R v Akkus - [2006] VSC 264

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1508 of 2005

THE QUEEN

ORHAN AKKUS

---

JUDGE:	HABERSBERGER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 MAY 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 JULY 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v AKKUS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 264

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Murder – Intentionally causing serious injury – Stabbings at nightclub.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D.A. Trapnell with Mr S. Reid	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S.E. Grant	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Orhan Akkus, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Mark Russo at Moorabbin on 20 November 2004 and guilty of without lawful excuse intentionally causing serious injury to Carl Russo at the same place and time. Section 3 of the Crimes Act 1958 provides that the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and s.16 of the same Act provides that the maximum penalty for intentionally causing serious injury is 20 years’ imprisonment.

The senseless stabbings of Mark Russo and his cousin Carl Russo occurred at the Wax nightclub in the early hours of 20 November 2004. What should have been a relaxing and enjoyable social occasion for the young people present at the nightclub was by your actions turned into one of trauma and grief.

Mark and Carl Russo were part of a group of friends who went regularly to the Wax nightclub on Friday nights. Mark was there with his girlfriend Cara Hawkhead and her friend Megan Carroll. Carl was there with his brother John Russo, John’s then girlfriend Sherrie Miles, Sherrie’s sister Julie, and Carl’s friend, John Sacco.

You arrived at the nightclub after 2.00 o’clock in the morning, having previously attended with your wife and young daughter a family circumcision party at a reception centre in the northern suburbs. After taking your wife and young daughter home to your flat you set off for the nightclub. There you met up with a group of male friends including cousins Raed and Tarek Dimachki.

Towards the end of the evening you and Tarek walked through the nightclub and stood near a group which included Mark and Carl Russo. When Carl Russo went to move past you, he bumped you in the shoulder and words were exchanged. Given Carl Russo’s aggressive behaviour earlier in the evening towards the inoffensive Joshua Tonta, I accept that probably he acted aggressively towards you. You pushed him, causing him to step back, but he then took a step towards you.

As he did so, you pulled out the large carving knife, which you had been carrying hidden underneath your jacket, and stabbed Carl Russo in the stomach with sufficient force to cut the renal artery at the back of his body. Initially, he thought he had been merely punched in the stomach. Mark Russo then ran in between you and Carl in an attempt…

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 Akkus

Details

AGLC: R v Akkus [2006] VSC 264
Case: [2006] VSC 264
Decision Date: 21 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Akkus involved the defendant, Akkus, who was charged with murder following a series of stabbings at a nightclub. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Akkus, who had pleaded guilty to charges including murder and intentionally causing serious injury. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for Akkus, considering the gravity of the crime committed. The court had to weigh the circumstances of the murder, including the premeditation and the brutality of the attack, alongside any mitigating factors presented by the defence. The court also needed to consider the impact of the crime on the victims and their families, as well as the societal implications of the sentencing.

In its judgment, the court acknowledged the heinous nature of Akkus' actions, noting the premeditated and violent manner in which the stabbings were carried out. The court found that there were no significant mitigating factors that could warrant a lesser sentence. It considered the need for general deterrence and the protection of society, ultimately determining that a severe penalty was warranted. The court imposed a life sentence with a non-parole period of 25 years, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes committed.

The final orders of the court included a life sentence for Akkus with a non-parole period of 25 years, reflecting the severity of the crimes and the need for both punishment and deterrence. The court's decision underscored the gravity of intentionally causing serious injury and murder, particularly in a public setting.

Orders