R v Liang
[2025] VSC 218
•28 April 2025
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2024 0141
| Between: | |
| THE KING | |
| -and- | |
| ZHAONAN LIANG | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Croucher J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 December 2024 & 12 March 2025 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 28 April 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Liang |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 218 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Intentionally causing serious injury — In kitchen of family home, accused, without warning, stabbed estranged wife repeatedly to face, upper body, arms, hands with knife — After child wrested knife from him, accused resumed attack with meat cleaver — Children ultimately stopped assault, allowing mother to flee — Injuries included permanent blindness in left eye, significant laceration of tongue, noticeable facial and other scarring — Profound victim impact — Offence committed in breach of family violence intervention order (“FVIO”) and adjourned undertaking for breaching similar order — Grave example of offence — Accused handed himself in to police, made some admissions — Plea of guilty — Genuine remorse — Accused aged 59 then, 61 now — No prior convictions, but previous instances of family (albeit not physical) violence — Solid work history — Support of adult son — Good prospects of rehabilitation — Accused’s depression (severe), adjustment disorder, cognitive deficits and lack of English make imprisonment more burdensome — Mental health likely to deteriorate in prison — Importance of general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment, and rehabilitation — Specific deterrence and community protection of lesser moment — Parsimony — Current sentencing practices — Sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of seven years — But for plea of guilty and remorse, sentence in order of thirteen years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of ten years — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 16; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 6AAA & 18.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr M Gibson KC with Mr J Manning | Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the accused | Mr R Backwell | Rolfe Criminal Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Overview
Zhaonan Liang did a terrible thing. Early one morning, while in their kitchen, Mr Liang walked up to his wife Jiamali Aikeda, with whom he lived but from whom he was estranged, and, without a word, stabbed her multiple times to the face and upper body with a knife, and then with a meat cleaver. Their two boys, aged only eight and eleven, intervened in this ghastly attack. Mercifully, the children’s heroic actions allowed their mother to flee next door for help.
Ms Aikeda was rushed to hospital by ambulance. Among her physical injuries, she suffered permanent blindness in her left eye, and deep lacerations to her tongue, which caused permanent deformity, as well as difficulty in speaking for a considerable period. Further, she still has noticeable scarring, especially on her cheek and arms, which is unlikely to fade completely over time.
After participating in a triple‑zero call, Mr Liang departed, leaving his sons to fend for themselves. Later that morning, he handed himself in to local police. He was charged with attempted murder, and has remained in custody ever since.
Ultimately, the Director of Public Prosecutions chose not to persist with the charge of attempted murder, and accepted in its stead Mr Liang’s offer to plead guilty to intentionally causing serious injury.
At a subsequent plea hearing split over two days, I heard a detailed opening, victim impact statements, a plea in mitigation, and submissions from counsel.
It is now my task to sentence Mr Liang. I shall announce the sentence at the conclusion of these reasons.
Agreed summary
Before turning to the circumstances of and surrounding the offending in more detail, I note that the following summary is taken principally from the opening read at the plea hearing by Mr Gibson KC, who appeared with Mr Manning for the Director. I understood that these facts were accepted by Mr Backwell, who appeared for Mr Liang.
Background to offending
I commence, then, with the background and lead‑up to the offending.
By the time of the offence, which occurred on Wednesday 6 September 2023, Mr Liang and Ms Aikeda, who were then aged 59 and 39 respectively, had been married for about ten years. While living under the same roof, they were separated and slept in separate bedrooms. They had mutual family violence intervention orders (“FVIOs”) in place and were in the throes of a bitter divorce, but had resolved to live in the same home for the sake of their children.
Ms Aikeda had a coach business, which provided buses and drivers for tours, charter, and rail replacement works. The business operated from a depot in Sunshine North. The depot was bought by Mr Liang, using a family trust. Mr Liang had assisted in the business by driving buses for a wage. Ms Aikeda said that, in the past, her husband was also actively involved in the business, and that he controlled how she ran it. The couple had separate bank accounts, though Mr Liang had a bank card to Ms Aikeda’s business account.
The family home in Kurunjang was bought in around October 2021, in Mr Liang’s name. In order to fund the purchase, they borrowed money from Ms Aikeda’s family and a friend, and Mr Liang also obtained finance from the ANZ bank.
The couple often argued about the business and their children. Mr Liang had perpetrated family violence towards his wife previously, but there were no instances of physical violence. Early in 2023, Mr Liang moved out of the house for a few weeks, and lived at the depot and at a friend’s house instead.
On 23 March 2023, just after Mr Liang returned to living at home, Ms Aikeda confronted him about a massage chair being removed from her bedroom. The argument escalated, with Mr Liang showing Ms Aikeda his middle finger and threatening to kick her out of the house. He then punched the hallway wall and said, “I will put you in the bed soon,” while making a strangulation motion with his hands. Ms Aikeda closed her bedroom door and contacted police. The incident occurred in the presence of their boys. Mr Liang sustained injuries to his right knuckles from hitting the wall. This left blood on the hallway floor outside Ms Aikeda’s bedroom. Police arrested Mr Liang at the house. That night, he was served with a family violence safety notice (“FVSN”), and he slept at the depot in Sunshine North.
The next morning, Ms Aikeda’s friend and business associate Darryl Shalders attended the depot. He saw that Mr Liang had put a new lock on the gates and had parked his bus in front of other vehicles. Mr Shalders and Ms Aikeda arranged for the lock to be cut and the bus to be towed out of the way. Mr Liang then moved the bus back to its original position, blocking the other vehicles inside the depot. He locked the doors to the office and left the premises. Later, when police rang Mr Liang about the incident, his adult son Shi Hao (“Peter”) Liang answered and refused to let them speak to his father.
