Zeng v The Queen - [2005] NSWSC 1344

No judgment structure available for this case.

CITATION:
ZENG v R [2005] NSWSC 1344

HEARING DATE(S): 16 December 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

16 December 2005

JURISDICTION:
Criminal

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJatCL

DECISION:
Count of manslaughter; 1. Term of imprisonment for eight years with a non-parole period of four and a half years. The sentence to date from 24 April 2004, with the earliest date for release on parole being 23 October 2008 Count of possess a pistol; 1. Fixed term of eighteen months full time imprisonment to commence on 24 April 2004 and expire on 23 October 2005.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - manslaughter - possession of a firearm - Chinese national - substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from depressive illness - little evidence of objective gravity - strong subjective case - early plea of guilty - offence out of character - remorse - gun not acquired in contemplation of offence - importance of deterrence - special circumstances found in sentencing

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

CASES CITED:
R v Hill (1981) A Crim R 397
R v Low (1991) 57 A Crim R 8

PARTIES:
Yini Zeng (offender)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2005/656

COUNSEL:
Dr P Power SC (Crown)
A Djemal (Offender)

SOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Luminous Legal (Offender)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

McCLELLAN CJ at CL

FRIDAY 16 DECEMBER 2005

2005/656 ZENG, Yini v REGINA
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Yini Zeng, pleaded guilty upon arraignment to two charges on an indictment as follows:

1. On 24 April 2004 at Rockdale in the State of New South Wales, she did cause the death of Jing Yi Wang in circumstances amounting to manslaughter.

2 The maximum penalty for the offence of manslaughter is 25 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty in relation to the firearm offence is 14 years imprisonment.

3 A statement of agreed facts was tendered. It provides that Ms Jing Yi Wang, described as the victim, who was born in 1978, was the cousin of the offender. At the time of the manslaughter they were both students at the University of New South Wales, and had lived together for approximately twelve months in a rented two bedroom home unit at 9/19-21A Keats Avenue, Rockdale. The offender and the victim were sharing one bedroom.

4 Yu Wang, who was a cousin of the offender, also lived in the unit along with another person named Fei Wang. Yu Wang and Fei Wang were sharing the second bedroom.

5 Yu Wang gave evidence at the committal proceedings. The statement of Yu Wang dated 25 April 2004 was also read onto the record at the committal. At page 5-6 of the committal transcript of evidence of Yu Wang, it is recorded that when Yu Wang:

“.. first came to Australia the offender and Jing Yee, a name by which the victim was known, appeared good friends .... Over time, while staying at the unit I began to think that Yini and Jing were in a relationship together ... My thinking was right when I saw Yini kiss Jing Yee ... I wanted to ask them about it but I didn’t because I didn’t want to be embarrassed if they weren’t girlfriends.”

6 At the committal Yu Wang said further:

“About one week before I moved out of the unit at Rockdale I noticed that there was no longer just one bed in Yini and Jing Yee’s bedroom. The two mattresses they slept on had separated. It looked like they slept on different mattresses.”

7 In March 2004, Yu Wang moved out of the unit at Rockdale. After this event, Yu Wang visited the unit of the offender on one occasion only and on this occasion socialised with Fei Wang, the offender and Jing Yee Wang. Yu Wang continued to have contact via the telephone with both the offender and Jing Yee Wang up until a couple of days before the shooting. Yu Wang recalled at the committal that he had made arrangements with the two to go to Sydney Airport on 25 April 2004 to meet the mother of the offender. Yu Wang said that when he:

“spoke to Jing Yee (Wang) on the phone she didn’t sound upset at all. She seemed happy and was playing poker on the Internet with Yini. She didn’t seem scared or worried at all about Yini. Later in the same phone conversation I also spoke to Yini. We spoke about Fa’s [Wang] study and how it was going. Yini didn’t seem upset or depressed at all about her or think that she was going to do something.”

8 Yu Wang said he terminated the phone call as Jing Yee Wang told him:

“…that they wanted to concentrate on the computer card game they were playing. That’s the last time I spoke with either Jing Yee [Wang] or Yini.”

