R v Zeng (No 2)

Case [2021] NSWDC 187


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Zeng (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 187
Hearing dates: 12 March 2021
Decision date: 20 May 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [76].

Catchwords:

Arson committed for financial gain

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Doudar v R [2021] NSWCCA 37

Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145

R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94

R v Zeng [2020] NSWDC 761

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Rui Zeng (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Hughes (Crown)
G Hoare (Offencer)

Solicitors:
File Number(s): 19/254631
20/45691
Publication restriction: Nil

remarks on sentence

  1. On 16 December 2020 the offender was found guilty following a judge alone trial that took place from 18 November to 7 December 2020, of one count on an Indictment:

  1. On 22 April 2019, at Auburn in the State of New South Wales, dishonestly, with a view to making a gain for himself, did damage property, namely, the warehouse located at 6/164 Adderley Street West, Auburn, and its contents, by means of fire.

  1. The maximum penalty proscribed for the offence is 14 years imprisonment and there is no Standard Non-Parole Period.

  2. The offender was arrested on 15 August 2019 and has been in custody since that date.

  3. These remarks on sentence should be read together with my reasons on verdict delivered on 16 December 2020 [2020] NSWDC 761.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 12 March 2020. Exhibit A was the Crown Sentence Summary which included the Indictment, the criminal history of the offender and his custodial history. The facts upon which the offender is to be sentenced are therefore to be derived from my judgment dated 16 December 2020.

  2. The Crown case was a circumstantial case and based on the whole of the evidence, I made the following factual findings:

  1. On 1 November 2018, the offender entered into a lease on behalf of Rainbow Sydney of the premises at 6/164 Adderley Street West, Auburn, for a period of three years at an annual rental payment of $115,420. The first month was rent free and thereafter the monthly rental was $9,618.38. An initial deposit of $10,222.44 was paid on 30 November 2018 and both the offender and Ms Huang Zhang signed the lease as directors of Rainbow Sydney. Ms Zhang actually paid the sum of $10,222.44.

  2. The landlord secured a bank guarantee from Rainbow Sydney provided by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in the sum of $30,667.32 which was also paid by Ms Zhang.

  3. No rent was paid by Rainbow Sydney, and as at 28 March 2019, $21,518.33 was outstanding. On 24 April 2019 the landlord issued a notice of breach and ultimately secured the amount of the guarantee held by the Commonwealth Bank.

  4. At no time were any complaints received by the landlord with respect to the electricity supplied to the property.

  5. Ms Zhang had agreed to purchase a 40% share of the…

Continue reading R v Zeng (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Zeng (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 187
Case
[2021] NSWDC 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Zeng, was charged with arson committed for financial gain, and the case was heard by the court. The dispute centred on the defendant's actions and intent in setting a fire that resulted in significant damage to property. The court had to determine the defendant's culpability and the appropriate sentence.

The legal issues involved establishing whether the defendant had intentionally set the fire for financial gain and whether this constituted a serious enough offence to warrant a custodial sentence. The court needed to consider the severity of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and any mitigating factors.

The court found the defendant guilty of arson committed for financial gain. The evidence presented showed that the defendant had set the fire with the intent to benefit financially, and the resulting damage was substantial. Considering the gravity of the offence and the defendant's criminal history, the court deemed a full-time custodial sentence appropriate. The final orders, including the specific custodial term and other conditions, were detailed in the court's judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [76].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.