After a few weeks, Ms Aikeda took steps for the FVSN to be varied, to allow Mr Liang to move back into the family home. Though they were dealing with a divorce, she encouraged him to be a good father. However, the relationship did not improve when he returned.
On 4 April 2023, an interim FVIO was made at the Magistrates’ Court and served upon Mr Liang. Among other things, it prohibited him from committing family violence against Ms Aikeda and from intentionally damaging her property.
On 21 April 2023, Mr Liang was sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court, without conviction, to an adjourned undertaking in relation to his contravention of the FVSN and a failure to answer bail. This is his only criminal history.
On 17 May 2023, the interim FVIO was made into a final order for three months, until 17 July 2023. It contained the same conditions as had been on the interim order.
In mid‑2023, in the context of negotiating their divorce, Mr Liang drafted an agreement for the distribution of their property and the care arrangements of their children. Subsequently, Ms Aikeda sent a WeChat message to Mr Liang containing the agreement and noting that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Both later went to a police station to sign the agreement. Mr Liang told Ms Aikeda that he wanted to negotiate affairs between them without going to divorce lawyers. He signed a “consent letter” for the purpose of providing the ANZ home loan statements to Ms Aikeda for use in the transfer of the family home into her name.
When Mr Liang did not keep to the agreement between them, Ms Aikeda engaged a divorce solicitor to represent her. Soon after, Mr Liang did the same.
On 14 July 2023, the day after the expiry of the final FVIO, Ms Aikeda was granted a fresh interim FVIO. Among other things, the new interim order prohibited Mr Liang from going into Ms Aikeda’s bedroom at the family home, and from contacting or communicating with her by any means.
On 2 August 2023, a final FVIO was made at the Magistrates’ Court until 10 September 2023. Mr Liang was present and served with the order. It contained similar conditions to the interim order. This final order was in place at the time of the offending.
On 7 August 2023, Mr Liang forcefully tried to enter his wife’s locked bedroom. Ms Aikeda saw him in possession of a hammer. She screamed, which appeared to deter him. Police later attended and spoke with Mr Liang. He told them he had been sleeping. He confirmed that he and Ms Aikeda were divorcing but denied wanting to hurt her.
Four days later, Mr Liang applied for an FVIO against Ms Aikeda, based upon an alleged incident from 3 to 4 August 2023. In the application, he said the following, among other things. He and Ms Aikeda were married, and lived together, but were separated. They started a bus company together in 2017, which was the cause of regular disputes. On 3 to 4 August 2023, Ms Aikeda began screaming at Mr Liang after she had spent a night away in a hotel. He could not understand her beyond her stating, “Fuck you.” He walked away and slept in his car for three nights. His wife had become extremely controlling and financially abusive, with no income going into his account from the business. She had made him sign his three properties into her name and forced him to work without pay. He believed that Mr Shalders was Ms Aikeda’s boyfriend. Mr Shalders came to the depot one night in April 2023 in an aggressive manner. Ms Aikeda swore at him, stood over him, withheld his medication, and isolated him from his friends. She had not assaulted him, but he felt unsafe. He had remained in the family home to care for the children, but did not want Ms Aikeda to be there any longer. On 4 September 2023, an interim FVIO was made against Ms Aikeda, but it was never served on her, and she was unaware of it.
On 15 August 2023, police were again called to the family home by Ms Aikeda. An argument had occurred after she accused Mr Liang of speaking to one of their children about their divorce. She expressed fears that Mr Liang was tracking her.
On 24 August 2023, Ms Aikeda’s solicitors wrote to Mr Liang’s solicitors. They demanded that Mr Liang immediately cease steps to sell the depot in Sunshine North. They said Ms Aikeda claimed to have made significant financial contributions to the purchase of both that property and the family home, and she had instructed them to lodge caveats against both properties. They also said she reserved her right to apply for freezing orders against Mr Liang’s assets.
On 28 August 2023, Mr Liang’s solicitors wrote to Ms Aikeda’s solicitors. They demanded the restoration of a particular bus and any other assets in the property pool which Ms Aikeda had sold without Mr Liang’s knowledge or agreement. They claimed Mr Liang was suffering financial hardship as a result of being cut off from the family business. They proposed a property settlement that in effect left properties under their existing titles.
Throughout August 2023, Ms Aikeda communicated with Mr Shalders, including by text. In one exchange, she said she had locked her door, she could hear Mr Liang in his room, he was speaking aggressively on the phone, and he needed to move out. She added, “I am scared of him doing something bad or nasty.” She later noted that he was speaking aggressively on the phone about “what [she] did”. In another exchange, Ms Aikeda said Mr Liang looked very upset, she was a bit scared, and he was speaking on the phone about what they had sent to his solicitors about the caveat.
By September 2023, Mr Liang and Ms Aikeda had been sleeping in separate bedrooms for about two years. She considered them to be separated though living in the same house. Ms Aikeda slept in the second bedroom down the hallway, while Mr Liang’s bedroom was near the boys’ room. By this stage, Mr Liang did not eat meals with Ms Aikeda or the boys.
On the night of Monday 4 September 2023, Ms Aikeda’s solicitors sent a four‑page letter by email to Mr Liang’s solicitors. This letter was likely forwarded to Mr Liang the next day. It contained the following matters. Mr Liang’s offer of 28 August 2023 was rejected, as were his requests to sell the family home and the Sunshine North depot. A “final offer” by Ms Aikeda was included in the letter. Failing acceptance of that offer, instructions would be sought immediately to commence court proceedings against Mr Liang for property settlement, spousal maintenance, and parenting matters. Notice was given that Ms Aikeda had lodged caveats over the family home and the Sunshine North depot. The balance of the letter set out Ms Aikeda’s claims as to her contributions to the marital relationship (with those contributions estimated at 95 percent). It was alleged Mr Liang had been involved in “several counts of family violence” and had not cared for the children properly. The solicitors suggested that the various considerations supported a court ordering a property settlement of at least 70 to 80 percent of net marital assets to Ms Aikeda. She would also seek that the children live with her. Her “final offer” involved her retaining two properties in her name; Mr Liang transferring the title of the family home and the Sunshine North property to Ms Aikeda; her paying Mr Liang $200,000; and the parenting matters to be resolved on the basis of an earlier letter. While the offer was open until 18 September 2023, the solicitors demanded a response to the request for mediation by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday 6 September 2023.
