R v Liao - [2015] VSC 730

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0113

THE QUEEN
v
CIA XIA LIAO	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	4 November 2015, 10 December 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Liao
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 730

---

CRIMINAL LAW- Sentence – Murder – Two charges – Baseline sentencing – Provisions not applied - Intentionally cause injury – False imprisonment - Pleas of guilty – Early plea – Offences committed after failed relationship - Mental state of the offender – Personality disorder – Adjustment disorder – Moral culpability - Extent of effect on offending – Verdins – Remorse – Prospect of deportation – Totality.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford SC and Ms F Dalziel	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Gibson	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Cia Xia Liao, you have pleaded guilty to each of four charges in an indictment filed in this Court. Those charges include the murder of Mai Mach on 31 March 2015, the murder of the child Alistair Kwong also on 31 March 2015 as well as causing injury to Brian Mach and the false imprisonment of Brian Mach, on the same date. Though simply stated, in reality these events were horrific and were a tragedy for all involved including for you. The two deceased – a four year old child and his grandmother – were entirely innocent of any wrong doing so far as you were concerned. The particularly concerning aspect of your behaviour was that you murdered the child and then, having imprisoned Brian Mach and without compunction or regret, lay in wait for Mai Mach for many hours before murdering her.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for intentionally causing injury is 10 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the common law offence of false imprisonment is 10 years imprisonment. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for these crimes.

Circumstances of offending

These crimes arose out of your relationship with Brian Mach, who was the husband of the deceased woman, Mai Mach. Your relationship with Brian Mach began in 2012 when you met him in China. At that time Brian Mach was separated from his wife. Over the following years you and Brian Mach remained in contact and a romantic relationship between you was established. Many of your communications were over an internet program known as ‘WeChat’.

It is clear enough that you had a strong desire for Brian Mach to end his relationship by leaving and divorcing his wife Mai so that you and he could be married. The Crown have suggested that this desire was primarily motivated by your ambition to obtain Australian citizenship, but I have concluded that your relationship with Brian Mach extended beyond that of potential convenience and was characterised by a strong emotional commitment, at least on your part.

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 Liao

Details

AGLC: R v Liao [2015] VSC 730
Case: [2015] VSC 730
Decision Date: 17 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Liao was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendant, Liao, faced two charges: murder and intentionally causing injury. Liao pleaded guilty to both charges, leading to a sentencing hearing. The primary issues before the court were the appropriate baseline sentencing for each offence, the impact of Liao's mental health conditions on his culpability, and the effect of his early guilty plea and remorse on his sentencing.

The court had to consider the statutory provisions for sentencing in light of Liao's early guilty plea, which typically warrants a discount. The mental health conditions diagnosed in Liao, including a personality disorder and adjustment disorder, were central to the assessment of his moral culpability. The court needed to weigh the extent to which these conditions influenced his offending behaviour. Additionally, the court examined Liao's demonstrated remorse and the prospect of his deportation post-sentence to determine the appropriate total sentence. The court ultimately decided that, despite the mitigating factors, the gravity of the offences warranted a substantial custodial sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the mitigating factors of Liao's early guilty plea, his remorse, and the prospect of deportation. However, it found that these factors did not significantly reduce the moral culpability for the offences. The court considered the totality principle, ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and provided adequate deterrence and protection of society. Ultimately, the court sentenced Liao to a term of imprisonment, balancing all the relevant factors, including his mental health conditions and early plea.

Orders