Shengliang Wan v The Queen - [2018] VSCA 217

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0100

SHENGLIANG WAN	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	28 August 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 August 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 217
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Wan [2018] VSC 195 (Kaye JA)

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – One charge of manslaughter - Sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years and six months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Applicant played active role in organised fight - Application for leave refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Mandy	David Barrese and Associates
For the Crown	Mr B Sonnet	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA:

The applicant, Shengliang Wan, stood trial on a charge of murder. The jury acquitted him of that charge, but convicted him of the alternative charge of manslaughter, to which he had, in any event, pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a term of 11 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years and six months. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The applicant relies upon one proposed ground of appeal:

Ground 1 – In all of the circumstances the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive, particularly having regard to the applicant’s plea of guilty, his remorse and conduct immediately after the event, and his isolation in custody.

The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence

The incident which gave rise to the charge took place shortly before 10.30pm on Friday, 15 April 2016, in La Trobe Place, Melbourne. In the days leading up to that incident, a fight had been organised between the deceased, Longxiang Hu, and another young man, Wuyang Ji. The fight related to their respective interest in a young woman.

Shortly after the fight began, the applicant intervened. At one point, he threw the deceased to the ground, and stomped on his head some five times. As a result, the deceased sustained critical head injuries. He was kept on life support for several days, but died on 23 April 2016.

The prosecution did not contend that by repeatedly stomping on the deceased’s head, the applicant intended to kill him. Rather, it alleged that he intended to inflict really serious injury upon him. As the sentencing judge observed, the jury by their verdict, were not satisfied that the applicant had that state of mind when he inflicted the blows that caused the deceased’s death. Nonetheless, it was plain that the applicant’s actions were dangerous, in the sense that a reasonable person in his position would have appreciated that he was exposing the deceased to an appreciable risk of serious injury.

At the time of the incident, the applicant was aged 23. He was a student at the Royal Melbourne Institute…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Shengliang Wan v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] VSCA 217
Decision Date: 28 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shengliang Wan was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, with a non-parole period of seven years and six months, following his active participation in an organised fight. He sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with determining whether Wan's sentence was unjust and warranted an appeal. The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account Wan's role in the crime.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the nature of the offence. It found that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties that could reasonably be expected for manslaughter, given the circumstances of the case. The court emphasised the seriousness of Wan's involvement in an organised fight and the resulting harm caused. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and therefore denied leave to appeal.

In reaching this decision, the court examined the sentencing guidelines and the precedents set by similar cases. It found that the sentence reflected the appropriate balance between punishment and deterrence. The court also considered the impact of the crime on the victim and the community. Ultimately, the court held that the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed by Wan.

No further orders were made, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders