R v Ince - [2001] VSCA 214

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 30 of 2000

THE QUEEN
	v.
MEHMET INCE

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, CHARLES and CALLAWAY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 October 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 December 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 214

---

Criminal law – Murder – Causation – Intent – Recklessness - Self-defence – Provocation – Judge’s charge now challenged – Failure to take exception below – Late application to amend grounds – Application referred into court – Whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kayser	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr D.G. Just	Stary Myall

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

I agree with Charles, J.A. For the reasons he has given I agree that the late application to amend the grounds should be refused and that the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

CHARLES, J.A.:

On 30 August 1999 the applicant was presented in the Supreme Court on a charge alleging that on 14 December 1997 he murdered Ian Peter Broadbent. He pleaded not guilty, and, after a trial in which some 38 witnesses were called, on 21 September 1999 the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder. On 8 February 2001 the applicant was sentenced to be imprisoned for 15 years with a non-parole period of 10 years. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction.

The Crown case was as follows. On the morning of Saturday 13 December 1997 Ian Broadbent, a plumber, returned from work at 11.30 a.m. and prepared to go to a birthday party in Montmorency. His partner, Touree Medley drove him to the party at 1 p.m., Broadbent taking with him two prepared joints of cannabis L. An arrangement had been made that he would telephone Medley when he was ready to go home. By 6.30 p.m., when Medley spoke to Broadbent by telephone, he sounded very happy and drunk. He asked Medley to come to the party and to bring with her three cans of “pre-mixed Jim Beam and coke”. She arrived at the party at 7.30 p.m. and found Broadbent drunk, but very happy and convivial. At about 10.30 p.m. Medley decided it was time to take Broadbent home and they left the party with Medley driving. As Medley drove towards their home, Broadbent told her that she was driving the wrong way and as they went along Grimshaw Street, Bundoora, he suddenly pulled on the handbrake. When Medley told Broadbent not to do this, he became upset with her and as the car approached the intersection of Grimshaw Street and Plenty Road, tried to get out. He continued thereafter to try to get out of the car and, after turning from Plenty Road into Settlement Road, Medley stopped the car and let Broadbent out. Broadbent then walked back to Plenty Road, and lay

down on a garden bed at the corner of Plenty Road and Settlement Road. Medley a little while later…

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 Ince

Details

AGLC: R v Ince [2001] VSCA 214
Case: [2001] VSCA 214
Decision Date: 12 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ince involved the appellant, Ince, who was convicted of murder and subsequently appealed against his conviction. The dispute centred around the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented at the trial, specifically the elements of causation, intent, and the application of defences such as self-defence and provocation. The appeal was heard by the relevant appellate court, which was tasked with determining whether the conviction was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court was required to decide several critical legal issues. First, it had to assess whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Ince's actions directly caused the death of the victim. Second, the court needed to determine whether Ince had the requisite intent to commit murder or if his actions could be justified as reckless. Third, the court examined whether Ince's actions could be considered a reasonable response in self-defence or if there were mitigating factors such as provocation that should have been considered by the jury. The court also needed to consider the failure to object to the judge's charge at the trial and the subsequent late application to amend the grounds of appeal.

The court found that although there were some issues with the trial judge's charge, Ince had not objected at the trial, and his late application to amend the grounds of appeal was not permitted. Despite these procedural shortcomings, the court concluded that the evidence was robust enough to support the conviction. The court held that Ince's actions were deliberate and that there was no valid self-defence or provocation defence available. The court further determined that the evidence was overwhelming and that any errors in the trial did not render the conviction unsafe or unsatisfactory.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The decision reaffirmed the importance of timely objections to the judge's charge and the need for careful consideration of all available defences during the trial.

Orders