On the evening of Tuesday 5 September 2023, Mr Shalders and Ms Aikeda exchanged a series of text messages. At about 7:48 p.m., Ms Aikeda told Mr Shalders that they had just arrived back at home, and she thanked him for his beautiful flowers. She went to sleep at about 10:00 p.m. She does not know when Mr Liang went to sleep. One of their children described the night as “good”, because his parents did not see each other, and the other recalled that the night was “fine” and “normal”.
The offending
I turn now to a summary of the offending.
As was her way, Ms Aikeda rose at 5:30 a.m. the next morning and went to the kitchen to make the boys’ breakfast. Shortly afterwards, Mr Liang came into the kitchen. This was unusual, as the two typically avoided being in the same room and did not speak to each other.
Mr Liang took a knife from the top of the fridge. Without a word between them, he then approached his wife and began stabbing her in the face with the knife. Ms Aikeda screamed out to her younger son for help, yelling that “Dad” was killing her. Mr Liang said nothing but continued to stab her.
RA and his older brother TC[1] woke to the sounds of their mother screaming and the family dog barking. When the boys got to the kitchen, their mother was lying on the floor with their father sitting on her and stabbing at her head and shoulder.
[1]Given their tender age, I think it is preferable not to name the couple’s children.
TC pushed his father and wrestled him away, and tried to hold him and calm him down. He managed to get the knife off him, but then his father grabbed a meat cleaver and resumed his attack on his mother. TC screamed at his father to stop. At one point, TC saw his father accidentally cut himself with the meat cleaver. Together, the two boys then managed to pull their father away, which allowed their mother to flee.
Events immediately after the offending
Once outside the house, Ms Aikeda tried to call Mr Shalders from her phone, but she was unsuccessful, so she texted him. At the time, however, the impairment to her vision made the phone screen appear blurry, so that she struggled to text coherently. Nevertheless, Mr Shalders saw enough in the messages to become concerned, and he eventually phoned emergency services in consequence.
Ms Aikeda recalls seeing blood on herself and feeling pain in her mouth. She walked to a house across the street. Her neighbours saw her lying on their doorstep, and one of them phoned emergency services at 6:04 a.m. She was covered in blood and said something like, “My husband is going to get me.”
Meanwhile, the boys also rang emergency services asking for help. When TC spoke to the operator, he was, understandably, in a distressed and hysterical state. Nevertheless, he managed to request an ambulance. He also said that there was blood everywhere and that his mum was about to die.
Mr Liang then took over the call. Through a Cantonese interpreter, he said to the operator, “Come quick … save someone,” and, “Someone has died.” When asked why the person is dead, he replied, “My wife … she threatened me and yelled at me … we fought … I have blood all over me, I’m also injured … Where’s the ambulance? … Come quick.” He was asked how many people were hurt and said, “I’m injured … my son is injured too.” When the interpreter queried if weapons were involved, Mr Liang began crying.
Thereafter, TC took over the call again. When asked what weapons were involved, TC identified a cleaver and a knife.
Later in the call, the operator sought clarification that Ms Aikeda and Mr Liang had both stabbed each other with a knife. TC replied, “Nuh, my mum’s just trying to defend herself.” He later said that his father thought his mother was cheating on him.
Mr Liang told the boys he was going to the hospital. He then left the property in his white van at about 6:08 a.m.
Police and paramedics began arriving at the scene from 6:16 a.m. Ms Aikeda was covered in blood and unable to speak clearly. She had multiple lacerations to her face, tongue, arms and right breast. At that point, given the volume of blood in her mouth and throat, treatment focused upon management of her airway. She was taken by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. The ambulance was stopped on the way to receive two units of blood and to administer the blood to Ms Aikeda.
Police found the two children inside a bedroom in the family home. Both had blood on their clothes. TC also had blood on his face and feet. Police saw a small cut on TC’s finger. In the course of the fracas, he had inadvertently received the cut to his finger, and a minor injury to his toe.
Police found the knife and the meat cleaver in the kitchen sink.
Mr Liang’s other actions after the offending, and his injuries
I turn now to Mr Liang’s movements and other actions after the offending, and his injuries.
After he left home, Mr Liang rang his adult son Peter. He told him that he had a fight with his wife. He said she was holding a knife in the kitchen, and they had an argument. He said he blacked out and does not remember what happened after that. The kids came out and that’s when the fighting stopped.
Peter told Mr Liang he did not know what to do. Mr Liang said his hand was bleeding because he tried to grab the knife off his wife, and cut it. He did not mention any injuries to his wife. He rejected his son’s suggestion to go to the hospital. Peter said he would speak to his friend, who was a lawyer. After speaking to his friend, Peter rang his father back and told him to go to the police station. Mr Liang agreed to do so.
At about 10:00 a.m., Linet Gesora, an accredited mental health social worker, rang Mr Liang with the assistance of an interpreter. Mr Liang asked if Ms Gesora was a lawyer. She said she was not, then explained her role, and asked if he was okay. Mr Liang sounded heightened and erratic, and he told her he was not okay. He said, earlier that morning, he had an argument with his wife, and she was holding a knife. He took the knife from her. He couldn’t say what kind of knife it was. He mentioned something about his hand, and said there was blood everywhere in the house. He said something like, “I don’t know what happened. I think my wife has gone to hospital. I don’t know which hospital, but I think she’s hurt.” He couldn’t explain why he thought that. He said he was currently driving alone but did not know where. He was asked to explain what happened but said he couldn’t remember. He asked Ms Gesora for a legal aid lawyer. He hung up the phone when Ms Gesora asked him to pull over.
