R v Van Ling

Van Ling appealed against his conviction of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or unsatisfactory. The court considered whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and if the appellant could still be liable for a conviction of assault occasioning bodily harm. The court found that the appellant was not proven to have used a weapon, and that there was no evidence that the appellant used a machete. The court also found that the appellant, if successful on his conviction appeal, may still be liable for a conviction of assault occasioning bodily harm.

The court considered whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsatisfactory. The court found that the verdict was unreasonable or unsatisfactory because the appellant was not proven to have used a weapon, and there was no evidence that the appellant used a machete. The court also found that the appellant, if successful on his conviction appeal, may still be liable for a conviction of assault occasioning bodily harm. The court held that it was open to the court to substitute a verdict of guilty for this alternative offence. The court substituted a conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm while in company and set aside the sentence of four years imprisonment originally imposed, substituting a sentence of 18 months imprisonment.