9 During the evening of Friday 23 April 2004 the offender and the victim were at home together. At 23:56 on 23 April 2004 the offender used her mobile phone and made an international call to her aunt, Zeng Xiao Rong in Tokyo, Japan. Zeng Xiao Rong has provided a statement in relation to this matter and, at page 2, she states she had received a call from her brother’s daughter, the offender. The offender told her aunt “Wang Jing Yi is dead”. Zeng Xiao Rong stated that the offender sounded frightened. Zeng Xiao Rong asked the offender how Wang Jing Yi had died, and states the offender said, “I killed her. I shot her with a gun”.

10 Zeng Xiao Rong further states that she was shocked, and when she asked the offender how she got the gun, the offender replied, “I bought it”. Zeng Xiao Rong further stated that the offender had informed her: “I’ll go to the toilet, get changed, and then call the police”.

11 Approximately 25 minutes after the call to Zeng Xiao Rong, the offender used her mobile phone and made a phone call to the “OOO” emergency number. The transcript of that call is reproduced in its entirety in the agreed statement of facts. It contains clear verbatim admissions made by the offender to the telephone operator. However, there are only three sections of that transcript which it is necessary for me to repeat this morning.

12 During the course of the transcript the person taking the phone call, identified as VKG, said:

…

13 As a result of the “OOO” call, police attended the home unit at Rockdale. The offender was observed to be talking on a mobile phone outside the front of the unit block when the police arrived. While on the footpath, the offender was spoken to by Inspector Peter Mitropoulos. At paragraph 5 of his statement, Inspector Mitropoulos notes the following conversation as having taken place:

“I approached the offender and said to Senior Constable Baroutis: ‘Is that the offender?’. Baroutis said, ‘Yes’. I said to the offender, ‘Did you shoot somebody?’ The offender said, ‘Yes, I shot my cousin in the head’.”

14 The offender was arrested and cautioned. The police then entered the offender’s unit where they found the victim deceased on a bed. She had been shot once in the throat and once in the forehead. A .25 calibre Raven self-loading pistol was on the other bed in the bedroom.

15 Ambulance personnel attended the unit and vital signs were checked, giving a negative result. A crime scene was established.

16 The offender was taken to Hurstville Police Station and custody requirements were attended to. A Chinese (Mandarin) language interpreter attended the station and the offender spoke on the telephone with a solicitor. The offender participated in an electronically recorded interview with the assistance of the interpreter. The offender did not deny shooting her cousin during the interview. When asked why she made a phone call to “OOO”, the offender replied that she wanted to “confess to the police”. The offender admitted making the phone calls to “OOO” and her aunt in Tokyo. However, when questioned on specifics in relation to the gun and the victim, the offender replied, “No comment”.

17 When questioned in relation to admissions she made to police at the scene, the offender said she could not remember what she had said. The offender was then charged.

18 Apart from the admissions made by the offender at the scene, and that recorded via her “OOO” telephone call, the offender’s fingerprints and DNA were present on the firearm found in the bedroom. Ballistic and gunshot residue evidence established that the firearm found in this bedroom was used to discharge the bullets that caused the death of the deceased. This was confirmed by the Coroner’s report attributing gunshot wounds to the head and neck as the direct cause of death. Gunshot primer residue consistent with the fired cartridge case recovered in the bathroom of the unit was also located on the body and clothing of the offender.

19 Jiahui Wang, the mother of the offender, made a statement on 30 April 2004 that goes to reveal the state of mind of the offender. Wang stated:

“Yini’s most recent trip home to China was over the Chinese New Year Period .... During her holiday she seemed very confined and did not want to see or speak with people… I could sense that there may be another problems [sic] so I asked Yini if she was experiencing any other personal problems. Yini told me that she was not … To my knowledge Yini was not involved in an intimate relationship with any person… I was not aware that Yini and Jing Yi Wang shared a bed .... I don’t believe that Yini and Jing Yi had a lesbian relationship. Yini has never experienced any mental health problems. Prior to her most recent trip home to China I have never known Yini to be depressed, she has never had any psychotic episodes ... Yini has never been prone to violence, nor has she ever shown any interest in firearms or weapons. I was not aware that Yini had access to a firearm .... I sent my daughter to Australia for her to be educated; I never imagined that this would happen ... I went to the Gaol [sic] earlier today and saw Yini. I asked Yini if she had been mistreated by anyone inside the gaol. Yini told me that she had not been mistreated or injured. I said to Yini, ‘You have destroyed many families by what you have done.’ Yini did not reply she began crying.”