At 10:46 a.m., Ms Gesora phoned emergency services and reported her conversation with Mr Liang. During that call, she recounted that Mr Liang had said he was going to hurt himself by driving. He had said that his wife had threatened him with a knife, and that he took the knife and injured her. He said he was injured on the hand but did not know what he did to his wife. He refused to tell Ms Gesora where he was.
At 11:05 a.m., Mr Liang walked into the police station at Melton, and was arrested. His clothing was blood‑stained, and he had visible injuries to three fingers on his right hand, and his left thumb. His white van was found a short distance from the station.
While in custody, Mr Liang told police, “I danger, I danger,” while making a motion of cutting the throat. After paramedics examined his fingers, Mr Liang said, “I hold.” When asked if he meant holding onto a knife, he said, “Yes.”
He was transported to the Emergency Department of the Sunshine Hospital. While waiting, he began laughing and said he was dangerous. He said that his injuries to his hands were from a physical altercation with his wife. He denied any other injury. He underwent surgery for the injuries to his hands. He remained at hospital until he was discharged on 8 September 2023.
Mr Liang’s police interview
Thereafter, Mr Liang was transferred into the custody of police. With the assistance of an interpreter, he participated in a recorded interview on 9 September 2023. Among other things, he said the following.
He drove to the police station. Everything was a blur. The injury to his hand was from “the fight with my wife”. He could not remember the fight or what it was about. It was early in the morning, but he could not remember what time. He could not remember where it occurred or who started it. He confirmed the sleeping arrangements at the family home. On the Tuesday night, he slept in his own bedroom at the house, but he could not remember what time he went to bed or what he ate for dinner.
He could not remember the first thing he did when he woke up the next morning. When it was suggested that the boys were woken by a fight he and his wife had in the kitchen, he said he could not remember much, and, “I really can’t remember what happened.” He said, “I’m really heartbroken. My wife. She — I loved her so much. I — I really don’t know. I don’t know … I’m twenty years senior than my wife. I loved her very much.” He was asked what happened in the kitchen and said, “Nothing. Don’t know.” He said the fight was “no good” but he couldn’t remember what happened. The police told him that his older son was injured, and he replied, “I know.” He repeated a number of times that he could not remember anything or did not know what happened.
When asked if he wanted to know whether his wife was alive, he said, “Yes. Please do tell me.” Then, when told she was in hospital with serious injuries but was alive, he said, “Thank you, thank you very much.”
Ms Aikeda neither had the knife nor threatened Mr Liang
In so far as Mr Liang told others that Ms Aikeda was holding the knife, that he cut himself while trying to grab it off her, that she threatened him, or that they argued, I understood it to be accepted by Mr Backwell (and, in any event, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt) that none of these things is true. Rather, I am satisfied that his injuries were sustained in the course of his use of the knife or the meat cleaver to attack Ms Aikeda and that there was no precipitating argument from or threat by Ms Aikeda immediately prior to Mr Liang’s attack.
Injuries to Ms Aikeda
Turning to the harm caused to Ms Aikeda, she suffered extensive injuries to the face, including deep lacerations to her tongue and the inside of her mouth where the tongue joins the throat; a deep laceration to her left cheek; a laceration to her left eye; and a haematoma around her right eye. Her left upper and lower eyelids had separated from their usual junction, creating an open wound extending towards the nose. Further, she sustained lacerations to her arms; a superficial incision to her right breast; a long laceration to her right chest wall; an incised wound to her left thumb; an incised wound above her left wrist; two incised wounds to her left forearm; lacerations to her scalp; and a laceration to her right thigh.
At least some of these injuries were life‑threatening, for she lost a critical amount of blood. Without prompt medical intervention, Ms Aikeda would have continued to lose blood, and her airway would have become occluded, both of which would have contributed to an inability to sustain life.
Part of the medical treatment Ms Aikeda received was to intubate her airways and to receive blood. She underwent surgery by an ear, nose and throat specialist, an ophthalmologist, and plastic surgeons.
She remained in hospital recuperating for almost three weeks, and was discharged on 26 September 2023.
Ms Aikeda has suffered permanent loss of vision out of her left eye. While she was able to read the victim impact statements at the plea hearing, she will necessarily continue to suffer the limitations of having vision in only one eye.
Her manner of speech and her eating were affected by the injuries to her tongue. While I detected no speech impediment when she read the victim impact statements, it is apparent from recent photographs that her tongue remains deformed.
The mobility in her left arm and hand has also been affected. She has had therapy in an attempt to improve function and dexterity, but she has no feeling in her left hand and tends to use her right hand instead.
Finally, recent photographs show that she has visible scarring not only to her tongue, but also to her left cheek, right jawline, left arm, left thumb, and right hand. It appears that the more prominent instances of scarring, which include her left cheek and her left arm, are unlikely to fade in the near future and may well be permanent.
Victim impact statements
I turn now to the two victim impact statements before the Court. Ms Aikeda authored and read both of them. One concerned the impact of the offence on her. The other concerned the impact on her children.
Ms Aikeda said that, emotionally, she struggles every day. She cannot bear to look at herself in the mirror because she does not recognise the person staring back at her. She considers that Mr Liang betrayed her trust in him in the most horrific way. She is limited in the activities she can undertake, such as playing soccer with her children, for fear of being hit in the head and losing vision in her other eye. Her tongue was so badly damaged that she could not spit or swallow for twenty days. The nerve damage to her arm has hampered her ability to complete basic physical tasks. She has also lost her sense of security. She is determined to heal and rebuild, but she regards the road ahead as long and uncertain.
