R v Gabor Laszlo Aranyi (No 2)
[2013] ACTSC 176
R v GABOR LASZLO ARANYI (NO 2)
[2013] ACTSC 176 (24 August 2013)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
R v Steurer (2009) ACT SC150
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SCC 224 of 2012
Judge: Nield AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 24 August 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 224 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
R
v
GABOR LASZLO ARANYI
ORDER
Judge: Nield AJ
Date: 24 August 2013
Place: Canberra
THE COURT DETERMINES THAT:
The “best estimate” of the sentence which would have been appropriate if Mr Aranyi had been found guilty of the offence of murder is a term of 20 years, which term would have commenced on the date of his arrest, that date being 2 April 2012.
On 2 April 2012 Mr Gabor Laszlo Aranyi killed his mother, Ms Otillia Aranyi, by strangling her.
On 8 August 2013 I found that at, the time when he killed his mother Mr Aranyi was suffering from a mental illness, such that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong, and that he did not have any real control over what he was doing.
As a consequence of my findings, I entered a special verdict that Mr Aranyi was not guilty of the offence of murder because of mental impairment, as the Crown agreed with my entering that verdict, and I considered that verdict to be the appropriate verdict.
I have already indicated, as required by section 302(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), that I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment upon Mr Aranyi if he had not been acquitted of the offence of murder.
I must now, as required by section 302(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), nominate the “best estimate” of the sentence that I would have considered appropriate if Mr Aranyi had been found guilty of the offence of murder.
I realise that, in determining the “best estimate” of the sentence that I would have imposed if Mr Aranyi had been found guilty of the offence of murder, I consider such evidence and submissions that I would consider were I determining a sentence to be imposed upon an offender in normal criminal proceedings (see section 307 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)).
The difficulties in determining the “best estimate” of an appropriate sentence that I would have imposed upon Mr Aranyi, had he been found guilty of the offence of murder, were highlighted in the judgment of Penfold J in R v Steurer (2009) ACTSC 150 at paragraphs 100 to 109, and I do not see any need to repeat here those difficulties.
The first point to be noted is that the determination of the “best estimate” of the appropriate sentence is to be based upon the fact that Mr Aranyi “had been found guilty” of the offence of murder. Therefore, any discount in sentence because of a guilty plea is to be ignored.
The second point to be noted is that any basis upon which the offence of murder could have been reduced to a finding of manslaughter is to be ignored.
The third point to be noted is that an assessment of the objective seriousness of the act committed by Mr Aranyi must be made. In other words, where within the range of objective seriousness for acts which constitute the offence of murder would the act committed by Mr Aranyi fall? I consider that the act of Mr Aranyi in strangling his mother falls at about the middle of the range of objective seriousness of acts which constitute the offence of murder. This is not to say that Mr Aranyi’s act in strangling his mother was not a serious act; clearly, it was a serious act, but it was an act of a man suffering from a severe mental illness.
The fourth point to be noted is that Mr Aranyi is a man without a relevant criminal history. I disregard, as I have said that I would, the minor offence involving the use of or the threat of the use of violence committed many years ago, in respect of which a conviction was not recorded.
The next point to be noted is that Mr Aranyi had suffered from a severe mental illness over many years, probably from when he was aged 12 or 13 years. As it happened, by an application dated 22 February 2012, which was received by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 29 February 2012, Mr Aranyi’s mother sought an order that Mr Aranyi’s mental health be assessed because she feared for her safety at his hands. Accordingly, on 23 March 2012 an order was made by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal that Mr Aranyi attended the Woden Mental Health Service in Philip in the ACT on 2 April 2012 for an assessment of his mental health. Then, on 1 April 2012 Mr Aranyi’s mother hand delivered a letter dated 1 April 2012 written by her, again expressing her fear for her safety at the hands of her son, together with some pages of disjointed and rambling writings written by Mr Aranyi, to Dr Cynthia Wilson at the Woden Mental Health Service. It is the tragic fact that it was her desire that her son attend the appointment at the Woden Mental Health Service on 2 April 2012 for an assessment of his mental health which led to her death.
The penultimate point to be noted is that, now that his mental health has stabilised with appropriate psychiatric treatment, Mr Aranyi has realised what he did, and he has expressed his regret for what he did.
The final point to be noted is that personal deterrence can be ignored and that general deterrence is of little importance.
In the result, taking into account the matters to which I have referred, I determine that the “best estimate” of the sentence that I would have considered appropriate if Mr Aranyi had been found guilty of the offence of murder is a term of 20 years, which term would have commenced on the date of his arrest, that date being 2 April 2012.
I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Acting Justice Nield.
Associate:
Date: 28 August 2013
Counsel for the Crown: Mr J Lundy
Solicitor for the Crown: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the accused: Mr J Sabharwal
Solicitor for the accused: Legal Aid Australian Capital Territory
Date of hearing: 22 August 2013
Date of judgment: 24 August 2013
0
0