The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years and 6 months with a non‑parole period of 19 years commencing on 18 June 2019.
The offender will be first eligible for release on parole on 18 June 2038.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – stabbing with intention to kill – victim was the ex‑partner of the offender – CCTV footage tendered at sentence hearing – not impulsive or spontaneous – offender diagnosed with major depressive disorder – relevance to sentence – above mid-range of objective seriousness – remorse – plea of guilty – risk of serious reoffending low but not negligible – comparable cases – sentence for murder 25 years and 6 months with non-parole of 19 years
Counsel: C Taylor (Crown) A Bellanto QC; C Lin (Offender)
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ting Legal (Offender)
File Number(s):
2019/188107
Judgment
On 15 May 2020, the offender, Ms Zixi Wang, was arraigned in this Court on an indictment that charged her with murdering Ms Shuyu Zhou on 17 June 2019 (Crimes Act1990, s 18(1)(a)). She pleaded guilty. Proceedings on sentence took place on 14 September 2020.
The crime to which the offender pleaded guilty is the most serious criminal offence dealt with by this Court. The killing of…
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 Wang
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Wang [2020] NSWSC 1335
Case
[2020] NSWSC 1335
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Wang, the offender was convicted of the murder of his ex-partner. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the offence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The offender was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and had pleaded guilty to the offence. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances, and the offender's background.
The legal issues the court needed to decide included the objective seriousness of the offence, the relevance of the offender's mental health diagnosis to the sentence, and the offender's level of remorse. The court also considered the risk of reoffending and compared the case to similar cases to determine an appropriate sentence. The offender's plea of guilty and the fact that the murder was premeditated and not impulsive or spontaneous were also factors considered by the court.
The court found that the murder was above the mid-range of objective seriousness due to the premeditated nature of the offence and the fact that the victim was the offender's ex-partner. The court found that the offender's major depressive disorder was relevant to the sentence but did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence. The court also found that the offender had shown some remorse, but this was not sufficient to significantly reduce the sentence. The risk of reoffending was considered low but not negligible. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for the offence was 25 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 19 years.
The final orders of the court were that the offender was sentenced to 25 years and 6 months imprisonment for the murder of his ex-partner, with a non-parole period of 19 years. The court considered the factors outlined above in reaching this decision and found that this sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.