On behalf of her boys, Ms Aikeda said that they saw something no children should ever see. TC’s memories of his father’s actions terrify him. Both boys are scared they will be judged by others for what happened to her. They are also embarrassed about her scars, her partial blindness, and her difficulty in speaking.
Plainly, the impact of Mr Liang’s crime on Ms Aikeda and her children is profound. To the extent that the law allows, I have taken account of the contents of the victim impact statements in considering sentence.
Nature and gravity of offence
I turn now to the nature and gravity of the offence, both generally and in this case.
Intentionally causing serious injury is an offence that can, and does, vary a good deal in gravity. That it carries a maximum penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment[2] shows that the legislature regards the worst examples of the offence to be among the gravest non‑fatal assaults against the person.[3]
[2]See Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 16(1).
[3]Aside, perhaps, from attempted murder, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment (see s 321P(1A) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)).
Some of the more serious features of Mr Liang’s particular offence include the following.
First, it was a chilling, ghastly and nasty attack committed on his defenceless and unarmed former partner.
Second, the attack was comprised of multiple strikes to vulnerable areas of the head and body with not one but two bladed weapons.
Third, the offence was committed against a background of family violence towards Ms Aikeda, albeit not physical violence or behaviour anywhere nearly as grave as the current offending.
Fourth, the offence was committed in part in front of the pair’s young children. As Ms Aikeda said, no child should ever have to see such a thing.
Fifth, despite TC wresting the knife from him, Mr Liang continued the assault with the meat cleaver and in the presence of both children.
Sixth, but for the children’s brave and persistent intervention, which allowed their mother to flee, the assault may well have continued.
Seventh, there was no immediate precipitating trigger for the attack, which came without any warning. Nothing was said or done by Ms Aikeda that morning to provoke any such attack.
Eighth, Mr Gibson submitted that I should find that Mr Liang’s motives for the attack were the animus he had towards Ms Aikeda for the breakup of the marriage and the related argument over property and money matters, as well as his perception of her infidelity with Mr Shalders. I am satisfied, on the criminal standard, that these base thoughts were Mr Liang’s motives for his attack.
Ninth, Ms Aikeda suffered very serious life‑threatening injuries. Further, she has been left with disability in the use of her left hand and the permanent loss of sight in one eye. In addition, her scarring, especially to her face, which may well never fade, will continue to be a painful reminder of the crime.
Tenth, as we have seen, and inevitably, the impact of the crime on Ms Aikeda and her sons is profound.
Eleventh, in deliberately stabbing her repeatedly in a vulnerable area such as the face, I am satisfied that Mr Liang must have realised he would cause her grave injury, and that he intended to do so.
Twelfth, the offence was committed in the sanctity of the family home, where Ms Aikeda and the children were entitled to feel safe.
Thirteenth, the offence was committed in breach of both an FVIO imposed five weeks earlier and an adjourned undertaking Mr Liang had received for breaching an order of that kind four months earlier.
Fourteenth, after Ms Aikeda fled, Mr Liang left without offering her any assistance, and he also left his young children alone to fend for themselves.
There is very little, if anything, that lessens or limits the gravity of the offence, except perhaps the following things.
First, while he continued the offence with the cleaver after his son wrested the knife from him, at least Mr Liang did not chase Ms Aikeda and seek to continue the attack when she fled to the street.
Second, instead, whether it was because of the boys’ intervention or because of his own independent decision once Ms Aikeda had fled, Mr Liang at least sought to assist her by joining in the triple‑zero call and explaining the need to “come quick” in order to “save someone”.
Third, and relatedly, while this may be a matter better dealt with when addressing questions of remorse and prospects of rehabilitation, that, on the emergency call, Mr Liang was also asking where the ambulance was, and that he began crying when the operator mentioned weapons, suggests a degree of insight into the gravity of the harm he had caused, an implied acknowledgment of his responsibility for it, and a desire that Ms Aikeda be saved.
That said, even allowing for the latter few points, when balanced against the preceding list of considerations, I am compelled to the view that, overall, Mr Liang’s offence was a grave example of intentionally causing serious injury and that it involved a very high degree of moral culpability.
Mr Liang’s personal history
Family
Before turning to the factors in mitigation, I shall say something about Mr Liang’s personal history, mostly as he explained it to psychologist Gina Cidoni, commencing with his family background.
Mr Liang was born in China in December 1963. He was 59 at the time of the offence, and is now 61.
His father died when he was young, and so his mother raised him and his three sisters alone. His mother is now deceased, too.
His three older sisters live in China. All are retired, and, like Mr Liang, they have poor health, including heart disease, depression, high blood sugar, and mobility issues.
Mr Liang’s childhood was impoverished. His mother and his eldest sister would often beg for food.
He ran away from home as a teenager. He sometimes slept at construction sites, and was homeless until his early twenties.
Relationships and children
As for his relationships, Mr Liang has been married twice and has three children.
He was first married when he was 28. He and his first wife lived together in St Albans before moving to Melton for three years. They had one son, Shi Hao (“Peter”), who is now 35. Mr Liang and his first wife started arguing because she preferred China to Australia. They separated when their son was about seventeen. Mr Liang keeps in touch with both of them.
Following the separation from his first wife, Mr Liang lived in shared accommodation with their son. However, after the landlord discovered that he had lied on his application by stating he was coming alone, he left that accommodation and rented a shed behind a restaurant.
He then went back to China briefly to marry his second wife, Ms Aikeda. He brought her back to Melbourne, and they lived together initially in Melton for four years.
As we have seen, they have two children together — TC,[4] who was aged eleven at the time of the offending, and RA, who was eight. Mr Liang does not know their current whereabouts. He believes Ms Aikeda has been hiding them from him. He has not seen or spoken to them since his arrest.
[4]While Mr Liang is not TC’s biological father, he regards him as if he were his son.
