DPP v Wan (Ruling No 1) - [2018] VSC 19

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:	29 January 2018
DATE OF RULING:	30 January 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Wan (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 19

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Post offence conduct – Whether relevant to guilt of offence of murder as opposed to manslaughter – Whether evidence intractably neutral – R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26 considered.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

The accused man, Shengliang Wan, is charged with the murder of Longxiang (‘Jeremy’) Hu at Parkville on 23 April 2016. The prosecution has provided a notice, pursuant to s 19(1) of the Juries Directions Act 2015, that it intends to adduce evidence of conduct by the accused that it proposes to rely on as evidence of incriminating conduct. Objection has been taken on behalf of the accused to the admissibility of that evidence for that purpose.

The notice states that the prosecution proposes to rely on three related forms of evidence as incriminating conduct, namely:

(a) Steps taken by the accused to arrange to borrow money to pay for the deletion of the CCTV footage which recorded a substantial part of the incident in which the offence is alleged to have occurred.

(b) The accused paid Ge Cao (aka Wu Ya) to delete the CCTV footage of the incident.

(c) The accused told Yixin (‘Fancy’) Zhang not to tell the police anything and to delete her chat record.

In order to determine the admissibility of that evidence, it is not necessary to set out the circumstances of the offence in detail. A short summary is sufficient.

The offence, with which Mr Wan is charged, is alleged to have occurred in a laneway called La Trobe Place between Little Bourke Street and Bourke Street, Melbourne on Friday 16 April 2016. During the evening of that day, an altercation occurred at that place between Longxiang Hu and another man, Wuyang Ji (‘Jason’). The accused man, Shengliang Wan, became involved in that altercation, and the prosecution alleges that in the course of it he inflicted blows to the head of Longxiang Hu, which resulted in the death of Longxiang Hu one week later in hospital.

In late March 2016, Longxiang Hu commenced a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with Yongying (‘Victoria’) Jiang. At that time they were both students at Yarra Valley Grammar School. Yongying Jiang was then 18 years old. She lived in the CBD area. Before she commenced a relationship with Longxiang Hu, Yongying Jiang had been friendly with Wuyang Ji (‘Jason’). Apparently Jason had become jealous or upset over the relationship that developed between the deceased (Longxiang Hu) and Yongying…

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 (Ruling No 1)

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Wan (Ruling No 1) [2018] VSC 19
Case: [2018] VSC 19
Decision Date: 30 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between the Director of Public Prosecutions and Wan, heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on whether certain post-offence conduct by Wan was relevant to establishing whether he was guilty of murder or manslaughter. This case involved a complex analysis of the significance of post-offence conduct in determining the appropriate criminal charge. The court was required to decide whether Wan’s actions after the offence were relevant to his culpability, specifically whether they could establish murder rather than manslaughter. The central issue was the interpretation and application of relevant case law, particularly the decision in R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26, which addresses the admissibility of evidence in such contexts.

The court considered the principles established in R v Ciantar, focusing on whether Wan’s post-offence conduct was so intertwined with his state of mind at the time of the offence that it could inform the jury on the issue of murder versus manslaughter. The court scrutinised the evidence to determine if it was intractably neutral, meaning that it neither supported nor undermined the prosecution’s case. The reasoning of the court involved a detailed examination of the facts and the legal precedent, ensuring that the evidence was appropriately assessed for its probative value and potential prejudicial effect. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence in question was not intractably neutral and could assist in determining the appropriate criminal charge.

In its ruling, the court held that Wan’s post-offence conduct was relevant and could be considered by the jury in determining his culpability. The evidence was found to have probative value and did not unduly prejudice the defendant. The court's decision hinged on the detailed analysis of the conduct in question and its direct relevance to the state of mind of Wan at the time of the offence. The final orders were that the evidence of Wan's post-offence conduct could be presented to the jury for their consideration in deciding between murder and manslaughter charges.

Orders