20 Based on the cross-examination of the witnesses at the committal, it was apparent that the mental state of the offender at the time of the shooting of the victim would be relevant. As a result, the Crown commissioned a psychiatric report from Dr Rosalie Wilcox. The legal representatives of Ms Zeng had their client examined by a psychiatrist, Dr Olav Nielssen, to whose report Dr Wilcox had access. Both these forensic psychiatrists concluded that Ms Zeng suffered from a major depressive illness and was depressed at the time of the offence.

21 In a follow up opinion, Dr Olav Nielssen stated that:

“The Justice Health records show that Ms Zeng was placed in an observation cell in the period after her arrest and had frequent reviews by “RIT” (risk intervention teams) to assess the risk of suicide. It was noted on her reception that she attempted suicide three years earlier by cutting her wrists.”

22 In his follow-up report, Dr Nielssen also reproduced the following:

“Ms Zeng was assessed by a psychiatrist, Dr Giuffrida, ten days after her reception to gaol. Dr Giuffrida wrote ‘impression is that this lady is either dissociating or is psychotic as she is withdrawn and appears to be hallucinating.”

23 Ms Zeng was seen by a psychiatrist, Dr Lisa Brown, at regular intervals. Dr Brown prescribed a low dose of an antipsychotic medication and wrote, “I suspect she was psychotic around the time of the offence but it resolved”. However, Ms Zeng refused to take the medication prescribed and subsequent reviews found no evidence of mental illness. Dr Nielssen also stated that:

“The records show that Ms Zeng has received regular counselling and support whilst in custody and that her depressive illness has at least partially resolved without treatment and with antidepressant medication. Ms Zeng has been able to work within the gaol and has been able to resume university studies.”

24 The offender has not given evidence before me and, on no occasion, has she been able to explain the circumstances in which the shooting occurred.

25 The victim, Jing Yi Wang, was found lying on her back in her bed, clothed in her pyjamas with bullet wounds to her neck and head. There was no indication of any struggle or altercation. Although it is possible that the victim was shot while she was asleep, the evidence does not enable this finding to be made. The precise circumstances of the shooting remain unexplained. However, I am relevantly satisfied that it occurred when the offender was suffering a major depressive illness, and after she had been made aware that the victim was going to cease living with her.

26 The offender was originally charged with murder and a committal hearing took place. Following that hearing, the Crown accepted a plea of manslaughter.

27 Although the offender has not herself given evidence, I have received evidence from her mother, Jia Hui Yu Wang. She indicates that the offender is an only child who had a happy upbringing and did well at school. She has won many awards in China and was a student performing at the top of her class.

28 From an early age, the offender has had a close relationship with the victim and they spent every weekend together at their grandparents’ house and maintained a close relationship.

29 In her early years and during high school the offender was happy. She was compassionate towards others.

30 The offender returned to China from Australia in late 2003, when her mother found her to be a changed person. She had lost a lot of weight. She appeared confused and did not know what she was talking about. She expressed sorrow at her failures in her studies and her mother says that she looked depressed.

31 It is now apparent that, by that time, the offender was suffering the depressive illness, which affected her mind at the time of the offence.

32 In April 2004 the offender’s mother decided to pay a visit to her in Australia. She was concerned that her daughter was failing at the university and may need help. On one occasion the victim had said to the offender’s mother, “I think you should be here. I don’t think Yini is normal”.

33 Evidence was also given by Margaret Jennings, who is a Catholic religious sister and a member of the congregation of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart. She has met with the offender on a number of occasions and assisted with her spiritual development. She first met the offender in June 2005, and they have since met on eight occasions.

34 The offender has told Sister Jennings about her life in Australia and how she was initially doing well in her studies. She has told Sister Jennings that at some point her life seemed to suddenly change and was in “a total mess”. Although the offender tried hard, she continued to fail and began to believe that nobody cared about her. She felt ashamed and could not face her parents or other people.