He believed that Ms Aikeda was deceiving him and controlling their finances. He claimed he stayed home looking after the children while she spent nights at her boyfriend’s house. Her boyfriend once came to Mr Liang’s factory at night, he believes in an attempt to kill him, and the police were called.
Child Protection became involved after Mr Liang turned himself in. By reason of an FVIO, he is currently not allowed to see his younger children.
When released, Mr Liang would like to return to live with his son Peter.
Education
As for his formal education, Mr Liang completed primary school in China, reaching Grade 5. He described his academic performance as poor and his attendance as fragmented. He experienced significant bullying for not having a father, which led to him leaving school and living on the streets.
Employment
Turning to his employment, Mr Liang’s first paid job was working as an electrician at the same factory in which his father had worked. He was there for five years.
After coming to Australia in 2000, he worked in various factory jobs, and he drove buses for twenty years, which, as we have seen, later became a family business with his wife. He told Ms Cidoni that his wife and her boyfriend terminated his employment after he reported their illegal activities to the police. These alleged activities involved sending buses to unlicensed mechanics and forging inspection stamps.
He was formally unemployed for a year prior to his arrest.
In prison, because of his poor health, he performs only light work, including sweeping floors and cooking.
He does not have any work lined up upon his release. Given his age by then, his limited education and skills, and some of his other afflictions to be discussed shortly, I expect he will find it difficult to obtain paid employment when released from prison.
Alcohol and substance use
Mr Liang started drinking alcohol at the age of nine or ten. He believes he was not addicted and would only drink when he was in a bad mood. His last drink was early in 2023.
He reported no history of illicit drug use, and he has no history of problematic gambling behaviours.
Physical health
Turning to his physical health, Mr Liang twisted his lower back while moving furniture when in his forties. He managed the pain with self‑medication.
He also has heart disease and takes angina medication provided by the prison. He has been hospitalised twice as a result of heart‑related issues — once seven years ago, and another time four years ago.
Cognitive functioning
Mr Liang was assessed twice by Ms Cidoni. While a full‑scale IQ score was not obtained, her testing showed that his verbal comprehension and working memory were both in the extremely low range. In Ms Cidoni’s opinion, his ability to make decisions, form coherent thoughts, and engage in logical and abstract thinking is notably compromised, impacting his actions and social interactions. These cognitive deficits, compounded by a language barrier, hinder his ability to communicate and connect with others effectively, leading to misunderstandings and social isolation. In her view, this overall cognitive impairment also affects his judgment and insight, and contributes to poor decision‑making and an inability to foresee the consequences of his actions.
Mental health
As for his mental health, Mr Liang was diagnosed with severe depression by a psychiatrist over ten years ago. He received anti‑depressant medication for a period afterwards, then stopped taking it. He also attended weekly sessions with a psychologist for two years.
Currently, he is experiencing symptoms of depression and stress related to his deteriorating physical health. He is not currently linked with any services.
In Ms Cidoni’s opinion, Mr Liang has a major depressive disorder and an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. His depressive disorder results in persistent feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and a lack of motivation, significantly impairing his daily functioning and quality of life. His low cognitive function suggests difficulties with memory, attention, and problem‑solving, further hindering his ability to manage everyday tasks and make sound decisions. Ms Cidoni’s view is that his adjustment disorder will exacerbate his emotional instability and stress, particularly in response to life changes and stressors. In her opinion, collectively, these conditions interact to create a cycle of emotional distress, cognitive impairment, and social withdrawal, making it challenging for him to maintain relationships, perform occupational tasks, and engage in normal daily activities.
I shall return to Ms Cidoni’s opinions later in these reasons.
Mitigating factors
Handed himself in to police
I turn now to the mitigating factors, commencing with the fact that Mr Liang handed himself in to police.
While, in his police interview, he said he could not remember many things, he made some admissions, including that the cuts to his hands were sustained during “a fight with [his] wife”.
Plea of guilty
Next, Mr Liang’s plea of guilty is a very significant mitigating factor, for several reasons.
First, it has avoided a trial at which Ms Aikeda and the pair’s children would have been required to give evidence.
Second, while Ms Aikeda was cross‑examined by Mr Liang’s solicitor at the committal hearing last June, that was at a point when he was facing the charge of attempted murder. Further, neither of the children has been required to give evidence at any stage of the process.
Third, in Ms Cidoni’s first report, which was prepared just after the committal, she recorded that Mr Liang indicated he would be pleading guilty.
Fourth, prior to the case conference in this Court, Mr Liang was still facing an indictment charging attempted murder.[5] Immediately following that case conference, Mr Backwell indicated that the matter had settled as a plea of guilty to intentionally causing serious injury. Later the same day, Mr Liang duly pleaded guilty upon arraignment on a fresh indictment containing only that charge.
[5]Charges of intentionally causing serious injury and recklessly causing serious injury were also on the indictment, as alternatives.
In those circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr Liang’s plea of guilty indicates an acceptance of responsibility for his offending and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. Further, while it was not the earliest plea, it was nevertheless a plea of guilty that was indicated to Ms Cidoni early, was in fact entered at a relatively early stage of the process overall, and was entered immediately upon the filing of a fresh indictment charging only intentionally causing serious injury.
Remorse
The next factor in mitigation concerns remorse. For the following reasons, I am satisfied that Mr Liang is genuinely remorseful for his offending and the grave harm that it has caused.
First, the notes of Mr Liang’s hospital admission after he handed himself in to police include the following. He told staff that he used a knife to hurt his wife, and that he felt “really, really bad”. He was “expressing suicidal ideation” and “requesting euthanasia”. He said, “My children grabbed the knife from me … and suddenly I woke up … and I felt really bad and sorry at that moment”.
Second, there is his plea of guilty and the circumstances in which it was entered.
