Director of Public Prosecutions v Cigercioglu
[2023] VSC 772
•21 December 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0067
| DPP | Crown |
| v | |
| Mahmut CIGERCIOGLU | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Fox J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 November 2023 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 December 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Cigercioglu |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 772 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Attempted murder — Convicted by jury — Victim was offender’s estranged wife — Family violence — Offender in breach of interim intervention order protecting victim and her baby — Brutal stabbing in public street — Attempt unsuccessful due to knife breaking — Offender then left in victim’s car with baby in the back seat — Victim sustained life‑threatening injuries but made a good recovery overall — Offender continues to deny offending and blame victim — Absence of remorse — Poor prospects of rehabilitation — Turkish citizen with limited English — No prior convictions — Relatively isolated in custody — Prospect of deportation — Sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 12 years’ imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr J Lewis with Ms B Goding | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr D Cronin with Ms S Locke | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Mahmut Cigercioglu, you were found guilty by a jury of the attempted murder of Lutfiye Kavci.
The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 25 years’ imprisonment.
Background to the offending
The victim of your crime, Ms Kavci, was your estranged wife. You and she had been introduced through a family friend in 2019, and commenced communicating via messages and telephone calls. At this time, you were in Turkey and she was in Shepparton. In January 2020, Ms Kavci travelled with her mother to Turkey and met you. Within a month, you and she were married. It was a small ceremony with a larger celebration planned for later in the year. Ms Kavci returned to Australia without you.
The Covid‑19 pandemic intervened, and the planned larger celebration never occurred. In around September 2020, Ms Kavci travelled to Turkey to be with you. There was a further ceremony in a mosque, followed by a honeymoon. It was common ground at trial that you and she were happy during this time. Ms Kavci became pregnant, after which she helped expedite your visa to Australia. In November 2020, Ms Kavci returned to Australia. You were unable to get a flight at that time, and arrived in Australia in April 2021.
Ms Kavci had rented a house in Shepparton, where you both lived. There were problems in the relationship around money, as you were sometimes gambling. You did not get on with Ms Kavci’s family and did not want her seeing them. You also displayed controlling behaviours. For example, early on you requested access to Ms Kavci’s Instagram account, so you could see who she communicated with. She granted you this access. When she was pregnant and attended the hospital for a check‑up, you insisted that she make a video call so you could confirm that she was where she said she was.
On 16 June 2021, Ms Kavci gave birth to your son Huseyin. In the weeks that followed, it seems the relationship between you and Ms Kavci, and you and her family, continued to deteriorate. This culminated in a scene on 23 July 2021, when her family attended your house, against your wishes and in breach of Covid‑19 lockdown restrictions. There was a fight between you and Ms Kavci’s father, during which he bit you on the back. As a result, you reported him to police and obtained an intervention order.
On 26 July 2021, while you were at work, Ms Kavci left the house, taking the baby and her belongings with her. She attended the police station and the police issued a family violence safety notice. This prohibited you from having any contact with Ms Kavci.
Despite the notice, you contacted Ms Kavci, demanding that she send you photos of the baby. On 5 August 2021, she attended court and obtained an interim intervention order. The order named both her and the baby as protected persons. You consented to the order, but denied the allegations. The order prevented you from going within 100 metres of where Ms Kavci lived, contacting her or approaching her. At the time, Ms Kavci was living with her family in Parker Street in Shepparton. The address was clearly spelt out on the paperwork you received.
During September 2021, I am satisfied that you breached the order on three occasions, however I make clear that you are not being sentenced today for any of this conduct. On 6 September, Ms Kavci arrived at her father’s house and you were there when she got out of her car. You forcefully took her keys, made her sit in the passenger seat and drove her to your auntie’s house, where you and your auntie tried to convince her back into the relationship. On 11 September, she was stopped at traffic lights when you approached her car and banged on the passenger window. She let you in, pulled over and asked you to get out of the car. You refused, and again tried unsuccessfully to convince her back into the relationship. On 16 September, you approached her when she was with her mother and baby in a shopping centre. You insisted that she talk to you and tried to take hold of the pram. Bystanders intervened and escorted Ms Kavci, her mother and the baby to their car. They drove to the police station and you rode up on your bicycle and said, ‘Lutfiye don’t’. Ms Kavci reported all three breaches to the police. At some point prior to 15 October, you were interviewed by police, but no charges were laid.
