DPP v Azizi - [2013] VSC 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0107 of 2012

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

SOLTAN AHMAD AZIZI

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 January 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 February 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Azizi (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 16

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Accused convicted on retrial – Accused beating and strangling wife in course of heated argument.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Williams SC	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J McMahon and Ms M O’Brien	Robert Stary Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Soltan Ahmad Azizi, you have been found guilty, by the jury empanelled on your trial, of the murder of your wife, Marzieh Rahimi, at Hampton Park on 20 November 2007.

On that day, you fatally strangled Marzieh after a verbal argument with her at your home. Before strangling her, you had struck Marzieh a number of blows to her face and to her left arm. Shortly after killing her, you telephoned the police, and asked them to come to your house because you had killed your wife. When the police arrived, you readily admitted that you had killed her. At your trial, you denied that you had intended to kill Marzieh, or to cause her really serious injury. By its verdict, the jury was satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that, in strangling Marzieh, you had intended to kill her, or, at least, to cause her really serious injury.

For the purposes of sentencing you, it is necessary for me to make some factual findings, consistent with the jury’s verdict, and based on the evidence at your trial, as to the circumstances in which you committed the offence. In this respect, I note that you had been previously convicted of the murder of Marzieh by another jury. That conviction was set aside by the Court of Appeal.[1] In its decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that some evidence, which was admitted on your previous trial, was inadmissible. That evidence concerned features of your relationship with Marzieh, and consisted of a number of statements by Marzieh as to your conduct towards her. In accordance with the principles stated by the Court of Appeal, at the commencement of your trial, I ruled that some other evidence was also inadmissible.[2] The factual findings, which I shall make, will not have any regard to the evidence, which has been ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeal or myself.
[1]Azizi v R [2012] VSCA 205.
[2]DPP v Azizi (Ruling No 1) [2012] VSC 568.

Both Marzieh Rahimi and you were born and raised in Afghanistan. At the time of her death, Marzieh was 33 years of age. You were born on 21 March 1964, and are now 48 years of age. You married Marzieh, who is your cousin, in 1994. Your first child, a daughter, Zanab, was born…

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 DPP v Azizi

Details

AGLC: DPP v Azizi [2013] VSC 16
Case: [2013] VSC 16
Decision Date: 8 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DPP v Azizi, the accused, Azizi, was convicted of murdering his wife in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Azizi had initially been convicted of the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, citing errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury. Following the retrial, Azizi was once again convicted of murder and the sentencing hearing was conducted in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Azizi, given the nature and circumstances of the murder. The court considered various aggravating and mitigating factors, including the brutality of the crime, the lack of remorse shown by Azizi, and the impact of the murder on the victim's family. The prosecution argued for a lengthy sentence, given the premeditated and violent nature of the murder, while the defence submitted that the sentence should reflect any mitigating factors and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The court held that the murder was of exceptional brutality and that there were no substantial mitigating factors that would warrant a lesser sentence. The court noted that Azizi had shown no remorse for his actions and that the impact of the murder on the victim's family was profound. The court also considered the need for general deterrence, given the violent nature of the crime. Ultimately, the court sentenced Azizi to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating factors when determining an appropriate sentence for a serious crime such as murder. The court's focus on the brutality of the crime, the lack of remorse shown by the accused, and the need for general deterrence, demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of the offence and the impact on victims and their families.

Orders