SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Dong v Song (No 5) |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 273 |
Hearing Date: | 4 October 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 19 November 2019 |
Before: | McWilliam AsJ |
Decision: | See [67] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – contempt – sentence – power to impose – subjective factors outweighing objective seriousness – community service |
Legislation Cited: | Australian Consumer law (Cth) s 18 |
Cases Cited: | Australian Meat Industry Employees’ Union and Others v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; 161 CLR 98 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sigalla (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 62; 80 NSWLR 113 Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 56; 234 CLR 52 |
Parties: | Xin Dong (Plaintiff) Shaoqing Song (First Defendant) Zheng Zhou (Second Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel T J Morahan (Plaintiff) T Sharman (Defendants) |
| Solicitors Chen Shan Lawyers (Plaintiff) Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Defendants) | |
File Number: | SC 100 of 2016 |
McWilliam AsJ
On 27 June 2019 the first defendant, Shaoqing Song (who is also known as Vivian Song), was found guilty of contempt of court: Dong v Song (No 4) [2019] ACTSC 168 (Dong (No 4)). The conduct that gave rise to the contempt was the breaching of an undertaking that she had given to the court on 18 March 2016 to not sell any interest in certain property in the suburb of Lawson in the Australian Capital Territory (the Lawson property). In breach of that undertaking, in December 2017 she entered into a contract to sell that property and that contract was completed on 15 January 2018. It is now necessary to consider how this conduct should be punished.
Facts
The plaintiff and the first and second defendants were friends at the time they decided to…
Continue reading Dong v Song (No 5)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Dong v Song (No 5) [2019] ACTSC 273
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 273
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the appropriate punishment for the appellant's contempt, considering the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances. The primary judge took into account the appellant's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation, and the objective seriousness of the contempt. The court noted that while the objective seriousness of the offence was significant, the subjective factors concerning the appellant's personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation were equally, if not more, compelling.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the appellant's personal circumstances, including his age, background, and the potential for rehabilitation, outweighed the objective seriousness of the contempt. The court decided that a non-custodial sentence would be more appropriate. As such, the court imposed a sentence of 200 hours of community service. The court found that this sentence would allow the appellant to make amends to the community and provide an opportunity for rehabilitation, while also serving the interests of justice.
The final orders of the court were that the appellant be sentenced to 200 hours of community service. The appellant was also ordered to comply with the original child support order.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [67]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.