R v Xie

Case [2017] NSWSC 63 13 February 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Xie [2017] NSWSC 63
Hearing dates: 10 February 2017
Decision date: 13 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
Lian Bin (Robert) Xie, on counts 1 to 5 inclusive on the indictment, you are convicted of the murders of Min (Norman) Lin, Yun Li (Lily) Lin, Yun Bin (Irene) Lin, Henry Lin and Terry Lin. On each count, you are sentenced to imprisonment for life, commencing on 25 May 2012.

Catchwords: SENTENCE – five counts of murder – worst case category – life imprisonment
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing) Procedure Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Baker (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 20 September 1995, unrep)
R v Dean [2013] NSWSC 1027
R v Merritt (2004) 146 A Crim R 309; [2004] NSWCCA 19
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Villa [2005] NSWCCA 4
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Lian Bin (Robert) Xie (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Smith / K Ratcliffe (Crown)
K Greiner (Solicitor – Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Kidman Legal (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/147183
Publication restriction: Subject to the operation of s 15B of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s 15A operates to prohibit publication of the name of Ms AB or anything that may tend to identify her.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

At about 10am on 18 July 2009, police and emergency services attended a two-storey residence at 55A Boundary Road, North Epping in response to a triple-0 call.
The bodies of four people (two women, Lily Lin aged 44 years, and her sister Irene Lin aged 39 years, and two children, Henry Lin aged 12 years and Terry Lin aged 9 years) were located in three of the four bedrooms on the upper storey. A fifth body (an adult male, Min Lin, Lily Lin’s husband, aged 45 years) was located later that day underneath the bedclothes beside his wife’s body. A fourth bedroom was unoccupied and undisturbed. It was later confirmed that the occupant of that bedroom, Ms AB (Min and Lily Lin’s 15 year old daughter), was overseas at the time of the murders.
The bedrooms in which the five deceased were found were awash with shed blood. This was an immediate and graphic indication to police of the severity of the murderous assaults from which each had died. The quantity and concentration of blood in the bedrooms, coupled with the absence of any deposits of shed blood elsewhere in the house, was also an early indication that each of the deceased was killed in their bedrooms and the three adults in their beds.
There were no signs of forced entry to the premises. There was no evidence of any disturbance in any of the rooms on the lower floor of the house or the garage. It was later determined that the murderer had used a key to gain access through the locked front door and that…

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 Xie

Details

AGLC: R v Xie [2017] NSWSC 63
Case: [2017] NSWSC 63
Decision Date: 13 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of five counts of murder, including the murder of a police officer, in relation to a drug importation plot. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant sought to appeal his convictions and sentence, which was life imprisonment for each count of murder, to be served concurrently.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed was outside the range of appropriate sentences for the crimes committed. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, as it did not take into account the appellant's background and mitigating factors. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the crimes committed.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the crimes were of the most heinous nature, and the appellant's conduct showed a complete disregard for human life. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate sentences for the crimes committed, and the appellant's background and mitigating factors had been taken into account. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders