R v Daing - [2015] VSC 440

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0112

THE QUEEN

ISAC AYOUL DAING

---

JUDGE:	T. FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 August 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 August 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Daing
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 440

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Guilty plea – Deceased was former partner of the prisoner – Deceased killed in her own home – Horrific childhood of the prisoner – Prisoner suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder - Sentenced to 18 years 6 months’ imprisonment with a minimum period to be served before parole eligibility of 14 years 6 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A. Tinney SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms S. Keating	Revill & Papa Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Daing, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Maryanne Sikai. The immediate events that led to her death occurred on 18 March 2014. There is, however, a context or background to these events that I shall set out.

Ms Sikai was 41 years old when she died. She was born in Papua New Guinea and moved to Australia in 1997 when she was 25. She was the natural mother of a child born when she was 19 and who, ultimately, was raised by her aunt. Ms Sikai worked for a time in Cairns as a receptionist and in 2008 moved to Melbourne, again finding work as a receptionist. Ms Sikai assumed the role of primary carer for her brother’s children for two of every three weeks. Thankfully, they were not present when Ms Sikai was killed by you. In March 2014, Ms Sikai was living in an apartment in Hopkins Street, West Footscray. She shared this accommodation with Linh Ngoc Nguyen and his girlfriend, Sirinapa Yimklan.

You were born in Sudan and moved to Australia in 2006. I shall set out more of your background in due course. You met Ms Sikai in late 2011 and shortly thereafter commenced a relationship. The material I have read suggests that initially this was a happy, harmonious relationship, but after a time you became a jealous and controlling partner. The statements of Mercy Waiya, Elizabeth Epona (the deceased’s mother) and Andrew Wilson set out various incidents that illustrate this. Mr Wilson, who, for a time, lived with you and Maryanne, heard acrimonious exchanges between you and observed property damage that Maryanne asserted was caused by you. He described you coming and going as the relationship became more volatile. Maryanne complained to Mr Wilson that you had hit her and it appears she took out, at least an interim intervention order against you. Later, and after more coming and going, Mr Wilson described hearing a loud argument and subsequently seeing her face to be swollen on one side. In early 2013, Mr Wilson heard scuffling and arguing coming from the room you shared with Maryanne. He saw you…

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 Daing

Details

AGLC: R v Daing [2015] VSC 440
Case: [2015] VSC 440
Decision Date: 24 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Daing, the appellant was convicted of murdering his former partner. The deceased was killed in her own home, and the appellant subsequently pleaded guilty to the charge. The appellant's childhood was marked by significant trauma, and he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the appellant's crime.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine a suitable sentence for the appellant, taking into account his guilty plea, the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased, and the appellant's personal history, including his traumatic childhood and mental health issues. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the requirement to consider the appellant's background and circumstances.

The court recognised the gravity of the offence and the profound impact on the victim and her family. However, it also considered the appellant's history of trauma and his mental health condition. The court determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime while also acknowledging the appellant's personal circumstances. As a result, the appellant was sentenced to 18 years and 6 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years and 6 months.

The court's decision underscores the importance of considering both the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence. The court balanced these factors to arrive at a sentence that aimed to achieve justice for the victim and her family while also taking into account the appellant's background and mental health issues.

Orders