Director of Public Prosecutions v Sazdov - [2010] VSC 118

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1432 of 2009

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

DANIEL SAZDOV

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 April 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 April 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Sazdov
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 118

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Manslaughter, recklessly causing serious injury, recklessly causing injury, affray – Serious instance of manslaughter – Unprovoked vicious violence on defenceless victims – Youth of prisoner.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr P D’Arcy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Lovitt QC	Stephen Andrianakis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Daniel Sazdov. You have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, one count of recklessly causing serious injury, three counts of recklessly causing injury, and one count of affray.

The charges, to which you have pleaded guilty, arise out of an incident which occurred outside some shops in Stenson Road, Kealba at about 11.45 pm on Friday 22 February 2008. In the course of that incident, Bao Tran, who was then 17 years of age, suffered fatal injuries, from which he died seven days later. In addition, as a result of the incident, Andres Molina (then aged 18 years) suffered a fractured left arm close to the elbow, and three other young men, Maile Latu, Johnnie Phan and Thien Le, each sustained a number of injuries. They were then respectively 17, 16 and 17 years of age. All of the injuries suffered by those five victims were inflicted by the use of weapons by your co-accused. The offences, to which you have pleaded guilty, were committed in company with your co-accused, Viet Huynh, Noel Lunt, and LK. Andrew Azzopardi also participated in the affray, but not in the offences which involved violence to the four young men, to whom I have just referred. I sentenced each of your co-accused on 22 July 2009.[1]
[1]R v Huynh & Ors [2009] VSC 291.

During the evening, and before the incident, you had been at the home of the grandparents of Noel Lunt, and his brother LK, in Driscoll Road, Kealba. Other youths were also present at those premises, including Huynh and Azzopardi. While you were there, you noticed some other vehicles travelling past the house on more than one occasion. One of those vehicles was a dark grey Magna. A decision was made to pursue those vehicles. Accordingly, you, together with Noel Lunt, LK and Huynh, took possession of some weapons, which included some wooden hockey sticks and a cricket bat, which were in the boot of Azzopardi’s vehicle. In addition, LK took possession of a small axe. Noel Lunt and LK, Huynh, and you got into Azzopardi’s vehicle. At Noel Lunt’s direction, Azzopardi drove the vehicle to the shops at Stenson Road, at which the Magna had parked. At the direction of Noel Lunt, Azzopardi parked the vehicle in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Sazdov

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Sazdov [2010] VSC 118
Case: [2010] VSC 118
Decision Date: 14 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Sazdov, the case was heard before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Sazdov, was charged with manslaughter, recklessly causing serious injury, recklessly causing injury, and affray, following an incident in which he and others attacked a group of teenagers. The victim suffered severe injuries, and the attack was described as unprovoked and vicious against defenceless victims. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Sazdov, taking into account the severity of the crime and the youth of the offender.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Sazdov, given the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factor of his age. The court had to balance the need to hold Sazdov accountable for his actions with the potential for rehabilitation due to his young age. The court also needed to consider the principles of sentencing in relation to similar cases and the overarching objective of protecting the community.

The court found that the attack was a serious instance of manslaughter, characterised by unprovoked and vicious violence against defenceless victims. Despite acknowledging the youth of the offender, the court emphasised the need to deter such behaviour and protect the community. The court ultimately determined that a custodial sentence was necessary, taking into account the severity of the crime and the potential for rehabilitation. Sazdov was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period set to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for community protection.

No additional orders were made beyond the sentence imposed. The court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the need for accountability and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation, particularly in cases involving young offenders.

Orders