Third, in her first report, when assessing Mr Liang’s risk of reoffending as “medium”, Ms Cidoni said this:[6]
Protective factors for Mr Liang include his expressed remorse and insight into his actions, which indicate a willingness to change. He expressed shock and disbelief at his actions, indicating that he did not think himself capable of such behaviour, which reflects a level of insight into the gravity and abnormality of his actions and the impact on his children as well. Additionally, he mentioned having trouble sleeping at night and experiencing suicidal tendencies, which suggests deep remorse and guilt over his behaviour. His emotional response and acknowledgment of [the seriousness of his actions] demonstrate that he understands the wrongfulness of his conduct and feels genuine regret and sorrow for the harm caused.
[6]Ms Cidoni’s report (dated 30 June 2024) at [76].
Fourth, when Ms Aikeda read the two victim impact statements to the Court, it was apparent from Mr Liang’s reactions that he was appalled at, and genuinely sorry for, the grave harm he had done. To me, he looked distressed at what he was hearing and disgusted with himself.
No prior convictions at 61
Next, it is also of significance in mitigation that, at the age of 61, Mr Liang has no previous criminal convictions.
As Starke J remarked in R v Okutgen,[7] a person of middle age, when first convicted, can call in aid his character and is entitled to ask the Court to rely very strongly indeed on the fact that he is of exemplary character and has been at all times up until the moment of conviction.
[7]R v Okutgen (1982) 8 A Crim R 262 at 265–266 (per Starke J; Crockett J and O’Bryan J agreeing).
Of course, I recognise at once that Mr Liang does have a prior appearance for breaching a FVSN and that the present offence was committed against a background of (uncharged) family violence towards Ms Aikeda. To that extent, he has not been of exemplary character at all times prior to this offence. However, no conviction was recorded for breaching the FVSN, and none of the uncharged family violence involved physical violence towards Ms Aikeda.
Good prospects of rehabilitation
Next, I am also satisfied that Mr Liang has good prospects of rehabilitation. The matters that drive me to that conclusion include the fact that he handed himself in to police and made some admissions, the things he said to hospital staff, his plea of guilty, his remorse, his lack of prior convictions at the age of 61, his solid work history, and the support he has from his oldest son.
Prison harder because of severe depression, anxiety, cognitive deficits, no English
The final two matters urged in mitigation concern whether I am satisfied, first, that Mr Liang will find imprisonment more burdensome than others because of his severe depression, his adjustment disorder, his cognitive deficits, and his language barrier, and, second, that his mental health is likely to worsen in prison.
In addition to the matters mentioned earlier, in her first report, Ms Cidoni expressed the following opinions:[8]
[79] Imprisonment is likely to be more burdensome for Mr Liang due to his severe [major depressive disorder], which exacerbates feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, and despair, and significantly increases his risk of self‑harm, especially considering his current suicidal tendencies.
[80] The stress of incarceration is likely to worsen his [adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood], further heightening his emotional instability and stress levels. His cognitive impairments, which affect his memory, attention, and problem‑solving abilities, will make it challenging for him to navigate the complex prison environment. Additionally, these cognitive challenges will impede his ability to participate in and benefit from rehabilitation programs.
[81] Communication barriers present another significant hurdle; the language barrier and the limited availability of interpreters in prison will further isolate Mr Liang, preventing him from effectively expressing his needs and accessing necessary support services. This combination of factors — severe depression, heightened anxiety, cognitive impairments, and communication difficulties — suggests that his mental health is likely to deteriorate in prison. The cumulative impact will significantly affect his daily functioning, making it exceedingly difficult for him to cope with the demands and stressors of incarceration. Without proper mental health support and interventions, his condition could deteriorate rapidly, leading to severe emotional and psychological consequences.
[8]Ms Cidoni’s report (dated 30 June 2024) at [79]–[81].
After assessing Mr Liang again in December last year, Ms Cidoni provided a second report, in which she offered the following opinions:[9]
[9] While Mr Liang reported no interpersonal conflicts or safety concerns, the language barrier significantly hinders his access to rehabilitation programs and mental health support. This lack of access creates an additional layer of difficulty in his rehabilitation journey and increases the risk of his mental health deteriorating. These barriers represent a significant challenge to his reintegration prospects, as they prevent him from addressing the underlying causes of his offending behaviour.
[10] Mr Liang’s case reflects the broader issue of systemic inadequacies in addressing the needs of non‑English speaking individuals within the correctional system. Without appropriate interpreter services and culturally sensitive support, these individuals are at greater risk of experiencing psychological distress and isolation, undermining their rehabilitation and increasing the likelihood of reoffending.
[11] To address these issues, it is essential that Mr Liang is provided with adequate support, including interpreter services to enable his participation in rehabilitation programs, access to culturally appropriate therapeutic services to address his mental health concerns, and regular mental health monitoring to prevent further deterioration.
[9]Ms Cidoni’s report (dated 23 December 2024) at [9]–[11].
In response, Mr Gibson tendered two affidavits in an attempt to rebut Ms Cidoni’s opinions concerning the alleged “systemic inadequacies in addressing the needs of non‑English speaking individuals within the correctional system”. One affidavit was sworn by Sarah Miles, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Offender Services. Ms Miles described the availability of interpreters in Victorian prisons. The other affidavit was affirmed by Jackie Ashmore, who is the Clinical Director of Justice Health. Ms Ashmore described the various physical and mental health services provided by Justice Health to adults in Victorian prisons. For reasons that will become apparent, it is unnecessary to go into the detail of these affidavits.
In reply, Mr Backwell explained that it is not put that Mr Liang cannot access the various services he requires in prison because he does not speak English. Rather, the submission is that the language barrier just makes it harder for him. He submitted that it is apparent from Mr Liang’s medical file with Justice Health that he has had consultations using telephone interpreters, fellow inmates acting as interpreters, or even by the use of “Google Translate”.
