Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Kunduraci

DPP v Kunduraci

Case [2015] VSC 707 10 December 2015

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0175

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

MUSTAFA KUNDURACI

---

JUDGE:	JANE DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	25 September 2015 and 9 November 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Kunduraci
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 707

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Two charges of murder – Pleas of guilty – Serious violent offender – Sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment on each charge – 12 years cumulative – Total effective sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 28 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Dann SC	Ann Valos Criminal Law

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Mustafa Kunduraci, on 26 August 2015, you pleaded guilty to the murders of Korinne Aylward and Gregory Tucker.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 3(1).

The factual background to your crimes is summarised in the Prosecution Plea Opening which was tendered as an exhibit on the plea.[2]
[2]Plea Hearing Prosecution Exhibit 1.

At 10.41 pm on Sunday, 8 December 2013, Korinne Aylward sent a text message to Kaitlyn Tucker wishing her good night. The family had celebrated the christening of their youngest child, Grace, the day before and were planning a birthday celebration for her the next day. The children had been put to bed when Korinne had sent the message. She was probably watching television downstairs in her night attire and Gregory Tucker was likely upstairs getting ready for bed. That was the last communication from the family home prior to your intrusion, when you entered the house as a trespasser at around 11 pm.

You had parked your trade vehicle in a street at the rear of the premises.

You entered the house through the glass bi-fold doors which led into the lounge from the rear yard.

You had with you a knife and an imitation pistol, as well as a black backpack.

It is likely that your unwelcome intrusion caught Ms Aylward off guard and led to the violent confrontation in which you stabbed her to death whilst she was unarmed and vulnerable.

Ms Aylward suffered 10 distinct stab wounds, including defensive wounds on her arms and legs, with one significant knife wound passing through the sternum and the heart which would, on its own, have proved fatal.

She died close to where the stabbing occurred in the vicinity of the rear bi-fold doors where you entered the premises.

It is probable that upon hearing a violent confrontation, Mr Tucker came downstairs to her rescue, but was then also attacked and stabbed by you near the stairs, where his blood was detected, but also near the bi-fold doors where cast off bloodstains were detected.

Mr Tucker was stabbed 13 times, with many wounds to his vital organs and a wound through the sternum and heart…

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 Kunduraci

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Kunduraci [2015] VSC 707
Case: [2015] VSC 707
Decision Date: 10 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Kunduraci involved the Director of Public Prosecutions bringing charges against the defendant, Kunduraci, on two counts of murder. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence handed down to the defendant. The defendant had entered guilty pleas on both counts of murder. Given the violent nature of the crimes and the defendant's status as a serious violent offender, the trial judge imposed a sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment for each count of murder. Due to the overlapping periods of imprisonment, the total effective sentence was determined to be 35 years, with a non-parole period of 28 years.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a sentence that resulted in a non-parole period of 28 years. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to balance the gravity of the crimes with the deterrence and protection of society. The High Court was also required to assess whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there was any error in the application of the sentencing principles.

The High Court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant principles of sentencing. The court recognised the seriousness of the crimes and the need for a sentence that appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences. The High Court held that the trial judge had appropriately considered the individual circumstances of the case, including the defendant’s criminal history and the violent nature of the crimes. Consequently, the High Court upheld the sentence, confirming that it was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The total effective sentence of 35 years, with a non-parole period of 28 years, was deemed to be appropriate and proportionate to the crimes committed.

The High Court did not alter the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The defendant's appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment on each charge of murder, with a total effective sentence of 35 years and a non-parole period of 28 years, was upheld.

Orders