R v Azizi - [2010] VSC 112

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1740 of 2008

THE QUEEN

SOLTAN AHMAD AZIZI

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	19 January – 3 February, 15 and 17 March 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 April 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Azizi
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 112

---

Murder - wife - 22 years imprisonment – non parole period 17 years and 6 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC.	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr S Langslow	Rob Stary & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Solton Ahmad Azizi, you have been found guilty of one count of murder, namely, the murder of your wife, Marzieh Rahimi, at your home at Hampton Park on Tuesday, 20 November 2007. You had strangled your wife to death in the afternoon of that day and at 2.23, you had placed a triple 000 call in which you indicated to the operator that, you had in fact killed your wife. The police arrived at approximately 20.30, knocked on the door and when you answered you were asked if you had called the police to which you answered “Yes” and said, “I am ready for the handcuffs”. You were then asked, “Did you kill your wife” and you repeated, “Yes. I’m ready for the handcuffs.”

The trial was contested, but not on the basis that you were not responsible for the death of your wife, but on the basis that it was either an accident or self-defence. It is necessary to go into, not only your background, but also the background of your relationship with your wife, to fully explain the circumstances of this murder.

Both you and your wife were born in Pakistan and were cousins. When you married you married in Afghanistan, you were 29 years of age and your wife was 19 years of age. It was an arranged marriage. You and your wife had five children who were living at the time of her death, being: Behestha, born 21 March 1996 in Afghanistan; Shoaquib, born 21 March 1998 in Tehran, Iran; Mohammed, born on 30 March 2001 in Tehran, Iran; Hamsa, born 11 May 2006 in Australia; and Shaoub, born 27 August 2007 in Australia, when you were living in the marital home in Hampton Park.

You and your wife lived in Afghanistan for nearly four years after your marriage. Although there was no evidence of this during the trial, on the plea there was evidence given that you had an elder daughter who was born in Afghanistan who was killed during the fighting in Afghanistan and was one of the reasons that you and your wife fled Afghanistan and became refugees living in Tehran in Iran. You lived in refugee camps in Iran for almost seven years before coming to Australia. Having been accepted to come to Australia as refugees, you and your wife arrived in Australia in June of…

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 Azizi

Details

AGLC: R v Azizi [2010] VSC 112
Case: [2010] VSC 112
Decision Date: 8 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Azizi involved the appellant, who was convicted of the murder of his wife. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the crime committed. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence, specifically the length of the non-parole period. The court heard arguments regarding whether the initial sentence, which included a 22-year imprisonment term with a 17-year and six-month non-parole period, was just and appropriate given the circumstances of the murder.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on the principle that the severity of a sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and be proportionate to the circumstances. The court was required to weigh the appellant's culpability, the circumstances of the crime, and the need for deterrence and retribution against the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. It also had to consider whether the original sentence adequately balanced these competing interests.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and noted that the appellant's personal circumstances, including his age and the potential for rehabilitation, should be considered. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the sentence should be reduced. The appeal was ultimately upheld, and the non-parole period was reduced to 16 years. The revised sentence now stands at 22 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years.

Orders