Zhu v The Queen

The appellant, Zhu, appealed against his conviction for murder and the sentence imposed by the trial judge. Zhu was involved in a fight with the victim’s friends and subsequently stabbed the victim to death. Zhu claimed that the stabbing was unintentional and did not rely on self-defence. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge was obligated to direct the jury on any alternate defence of self-defence and whether the judge erred in not leaving self-defence, defensive homicide, and manslaughter self-defence to the jury. The court considered the evidence and concluded that there was no evidence to support a claim of self-defence, and therefore no direction was required. The court also examined the evidence of post-offence conduct, including Zhu’s flight from the scene, his lies to emergency services, and his plan to obtain a false passport. The court found that all of these actions demonstrated a consciousness of guilt and that the trial judge was correct in allowing the evidence to be led. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred in not discharging a juror who knew a key witness. The court found that the trial judge did not err in not discharging the juror or the jury, as there was no high degree of need for discharge. Finally, the court considered Zhu’s appeal against sentence and found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the need for general deterrence in respect of violent knife attacks by youthful offenders. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in failing to leave self-defence, defensive homicide, and manslaughter self-defence to the jury, as there was no evidence to support such a claim. The court also held that the trial judge was correct in allowing evidence of post-offence conduct, which demonstrated Zhu’s consciousness of guilt. The court found that the trial judge did not err in not discharging the juror who knew a key witness, as there was no high degree of need for discharge. Finally, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, given the need for general deterrence in respect of violent knife attacks by youthful offenders. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the appeal against sentence was also dismissed.