Legal Research
Cases
Hunt v Akkus

Hunt v Akkus

Case [2017] VSC 79 7 March 2017

Criminal Liability

Compensation Orders

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 2005 01508

JULIE HUNT	Applicant
v
ORHAN AKKUS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	JANE DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 November 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 March 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hunt v Akkus
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 79

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Compensation – Sister of deceased – Application for extension of time for making application – Delay – Whether in the interests of justice to extend time – Sentencing Act 1991 pt 4 div 2 – Moresco & Ors v Budimir [2015] VSC 51 and Marceta v Efandis [2016] VSC 265 considered

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Compensation – Application for compensation order – Whether prejudice to Respondent’s rehabilitation – Respondent’s financial circumstances

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A Hill	Waller Legal
For the Respondent	Mr D Harrison (appearing under the Victorian Bar Duty Barrister Scheme)

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

On 11 May 2006, the respondent was found guilty of the murder of Mark Russo at Moorabbin on 20 November 2004. (He was also found guilty of intentionally causing serious injury to Carl Russo, but that offence is not part of the present application.) On 21 July 2006, he was sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment for the murder. The total effective sentence was 22 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years and a declaration of 609 days of presentence detention.[1] On 11 December 2007, the Court of Appeal dismissed the respondent’s appeal against his convictions.[2]
[1]R v Akkus [2006] VSC 264.
[2]R v Akkus [2007] VSCA 287.

The applicant, Julie Hunt, is the sister of Mark Russo, the deceased. She seeks an order for compensation from the respondent pursuant to s 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘the Act’) for injuries suffered as a direct result of the murder of her brother by the respondent and other related expenses.

Section 85C requires that the application be made within 12 months of a finding of guilt or conviction. As will be described below, the applicant is outside the statutory time limit for bringing her application and seeks an extension of time for bringing the application. Section 85D confers a discretion on the Court to extend time if it is in the interests of justice to do so.

Circumstances of the extension of time application

It is necessary to first consider whether I should exercise my discretion to extend the time for bringing this application.

The following chronology assists in understanding the extension of time application.

DATE EVENT

20 November 2004 Respondent commits the subject crime.

10 November 2005 Applicant receives an award of assistance from the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (‘VOCAT’) in the sum of $10,000 for ‘distress’. No award sought or made for counselling or other.

11 May 2006 Respondent is found guilty by a jury of the murder of Mark Russo (and of intentionally causing serious injury…

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 Hunt v Akkus

Details

AGLC: Hunt v Akkus [2017] VSC 79
Case: [2017] VSC 79
Decision Date: 7 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hunt v Akkus involved the sister of the deceased, who sought to make an application for compensation in relation to her brother's murder. The application was made after the prescribed time period, and the respondent sought an extension of time to make the application. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the primary issue being whether it was in the interests of justice to extend the time for making the application. A secondary issue was whether an order for compensation should be made, considering the respondent's financial circumstances and the potential prejudice to their rehabilitation.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Sentencing Act 1991, which sets out the conditions for making an application for compensation. The court also examined previous cases, Moresco & Ors v Budimir and Marceta v Efandis, which provided guidance on whether the delay in making the application was justified and whether the interests of justice were served by granting the extension. In assessing whether the application should be made, the court considered the respondent's financial circumstances, including their ability to contribute to the costs of the application, and the potential prejudice to their rehabilitation if the application were to be made.

The court held that the delay in making the application was not significant enough to warrant an extension of time, as the respondent had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that justified the delay. The court also found that the respondent's financial circumstances did not support a finding that it was in the interests of justice to make a compensation order. The court concluded that the delay in making the application and the lack of exceptional circumstances meant that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed. In light of this, the court did not proceed to consider the question of whether a compensation order should be made.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time to make a compensation application be dismissed, and that the application for a compensation order be dismissed. The court did not make any orders for costs.

Orders