R v Alipek & Saltmarsh - [2004] VSC 206

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1407 of 2004

THE QUEEN

HASAN HUSEYIN ALIPEK and JASON MAXWELL SALTMARSH

---

JUDGE:	NETTLE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 April, 3 and 27 May 2004 and 7 June 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 June 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hasan Huseyin Alipek and Jason Maxwell Saltmarsh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 206

---

Criminal law – sentencing – kidnapping – attempted murder – intentionally causing serious injury - principal offender found guilty of kidnapping and attempted murder – offences aggravated by alcohol consumption – psychological condition including paranoia and delusions present - kidnapping – taken by car – assaulted on journey - attempted murder – principal offender poured petrol over victim and set alight – left victim in car - lesser offender found guilty of intentionally causing serious injury – supplied petrol can to principal offender - principal offender – sentenced to twelve years on attempted murder charge – five years with three years concurrent on kidnapping charge – effective head sentence fourteen years with a non-parole period of eleven years - lesser offender – six years with a non-parole period of four years.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr WM Morgan-Payler, QC with Ms Melissa Mahady

Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For Hasan Alipek

For Jason Saltmarsh

Mr LWG Hartnett

Dr TR Sullivan

CD Traill Lawyers

Balmer & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Hasan Huseyin Alipek has been convicted of kidnapping and the attempted murder of Hulya Cavus. Jason Maxwell Saltmarsh has been convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to Hulya Cavus. It falls to me to sentence them.

The Facts

At the time of the offences, Hulya Cavus was 37 years old and had been married. She was working as the manager of a car detailing company located in the Jam Factory in Prahran and she lived with two of her three children in a flat in Elwood. By all accounts, she was an energetic, attractive and considerate woman.

Some two years before the offences, Hasan Alipek obtained a job as an attendant in a commercial car park close to the car detailing business. He had then not long come to this country from Turkey and his ability to speak English was limited. He had no family in this country and understandably, perhaps, he had very few friends or associates.

Hulya Cavus is of Turkish extraction and fluent in the Turkish language, and one way or another she and Alipek came into contact through an arrangement between the car park and the car detailing business to refer customers to each other. Once she got to know Alipek she offered him friendship and an entrée to her circle of Turkish and other friends, and she and her close friend Selin Sir endeavoured to assist Alipek with several accommodation and financial problems he was then facing.

From Hulya Cavus’…

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 Alipek & Saltmarsh

Details

AGLC: R v Alipek and Saltmarsh [2004] VSC 206
Case: [2004] VSC 206
Decision Date: 18 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alipek & Saltmarsh, the defendants were before the court for a series of serious criminal offences, including kidnapping, attempted murder, and intentionally causing serious injury. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The principal offender, Alipek, was found guilty of kidnapping and attempted murder, while the lesser offender, Saltmarsh, was found guilty of intentionally causing serious injury. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for both offenders.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply to the offences committed, the aggravating factors present in the case, and the role of each offender in the commission of the crimes. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the extent of the offenders' involvement, and any relevant mitigating factors. The principal offender's consumption of alcohol and psychological condition were also taken into account as potential aggravating factors.

The court found that the principal offender's actions were particularly heinous, involving the kidnapping and attempted murder of the victim, who was assaulted and set alight in a car. The lesser offender's role in supplying the petrol can was also significant, as it facilitated the attempted murder. The court sentenced the principal offender to twelve years for the attempted murder charge, with five years and three years concurrent on the kidnapping charge, resulting in an effective head sentence of fourteen years with a non-parole period of eleven years. The lesser offender was sentenced to six years with a non-parole period of four years.

The court's final orders included the imposition of the aforementioned sentences on both offenders, reflecting the severity of their crimes and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The sentences also took into account the offenders' roles in the commission of the offences and any relevant mitigating factors.

Orders