The offending
Your defence at trial was that Ms Kavci had stabbed herself violently with a knife in your presence, because you had told her that you no longer wanted to be with her. The jury rejected this account and convicted you of attempted murder. Consistent with the jury’s verdict, I am satisfied the following occurred on 15 October 2021.
At this time, you were staying with an acquaintance, Mr Nevzat Sidar. Sometime prior to 1:30pm, you took a small, blue‑handled knife from the knife block and travelled, probably on foot, to near where Ms Kavci lived. You hid the knife behind the low front fence of 5 Barton Street, and waited near the corner of Barton and Parker streets for Ms Kavci to appear. At around 1:30pm, she left her home and drove down Parker Street with her young son in the back seat. As she travelled down Parker Street, you stepped in front of her vehicle, forcing her to stop. You insisted that she speak with you, and she told you that she did not want to. You went to the driver’s side of her car, reached in through the partially opened window and opened it further. You then dived headfirst through the window, across Ms Kavci and into the passenger seat. She refused your request to drive, so you forced her to swap seats and drove off.
You then drove her around Shepparton. At one point, you stopped the car and went through her phone. You were angry and told her that you knew she was speaking with someone, which she denied. She attempted to beep the horn and attract the attention of a passing truck. You then punched her on the right side of her face, causing her head to hit the window. You continued driving. You told her that you can start all over again, and she told you that was impossible. About a kilometre on, Ms Kavci saw a woman in a driveway and again tried to attract attention by beeping the horn. Again, you punched her to the same side of the face and her head hit the window. This blow was more forceful than the first. Ms Kavci was crying, upset and very scared.
You did not tell her where you were going, but ominously said, ‘[y]ou’re going to see’. Ms Kavci said that it felt like an end was coming. You returned to Barton Street and parked the car outside number 5, where you had earlier hidden the knife. You told her to wait in the car, took the car keys and went to retrieve the knife. At this point, Ms Kavci had the presence of mind to take three photographs which were evidence in the trial. The first shows you out of the car with the keys in your hand. The second shows you bending down near the small front wall of 5 Barton Street, and I am satisfied this is when you retrieved the knife and secreted it in your right sleeve. The third photograph was a ‘selfie’, which shows Ms Kavci looking upset and fearful.
You returned to the car, sat in the driver’s seat and placed the keys in the ignition. Ms Kavci saw the handle of the knife protruding from your right sleeve. She said, ‘I know what you’re going to do’, quickly got out of the car and tried to run. You immediately got out of the car, caught her and forced her onto her back on the nature strip. You then produced the knife and attempted to kill her by stabbing her repeatedly. Ms Kavci tried to defend herself, and the knife went straight through her left hand twice. You stabbed her in the left upper arm, likely in an attempt to stop her using her left hand in self‑defence. Ms Kavci said, ‘In the name of God, please stop.’ You did not stop.
You stabbed her repeatedly, including in her abdomen and breast. She pleaded with you and said she was breastfeeding your baby. You said, ‘You don’t deserve to be the mother of my baby and you’re going to die.’ It may be that you said, ‘You don’t deserve to be the mother of my baby and you deserve to die’. This was an issue in the trial, but in my view it makes no difference to your moral culpability. Either way, your attitude was that Ms Kavci deserved to die. I am satisfied that the only reason you stopped your attack is because the force you used caused the knife to break. Pieces of the knife were found at the scene, and the blade had completely broken away from the plastic handle. Once the knife broke, you returned to the car and drove off, with the baby still in the back seat. You left Ms Kavci alone and bleeding on the nature strip.
Ms Kavci was determined not to die. Despite her injuries, she got to her feet and knocked on the door of 5 Barton Street. No one was home and so she commenced walking down Barton Street towards Parker Street. The streets were quiet due to lockdown but fortunately, a woman on a bicycle was passing and heard her cries for help. Another resident, Ms Harwood, also came to assist. Police and ambulance were called, and Ms Kavci was taken to hospital. She required emergency surgery to stop the bleeding in her abdomen. She was placed into an induced coma and airlifted to the Alfred Hospital later that night.
