R v Zhong - [2001] VSC 524

REVISED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1416 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ZHAN YU ZHONG

---

JUDGE:	Flatman J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 October 2001
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 November 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Zhan Yu Zhong
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 524

---

SENTENCE – Incitement to Murder

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr Ray Gibson	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms Jane Dixon	VLA

HIS HONOUR:

Zhan Yu Zhong, the jury empanelled upon your trial has found you guilty of the count of incitement to murder. Although the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence have been canvassed in detail at the trial, it is appropriate to address them in brief form at this stage.

Your personal history is relevant to the circumstances of the offence. You met your defacto wife, Rong Qua Maio, in 1987, through an advertisement in a Chinese women's magazine. You travelled from Beijing to the Yunnan Province, a distance of some 3,000 kilometres, to meet her. She was 21 years of age and was working as a teacher in a secondary school. A relationship developed between you.

In April of 1990, you migrated to Australia and corresponded with her and continued sending her letters until 1994. When you were granted permanent residency in Australia you sought to sponsor her to come out and join you. A visa was granted to Rong Miao in 1995.

The plans were delayed in September of 1995 because of a dispute between you involving your gambling problem. You returned alone to Australia but continued to write to Rong Maio, imploring her to join you. Finally, in November 1995, Rong Maio left China and arrived in Australia to make a life for herself with you in Melbourne.

The relationship soon ran into difficulty in December of 1995 when Rong Maio discovered that she was pregnant. This had not been planned and caused her significant emotional problems. For your part, you were insistent that she should keep the child, but there were other problems developing in the relationship.

By May of 1996 the relationship had deteriorated to the extent that the police were involved and Rong Maio went to a women's refuge. An Intervention Order was taken out at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court.

Your daughter was born on 4 September 1996 and you were present at that birth. You resumed co-habitation with Rong Maio in October of 1996, but again this did not work out and you separated in November of that year. You continued being involved with the care of your daughter, this being of some assistance to Rong Maio who was at that time attending university. Further altercations occurred however and Miss Maio ultimately enforced the Intervention Order.

Formal access orders were then made in the Family Court in about August of 1997, giving you permission to have two hours' supervised access to your daughter each Saturday…

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 Zhong

Details

AGLC: R v Zhong [2001] VSC 524
Case: [2001] VSC 524
Decision Date: 1 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Zhong dealt with an individual charged with incitement to murder. The defendant, Zhong, was accused of encouraging another person to commit murder, which led to a dispute that eventually reached the court. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the prosecution sought to establish Zhong's guilt based on his alleged involvement in inciting another person to commit the crime.

The legal issues central to this case involved determining whether Zhong's actions constituted incitement to murder under the relevant statutes. The court had to consider the definition and elements of incitement, the nature of the communications between Zhong and the person who committed the murder, and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove Zhong's involvement beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence argued that Zhong's statements were not intended to incite murder and that any actions taken by the other person were not a direct result of Zhong's influence.

The court, in its deliberation, examined the evidence presented and the legal precedents on incitement. It concluded that Zhong's statements were indeed intended to encourage the commission of murder, and the evidence showed a clear causal link between these statements and the subsequent actions of the person who committed the crime. The court found that Zhong's conduct met the legal criteria for incitement to murder and found him guilty as charged. The judgment emphasised the seriousness of incitement to murder and the importance of holding individuals accountable for their role in such criminal activities.

The court subsequently sentenced Zhong to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offence. The sentence was determined after considering the nature of the crime, the impact on the victim, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The final orders included the imprisonment term and any additional legal consequences that arose from the conviction.

Orders