R v Dogan

Case [2022] NSWDC 391


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dogan [2022] NSWDC 391
Hearing dates: 14 July 2022
Date of orders: 2 September 2022
Decision date: 02 September 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [84].

Catchwords:

SENTENCE – stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal) – common assault – detention application – destroy or damage property – use offensive weapon with intent to commit indictable offence.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:

Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41

DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194

Mandranis v R (2021) 289 A Crim R; [2021] NSWCCA 97 260

R v Edelbi (2021) 105 NSWLR 133; [2021] NSWCCA 122

R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111

R v Pullen (2018) 275 A Crim R 509; [2018] NSWCCA 264

R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ulas Dogan (Offender)
Representation: M. Romelingh (Crown)
E. Srour (Offender)
File Number(s): 2021/00179695
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender who was born on 23 March 1990 is to be sentenced in respect of the following three offences, to which he entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court:

Sequence 7 – use offensive weapon with intent to commit indictable offence pursuant to s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty prescribed for this offence is 12 years imprisonment.

Sequence 3 – stalk/intimidate/intend fear physical etc harm pursuant to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. The maximum penalty prescribed for this offence is 5 years imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units.

Sequence 2 – common assault pursuant to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty prescribed is two years imprisonment.

There is no standard non-parole period prescribed for any of the three offences.

  1. The offender has admitted his guilt and asked to be taken into account three offences on a Form 1 attached to sequence two. The offences are as follows:

Sequence 4 – common assault pursuant to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.

Sequence 5 – common assault pursuant to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.

Sequence 6 – common assault pursuant to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.

  1. The offender has also admitted his guilt and asked to be taken into account on sentence the following matter on a Form 1 attached to sequence 7:

Sequence 1 – destroy or damage property pursuant to s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty prescribed for this offence is 5 years imprisonment.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 14 July 2022. The Crown Sentence Summary became Exhibit A and it included agreed facts on sentence which may be summarised as follows.

  2. The victim was driving his vehicle…

Continue reading R v Dogan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dogan [2022] NSWDC 391
Case
[2022] NSWDC 391
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dogan involved the defendant, Dogan, who was charged with stalking, intimidating, and assaulting the victim. The charges included an intent to cause physical harm, common assault, and damaging property using an offensive weapon. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the cumulative effect of the charges warranted a sentence of imprisonment and, if so, what form that sentence should take. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offences, the defendant’s criminal history, and the suitability of the defendant for rehabilitation programs such as an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO).

In its reasoning, the court held that the cumulative effect of the charges warranted a custodial sentence. However, considering the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and the availability of an ICO, the court opted for this alternative sentencing option. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and rehabilitation, as well as the need to protect the community. Consequently, the court decided that an ICO was the most appropriate form of sentence given the circumstances. The court ordered that the aggregate sentence be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order, with specific details and orders outlined in the judgement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. For orders see [84].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.