Meanwhile, you made several phone calls, initially to your auntie. The content of those calls is unknown. At around 3:30pm, you spoke with your friend Mr Kenan Sidar. You asked to bring the baby to his house, but he said you could not as he was Covid positive at the time. He described you as happy. When he asked where your wife was, given you had the baby, you told him not to worry about it.
About 20 minutes later, Ms Kavci’s sister called you. When she asked why it was necessary for you to stab her sister, you said that she had been speaking with other men and you knew this because you had looked at her phone. You said nothing to Mr Kenan Sidar or Ms Kavci’s sister about Ms Kavci supposedly stabbing herself. You then contacted another friend, Mr Bin Abdullah, and asked him if he would pick you up. He declined. You were seen by an off‑duty police officer at about 5:00pm at Woolworths, together with the baby, and peaceably arrested. You denied stabbing Ms Kavci and said you had never seen the knife before. You suggested that she may have caused the injuries to herself. You persisted with this defence at trial. In my view, it was frankly implausible and it is unsurprising that the jury rejected this defence.
I am satisfied that you stabbed Ms Kavci at least eight times to her left arm and hand, including two ‘through‑and‑through’ injuries to her left hand. You stabbed her multiple times to her chest, breasts and abdomen. The medical evidence does not allow me to conclude how many times, but it was certainly more than one. There were penetrating injuries to her diaphragm and pancreas. She had a collapsed right lung, four perforations or holes in part of her small bowel, and a blood vessel behind the small intestine was lacerated. She required a massive blood transfusion and an emergency laparotomy, resulting in a large scar down the centre of her stomach.
Victim impact
Ms Kavci read her victim impact statement to the Court.
Ms Kavci experienced a difficult and lonely period in hospital following the attack. She was placed in a medically induced coma for six days. When she regained consciousness, she could remember what happened but was shocked by the number of stab wounds she sustained. While the nurses treated her with great care, she had lumps, bruising and scarring from needles and unsuccessful attempts to insert IV drips into her arm. She had no privacy as she was unable to move or wash herself. After being moved to the trauma unit, she developed painful clots in her lungs. The pain of her injuries and flashbacks of the attack meant that she struggled to sleep while in hospital. Due to the Covid‑19 restrictions at the time, her family were unable to visit her and she could only communicate with them via Telehealth.
During her recovery, Ms Kavci lost over 10kg. She had to learn to walk again due to fatigue and muscle loss, and she was unable to stand straight due to surgery on her abdomen. It took her many months to recover. Her injuries also made it difficult for her to breastfeed her baby, which was a priority for her. She was devastated when, after months of trying to breastfeed, she made the difficult decision to stop trying.
Ms Kavci still experiences aches and nerve pain from her injuries. She describes the scars on her body as thick, hard and painful. She has nerve damage in her left hand which will not improve. The scar on her palm causes pain, restricts movement and will require further surgery. She has difficulty holding things and struggles performing day‑to‑day tasks that require the use of her hands.
Ms Kavci is constantly alert to danger in public and has lost the feeling of safety. She fears that someone will come up from behind her and hurt her. She is easily reminded of the incident when she sees knives or the colour blue. Ms Kavci said that there is no end to her healing journey, but rather, she will continue healing for the rest of her life.
It is clear that your crime had a profound and enduring impact on Ms Kavci’s life.
A victim impact statement by Ms Ashley Harwood was tendered. Ms Harwood was leaving her home when she saw Ms Kavci lying on the ground and went to her aid. She stayed with Ms Kavci, attempting to stop the bleeding, until paramedics arrived. Ms Harwood is now hyper vigilant when she leaves the house. She avoids going to where she found Ms Kavci. When she hears a noise outside she checks the house or the street to make sure there is no commotion. Ms Harwood experiences heart palpitations and other physical symptoms when reminded of this incident. She has withdrawn from attending social events and has lost her appetite. She is triggered by sirens, often has nightmares and can only cope with shorter shifts at work.
Personal circumstances
You are 32 years old and Ms Kavci was your first and only serious relationship. You were born and raised in Adana, a large city in Southern Turkey. Your father worked as a mechanic at an oil refinery and is now retired. Your mother attended to home duties. You have one sister, a few years older than you, who is married and raising her family in Turkey.
