R v Eyuboglu (No 3) - [2019] NSWSC 414

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Eyuboglu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 414
Hearing dates: 22 March 2019
Decision date: 12 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Convicted of murder.

(2) I impose a non-parole period of 14 years, to commence on 31 October 2017 and to expire on 30 October 2031. That will be followed by a parole period of 5 years, to commence on 31 October 2031 and expire on 30 October 2036.

(To express my sentence another way, I have imposed a head sentence of 19 years with a non-parole period of 14 years, with a full backdate.)
(3) The first date upon which it appears the offender will be eligible for possible release to parole is 30 October 2031.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – offender found guilty of murder after trial by judge alone – offender very close to establishing partial defence of substantial impairment – discussion of objective and subjective features – intention to kill – offender suffering from schizophrenia – balancing of objective gravity with substantial reduction in moral culpability – sentence imposed
Cases Cited: R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Gokhan Eyuboglu (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Everson (Crown)
A Evers (Accused)
Solicitors:
Directors of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
McGirr Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/329217
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

On 19 March 2019, I returned a verdict of guilty of murder against Mr Gokhan Eyuboglu (the offender) at the conclusion of a trial by judge alone. In doing so, I rejected the defence contention that I should return the special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness, along with the alternative contention that I should return a verdict of manslaughter based upon the partial defence of substantial impairment: see R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285.
Having said that, with regard to the latter I regarded the partial defence as failing only because one of its elements was finely balanced in my own mind. In that sense, defence counsel is correct in submitting that the offender came very close to establishing that he had committed the offence of manslaughter, rather than murder.
The proceedings were stood over for a matter of days only, because each party was very largely content to rely upon the evidence in the trial with regard to all objective and subjective features relevant to sentence. On the latter occasion, I received written and oral submissions, along with a number of victim impact statements, to which I shall return later in these remarks. At the conclusion of the proceedings on sentence, the matter was stood over for imposition of sentence today.

Fundamentals of approach

The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is imprisonment for life without possibility of parole. I hasten to add that, in the circumstances of this case, the learned Crown prosecutor made it clear that he was not contending for that…

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 Eyuboglu (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Eyuboglu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 414
Case: [2019] NSWSC 414
Decision Date: 12 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Eyuboglu (No 3), the offender, Eyuboglu, was convicted of murder following a trial before a judge alone. Eyuboglu suffered from schizophrenia and was very close to establishing a partial defence of substantial impairment of mental function. The central legal issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Eyuboglu, considering his mental health condition and the objective gravity of the crime committed.

The court had to assess the subjective and objective features of the crime. Subjectively, Eyuboglu's intention to kill was a significant factor, though the court also had to consider his mental state at the time of the offence. Objectively, the gravity of the crime – murder – was immense. The court needed to balance these elements, taking into account the substantial impairment defence, which would reduce Eyuboglu's moral culpability.

The court determined that while Eyuboglu's schizophrenia provided a substantial reduction in his moral culpability, the objective gravity of the murder required a significant sentence. The judge ultimately imposed a sentence that reflected both the severity of the crime and the mitigating effect of Eyuboglu's mental health condition. The court's reasoning was focused on achieving a just outcome that appropriately weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case.

Orders