R v He - [2024] NSWSC 417

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v He [2024] NSWSC 417
Hearing dates: 2 and 3 April 2024
Date of orders: 31 May 2024
Decision date: 31 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) The offender is convicted of the murder of Liquin Pan.
(2) The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 20 years comprising a non-parole period of 13 years commencing on 20 January 2021 and expiring on 19 January 2034, with a balance term of 7 years commencing on 20 January 2034 and expiring on 19 January 2041.
(3) The earliest date upon which the offender will be eligible for release to parole is 19 January 2034.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing following guilty plea to murder – gravity of offence – killed young girlfriend with whom he lived – jumped over balcony and fell four storeys sustaining very serious traumatic brain injury and physical injuries – violent, merciless attack using a hammer and two knives – intention to kill – drug-induced psychosis – whether such condition present at the time of the murder – whether offender drug intoxicated by nitrous oxide use at the time of the murder – psychiatrists’ opinions – satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender had transient drug-induced psychosis at the time of the murder – marginal reduction in objective seriousness – mildly reduced moral culpability – early guilty plea – entitled to a 25% reduction in sentence – no remorse – feigned lack of memory of events – special circumstances given serious self-inflicted physical injuries and traumatic brain injury

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v He [2022] NSWSC 847
R v Quinn (No. 3) [2016] NSWSC 1699
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Weijie He (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Kotsis (Crown)
G Harrison (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitors for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Access Legal (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/0017077
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On the afternoon of 27 June 2020, the offender murdered his girlfriend Liquin Pan, using a hammer and two knives, stabbing her at least 75 times in the face, head, neck, back, upper limbs and hands. He did this, intending to kill her.
Liquin was only 19 years old. She had met the offender in Shanghai and travelled to Australia in October 2018 to be with him. From the limited evidence I have seen, she seems to have been an attentive and loyal partner.
The murder took place in the apartment they shared in Wolli Creek. Shortly after he killed Liquin, the offender left their apartment, went to some internal…

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 R v He

Details

AGLC: R v He [2024] NSWSC 417
Case: [2024] NSWSC 417
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v He was heard in a higher court, following the defendant's conviction for the murder of his young girlfriend. The offender, He, had killed his girlfriend by jumping over a balcony and falling four storeys, sustaining very serious traumatic brain injury and physical injuries. The attack was violent and merciless, involving the use of a hammer and two knives, and it was found that He intended to kill. The case presented complex issues regarding the presence of drug-induced psychosis at the time of the murder and whether the offender was intoxicated by nitrous oxide. The court had to determine these matters based on psychiatrists' opinions, and it was ultimately satisfied on the balance of probabilities that He had transient drug-induced psychosis at the time of the murder. This resulted in a marginal reduction in the objective seriousness of the offence and a mildly reduced moral culpability.

The court was tasked with weighing the various factors in determining an appropriate sentence. The offender's early guilty plea entitled him to a 25% reduction in the sentence. However, the lack of remorse displayed by He, his feigned lack of memory of the events, and the special circumstances of the serious self-inflicted physical injuries and traumatic brain injury, all played a part in the court's sentencing decision. The court considered the balance of these factors and the relevant legal principles in order to arrive at a just outcome. The court's reasoning was grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, psychiatric opinions, and the principles of sentencing for murder in the Australian legal context.

In conclusion, the court found that the mitigating factors of the early guilty plea and the transient drug-induced psychosis at the time of the murder warranted a marginal reduction in the sentence. However, the aggravating factors of the lack of remorse, feigned lack of memory, and the serious self-inflicted physical injuries and traumatic brain injury, necessitated a harsher punishment. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for He's crime was one that balanced these various factors and reflected the gravity of his actions. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the relevant legal principles, resulting in a just outcome for all parties involved.

Orders