Deng v The King

The appellant, Ms Deng, appealed against her conviction and sentence for an offence. The appeal concerned the appellant's actions on 15 January 2019, when she drove to Adelaide and confronted Ms Gai at a house where Ms Gai was staying with her child and Mr Jur. The appellant had a history of animosity towards Ms Gai, stemming from Mr Jur's relationship with Ms Gai, despite the appellant and Mr Jur having four children together and the appellant and Mr Jur continuing to have sexual intercourse. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. Specifically, the Court considered whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing an immediate custodial sentence given the appellant's lack of prior convictions and responsibility for five children, and whether the judge sentenced the appellant on the basis of a specific intention to harm and disfigure Ms Gai when the charge only involved reckless intent. A further issue was whether the judge failed to consider provisions of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) that would have allowed for a partially suspended sentence.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the verdict was not unreasonable. Regarding the sentence appeal, the Court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in his findings of fact or in his assessment of the appellant's intention. The Court noted that the judge had considered the appellant's background, including her refugee status and responsibility for her children, but concluded that the gravity of the offending, which involved a violent and unprovoked attack, warranted an immediate custodial sentence. The Court also found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act and that there was no error in declining to impose a partially suspended sentence or a home detention order.

The Court granted permission to appeal against sentence but dismissed the appeal. The sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years was upheld. The appellant had served 22 days in custody before being granted bail pending the appeal.