DPP v Zhang - [2007] VSC 505

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1450 of 2007

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ZI WEI ZHANG

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 - 30 November and 4 December 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 December 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Zhang
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 505

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Intentionally causing serious injury by slicing neck of friend unexpectedly with knife – then biting wrist of rescuing father – imprisonment for 6 years and 6 months – non-parole period of 4 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A. Forrester	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Perry	Chris Hardman

HIS HONOUR:

Zi Zhang, you have pleaded guilty to two offences arising out of events that occurred on 1 June 2006 at Forest Hill. The first is of intentionally causing serious injury to Wei Tong Li. The second is of intentionally causing injury to Er Lu Li. Er Lu Li is the father of Wei Tong Li.

In June 2006, Wei Tong Li lived with his parents and his wife in a house in Forest Hill. You lived in your family home nearby. Relations between the families were friendly. Indeed, Wei’s father Er Lu Li and your father had worked together at the same hospital in China years ago. Until the night of 1 June 2006, Wei Tong Li and you were quite close friends. You had both been students at Melbourne University at the same time. You and he had had no serious arguments in the past. The Li family helped you in various ways, as friends do.

On two nights in a row at the end of May 2006, you arranged with Wei Tong Li to use the desktop computer at his house to gain access to the internet. You went there again on the night of 1 June. Er Lu Li opened the door for you. Wei Tong Li was then upstairs using the internet. He moved aside to allow you to use it for a time. You had with you a bag. In that bag, unbeknown to Wei Tong Li, were two knives, such as are often used in a kitchen. One had a serrated edge, as often used for cutting bread. The other had a thinner blade. You were later to tell the police that the two knives were in the bag following a fishing trip some weeks earlier.

After you had used the internet, Wei Tong Li resumed the use of it. He was sitting at the chair in front of the desktop computer. You telephoned a friend on your mobile phone. You told Wei Tong Li that you were going home after making another phone call. Wei Tong Li was drowsy at that time. He was leaning on the table with his hand to his cheek. Behind his back, you took the serrated edged knife out of the bag.…

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 Zhang

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhang [2007] VSC 505
Case: [2007] VSC 505
Decision Date: 7 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Zhang involved the Director of Public Prosecutions and the accused, Zhang. Zhang was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to a friend by slicing his neck with a knife in an unexpected attack, and subsequently biting the wrist of the friend's father who intervened. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Zhang's crimes, given the violent nature of the acts and the injuries inflicted.

The court considered several factors in determining the sentence, including the severity and premeditation of the attack, Zhang's criminal history, and the impact on the victims. The court emphasised the gravity of the offence, noting the significant harm caused and the potential for long-term consequences for the victims. The court also took into account Zhang's background and the circumstances leading up to the incident, though these were deemed insufficient to mitigate the severity of the crime.

After weighing these factors, the court sentenced Zhang to a total imprisonment term of six years and six months, with a non-parole period of four years. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need for both punishment and deterrence. The court's decision underscored the importance of public safety and the need to impose a sentence that appropriately balances these considerations with the circumstances of the offender.

Orders