R v Acar - [2011] VSC 310

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0057 of 2011

THE QUEEN

RAMAZAN ACAR

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 June 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 July 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Acar
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 310

---

MURDER – Plea of guilty – Victim infant daughter – Offender consumed by hatred acting out of spite and revenge directed at child’s mother – Life with a non parole period of 33 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Meredith	Leanne Warren & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Ramazan Acar, you have pleaded guilty to one count of murder and have admitted prior convictions. Yazmina Micheline Acar was your daughter. She was born on 23 November 2007 and was brutally murdered by you on 17 November 2010, six days short of her third birthday.

You and her mother, Rachelle Olivia D’Argent, met in your mid teens and you were in a relationship for some eight years. That relationship had been a difficult one, marked by your jealousy, possessiveness, violence and, it appears, drug use. Over the years, you had lived apart and lived together in your own home and in the homes of your respective families. Ms D’Argent became pregnant in March 2007 and Yazmina was born in November of that year. You were then both 20. You and Ms D’Argent finally separated in September 2010 and, on 16 September, Ms D’Argent sought and obtained an intervention order from the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court alleging that you had made threats towards her and giving evidence of previous harassment and fears for her safety and that of her daughter. That order was served on you the following day and its conditions explained to you. You abided by its terms for about a week, when you recommenced telephoning Ms D’Argent in breach of the order. You were spoken to by the police and later, on 15 October, you were interviewed by two police officers, admitting the breaches and stating that you were motivated by your desire to see your daughter.

Further breaches of the order were alleged to have occurred which Ms D’Argent consistently reported to the police and, consequently, Ms D’Argent denied you access to Yazmina and was advised by the police to change her telephone number to avoid further contact with you. Nonetheless, you were able to get in touch with her via her mother. You told Ms D’Argent that you believed you were going to gaol in respect of some driving offences and that you wanted to see your daughter before this happened. As a result, you met with Yazmina and Ms D’Argent at the Fountain Gate Shopping Centre. The three of you walked around the centre. You carried Yazmina on your shoulders and played with her and bought her gifts. In Ms D’Argent’s view, you were well behaved, polite and grateful…

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 R v Acar

Details

AGLC: R v Acar [2011] VSC 310
Case: [2011] VSC 310
Decision Date: 1 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Acar involved the accused, Acar, who was found guilty of the murder of his infant daughter. The case was heard in a court in Australia, where Acar's plea of guilty was accepted, but the circumstances surrounding the murder were complex and required judicial consideration. The offence was driven by deep-seated hatred and feelings of spite and revenge directed at the child's mother, which ultimately led to the tragic death of their daughter. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Acar, taking into account the heinous nature of the crime and the circumstances that led to it.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Acar, given the severity of the crime and the factors that motivated his actions. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing in cases of murder, as well as the need to provide a sentence that was commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Additionally, the court was required to determine an appropriate non-parole period, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and the possibility of rehabilitation.

In delivering the sentence, the court emphasised the heinous nature of the crime and the circumstances that led to it. The court found that Acar's actions were driven by a deep-seated hatred and feelings of spite and revenge directed at the child's mother. The court considered these factors, along with the impact of the crime on the victim and her family, in determining the appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Acar to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need for punishment and deterrence. The court also considered the possibility of rehabilitation, but found that the circumstances of the case did not warrant a lesser sentence.

The final orders of the court were that Acar be sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his infant daughter, with a non-parole period of 33 years. The court's decision reflected the gravity of the crime and the need to balance the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence. The court's consideration of the circumstances surrounding the offence and the impact on the victim and her family demonstrates the importance of a comprehensive and nuanced approach to sentencing in cases of murder.

Orders