You completed primary school and attempted secondary school, however it is unclear whether you finished secondary school. Apparently, you experienced a number of mental health difficulties during school which caused your parents to seek the assistance of doctors and other less conventional practitioners. You instructed your counsel that you recall spending time in mental health hospitals in Turkey. No information has been provided about what treatment was sought or prescribed at these facilities. You have no prior criminal history.
At around 21 years of age, you undertook compulsory national service with the Turkish Army. During your time in the army, you were in a unit that was deployed to fight Kurdish militants at the border. In those battles, you witnessed a number of atrocities which negatively impacted your mental health, and you were released four months early from national service due to ‘mental health issues’. After leaving the army, you did not pursue work due to these issues. However, once you moved to Australia, you were employed as a seasonal fruit picker.
Psychological material
A psychological report of Mr Patrick Newton was tendered on your behalf. The report provides little reason to temper your sentence. Mr Newton described you as barely cooperative, agitated and irritated throughout the examination. You manifested a range of negative cognitive distortions typically seen in those who perpetrate family violence.
Mr Newton considered it ‘more likely than not’ that you experienced trauma resulting from your experiences in the Turkish military, and considered your reports of that time to be ‘not implausible’. He said you do not presently suffer from the full post‑traumatic stress disorder syndrome, and diagnosed you with post‑traumatic stress disorder in partial remission. He noted his diagnosis is ‘provisional, pending verification’ given the absence of corroborating material. To be fair, it is difficult for you to provide corroborating material given your situation.
Mr Newton found you possess several maladaptive character traits. You are quick to express hostility, mistrustful of others, easily offended, often irrational and have limited behavioural controls. You are prone to experience negative emotions such as anger and anxiety far more frequently than positive emotions. Mr Newton had insufficient information to diagnose you with a personality disorder, but noted that these traits cause considerable dysfunction, and are likely to exacerbate your experience of post‑traumatic stress disorder symptoms and interfere with its treatment.
Your counsel, relying on Mr Newton’s provisional diagnosis of post‑traumatic stress disorder in partial remission, argued Verdins[1] limbs five and six have some application in your case. Your counsel relied on Mr Newton’s opinion that your post‑traumatic stress disorder increases the burden of incarceration by rendering it more distressing than is typically the case for prisoners not afflicted by such a condition. The prosecution submitted the evidence is insufficient to enliven any of the principles in Verdins.
[1]The Queen v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’).
In my view, given the provisional nature of Mr Newton’s diagnosis, any application of Verdins principle five is extremely modest. There are a number of reasons why a sentence will weigh heavily on you, which I will outline shortly. However, I do not accept that Verdins principle six is enlivened. The evidence of Mr Newton does not satisfy me that there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on your mental health.
I do, however, accept Mr Newton’s opinion that there is a realistic prospect that, due to a combination of factors, your post‑traumatic stress disorder symptoms and general psychological health will deteriorate in custody. These factors include your maladaptive personality traits, which increase the prospect of conflict with other prisoners, which in turn will increase your social isolation. You are also likely to be socially isolated due to cultural differences and your limited English. There are difficulties providing you with appropriate treatment in custody, given your continued denial of the offending, language barriers and maladaptive personality traits. For all these reasons, I accept that your time in custody will not be easy, and will realistically be more burdensome than it is for many other prisoners.
Other matters
This is your first time in prison. You were remanded at a time when conditions in custody were more difficult and isolating, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions. I accept this has made your time on remand more onerous, and mitigates the sentence I would otherwise impose. Turkish is your first language, and your English skills are very basic. You cannot communicate easily with other prisoners and, as a result, you are more isolated and likely to remain so for the duration of your sentence. Your family are not in Australia, you do not have supports here and no one has visited you since you were remanded. I take all these matters into account by way of mitigation.
There is a genuine and realistic prospect that your spousal visa will be cancelled and you will be deported after serving your sentence. Your counsel submitted that currently, your belief is you will remain in Australia and, potentially, have a relationship with your son. This is unrealistic, as your counsel acknowledged, but it is your current belief. Your counsel submitted that at some point, this belief will unravel, and you will understand that you will almost certainly be deported back to Turkey and away from your son. It will be at this point that the prospect of deportation will add to the burden of your imprisonment.