I accept that, for the reasons given by Ms Cidoni, imprisonment is likely to be more burdensome for Mr Liang because of the effects of his severe depressive disorder, his adjustment disorder, and his cognitive impairments, and that those difficulties are worsened by his language limitations, notwithstanding the availability of interpreter services, whereas, all else being equal, imprisonment for a prisoner without these afflictions or limitations would not be as burdensome.
For the reasons she gives, I also accept Ms Cidoni’s opinion that this combination of factors — severe depression, heightened anxiety, cognitive impairments, and communication difficulties — suggests that his mental health is likely to deteriorate significantly in prison.
Accordingly, each of the foregoing conclusions based on Ms Cidoni’s opinions amounts to an additional factor in mitigation.[10]
Sentencing purposes
[10]See R v Verdins (2002) 16 VR 269 at 276[32](5)–(6) (per Maxwell P, Buchanan and Vincent JJA).
Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act
I turn now to the purposes of sentencing. Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act provides that the only purposes for which sentence may be imposed are, to use the shorthand, general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation, protection of the community, just punishment, and rehabilitation.
General deterrence, denunciation and just punishment
General deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are very important sentencing purposes in this case. Mr Liang’s crime was grave, both in the manner and circumstances of its perpetration and its devastating result for Ms Aikeda, and for the indirect impact on their impressionable young children. The sentence must reflect the Court’s denunciation of such a terrible crime and its consequences; it must serve as a deterrent to others; and it must involve punishment that is just in all the circumstances.
Specific deterrence and protection of the community
It is also necessary that the sentence deter Mr Liang personally and protect the community from repeat behaviour by him. That said, and notwithstanding his previous breach of an FVSN and related behaviour, I think that the weight to be given to specific deterrence and community protection is of lesser moment here because of some of the mitigating factors — for example, the absence of any criminal convictions at the age of 61, his plea of guilty and remorse, and his good prospects of rehabilitation.
Further, while Ms Cidoni opined that Mr Liang presents as a medium risk of reoffending, given the sentence that must be imposed because of purposes conducing to a longer sentence, I doubt that, by the time of his potential release, he would present more than a negligible risk of reoffending.
Rehabilitation
In contrast, rehabilitation remains an important purpose in fixing sentence. There are at least two reasons why that is so.
First, notwithstanding the gravity of his crime, the fact that Mr Liang has good prospects of reform makes rehabilitation a purpose that must be afforded significant weight in the sentencing calculus.
Second, it is necessary to recognise the interplay between rehabilitation and protection of the community. Mr Liang will be returning to the community at some point. It is therefore in the community’s interests that such prospects of rehabilitation as he has be maximised, and that he is not crushed by an unduly long sentence and non‑parole period, so that, when he does return to the community, his risk of reoffending is as low as it reasonably can be, and his chances of successful reintegration into society are as strong as they can be.
Parsimony
Next, I note that the sentence I shall impose is intended to conform with the principle of parsimony, as it must. This principle, which is reflected in s 5(3) of the Sentencing Act in a modified form, provides that a court must not impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed.
Current sentencing practices
Introduction
I turn now to current sentencing practices for intentionally causing serious injury, at least in so far as I can determine them. These practices are but one factor in sentencing, and certainly not a controlling one at that, but they are nevertheless important in the sentencing synthesis.
Statistics
Sentencing statistics for the offence during the five‑year period from July 2018 to June 2023 reveal that the most common prison sentence for this offence ranged from five to less than six years, and the average prison sentence ranged from five years and five months to six‑and‑a‑half years.[11]
[11]Sentencing Advisory Council, Sentencing Snapshot 288: Sentencing Trends for Intentionally Causing Serious Injury in the Higher Courts of Victoria 2018–19 to 2022–2023, p 4.
I recognise, however, that such statistics are of limited utility. This is mainly because they do not distinguish cases according to their most important sentencing considerations, such as the gravity of the offence or whether there was a plea of guilty or not guilty, remorse, or a relevant criminal history, and so on.
Case comparisons
Sometimes, case comparisons are a useful way of assessing current sentencing practices. With this in mind, Mr Gibson and Mr Manning helpfully provided a table of selected sentences imposed for this offence.[12] Suffice it to say that, while none of the cases in the table struck me as being quite like Mr Liang’s case, I am satisfied that, when the various competing and complimentary factors in those cases are considered, the sentence I am about to impose is consistent with the sentences revealed by that table.
[12]The table comprises the following cases: Dhal v The King [2023] VSCA 289; Jafari v The Queen [2015] VSCA 295; Robbins v The Queen [2012] VSCA 34; DPP v Packard (a pseudonym) [2021] VSCA 56; Portelli v The Queen [2015] VSCA 159; Nawrozi v The Queen [2012] VSCA 272; and DPP v Jones [2021] VCC 2083.
Conclusions
That none of the individual cases in the table is quite like the present case is neither surprising nor uncommon. Indeed, in the area of sentencing, it is almost always difficult usefully to compare cases. And, in any event, sentences are not precedents to be applied or distinguished.
In the end, as is the situation even where there are helpful statistics or more useful case comparisons, I have been driven to rely principally on the circumstances of this case and sentencing purposes and principles to arrive at the appropriate sentence for this offence of intentionally causing serious injury.
Sentence
I turn now to impose sentence.
Mr Liang, would you stand, please?
Balancing all relevant matters as best I can, for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury to Jiamali Aikeda, Zhaonan Liang is convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of seven years.
Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that, not including today, 600 days are reckoned as already served under this sentence.
This means that, putting aside any emergency management days, Mr Liang should be eligible for parole by no later than 6 September 2030, when he will be 66, and that his head sentence should expire three years later.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that, but for Mr Liang’s plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence in the order of thirteen years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of ten years.
---
0
8
0