R v Aydin - [2008] VSC 388

g
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1689 of 2008

THE QUEEN

HAKAN AYDIN

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17, 18 July 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 September 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Aydin (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 388

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Manslaughter – Remorse – Co‑operation with authorities – Undertaking to give evidence – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G.J.C. Silbert QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr W. Toohey	Michael J. Gleeson & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Hakan Aydin you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter. Your plea of guilty to this count arises out of the killing of Christopher John O’Brien at Noble Park between 1 March 2007 and 8 March 2007. The maximum penalty for the offence of manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment.

The Circumstances of the Offence

You have a significant criminal record which I will deal with shortly, but in November 2006 you were released from prison. You were in need of a place to live and having met Dimitrios Likiardopoulos in prison, you finished up residing with his family for two or three months.

The circumstances of the offence were as follows. The deceased, Christopher O’Brien, was 22 years of age at the time of his death in March 2007. He had an intellectual age of approximately 14 years. He had been residing in a Special Care residence in Chandler Road, Noble Park, but in October 2006 moved out of those premises and, having met Darren Summers, moved into his premises at 1261 Heatherton Road, Noble Park. Nearby to those premises were the premises at 1288 Heatherton Road, Noble Park, where you and members of the Likiardopoulos family lived. That included Dimitrios Likiardopoulos, who is charged with the murder of Christopher O’Brien and will stand trial in February 2009, and John Likiardopoulos, who has also pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Christopher O’Brien.

It appears that illegal drugs were regularly and freely available at this address and in that connection from time to time a number of people went to the premises presumably to purchase drugs. You participated in what psychologist Bernard Healey described as “alarming” drug taking.

The circumstances leading to the death of Christopher O’Brien began in early 2007 when Darren Summers, who has pleaded guilty to being an accessory to manslaughter in respect of the killing of O’Brien, had alleged that O’Brien had removed a silver coloured bracelet belonging to his girlfriend from the house at 1261 Heatherton Road. Challenged about the theft, the bracelet reappeared but Summers conveyed the information about the alleged theft by O’Brien to the Likiardopoulos family.

Some time later a friend of the Likiardopoulos family, Con Nearhos, complained that his mobile phone had either been lost or stolen at the Likiardopoulos premises at 1288 Heatherton Road. The initial…

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 Aydin

Details

AGLC: R v Aydin [2008] VSC 388
Case: [2008] VSC 388
Decision Date: 30 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Aydin, the defendant was charged with manslaughter and pleaded guilty to the charge. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant. The case involved a tragic incident where the defendant had caused the death of another person, and the court had to consider various factors in arriving at a sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to give to the defendant's remorse, their co-operation with authorities, and their undertaking to give evidence against other parties involved in the incident. The court was required to apply the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), particularly section 6AAA, which outlines the principles and purposes of sentencing. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation and the circumstances of the offence.

The court found that the defendant had shown genuine remorse and had co-operated fully with the authorities, including providing evidence against others involved. The court considered these factors to be significant mitigating elements. However, the court also emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need to ensure public confidence in the criminal justice system. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court decided on a sentence that reflected both the mitigating aspects and the gravity of the crime. The court ordered the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment, followed by a period of parole.

Orders