In some cases, the prospect of deportation may be a form of extra‑curial punishment, particularly where an offender has made a life in Australia.[2] You had only been in Australia for around six months when you committed this offence, and your family are in Turkey. I accept that at some point, you will realise that you are very likely to be deported and, at such time, the prospect of deportation will add to your distress. I accept that part of this distress will be the loss of any potential relationship with your son, but the loss of that relationship is also due to your crime. Your relationship with your son has been damaged by your own actions, given you tried to kill his mother. Overall, the prospect of deportation constitutes only modest extra‑curial punishment in your case.
[2]Hague v The Queen (2022) 98 MVR 503, 513–514 [28]–[31]; [2022] VSCA 17 [28]–[31].
You are without remorse, and continue to blame Ms Kavci and her family for your predicament. According to Mr Newton, you repeatedly asserted that you are not guilty, and that Ms Kavci stabbed herself in an effort to incriminate you and see other men. You told Mr Newton that you believe Ms Kavci has married someone else, and this has caused you considerable anger. Mr Newton noted that you clearly hold Ms Kavci and her family in low esteem, and regard them with some persisting animosity.
Mr Newton conducted a comprehensive risk assessment. You present with multiple risk factors for further intimate‑partner violence, and your offending has escalated over time, culminating in this offence. Mr Newton went on to state:
Beyond that he endorses a comprehensive range of offence‑supporting negative attitudes and continues to manifest a sense of entitlement and grievance that is concerning. Clearly, these factors point to an elevated level of risk in his case.
You also spoke disparagingly of mental‑health support in Australia and especially with regard to your experience in prison. Mr Newton’s overall conclusion was that you pose a high risk of committing further intimate‑partner violence, and the level of risk is well above average compared with other offenders in this area.
In my view, your prospects of rehabilitation are poor. There is no material that suggests your attitudes will change or improve over time. Community protection, and the need to deter you from committing further offences, are both relevant sentencing purposes.
Nature and circumstances of the offence
Your counsel conceded that the offending is serious. He provided a table of cases, summarising sentences for attempted murder in circumstances of family violence, which I have considered and found of assistance.[3] Your counsel acknowledged that none of the cases are ‘on all fours’, and many involved a guilty plea. He also accepted that some of the sentences were imposed many years ago, and the extent to which family violence is seen by the courts as an aggravating factor has increased in recent years.
[3]The cases listed were R v Mikhail [2020] VSC 681; DPP v Jensen [2019] VSC 327; R v Tedford [2018] VSC 476; R v Brew [2013] VSC 131; R v Soteriou [2011] VSC 623; R v Van Hoang To [2001] VSC 257; R v Kumar [2006] VSCA 182; R v Belete [2007] VSC 296; R v Nguyen [2011] VSC 632; R v Hannarong [2017] VSC 264; R v Boaza [1999] VSCA 126; R v Ibrahim [2006] VSC 475.
You counsel submitted that the court could not be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that you intended to kill Ms Kavci at the time you hid the knife, or even when you retrieved the knife. He submitted there is insufficient evidence to conclude you formed the intention to kill her any earlier than when she left the car and you pursued her. Your counsel also submitted that you may not have intended to kill her throughout the attack. He argued it is possible you stopped attacking her because the knife broke, but you could have continued the assault in other ways if you had wanted to.
The prosecution submitted the offending represents an extremely serious example of attempted murder. The victim sustained life‑threatening injuries that, but for prompt medical intervention, would have caused her death. The offending occurred in circumstances of family violence and in breach of an intervention order. It involved at least some planning or premeditation, insofar as you concealed the knife, intercepted Ms Kavci, drove her around the streets of Shepparton and retrieved the knife. The prosecution submitted that concealing the knife in your sleeve is consistent with you holding an intention to stab Ms Kavci and, at the least, the court should find that at the time you retrieved the knife you had formed the intention to kill Ms Kavci. There was ample time for you to desist from taking the course you ultimately took. The attack was not prolonged, but it involved multiple stab wounds to Ms Kavci’s body. You fled the scene, taking the baby with you, and leaving her alone and injured. These actions caused her additional distress, as she did not know where you had taken the child or what might happen to him.
