Ji v The King - [2025] VSCA 113

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0095

JIANGANG JI	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	ORR and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 April 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 113
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 2315 (Judge Cannon)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Applicant intent on maximising revenge against former employer – Aggravated burglary, false imprisonment, kidnapping (2 charges), rape, sexual assault, common law assault and theft – 15 years’ imprisonment on rape – Total effective sentence 22 years’ imprisonment – Whether individual sentences and orders for cumulation manifestly excessive – Sentence on rape at higher end – Egregious, abhorrent and dehumanising offending – Objective gravity demanded lengthy sentence – Lack of remorse for sexual offending – High moral culpability – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

Russo v The King [2024] VSCA 291, discussed.

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; Karam v The King [2024] VSCA 164; Lai v TheKing [2023] VSCA 151; R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550, R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr J O’Connor
Respondent:		Ms D Piekusis KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ORR JA
T FORREST JA:

The applicant was sentenced on 13 December 2023 in the County Court on a total of eight charges. He pleaded guilty to five of those charges and was found guilty by a jury on the other three. The sentence is set out in the table below.

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Aggravated burglary[1]	25 years	7 years	6 months
2	False imprisonment[2]	10 years	3 years	3 months
3	Kidnapping[3]	25 years	9 years	3 years
4	Kidnapping	25 years	9 years	3 years
5	Rape[4]	25 years	15 years	Base
6	Sexual assault[5]	10 years	3 years	3 months
7	Common law assault[6]	5 years	1 year and 2 months	-
8	Theft[7]	10 years	6 months	-
Total Effective Sentence:		22 years
Non-Parole Period:		15 years
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		842 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		In relation to charges 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8: Total effective sentence 26 years and 6 months Non parole-period 19 years
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Forfeiture and disposal orders. 2. Declared a serious sexual offender on charge 6 pursuant to s 6F of the Sentencing Act 1991.

[1]Contrary to s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958.

[2]Contrary to common law.

[3]Contrary to s 63A of the Crimes Act 1958.

[4]Contrary to s 38(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

[5]Contrary to s 40 of the Crimes Act 1958.

[6]Contrary to common law.

[7]Contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

Introduction

This is a very lengthy sentence and the applicant seeks leave to appeal against it…

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 Ji v The King

Details

AGLC: Ji v The King [2025] VSCA 113
Case: [2025] VSCA 113
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ji v The King involves an appellant who has been sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 17 years, for a series of serious criminal offences against his former employer. The crimes included aggravated burglary, false imprisonment, kidnapping (two charges), rape, sexual assault, common law assault, and theft. The appellant was sentenced to 15 years for the rape, which was considered the most severe offence. The appellant sought to appeal the severity of the sentences imposed, arguing that the individual sentences and the orders for cumulation were manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences. The appellant argued that the sentence for the rape was at the higher end of the spectrum and that the overall sentence was excessive. The court needed to assess the moral culpability of the appellant and the objective gravity of the offending, as well as the lack of remorse shown by the appellant for his sexual offences. The court also had to consider the need for deterrence and denunciation in light of the egregious, abhorrent, and dehumanising nature of the offending.

The Court of Appeal examined the principles of sentencing as outlined in relevant case law, including Russo v The King, Bugmy v The Queen, Clarkson v The Queen, Karam v The King, Lai v The King, R v Pham, and R v Verdins. The court acknowledged the severe and reprehensible nature of the appellant's crimes, which were driven by a desire for revenge against his former employer. The court found that the objective gravity of the offending demanded a lengthy sentence and that the appellant's lack of remorse and high moral culpability warranted a severe penalty. The court held that the individual sentences and the overall sentence were not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed.

The court made no orders for costs.

Orders