R v Halacoglu - [2019] NSWDC 384

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Halacoglu [2019] NSWDC 384
Hearing dates: 07 May 2019
Date of orders: 07 May 2019
Decision date: 07 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
Dismissed pursuant to s 19B(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth): at [7].

Catchwords: SENTENCING — Commonwealth offence — single offence
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty — Good character
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Character of offence
SENTENCING — Penalties — offence proved — charges dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914
Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited: Nil
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Crown (Regina)
Onur Halacoglu (Offender)
Representation:
Mr McCauley (Crown)
Mr Healey (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/247107

Judgment

These sentence proceedings can be disposed of economically due to the very efficient and economical preparation of the case by counsel for the Crown and by Mr Healey for the offender. Onur Halacoglu, born in 1984, has pleaded to one count of using a carriage service to menace under s 474(1)(7) of the Criminal Code (Cth). It carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. He pleaded guilty today, which was to be the commencement of a trial for this and other more serious offences.
The Crown does not contest that an appropriate ultimate outcome is to deal with the matter under s 19B of the Crimes Act1914, and I propose to do so, for the reasons that follow.
The offender came here in 2010 on a student visa sponsored by the victim. They were in a relationship and living with victim’s two children from a previous relationship. Notwithstanding that, it seemed that in February 2016 the victim commenced a relationship with someone else and there were troubles in the relationship between the offender and the victim.
On 14 July 2016, there was a series of text messages exchanged between them in relation to the victim being fed up with his behaviour and telling him that his belongings were out at the front door. It got to the point where he said to her in a text, in Turkish, “If I’m not going to live, you are not going to live either” and the text exchange went on for a couple of hours after that. She reported feeling threatened by the offender and Police interviewed the offender. He agreed that he used the words that I have mentioned, but said that they had a different meaning.
He has no criminal record. I am told that his student visa has expired and he is on a bridging visa. The consequences in terms of his immigration status of any outcome of these proceedings are irrelevant as the authorities demonstrate.
The only subjective material tendered includes medical records in relation to the victim and a testimonial from a friend as to the apparently previously happy relationship of the offender and the victim, as does the victim herself in a document prepared…

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 Halacoglu

Details

AGLC: R v Halacoglu [2019] NSWDC 384
Case: [2019] NSWDC 384
Decision Date: 07 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Halacoglu, the defendant faced sentencing before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The defendant had been charged with a Commonwealth offence, but all but one of the charges were dismissed. The remaining charge was a single offence under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The primary legal issues before the court were the consideration of mitigating factors, the nature of the offence, and the appropriate penalty.

The court had to weigh various mitigating factors, including the defendant's lack of previous convictions, the plea of guilty, and the defendant's good character. These factors were significant in determining a fair and just sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the seriousness of the offence, which was central to the sentencing process. Given that the remaining charge was proven, the court had to balance the mitigating factors against the relevant factors of the offence to arrive at an appropriate penalty.

The Federal Circuit Court found that the defendant's lack of previous convictions, combined with a plea of guilty and good character, warranted a reduced sentence. However, the court also considered the nature of the offence, which was serious enough to warrant a penalty. Ultimately, the court determined that the most appropriate outcome was to dismiss the remaining charge pursuant to section 19B(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). This decision reflected a balanced approach to the mitigating and relevant factors in the case.

The court's final order was to dismiss the remaining charge against the defendant. This decision took into account the mitigating factors and the seriousness of the offence, resulting in a sentence that was both fair and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismissed pursuant to s 19B(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth): at [7].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Halacoglu [2019] NSWDC 384
Hearing dates:	07 May 2019
Date of orders:	07 May 2019
Decision date:	07 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	Dismissed pursuant to s 19B(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth): at [7].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Commonwealth offence — single offence SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty — Good character SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Character of offence SENTENCING — Penalties — offence proved — charges dismissed.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Nil
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown (Regina) Onur Halacoglu (Offender)
Representation:	Mr McCauley (Crown) Mr Healey (Offender)
File Number(s):	2016/247107