R v Davsanoglu - [2019] VSC 332

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

S CR 2018 0061

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
MURAT DAVSANOGLU	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Davsanoglu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 332

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Murder — Accused falsely claimed suicide pact — Domestic violence — Victim ending relationship — Pleaded guilty following a confession during cross-examination — Plea does not reflect significant remorse — General deterrence — Denunciation — Just punishment — No prior convictions for violence — Good prospects for rehabilitation — Small discount for guilty plea — Sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 years — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 6B, Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5(2AC)(e), 6AAA and 18.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms D Piekusis SC	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr D Sala	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Murat Davsanoglu, on 27 November 2018, you were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to a charge of the murder of Ozlem Karakoc. A trial then commenced before a jury.

In the course of the trial, you gave sworn evidence. Your defence to the charge of murder was based on your claim that there was a suicide pact existing between you and the deceased at the time of her death. However, whilst being cross-examined by the Senior Crown Prosecutor on 6 December 2018, you gave answers which indicated a change in your position and your acceptance of your guilt of the charge of murder.

On 7 December 2018, at the your counsel’s request, you were re-arraigned on the charge of murder and you then pleaded guilty. On 1 May 2019, after some delay and a change of counsel, I heard submissions on behalf of the prosecution and from your counsel on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on you.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. It is now my responsibility to sentence you in relation to this very serious offence.

Circumstances of offending

This is yet another case of a man inflicting his will on a woman by the use of fatal violence in her home. Whilst the circumstances of this case are unusual to a degree, in other respects, they are all too familiar. Violence by men against women remains of epidemic proportions, and it simply must be stemmed.

At the time of her death on 14 July 2017, Ozlem Karakoc was 34 years of age and you were 42 years of age.

From her late teens onwards, she maintained a relationship with you that fluctuated in its intensity. Your relationship with her ultimately ended as her family did not approve; however, the two of you remained in contact. She then began a relationship with another man, which led to marriage and a child.

In 2016, the deceased woman was living alone with her child at Wilma…

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 Davsanoglu

Details

AGLC: R v Davsanoglu [2019] VSC 332
Case: [2019] VSC 332
Decision Date: 24 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Davsanoglu involved the defendant, Davsanoglu, who was charged with murder. The victim, a woman with whom the defendant had been in a relationship, had ended their relationship. In response, the defendant falsely claimed that they had a suicide pact and subsequently killed the victim. Davsanoglu initially pleaded not guilty but changed his plea to guilty during cross-examination. The Victorian Supreme Court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering factors such as the gravity of the offence, the plea of guilty, and the prospects for rehabilitation.

The court needed to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various legal principles. These included the necessity to express denunciation and deterrence, the need for just punishment, and the opportunity for rehabilitation. The court also had to assess the level of remorse shown by the defendant, despite his guilty plea, and whether there was a need for a discount for the plea. The impact of the domestic violence context on the sentencing process was also a key consideration.

In delivering the sentence, the court found that while the plea of guilty warranted a small discount, the defendant had not shown significant remorse. The court emphasised the gravity of the offence, the need for denunciation, and the requirement for just punishment. The defendant's lack of prior convictions for violence and his good prospects for rehabilitation were mitigating factors, but the court deemed them insufficient to significantly reduce the sentence. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to 23 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years. This sentence reflected the severity of the crime, the need for general deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

No additional orders were made by the court. The sentence was based on the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and just punishment, balanced with the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation. The court considered the totality of the circumstances and the need to reflect the community’s values in the sentence imposed.

Orders