35 She came to experience strong negative feelings about herself. Sister Jennings in her affidavit describes the offender’s account of the relevant events in these terms:

“At this time she was living with her cousin, and something happened that she cannot remember or understand. Yini Zing said that she saw her cousin dead, with blood all around. She called here aunty, and then the police, who came and took her to jail. She didn’t know what had happened and felt totally lost. This early time in jail; alone; she said that she felt quiet, as if she had no connection with the outside world. She kept to herself and couldn’t understand how it all had happened. I remember that Yini said, ‘I couldn’t believe that I would do something like this. I wondered what would become of my life and I felt that I would like to end it all.’ She also told me of how her Mother wrote and tried to support her. She realised that she had and still was causing great pain to her parents, and if she killed herself they would suffer even more.”

36 Sister Jennings described the recent development of the offender in these terms:

“Yini Zing told me that now she feels that she must come to accept what has happened and to learn from it and to live in such a way that she can make sure that it never happens again. Through help, she says that she has come to a point where she now wants to live a good and positive, outgoing helpful life.

Over the past months, Yini has grown more mature and has chosen to face what has happened. She realises that she cannot change what has happened and she cannot do much about it while she is in custody. She knows that she cannot help the victim, but when she goes home she hopes to be able to help the victim’s family in some way. Several times she has expressed that she is really very sorry for what has happened. She is sorry for the victim, for the suffering and pain she has caused the victim’s family and her own family.”

37 The Sister says:

“As I have been with Yini over the past months, I have sensed a change in her. Having faced what she believes has happened, she has grown stronger within herself. She has also learnt about God in her life. This happened first of all from her room mate, and later from our spiritual direction sessions. It appears to me that as she has come to see the forgiving, understanding love of God towards herself, she has been drawn to be ready to forgive herself. This has given her a sense of inner freedom. Such a relationship with God, usually leads one to a sense of the need to repair relationships with others or to be ready to relate well to others. I see that this has happened and continues to grow within Yini as I have expressed above. As we meet, she has spoken to me about all these aspects of change that are taking place in her life.

Since Yini has been in Mulawa, from what she has said to me, and through discussion with a couple of staff I have come to believe that she is co-operative, a peaceful kind of person, considerate of others. She works as a clerk, using the computer. She has talked about how she is happy to do this. She believes that she is trusted by those under whom she works and she tries to be responsible. She is happy, does her best and desires and tries to co-operate with the staff and to show respect to all. She speaks about how she has come to realise that she must face what has happened in her life and whether she succeeds or not is not as important as it seemed to be to her before she came to jail. Far more important is how she lives with either failure or success, by facing reality.

As Yini shares about these changes in her life, I can see that they are happening. She has a strong conviction that if she ever should feel ‘depressed’ like she did before, she must seek help and not let herself do something that she would later regret. She believes that she has both the maturity, understanding and horror about what she has done, that she will make sure that it doesn’t happen again.”

38 The Crown does not challenge Sister Jennings’ evidence. I accept that the offender is remorseful and regrets her actions. It is most unlikely that she would re-offend, although she may need future treatment should she suffer a recurrence of her depressive illness.

39 When sentencing an offender in respect of whom criminal responsibility is diminished, having regard to section 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) it is necessary to determine the objective gravity of the offence. Of relevance to that matter is, firstly, the degree of substantial impairment that affected the offender’s responsibility for the acts of causing the death; and, secondly, the nature of the abnormality of the mind.

40 Dr Olav Nielssen, the psychiatrist, has seen the offender on a number of occasions. On the occasion of the interview of 19 April 2005 he records the following:

“Ms Zeng’s command of English had improved since the initial assessment and she appeared more at ease in the prison setting. She said that she was studying business management. She had gained some weight and appeared better groomed.

Ms Zeng said that the crisis that led to her purchasing the gun and then killing her cousin began with her belief that she would fail her exams. She said that she was under great pressure to pass because if she did not graduate within the allotted time she would not qualify for skilled migrant status. She said that she lost confidence in her ability to pass and became increasingly depressed.

Ms Zeng said that she was conscious of being depressed during a visit to China during the university holiday. She said that she brought sleeping tablets from China with the though that she might take an overdose of the tablets.

Ms Zeng said that she bought the gun with the intention of killing herself and had never considered using it for any other purpose. She reported frequent ruminations of suicide in the two months before the offence. She said that she had never thought of killing her cousin ‘until it happened.’

