R v Liang - [2025] VSC 218

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,…

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 Liang

Details

AGLC: R v Liang [2025] VSC 218
Case: [2025] VSC 218
Decision Date: 28 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Liang, the Victorian Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing a sentence handed down by a lower court. The appellant, Liang, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of intentionally causing serious injury to his estranged wife. The attack occurred in the family home, where Liang stabbed his wife repeatedly with a knife and later a meat cleaver, resulting in severe injuries including permanent blindness in one eye and significant disfigurement. The attack was stopped by the couple's children, allowing the victim to escape. The lower court had sentenced Liang to ten years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.

The primary legal issues for the court to consider were the principles of sentencing for grievous bodily harm, the impact of the plea of guilty and genuine remorse, and the appellant's mental health and prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the appellant's personal circumstances and the potential impact of imprisonment on his health. The court also had to consider the severity of the crime and its impact on the victim.

In delivering its judgment, the Court of Appeal noted the gravity of the offence, the significant impact on the victim, and the appellant's previous history of family violence. Despite the appellant's lack of prior convictions, the court found the attack to be of a grave nature. The appellant's guilty plea and expressions of remorse were acknowledged as mitigating factors. The court also considered the appellant's mental health, noting his severe depression, adjustment disorder, cognitive deficits, and limited English proficiency. The court found that imprisonment would be particularly burdensome for the appellant, and his mental health was likely to deteriorate in prison. However, the importance of general deterrence and denunciation was emphasised. Ultimately, the court decided that, but for the plea of guilty and remorse, a harsher sentence would have been appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was affirmed.

The final orders of the court affirmed the sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years. The court held that the original sentence was appropriate given the appellant's plea of guilty, remorse, and personal circumstances, but noted that a harsher sentence would have been warranted in the absence of these factors.

Orders