R v Deniz - [2003] VSCA 23

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 41 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
HASAN DENIZ

---

JUDGES:	ORMISTON and CHARLES, JJ.A. and CUMMINS, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 March 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 March 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 23

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Stabbing – Unlawful and dangerous act – Sentence not excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr C.B. Boyce	Cole & Magazis, Solicitors

ORMISTON, J.A.:

Having had the benefit of reading the judgment of Cummins, A.J.A. in draft form, I agree that this application should be dismissed for the reasons he has stated.

CHARLES, J.A.:

I agree with Cummins, A.J.A.

CUMMINS, A.J.A.:

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence imposed upon the applicant, Hasan Deniz, for manslaughter. The offence was by stabbing. The male applicant, then aged 52 years, killed the deceased, a male then aged 37 years, in Sydney Road, Coburg on 5 October 1999. The sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge was eight years’ imprisonment. His Honour directed that the applicant serve a minimum term of six years’ imprisonment before eligibility for parole. It is from that sentence that the applicant now seeks leave to appeal.

The applicant was charged with murder of the deceased arising from the events of 5 October 1999. After a nine day trial, the jury acquitted the applicant of murder and convicted him of manslaughter. In sentencing, the learned sentencing judge found that the type of manslaughter committed by the applicant was by unlawful and dangerous act.

Initially the applicant filed notices of application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. However prior to the hearing the applicant filed notice of intention to abandon the application against conviction. To that end, at the outset of the hearing, the Court granted leave for that withdrawal. Accordingly, the application proceeded as against sentence only.

The applicant killed the deceased in the following circumstances.

The applicant, a male of Turkish origin and aged 52 years, on the afternoon of Tuesday 5 October 1999 went to a small coffee lounge in Sydney Road, Coburg to associate with other men of Turkish origin and to play cards for small sums of money. One of the men was the deceased, then aged 37 years. The deceased, as well as being 15 years younger than the applicant, was a considerably larger man physically than the applicant. At about 7.00 pm an argument occurred at the card table over which suit was trumps in the card game, a Turkish game called Batak. The deceased then swore at the applicant in Turkish (the conversations all were in Turkish) in a most insulting way, saying “I’ll fuck your mother and your wife”, threw his cards into the applicant’s face, punched the applicant a number of times and held him around the throat. The applicant’s spectacles were thereby pushed…

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 Deniz

Details

AGLC: R v Deniz [2003] VSCA 23
Case: [2003] VSCA 23
Decision Date: 26 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Deniz, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case involved a stabbing incident which resulted in the death of the victim. The key issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Deniz for the crime of manslaughter was excessive. The defendant argued that the sentence was too harsh considering the circumstances of the incident.

The court was required to determine if the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. The legal considerations included the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the principles of sentencing. The court had to assess whether the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and if it was commensurate with sentences imposed in similar cases.

The court found that Deniz's sentence was not excessive. It considered the unlawful and dangerous nature of the act, the defendant's level of culpability, and the need for general deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, the applicable legal principles, and a comparison with analogous cases.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders