R v Atesok - [2017] VSC 599

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0071

THE QUEEN
v
SERDAR ATESOK	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 September 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 September 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Atesok
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 599

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Manslaughter – Theft – Arson - Pleas of guilty – Accused on bail at the time of the offending – Gunshot from stolen moving vehicle – Fatal injury – Remorse – Rehabilitation prospects – Family support – Severe polysubstance abuse.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K Judd QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Maidment QC	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Serdar Atesok, on 19 May 2017 in this Court you pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, one charge of manslaughter and one charge of arson. Those charges relate to events which occurred in December 2015 and which include the shooting of the deceased, Nathan Knight, by you on 31 December 2015 while you were driving a moving car in the Lalor area. The car you were driving was stolen. After the shooting Mr Knight was taken by ambulance from the scene to the Royal Melbourne Hospital but died a short time later. Some attempt was subsequently made to destroy the car by fire.

On 5 September 2017 in this Court, I heard an opening on behalf of the prosecution, received Victim Impact Statements in relation to the family of the deceased man and heard submissions from your counsel and the prosecutor in relation to the sentence that I should impose on you.

It is therefore now my responsibility to sentence you for these three offences.

The maximum penalty for theft is 10 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for arson is 15 years’ imprisonment.

Circumstances of offending

I will now summarise the detailed opening read to the Court by the prosecutor. No issue was taken by senior counsel on your behalf with the facts put forward in that opening.

The evidence indicates that for some six months prior to the fatal shooting of the deceased man there was some issue between you and him concerning a debt said to be owed by him to an associate of yours, Elias Makhoul. Makhoul sought your assistance to recover more money under the debt from Knight, which led ultimately to Knight’s death at your hands.

On 25 November 2015 you were released on bail by this Court in relation to charges including kidnapping, false imprisonment, robbery, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, assault and theft. The offences were alleged to have been committed on 22 May 2015 at premises at Reservoir. There were a variety of conditions that were imposed on you designed to assist you to deal with your drug issues as well as ensure your attendance at court and prevent further offending. However, by…

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 Atesok

Details

AGLC: R v Atesok [2017] VSC 599
Case: [2017] VSC 599
Decision Date: 28 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Atesok, the defendant faced the court following a series of serious criminal offences culminating in manslaughter. The victim, who was fatally injured by a gunshot from a stolen vehicle while Atesok was a passenger, died as a direct result of the injuries sustained. Atesok pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including manslaughter, theft, and arson, all of which occurred while he was on bail for an earlier offence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the sentencing of Atesok was the primary focus.

The legal issues before the court centred around the appropriate sentence for Atesok given the gravity of the offence and his personal circumstances. The court needed to consider several factors, including the nature of the offence, the level of Atesok's involvement, his prior criminal history, the presence of remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to weigh Atesok's severe polysubstance abuse and the support he received from his family in determining an appropriate and just sentence.

The court, in delivering its judgment, took into account the significant aggravating factors such as the use of a firearm and the fact that the offence was committed while Atesok was on bail. It also recognised mitigating factors, including Atesok's expressed remorse, the support of his family, and his efforts towards rehabilitation, despite his severe substance abuse issues. The court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to ensure public safety, but also considered the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court sentenced Atesok to a term of imprisonment, with specific directions regarding his treatment and rehabilitation while in custody.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for Atesok, with specific conditions aimed at addressing his substance abuse issues and facilitating his rehabilitation. The court also ordered that Atesok be subject to regular review to monitor his progress and adjust his treatment plan as necessary. Additionally, the court emphasised the importance of family support in Atesok's rehabilitation process.

Orders