In my view, this is a very serious example of attempted murder. Your moral culpability is high and it is objectively grave. You hid the knife at 5 Barton Street and waited for Ms Kavci to walk or drive by. It is unclear exactly when you hid the knife, but I am satisfied it occurred sometime during the morning or very early afternoon of 15 October. At the time you hid the knife, it is uncertain what your intention was; indeed, you may not have formed any settled intention at the time you did this, given you were still trying to persuade Ms Kavci to return to the relationship. I find that at the point you returned to Barton Street and exited the vehicle, you had formed an intention to use the knife, albeit I cannot be satisfied that you had formed the intention to kill Ms Kavci. You secreted the knife in your sleeve and returned to the car, and you were likely going to drive off if she had not seen the knife and jumped out of the car. Once she did this, you determined to kill her then and there. I am satisfied that throughout the attack, you intended to kill her. As I have already stated, I find the only reason your attack ceased is because the knife broke, not because you showed mercy or changed your mind.
You stabbed Ms Kavci repeatedly, despite her pleading for you to stop. Your attack was savage, and included deliberately stabbing Ms Kavci in the breast when you knew she was breastfeeding. She was smaller than you, and you used your size and strength to attack her while she lay on the ground. Her baby was in the car throughout, but given his very young age and the fact he was in a capsule in the back seat, he would not have seen or comprehended what was occurring. After the knife broke, you not only left Ms Kavci without any medical assistance, but you took the baby with you. This added considerably to her distress. In the police body worn camera footage, Ms Kavci repeats that she is breastfeeding her baby, and worries that her baby will be hungry.
An aggravating feature of your offending is that it occurred in circumstances of family violence, and in breach of an interim intervention order prohibiting you from going near Ms Kavci or her baby. As Ms Kavci told the court during her evidence, she just wanted you to leave her alone. She is an intelligent young woman who understood the danger you presented to her life. She left you and sought the protection of a court order. However, you would not take no for an answer. You breached the order during September 2021 and again on 15 October. You showed no regard for the law, or the rights of Ms Kavci. I am satisfied that you tried to kill her because you felt enraged, jealous and rejected. In your mind, her rejection of you meant she deserved to die.
Attempted murder is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed, and unlike murder, it requires a specific intent to kill.[4] The physical injuries that may be suffered by a victim vary widely in their seriousness. At one end, a victim may have no physical injuries, such as when a fired shot misses, or a gun backfires. At the other end, a victim may suffer serious life changing physical injuries, such as brain damage or quadriplegia. Injuries may be life-threatening or non‑life threatening.[5] The nature of the physical injuries suffered by the victim is a relevant matter to consider when assessing the gravity of the offence.[6]
[4]Hudson v The Queen; DPP v Hudson [2010] VSCA 332 [69].
[5]See, for example, R v Tedford [2018] VSC 476, where the accused stabbed the victim multiple times, but none of the injuries were life threatening and no internal organs were implicated.
[6]See Hudson v The Queen; DPP v Hudson [2010] VSCA 332 [72]–[73], where the Court differentiated between the sentences on two charges of attempted murder for a number of reasons, including that the injuries suffered by one victim were more serious that those suffered by the other victim.
Ms Kavci sustained serious and life‑threatening injuries; if she had not received prompt medical care, she would have certainly died. She spent six days in an induced coma, and required significant ongoing medical care after she was discharged on 3 November. She has been left with nerve damage to her hand and painful physical scarring, all which serve as permanent reminders of your crime. Overall, Ms Kavci has made a good recovery and her injuries have not left her substantially physically disabled, but the real gravamen of your conduct is that you intended to kill her and this was a most serious form of family violence. The community is understandably appalled by the rate at which women are brutally attacked by their former male partners when they attempt to end a relationship. Ms Kavci also suffered psychological injury, and her sense of security and safety was shattered by what you did.
Serious violence continues to be committed by men against their female partners, or former partners. It is widespread, deeply shocking and cannot be tolerated. Through sentencing, the courts must endeavour to send a message to other would‑be offenders that if you commit such crimes, you should expect to receive a substantial term of imprisonment. It is necessary to publicly denounce your crime, and punish you for attempting to murder Ms Kavci.
Conclusion
On the charge of attempted murder, you are sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. I fix a non‑parole period of 12 years’ imprisonment.
I declare you have served 797 days by way of pre‑sentence detention, not including today, and such period of time is reckoned as time already served under this sentence.
I make the disposal order sought by the prosecution.
---
14
0