Wei Li: Former high achieving Adelaide student sentenced for killing Tiger Mum at Burnside in 2011

UPDATE: A “lying, self-absorbed, narcissistic” law student who has shown no remorse for strangling his mother inside their Burnside home will serve at least five more years in prison.

• STROKE OF LUCK: Vital evidence in case found by chance
• ANALYSIS: Why Li was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder
• BOLD BOAST: Li told doctors he would “beat” murder case
• ‘NOODLE DOUGH’ BOY: Inside Wei Li’s mind
• SENT TO PRISON: Wei Li enters rogues’ gallery

A FORMER elite student who killed his mother is a self-absorbed, lying narcissist with a chilling lack of remorse who should serve another five years’ jail, a judge says.

In a scathing Supreme Court sentencing on Thursday, Justice Trish Kelly rejected Wei Li’s longstanding claims he acted in self-defence, branding them “untruthful”.

She said there must be justice for the loss of “late and mainly unlamented” Emma Mae Tien — depicted, by her son and his counsel at trial, as a stereotypical “tiger mum”.

“Instead of facing up to your responsibility for the killing of your mother in circumstances where you lost self-control, you have instead repeated to all and sundry, again and again, the same lie,” she said.

“Repeating a lie, Mr Li, no matter how often, does not make it true.

“I conclude that you are indeed a highly intelligent, but narcissistic and highly self-absorbed young man, prepared to lie if you think that will advance your cause.”

HOW WEI LI’S MANSLAUGHTER SENTENCE COMPARES TO OTHERS

Her harsh words caused Li to shift position and straighten in the dock as he shook his head.

Li’s nine-year sentence — backdated to his 2014 arrest — is one of the longest head sentences for manslaughter to be handed down in recent legal history.

In 2012, one of the youths who killed Akol “Alex” Akok in a brutal gang assault was jailed for life with a five-year non-parole period.

Li, 23, pleaded not guilty to murdering Ms Tien inside their Burnside home in 2011.

At trial, prosecutors alleged the killing was premeditated, as evidenced by Google searches for stabbing and police avoidance techniques.

They said he tried to buy a one-way ticket to Singapore after the incident, and did not return to Australia for three years after fleeing to China.

Li took the stand to refute the allegations, claiming his yelling, screaming mother “came at” him in a fit of rage because he was practising martial arts instead of the piano.

He claimed she had been physically abusive toward him for years, that his father was an alcoholic, and that he went to China to forget about the killing.

Convicted killer Wei Li in a “selfie” taken in Melbourne days after his mother, Emma Mae Tien, died by his hand in their Burnside home. Source: Supreme Court registry.

Li insisted he had returned to Australia voluntarily, but prosecutors said the evidence showed he had been identified as an illegal immigrant, detained and deported.

They maintained his evidence was an “invention” to justify his actions, and cross-examined Li about his hiring of a male prostitute in Melbourne before his departure.

After 7 ½ hours deliberation, a jury of six men and six women agreed with him and acquitted Li of murder — but found him guilty of manslaughter.

On Thursday, Li faced court wearing a grey suit and striped tie, with his long hair pulled back.

He nodded to his supporters in the public gallery, including his former teachers at Prince Alfred College.

Li’s father, Jian Lu Li, was not present in court.

In sentencing, Justice Kelly soundly rejected Li’s evidence and dubbed his crime one of “provocation manslaughter”.

That legal definition means his actions are seen to fall just shy of the range of seriousness for the greater crime of murder.

“I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that you lost your self-control in the course of an altercation with your mother, and killed her while in that state,” she said.

“I reject submissions made that you killed your mother in self-defence.

“To the contrary, I’m satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was you who hit your mother with a metal bar and then strangled her to death.”

Li shook his head as the judge spoke.

Justice Kelly said Li could not be sentenced for his post-offending conduct, but noted he had not sought help, had fled and avoided both police and calls from his father.

She said CCTV footage and photos taken by Li himself proved his claims he had been distraught and intoxicated were lies, and he had “clearly” been planning a sexual encounter.

Wei Li in the Supreme Court during his trial for his mother’s murder. Illustration: Tim Ide

She ruled, beyond reasonable doubt, Li had not returned to Australia voluntarily and had indeed been deported.

“Even taking into account the cultural differences between Australian and Chinese people, your behaviour and your conduct in the days, weeks and years after killing your mother demonstrate a chilling lack of remorse or contrition,” she said.

“Much of your evidence at trial was untruthful.”

Justice Kelly said she accepted Li’s mother was controlling and occasionally violent, but rejected his claim of daily abuse as “plainly ludicrous”.

“I accept you were subject to particular and peculiar pressures,” she said.

“That does not justify the violent killing of a woman who loved you and who no doubt made many sacrifices to make sure you obtained the best education and best chances in life.”

Her words prompted Li to bow his head slightly.

Justice Kelly said Li’s sentence had to reflect the seriousness of the crime and community expectations.

She said it also had to reflect the loss of “the life of the late and mainly unlamented Emma Mae Tien”.

“You have demonstrated a disturbing lack of insight, remorse or contrition about your conduct,” she said.

Justice Kelly jailed Li for nine years and imposed a non-parole period of seven years, two months and 11 days, saying his crime was too serious to warrant a suspended sentence.

She backdated his imprisonment to his arrest upon his return to Australia on July 4, 2014 — making him eligible to seek release on parole in 5 ½ years’ time.

Outside court, defence barrister Kevin Borick, QC, labelled the sentence “scathing and harsh”.

He said he would seek instructions from his client and advise him to lodge an appeal on the grounds the basis for sentencing was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.

Li’s former Prince Alfred College teachers were silent as they left court.

One nodded when asked if he would continue to support the convicted killer, and nodded again when asked if he thought the sentence was too harsh.

Follow @SeanFewster