DPP v Wan - [2018] VSC 195

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0096

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

SHENGLIANG WAN

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 April 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 April 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Wan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 195

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Guilty plea – Fight between deceased and friend of accused – Accused intervened – Threw deceased to ground – Stomped on deceased’s head – Previous good character – Early plea of guilty – Remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Kissane QC with Ms J Warren	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Kelly SC with Mr J Moore	Dribbin and Brown

HIS HONOUR:

Shengliang Wan. You were charged on indictment with the murder of Longxiang Hu in Melbourne on 23 April 2016. At your trial, you pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder, but guilty to the alternative charge of manslaughter. The prosecution did not accept your plea. The jury, empanelled on your trial, found you not guilty of murder, and convicted you of manslaughter.

The incident, which was the subject of the charge, occurred in La Trobe Place, Melbourne shortly before 10.30 pm on Friday 15 April 2016. During the days leading up to that incident, a fight had been organised between the deceased man, Longxiang Hu, and another young man, Wuyang Ji, in order to settle their differences over a girl, with whom they were both enamoured. Shortly after the fight commenced, you intervened, and in the concluding stages of the altercation, you threw Longxiang Hu to the ground, and stomped on his head five times. As a consequence, Longxiang Hu sustained critical head injuries. After some delay, he was conveyed to hospital, but his condition by then was deemed to be inoperable. Longxiang Hu was maintained on life support until his parents arrived from China. After the support was removed, he died on 23 April.

The prosecution did not allege that, by stomping on Longxiang Hu’s head, you had intended to kill him. Rather, it alleged that you intended to inflict really serious injury to him. By its verdict, the jury was not satisfied that you had that intention when you inflicted the blows that caused his death. You pleaded guilty to, and were convicted, of manslaughter, on the basis that your actions, in unlawfully assaulting Longxiang Hu, by stomping on his head, were dangerous, in the sense that a reasonable person, in your position, would have appreciated that you were exposing Longxiang Hu to an appreciable risk of serious injury.

It is my duty to sentence you in accordance with the verdicts of the jury. In order to do so, it is necessary to set out the background to, and circumstances of, the incident in some more detail.

At the time of the incident, you…

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 DPP v Wan

Details

AGLC: DPP v Wan [2018] VSC 195
Case: [2018] VSC 195
Decision Date: 30 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Wan, the respondent was convicted of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The dispute arose from a fight between the deceased and a friend of the accused, during which the accused intervened. The accused threw the deceased to the ground and stomped on the deceased's head, resulting in the deceased's death. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the accused, taking into consideration various factors. These included the nature of the offence, the accused's previous good character, the early plea of guilty, and the accused's expression of remorse. The court also considered the prospects of the accused's rehabilitation.

The court found that the accused's actions were indeed unlawful and dangerous, but also acknowledged the mitigating factors. The court considered the accused's previous good character and the fact that he had entered an early plea of guilty and expressed remorse. The court also took into account the prospects of the accused's rehabilitation. In light of these factors, the court determined that the sentence should reflect a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence that was both punitive and rehabilitative, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for the accused, along with a non-parole period and good behaviour bond. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors when determining an appropriate sentence in a manslaughter case.

Orders