Zhong v Attorney-General

The plaintiff, Zhong, sought judicial review of decisions by the Attorney-General and the Governor of Victoria to reject his petitions for a referral of his criminal conviction to the Court of Appeal. Zhong was found guilty in 2001 by a jury of incitement to murder his wife, an offence committed against an undercover policeman. Following unsuccessful appeals and applications for special leave, Zhong filed a petition for mercy in 2010, seeking a referral of his case to the Court of Appeal, which was rejected. Zhong subsequently made several further requests for reconsideration, all of which were also rejected. In 2018, Zhong again petitioned the Attorney-General to refer his case to the Court of Appeal, a request which was refused. The Governor also declined Zhong’s petition. Zhong sought judicial review of these decisions, claiming they were reviewable and that his grounds for review were not barred. The court held that the decisions of the Attorney-General and the Governor were not reviewable under the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic). The court also held that Zhong’s grounds for review amounted to impermissible merits review, and that they had been previously adjudicated or were otherwise not made out. The court found that the evidence submitted by Zhong was not “new” or “fresh”, and that the Attorney-General’s decision was not afflicted with Wednesbury unreasonableness. The court further held that the Attorney-General was not required to give reasons for his decision, and that Zhong had not requested reasons. The applications for judicial review were dismissed. The court recommended that the Attorney-General might consider a fresh petition if accompanied by a complete record of the trial before the Attorney-General and the Court of Appeal. The court also suggested that a second appeal to the Court of Appeal based on “fresh and compelling evidence” may be open. The court made no orders as to costs.