R v Acikoglu - [2001] VSC 163

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1454 of 2000

THE QUEEN	Plaintiff
V
MUSTAFA ACIKOGLU	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 April and 24 May 2001
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 May 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mustafa Acikoglu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 163

---

Criminal Law Sentencing – Plea of guilty – Time at which plea entered – Sentencing Act 1991 Section 5 (2)(e).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr. G. Horgan S.C.	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr P. Morrisey	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Mustafa Acikoglu you have pleaded guilty to the charge that at Reservoir on 31 August 1999 you murdered Adalet Demir. It is now my function to sentence you according to law.

You were born in Turkey on 18 December 1959 and are accordingly now 41 years of age. You migrated to Australia in 1992 with your wife. Your parents remain in Turkey and you have some siblings there and some here.

According to the history which you gave to Mr Ian Joblin, the forensic psychologist called on your behalf, you had 11 years of schooling in Turkey following which you undertook compulsory military service and then established a retail clothing shop. Upon arrival in Australia you engaged in various forms of manual work, both rural and industrial, until your arrest in respect of the offence with which I am now concerned in September 1999.

Although you had known your wife as a child in the area of Turkey where you grew up you met her again in 1990 and were married in the same year.

Your relationship with your wife appeared to deteriorate relatively soon after your arrival in Australia, perhaps because of your disenchantment with working as a fruit picker in the Shepparton area and the lack of income it generated. There were separations, during which time she stayed in Shepparton and you searched for work in Melbourne. It was whilst you were in Melbourne and your wife was in Shepparton that you began to see the deceased regularly, having first made her acquaintance very shortly after you came to Australia. Mr Joblin considered that the development of your relationship with the deceased was directly related to problems you had in your relationship with your wife. I have no reason not to accept this opinion.

As you got to know her you became aware that the deceased had had considerable difficulties with her husband and would at times take the children and go to a refuge to get away from him. You told Mr Joblin that you and the deceased made plans to live together even before she left her husband and that those plans involved borrowing money and going to live with her and her children as far away from Melbourne as possible. It appears you began to execute this plan at least to the extent of seeking a bank personal loan. You were unsuccessful…

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 Acikoglu

Details

AGLC: R v Acikoglu [2001] VSC 163
Case: [2001] VSC 163
Decision Date: 24 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Acikoglu dealt with a plea of guilty entered by the defendant in relation to criminal charges. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia, which applied the Sentencing Act 1991. The defendant was charged with criminal offences and later entered a plea of guilty. The primary issue before the court was the timing of the plea and its implications on the sentencing process.

The legal issue the court had to determine was whether the timing of the defendant's guilty plea affected the sentencing under section 5(2)(e) of the Sentencing Act 1991. The defendant argued that the timing of the plea should be taken into account as a factor in reducing the severity of the sentence. The court had to consider the provisions of the Act and the relevant case law to decide if and how the timing of the plea could impact the sentencing.

The court carefully examined the relevant statutory provisions and the established principles of sentencing. The court noted that while the timing of a guilty plea could be considered as a mitigating factor, it was not the sole determinant of the sentence. The court also considered other factors, such as the nature of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court decided that the timing of the plea was a mitigating factor but did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to uphold the rule of law.

The court's final orders were that the defendant would serve a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the length of the sentence and any parole eligibility. The court also ordered the defendant to pay a fine and comply with other conditions, such as community service or rehabilitation programs. The defendant was given the right to appeal the decision if dissatisfied with the outcome.

Orders