Director of Public Prosecutions v Siner
[2025] VSC 446
•23 July 2025
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2024 0195
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| MURAT SINER | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Incerti J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23 July 2025 |
DATE OF RULING: | 23 July 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Siner |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 446 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Consent mental impairment – Charge of murder – Accused suffering from delusional disorder – Expert evidence – Verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment – Accused declared liable to supervision – Matter adjourned to allow for report certificate of available services to be obtained – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic), ss 20, 21, 24, 41, 47 and 75.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms A Moran | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr T Marsh | Doogue + George |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
The accused Murat Siner is charged with the murder of Mustafa Unver (‘the deceased’).
Mr Siner was born on 5 August 1966. He is married but separated from his wife and has three children. At the time of the offending, Mr Siner operated a business at a factory at 41 Scammel Street, Campbellfield.
At approximately 1:20pm on Monday 2 October 2023, the deceased drove to Scammel Street, Campbellfield, and stopped just outside number 41. Mr Siner was at the factory with his son. Their movements, and Mr Siner’s offending, are captured on CCTV.
At 1:21pm, Mr Siner walked with his son to the front of the driveway and stood just outside the large metal gate. As Mr Unver approached in his vehicle, Mr Siner looked over towards Mr Unver’s car and immediately began walking towards it. As he approached the vehicle, he can be seen reaching into his right pocket and removing a knife.
As Mr Unver’s car rolled to a stop, Mr Siner walked directly to the front driver’s side window, which was lowered. Within two seconds of approaching the driver’s door, Mr Siner stabbed Mr Unver twice to the neck and chest area, before telling bystanders who attempted to render assistance to the deceased to ‘let him die’.
The stab wounds to the deceased caused rapid blood loss. He was transferred to the Royal Melbourne Hospital in a life-threatening condition. Despite undergoing emergency surgery, the deceased succumbed to his injuries and died in hospital later that evening.
The accused returned to his factory after the incident. When police arrived at the factory, the accused was arrested and subsequently transported to the Broadmeadows police station.
Following a police interview, Mr Siner was charged with the murder of Mr Unver and remanded into custody.
The following day, an autopsy was performed by Dr Yelena Barber. Dr Barber determined the cause of Mr Unver’s death to be a stab wound to the neck.
Mr Unver was 56 years old at the time of his death. He is survived by his three daughters and partner.
Defence of mental impairment
On 4 August 2024, the defence filed a psychiatric report authored by Associate Professor Rajan Darjee, a consultant forensic psychiatrist.
As this matter has been dealt with by consent, it is unnecessary for present purposes to repeat the extensive details of Mr Siner’s personal, medical and psychiatric history set out in that report. Based on the results of a mental state examination conducted on 31 May 2024 and 8 July 2024, and information received from other sources, Associate Professor Darjee expressed the opinion that Mr Siner was suffering from a delusional disorder at the time of the offending. Dr Darjee is of the opinion that:
If he [Mr Siner] was not severely mentally ill, he would not have killed the victim…. His delusional disorder provides a full explanation for his behaviour. His delusional disorder was both necessary and sufficient to explain the homicide…. Although at the time he knew the nature and quality of his conduct, he did not know that the conduct was wrong, as he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong. Therefore, in my view he has a mental impairment defence available….[1]
[1]Report of Associate Professor Darjee [191].
Dr Darjee also gave viva voce evidence at the hearing, confirming this opinion.
In response to Associate Professor Darjee’s report and following a request from the prosecution, Dr John Luu, Senior Psychiatry Fellow at Forensicare, assessed Mr Siner and prepared a report.[2]
[2]The assessment was conducted under the supervision of Dr Maria Triglia, a consultant psychiatrist at Forensicare.
Again, it is unnecessary to discuss the contents of Dr Luu’s report in detail. It outlined Dr Luu’s assessment of Mr Siner’s personal, medical, and psychiatric history, lifestyle, and psycho-social functioning, as well as information obtained from collateral sources in relation to Mr Siner’s mental health history. It also described Mr Siner’s account of the offending and subsequent events, and the results of a mental state examination conducted on 21 October 2024.
Dr Luu likewise expressed the opinion that at the time of his offending, Mr Siner knew the nature and quality of the conduct, but his capacity for rational thinking was greatly inhibited by his untreated delusional disorder. Dr Luu concludes that Mr Siner’s delusions and the secondary evoked emotions of rage and fear had impaired his ability to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure as to whether his conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.[3] Dr Luu concludes that in his opinion, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Siner would have the defence of mental impairment available to him for the charge of murder.
[3]Luu Report [108].
Finally, in his report dated 14 May 2025, Associate Professor Danny Sullivan confirmed the diagnosis of delusional disorder. He considered that, at the time of the alleged offending and immediately afterwards, Mr Siner made statements consistent with a delusional disorder. He states that Mr Siner was aware of the nature and quality of his conduct, as is evident in his behaviour and statements in the aftermath of the stabbing. However, due to his mental illness, Mr Siner was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about the wrongfulness of his conduct. On that basis, Associate Professor Sullivan considers that the defence of mental impairment is available to Mr Siner.
Both parties agreed that the evidence established a defence of mental impairment. Subsequently, the matter came before the Court to determine whether the evidence did in fact establish the defence, such that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment ought to be recorded.
Consideration
Having read the evidence, I am satisfied that at the time of engaging in the conduct constituting the offence, Mr Siner was suffering from and acting under a mental impairment, most likely delusional disorder. I am also satisfied that the effect of this impairment was that Mr Siner could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.
It follows that the defence of mental impairment is established pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (‘the Act’). I therefore direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded pursuant to s 21(4)(a) of the Act and declare Mr Siner liable to supervision under Part 5 of the Act.
The parties agree it is appropriate that Mr Siner be remanded in custody in a prison pursuant to s 24(1)(c) of the Act pending the making of a supervision order, the Court being satisfied that there is no practicable alternative in the present circumstances.
Orders
I make the following orders:
(1)I direct, pursuant to s 21(4) of the Act, that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded in respect of the charge of murder on indictment no. P12088434.
(1)I declare, pursuant to s 23A of the Act, that the accused is liable to supervision under Part 5 of that Act.
(2) Pursuant to s 24(1)(c) and 24(3) of the Act, I order that the accused be remanded in custody in a prison, being satisfied that there is no practicable alternative in the present circumstances.
(3) I order that a certificate of available services be obtained and filed with the Court under s 47 of the Act and I extend the time for the obtaining of the certificate until 26 September 2025.
(4) I order that a report be obtained and filed with the Court under s 41(1) of the Act from the appropriate person. I extend the time for the preparation of such report until 26 September 2025.
(5) I order that the matter be brought back for mention on 15 October 2025 at 9:30am.
0
0
0