R v Wu - [2013] VSC 375

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0175 of 2012

THE QUEEN
v
Yeng WU	Prisoner

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 July 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 July 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Wu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 375

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – No mitigating features – General deterrence, denunciation and punishment – Sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 21 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Bourke	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Sheales	Grigor Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Shen Qing Chen was brutally murdered in the early hours of Saturday 11 February 2012.

His assailant entered Mr Chen’s home through the unlocked front doors, entered the nearby bedroom, and set about him with a sharp heavy weapon – perhaps a machete or an axe. Mr Chen was probably asleep as the assailant entered his bedroom.

He was struck on scores of occasions with this weapon. At a time when he was still conscious he was coerced from his bedroom down a short flight of stairs to the kitchen/lounge room area. This is where his life ended. Sharp force injuries were observed to the back of his head, the base of his neck, to his left ear, cheek, jaw, temple and hairline. His chin, his lips and his nose were slashed with full thickness trauma. His right eye, eyebrow, mandible and cheekbone were exposed to the bone. Four parallel strikes exposed his skull beneath the forehead. His arms and hands were lacerated, mutilated and parts of them amputated as he tried to ward off the murderous attack.

Such was the force of this attack that a large defect or hole was created in the back of Mr Chen’s head. The assailant then physically removed Mr Chen’s brain from the cranial vault, depositing it adjacent to the deceased man’s head.

In my thirty five years involvement in criminal law I have not encountered a crime as appallingly and gratuitously violent.

A jury has determined to the criminal standard Mr Wu, that you were the assailant. You are married to Mr Chen’s sister. He lent you large sums of money over the years. Apparently many years ago there was some falling out between you over your purchase of a plastering business and clients of that business defecting to Mr Chen’s similar business. None of this, in my view, adequately or at all explains your torture, murder, and cranial dismemberment of Mr Chen.

On the evening of 10 February you dined out with Mr Chen, your brother, and Dong Wang. No-one observed acrimony between you and the deceased; nor is there any evidence of acrimony between you when you, your brother and Mr Chen returned to his house for a drink.

At some time shortly before 1:00AM you and your brother left Mr Chen’s house. You noted that the doors were…

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 Wu

Details

AGLC: R v Wu [2013] VSC 375
Case: [2013] VSC 375
Decision Date: 9 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wu, the respondent, Wu, was convicted of the murder of the deceased and was sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the court, focusing on its severity and the appropriateness of the non-parole period. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentence for a murder conviction and the consideration of general deterrence, denunciation, and punishment in determining the length of the sentence and the non-parole period. The court examined whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether the non-parole period was appropriate given the nature of the crime and the offender's circumstances.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in imposing the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence of 27 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 21 years was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the heinous nature of the crime, the lack of mitigating factors, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation. The court also noted that the sentence reflected the severity of the offence and the need to protect society. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The High Court upheld the original sentence, affirming that the trial judge appropriately balanced the various sentencing principles in imposing the punishment. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood as imposed by the lower court.

Orders