Ms Zeng said that she had asked herself many times but still did not know why she killed her cousin. She said ‘I hate myself for it.’ She confirmed that she was not affected by alcohol, drugs or any form of medication, although she said that she had recently taken medication to help her sleep.

Ms Zeng said that she had never believed that her cousin wanted to die or that she deserved to die. She again denied that she felt angry towards her over being rejected, as suggested by the initial statements.”

41 Dr Nielssen diagnosed Ms Zeng as having a major depressive illness at the time of the offence. The doctors says, of the effect of that illness:

“In my opinion Ms Zeng was suffering from an abnormality of mind arising from her depressive illness at the time of the offence. Major depression is an underlying condition within the meaning of section 23A of the Crimes Act. Depression affected Ms Zeng’s perception of the events, in that she interpreted her situation to be worse than it really was, and her capacity to judge right from wrong because of her bleak view of her own prospects, which included the belief that committing suicide was a reasonable course of action to take. I believe the presence of major depression also affected her capacity to control her actions because the tendency to act on impulse in a destructive way, without considering the likely consequences that often accompanies severe depression.”

42 The Crown psychiatrist, Dr Rosalie Wilcox, also diagnosed Ms Zeng as having a major illness at the time of the offence, with possibly a psychotic component involving auditory hallucinations. Dr Giuffrida and Dr Lisa Brown both hold the opinion that the offender showed signs of psychosis. However, whether those symptoms were because of the trauma associated with the killing, or formed part of the pre-existing mental illness of the offender, I cannot determine.

43 I have given careful consideration to all of the medical evidence and have concluded, that at the time of the offence, the offender was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from her depressive illness. The offender’s impairment should be considered to be in the middle range and affected her capacity to understand events and control her actions.

44 Because of the fact that there is no evidence of the sequence of events which immediately preceded the shooting, other aspects of the objective gravity of the offence are difficult to determine. However, I am satisfied that the killing was not planned, and was impulsive. Although the offender had a gun, I am satisfied that this had been purchased in contemplation of taking her own life and that she had never planned on killing her cousin.

45 The fact that the gun was available had the consequence that, in her diminished state of responsibility, the offender reacted to her personal circumstances and the prospect of losing the company of her cousin by shooting her.

46 It is impossible not to reflect upon the fact that if the offender had not been able to purchase the gun, for which she did not hold a licence, this terrible tragedy would not have happened. The case reflects again the fact that the ready availability of firearms is the source of many tragedies in our community. It is a stark reminder of the need to confine the availability of weapons and for vigilance in controlling their illegal importation and distribution.

47 The offender has a strong subjective case. She entered the plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, the Crown having originally charged her with murder. She is entitled to the maximum discount for her plea. She has a previously unblemished record, and this offence is entirely out of character. Notwithstanding the offences, she retains the support of her family.

48 As I have already indicated, the offender has shown remorse and, I have no doubt, is extremely sorry for taking her cousin’s life and inflicting immeasurable sorrow and unhappiness upon her cousin’s family and her own parents.

49 She has provided assistance to the authorities, although, in the circumstances of this case, this factor carries little weight. The offence was not difficult to detect.

50 Being a Chinese national, with language difficulties, her incarceration will be more difficult and there is less opportunity for her to receive visits from her family.

51 It was submitted that I should also have regard to the fact that, upon her release from custody in Australia, the offender will be deported and may be subject to extra curial punishment in China. Evidence was tendered of some of the elements of the relevant Chinese criminal law, which suggests that a Chinese citizen who commits an offence overseas may, notwithstanding that they have received punishment in the country in which the offence was committed, be further punished upon their return to China.

52 The question arises as to whether or not, when sentencing an offender in Australia, any regard should be had to the prospect of punishment in accordance with Chinese law. However, such a question could only arise if it was possible to form the view that further punishment would be inevitable or likely. The evidence in the present case does not support either conclusion and, accordingly, I do not believe it appropriate to have regard to those matters.

