R v Bayram - [2011] VSC 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 163 of 2010

THE QUEEN

OMER BAYRAM

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 January 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 February 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bayram
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 10

---

Murder – plea of guilty – prisoner aged 61 – no prior convictions – murder of wife – family law dispute over property – 19 years with 16 years minimum.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Dunn QC	Andrew George Solicitors
Ms A Stephanides

HER HONOUR:

Omer Bayram you have pleaded guilty to one count of murder on 1 February 2010, in that you did murder your wife, Sirin Bayram, at your family home in Greenvale in Victoria.

You were born in Cyprus on 15 October 1948 and were aged 61 at the time of the murder. Your wife was also born in Cyprus and she was aged 50 at the time you killed her, having been born on 6 August 1959. You and your wife had together two children: Emine aged 24 and Ediz aged 22.

This murder was brought about by separation and planned divorce. The circumstances that led to the marriage and ultimately the seeking of the divorce and the consequences that flowed from that, require some background explanation.

As stated you were born in Cyprus, the son of a shepherd you were predominantly under educated and migrated to Australia in May of 1972 when you were aged about 23. You sponsored your brother Sevket to come to Australia in 1973, you returned to Cyprus for a period of some years between 1976 and 1982 but then returned to Australia permanently in 1982. It was in 1983 that Sirin was introduced to you through correspondence via arrangements made between your families. In December 1984 you went to Cyprus, you met and married Sirin within two weeks and immediately returned to Australia and in June of 1985. Sirin arrived in Australia to reside with you, she was pregnant with your first child and thereafter in October Emine was born. You both worked hard, purchased a home, paid it off, extended the house, had another child and lived what appeared to be a normal married life. You worked predominantly nightshift at Dunlop rubber and your wife worked during the day at Ericson’s, it would appear your paths crossed only to a small extent during most of that time.

In August of 2008, you were retrenched when the Dunlop tyre plant in Broadmeadows closed. You received a payout of some $220,000 which you used at least in part to purchase a Sydney Taxi Licence. You attended to looking after the premises as your wife still worked. Shortly after that, in approximately February 2009, you and your wife moved into separate bedrooms in your home in Greenvale. In April…

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 Bayram

Details

AGLC: R v Bayram [2011] VSC 10
Case: [2011] VSC 10
Decision Date: 4 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, a 61-year-old man with no prior criminal history, pleaded guilty to the murder of his wife. The case reached the court following a family law dispute over property, which culminated in the tragic incident. The appellant was sentenced to 19 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 16 years. The decision focused on the appropriate sentence for a first-time offender who had taken the life of his spouse amidst personal conflict.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering his age, lack of criminal history, and the context of the crime. The court needed to balance the gravity of the offence with the personal circumstances of the appellant. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the murder on the family and the societal implications of the sentence.

In delivering its judgment, the court emphasised the heinous nature of the crime, acknowledging the appellant's age and lack of criminal history as mitigating factors. The court found that while the murder was premeditated and stemmed from a family dispute, it was not the type of crime that warranted an exceptionally lengthy sentence. However, the gravity of taking a life could not be understated, and a substantial custodial sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent. The court concluded that a sentence of 19 years, with 16 years before parole eligibility, was appropriate to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the offender.

The court ordered the appellant to serve 19 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 16 years. This decision reflects the court's consideration of both the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors presented in the case.

Orders