R v Dogan

Case [2011] NSWDC 86


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DOGAN [2011] NSWDC 86
Hearing dates:28 July 2011
Decision date: 28 July 2011
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentenced to imprisonment

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Form 1 - Possess unregistered firearms - Possess a precursor - conceal serious indictable offences
Cases Cited: Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216
Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Erkan Dogan
Representation: Mr G Turnbull - Offender
Director of Public Prosecution
The Law Practice
File Number(s):2009/00078683

SENTENCE

  1. HIS HONOUR: Erkan Dogan grew up in rural Queensland. His home life was unusual to the point of being disturbing. He and his siblings, at least most of them, appear to have tried to get away from home as quickly as possible. His older sister moved down to Sydney and when the offender was seventeen he followed. He lived with her for a time but soon began to escalate his drug use, not only recreationally, but also he commenced using steroids as part of his gym activities. Somehow he got into contact with a very serious criminal organisation. At the age of only twenty he committed a large number of serious offences for which he must now be sentenced.

  1. The first of those offences was one of possessing more than three unregistered firearms, any one of which is a prohibited firearm. That is an offence that has a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of ten years. Although the standard non-parole period is not of direct application because of the offender's early pleas of guilty, it remains as an important guidepost to the sentence I should impose upon him. The lengthy standard non-parole period of ten years is a good indication as to the seriousness with which parliament says judges should treat offences of this kind.

  1. The offender also is to be sentenced for possessing a precursor, that is a substance that can be used to manufacture drugs, in this case 6.39 litres of a substance called safrole. The maximum penalty for that offence is five years imprisonment.

  1. Then there are three offences of concealing a serious indictable offence. The first is an offence of concealing the circumstance that other people possessed more than three unregistered firearms, any one of which is a prohibited firearm or pistol. The second is concealing a serious indictable offence of supplying a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and the third is concealing a serious indictable offence, namely the possession of people known to the offender of offensive weapons, which were in fact explosive devices. It is important to understand that by his plea of guilty, the offender admits that he understood that those people possessed the explosives with intent themselves to commit indictable offences.

  1. What I have described is already a large number of serious offences, but there are more. The offender asks that when I sentence him I take into account fourteen further offences on a form 1. They are attached to…

Continue reading R v Dogan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dogan [2011] NSWDC 86
Case
[2011] NSWDC 86
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dogan, the appellant was found guilty of possessing unregistered firearms and possessing a precursor. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was charged with these offences and was subsequently found guilty. The appellant appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentence was excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence should be reduced. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need to deter others from committing similar offences. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for these offences.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The court found that the appellant had a significant criminal history and that the offences were serious. The court also found that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for these offences. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence should be reduced.

The court ordered that the appellant's sentence of imprisonment remain as imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment

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.