53 On every occasion on which a court is required to sentence an offender for manslaughter, by reason of a substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, as provided by s 23A of the Crimes Act, the sentencing judges have commented upon the difficulty of the task. By reason of the extraordinary range of factual circumstances in which manslaughter occurs, sentencing offenders for manslaughter is itself difficult. The task is more difficult when, as in the present case, the actions of the offender are deliberate and, but for the fact or the existence of the relevant impairment, the appropriate charge would have been murder.

54 A number of previous decisions have been identified by counsel for the offender, which variously described the circumstances in which sentences have been imposed for manslaughter by reason of the matters referred to in s 23A. However, reference to these decisions does not lead to any comfortable conclusions that there is an accepted range of penalty.

55 In R v Low (1991) 57 A Crim R 8, Lee CJ at CL said at 19:

“A finding of diminished responsibility may occur in many many circumstances, excessive alcoholism causing brain damage, injury to the brain, mental condition arising in various ways and giving rise to delusions and the like, but such conditions do not deny the legal responsibility of the person concerned for criminal acts and the legislation has required that such a killing shall be seen as an unlawful homicide. The taking of life in circumstances other than in self defence or by accident, is regarded in our community as a grave crime and notwithstanding the concession that a lesser crime than murder is committed when there is diminished responsibility under section 23A, it is wrong to approach the matter on the footing that the killer, in such circumstances, is necessarily to be treated as if he lacked any capacity to control his will so as to refrain from causing the death of his victim.”

56 His Honour repeated what was said by Sir Laurence Street in R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397 at 402:

Crimes Act 1900

57 Having regard to the various objective and subjective matters to which I have referred, I am satisfied that a non-parole period of four and a half years should be imposed.

58 The offender will need a significant period of supervision following her return to the community and, accordingly, I find special circumstances. In my opinion, the appropriate additional term is a period of three years and six months, making a total sentence of eight years.

59 With respect to the firearm matter, I am satisfied that the offender acquired the gun against the possibility of killing herself, and had not contemplated taking her cousin’s life. However, as I have said, the offence is serious and a sentence reflecting in particular the need to deter others from committing a similar offence, should be imposed. In my opinion, the appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment of eighteen months. However, having regard to the interrelationship of that offence with the manslaughter charge, the lesser sentence should be served concurrently with the sentence for manslaughter.

60 Ms Yini Zeng, please stand. You have pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter and the possession of a pistol not being authorised to do so by licence or permit. I have heard and taken into account all of the matters that have been put by counsel on your behalf. I have had regard to the circumstances in which the offences occurred, your pleas of guilty and your personal circumstances.

61 You are convicted of manslaughter. I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of eight years, having first set a non-parole period of four and a half years. I have found special circumstances and the balance of the term of your sentence is three years and six months. The sentence is to date from 24 April 2004 and the earliest date upon which you will become eligible for release on parole is 23 October 2008.

62 In relation to the second matter, you are convicted of possessing a pistol not being authorised to do so by licence or permit. On that charge I sentence you to a fixed term of eighteen months full time imprisonment, to commence on 24 April 2004 and expire on 23 October 2005.

**********

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Zeng v The Queen [2005] NSWSC 1344

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

2

Statutory Material Cited

1

R v Hill [2011] SASCFC 109

R v Low [2021] ACTSC 285

CITATION:	ZENG v R [2005] NSWSC 1344
HEARING DATE(S):	16 December 2005
JUDGMENT DATE :	16 December 2005
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	McClellan CJatCL
DECISION:	Count of manslaughter; 1. Term of imprisonment for eight years with a non-parole period of four and a half years. The sentence to date from 24 April 2004, with the earliest date for release on parole being 23 October 2008 Count of possess a pistol; 1. Fixed term of eighteen months full time imprisonment to commence on 24 April 2004 and expire on 23 October 2005.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - manslaughter - possession of a firearm - Chinese national - substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from depressive illness - little evidence of objective gravity - strong subjective case - early plea of guilty - offence out of character - remorse - gun not acquired in contemplation of offence - importance of deterrence - special circumstances found in sentencing
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
CASES CITED:	R v Hill (1981) A Crim R 397 R v Low (1991) 57 A Crim R 8
PARTIES:	Yini Zeng (offender) The Crown
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2005/656
COUNSEL:	Dr P Power SC (Crown) A Djemal (Offender)
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Luminous Legal (Offender)