Neil Cameron Chalmers v Gang Liang

NEIL CAMERON CHALMERS
v
GANG LIANG & ANOR
[2013] HCASL 17
M59/2012

The applicant was convicted of the murder of Xiao Ling Liang before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The deceased's father, Gang Liang, and her step-mother, Ting-Tai Zhu, applied to the trial judge for orders directing the applicant to pay each of them compensation[1].
[1]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 85B.
The trial judge awarded compensation to Mr Liang in the amount of $120,000 and to Ms Zhu in the amount of $60,000. The Court of Appeal of Victoria (Maxwell P, Redlich JA and Kyrou AJA) dismissed an appeal against the making of the awards.
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal. The respondents have filed submitting appearances.
The applicant complains that the trial judge failed properly to assess the burden that the awards would have on him and on his prospects of rehabilitation. The same contention was rejected by the Court of Appeal. Their Honours extracted a passage from the primary judge's reasons in which consideration of the effect of the awards on the applicant at the time of his release was addressed[2]. The Court of Appeal considered that the primary judge had not acted on a wrong principle nor arrived at a result that was not reasonably open[3]. Nothing in the applicant's summary of argument calls into question the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusion. If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospect of success.
[2]Chalmers v Liang [2011] VSCA 439 at [21].
[3]Chalmers v Liang [2011] VSCA 439 at [22].
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
26 February 2013 V.M. Bell

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Neil Cameron Chalmers, was convicted of the murder of Xiao Ling Liang and seeks special leave to appeal against orders made by the trial judge under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The deceased's father, Gang Liang, and step-mother, Ting-Tai Zhu, were awarded compensation in the amounts of $120,000 and $60,000 respectively. The Court of Appeal of Victoria dismissed an appeal against the making of these awards. The applicant contends that the trial judge failed to properly assess the burden that the awards would have on him and on his prospects of rehabilitation. This contention was rejected by the Court of Appeal.

The High Court considered the applicant's argument that the trial judge failed to properly assess the burden of the awards on him and on his prospects of rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal had rejected this argument, finding that the trial judge had addressed the effect of the awards on the applicant at the time of his release. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had not acted on a wrong principle nor arrived at a result that was not reasonably open. The High Court found that the applicant's summary of argument did not call into question the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusion. The Court held that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success.

The High Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal. The Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The Court found that the applicant's argument did not call into question the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusion, and that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success. The orders of the Court of Appeal were therefore affirmed.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed and that the Registrar was to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The Court found that the applicant's argument did not call into question the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusion and that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success. The orders of the Court of Appeal were therefore affirmed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established