R v Sun - [2004] VSC 276

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1497 of 2003

THE QUEEN

QIANG SUN

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5-17 March, 9 August 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 August 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Qiang Sun
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 276

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing - Manslaughter of young girl by young man - Significant aggravating and mitigating factors - Effective sentence of 9 years, with non-parole period of 6 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Leckie SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Brustman	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Qiang Sun. You have been found guilty by a jury of the crime of manslaughter. On 20 December 2002 at Collingwood you killed Mei Kei Wong. The jury that found you guilty of manslaughter found you not guilty of murder. The jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you had the intent required for murder at the time that you killed her. I have reservations about the credibility of aspects of your various accounts as to how the killing came about, and as to other matters. I will return later to the subject of your credibility.

In 2002, you were studying and working part-time in Melbourne. From late in November 2002, you worked at Shuji Sushi, a food bar in Flinders Lane, close to Queen Street. The deceased, also a student, came to work there part-time too. You did not know her until the two of you came to work together. Even at work, the two of you had not spoken much together.

On Friday 20 December 2002, you finished work around 4 p.m. at Shuji Sushi. You had not planned to do anything with the deceased. She left Shuji Sushi shortly after you did. She called to you as you crossed Queen Street, intending to walk to your car. She asked you if you could give her a lift to her second place of part-time work in Glen Waverley. You agreed to do so. The two of you walked to your car. You were then living in a rented flat in Victoria Parade, Collingwood. You wanted to change your clothes at your flat. You drove there. Both of you went into your flat. There, you talked. The talk was a prelude to the two of you having sexual intercourse.

I am not able to make precise findings as to how you killed the deceased. You gave evidence that after the sex, she said things, including as to a tattoo you have on your shoulder of a young girl, that caused you to become angry at her. You lost your temper. You hit her. You wrapped two towels around her head and neck. You tied her arms at the wrists. You tied her ankles. You wrapped a red blanket around her.

I am able to find that you…

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 Sun

Details

AGLC: R v Sun [2004] VSC 276
Case: [2004] VSC 276
Decision Date: 10 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in this case, Sun, was convicted of manslaughter for the death of a young girl. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the significant aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

The court had to balance the heinous nature of the crime against the age of the defendant, his background, and his prospects for rehabilitation. Aggravating factors included the vulnerability of the victim and the violent manner of the crime. Mitigating factors included the defendant’s age at the time of the offence, his background of personal trauma, and his otherwise clean criminal record. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the crime while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.

Ultimately, the court determined that the effective sentence should be nine years, with a non-parole period of six years. This sentence was deemed appropriate given the circumstances, as it provided a sufficient punishment while also allowing for the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court’s decision reflected a careful consideration of both the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of the defendant.

Orders