Legal Research
Cases
Hu v The King

Hu v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 60 4 April 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL
S EAPCR 2023 0103
XIAODONG HU	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WALKER, BOYCE and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 April 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 60
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 739 (Judge Wraight)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Applicant pleaded guilty to 16 charges of rape, sexual assault, intentionally causing injury and recklessly causing serious injury against seven women – Applicant drugged complainants and offending occurred while complainants were unconscious – Applicant diagnosed with a somnophilic disorder – Applicant conceded disorder did not reduce his moral culpability – Whether judge failed to moderate need for general deterrence due to applicant’s somnophilic disorder – Judge did not err in requiring ‘realistic connection’ or ‘causal link’ between disorder and offending – Judge correct to conclude that no moderation of general deterrence was appropriate – Application for leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Whether total effective sentence or non-parole period manifestly excessive – No error in sentence given nature and extent of offending – Importance of general deterrence, denunciation and community protection – Judge gave sufficient weight to mitigating factors – Application for leave to appeal refused.

R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Langton (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] VSCA 79; R v O’Neill (2015) 47 VR 395; Tran v The Queen (2012) 35 VR 484; R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67; R v Mooney (Full Court of Supreme Court of Victoria, Unreported, 21 June 1978); R v Anderson [1981] VR 155; R v Dalgleish (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428, discussed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr C Terry
Respondent:		Mr J Dickie
Solicitors
Applicant:	Gallant Law
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WALKER JA
BOYCE JA
KAYE JA:

This case concerns one of the most serious cases of multiple sexual assaults ever seen in this state. It involved the applicant drugging his partner, Ju Zedong,[1] on 64 occasions over some three years, rendering her unconscious and requiring her to seek medical attention in hospital on several occasions. On 47 of the occasions when Ms Zedong was unconscious the applicant raped her a total of 67 times, using his penis and various objects. On the other 17 occasions on which the applicant drugged Ms Zedong into a state of unconsciousness, he sexually assaulted her.
[1]A pseudonym.
The applicant also drugged six other women (Chao Lan, Jie Yan, Xiuying Jian, Xinyi Kun, Ming Fen and Chen Jin[2]), rendering them unconscious. All of them were hospitalised as a result. He sexually assaulted and raped Ms Fen while she was unconscious. He filmed and photographed all the women while they were unconscious and he also filmed and photographed himself raping and sexually assaulting Ms Zedong and Ms Fen. He uploaded some of these images to a website where people shared their interests in drugging, filming and…

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 Hu v The King

Details

AGLC: Hu v The King [2025] VSCA 60
Case: [2025] VSCA 60
Decision Date: 4 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hu v The King, the applicant appealed against his sentence, having pleaded guilty to multiple serious sexual offences against seven women. The crimes involved drugging the victims and committing acts of sexual assault, rape, and causing physical injury while the victims were unconscious. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in failing to adequately moderate the need for general deterrence due to the applicant's somnophilic disorder, and whether the total effective sentence or the non-parole period was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the legal issues regarding the trial judge's approach to general deterrence and the overall sentencing. It examined whether the judge appropriately required a connection between the somnophilic disorder and the offending, and whether the disorder warranted a moderation in the need for general deterrence. The court found that the trial judge did not err in demanding a realistic connection or causal link between the disorder and the offending. It concluded that there was no basis for moderating the need for general deterrence and that the judge correctly determined that no such moderation was appropriate. The court also reviewed whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and extent of the offending, the importance of general deterrence and denunciation, and the weight given to mitigating factors. It concluded that there was no error in the sentence, as the judge had adequately considered the relevant factors.

The High Court, therefore, dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the trial judge's approach to both the general deterrence and the overall sentence. The decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive assessment of both the nature of the crimes and the appropriate weight to be given to general deterrence, denunciation, and community protection in sentencing serious sexual offences. The court's ruling also emphasised the necessity of a causal link between any mitigating conditions and the offending when considering the need for general deterrence.

Orders