Lin’), who was killed by the respondent on 3 May 2012. On 5 June 2014, the respondent was convicted, by the jury empanelled on her trial, of the murder of Selina Lin. On 13 August 2014, I sentenced the respondent to 18 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.[1] On appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Court of Appeal increased the sentence to 22 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.[2]
[1]DPP v Zhuang [2014] VSC 371.
[2]DPP v Zhuang [2015] VSCA 96.

Background circumstances

Selina Lin (‘Selina’) was born in the Fujian province of China on 10 September 1990. She came to Australia, on her own in 2007, in order to complete her secondary school education. The applicant was then working in Taiwan, in order to earn sufficient money to pay Selina’s school fees.

After finishing school, Selina commenced an economics course at university. At that time she met the respondent’s son, Rong Ping (‘Peter’), and they married in February 2010. Their son, Alfred, was born on 21 May 2010.

The respondent also comes from the Fujian province. She was born in July 1963. In addition to Peter, she also has two daughters. They both migrated to Australia from China in about 2002, but the respondent remained in China with her husband. She subsequently came to Australia in January 2010 in order to look after Selina during her pregnancy.

Initially, the respondent had a close relationship with Selina. However, their relationship deteriorated, particularly after the birth of Alfred. There were differences between Selina and the respondent in relation to their attitudes to issues of culture and tradition. By the time of Selina’s death, the relationship was very strained. Selina felt overwhelmed by the cultural expectations which the respondent, and her husband Peter, had of her, and particularly the requirement that she be deferential to the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent, who was traditional in her outlook, had difficulties understanding, and respecting, the need that Selina felt to have a measure of independence…

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 Cheng v Zhuang

Details

AGLC: Cheng v Zhuang [2016] VSC 24
Case: [2016] VSC 24
Decision Date: 5 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cheng v Zhuang involves a dispute concerning the eligibility of the applicant, Cheng, to receive compensation under the Sentencing Act 1991. Cheng, the mother of a murder victim, applied for a crimes compensation order. The defendant, Zhuang, is the convicted murderer of Cheng’s child. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether Cheng qualified for compensation under the Act and, if so, the appropriate amount to be awarded. The court had to determine whether Cheng’s claim fell within the scope of the legislation, considering the specific circumstances of her loss and the nature of the crime committed against her child. The court also needed to assess the extent of Cheng's financial loss and the emotional distress suffered due to the tragic event.

The court found that Cheng was eligible for compensation under the Sentencing Act 1991. It ruled that her claim was valid, given the statutory definition of a victim and the nature of her relationship to the deceased. The court emphasised that the legislation intended to provide support to those directly affected by violent crimes, including immediate family members. Consequently, the court awarded Cheng a specific amount of compensation, reflecting both her financial losses and the emotional trauma she endured.

The court ordered Zhuang to pay the awarded amount to Cheng. This ruling reinforces the principle that the law provides avenues for victims' families to seek redress for the harm caused by violent crimes.

Orders