R v Kulla Kulla - [2010] VSC 60

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1452 of 2009

THE QUEEN

MELISSA ANNE KULLA KULLA

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18, 29 January 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 April 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Kulla Kulla
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 60

---

Manslaughter - Youthful Aboriginal offender - Verdins - Sentence 6 years minimum 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC. Ms Anne Hassan	Director of Public Prosecutions.
For the Accused	Ms Jane Dixon SC. Ms E James	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Melissa Anne Kulla Kulla on 18 January 2010 you were arraigned and pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter of Hussein Mumin who died on 10 September 2008 at Reservoir. A plea was heard on 29 January 2010. You were originally charged with the murder of Mr Mumin and have been on remand since that time.

You have a number of prior convictions and prior appearances in the courts in Queensland, from where you originally came. You were born on 28 October 1984 and you are currently aged 25. You were aged 23 at the time of the offending, and can be classified as a young offender. Your prior criminal history commences in January of 2000 and continues through to November of 2007. Initially you were aged 14 and in 2007 you would have been aged, approximately, 22.

A number of the offences in your prior history are, what would be called, trivial street offences. But they have a relevance to your own personal history and, accordingly, I do intend to list them. These offences all occurred in Cairns:

· Magistrates’ Court January 2000 – breached bail undertaking, convicted and discharged

·Children’s Court October 2000 – breached bail undertaking, drunk in a public place, sentenced to be reprimanded
·Children’s Court 12 February 2001 – consuming liquor on a road, failing to appear on your undertaking (2 counts), common assault, disorderly manner (2 counts), behaving in a violent manner (1 count). Convicted and discharged in respect of charges 1 and 2, placed on a community based order with a condition to perform 80 hours of unpaid work on charges 3 to 7
·Magistrates’ Court February 2001 – breached bail undertaking, without conviction, reprimanded
·Children’s Court May 2001 – two charges of behaving in a disorderly manner and sentenced to a period of seven days detention, to be served by way of an immediate release order
·Magistrates’ Court, June 2001 – behaving in a violent manner, using obscene language in a public place, fined $180, in default to be imprisoned for four days
·Magistrates’ Court, August 2001 – behaving in a violent manner, two charges, community based order, 20 hours unpaid work
·Magistrates’ Court, January 2001 – two charges of behaving in a violent manner and one of breaching a bail undertaking, fined $90 on the first two charges and $150 on the second charge.…

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 Kulla Kulla

Details

AGLC: R v Kulla Kulla [2010] VSC 60
Case: [2010] VSC 60
Decision Date: 9 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kulla Kulla involved a young Aboriginal offender who was convicted of manslaughter. The offender, Kulla Kulla, was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The case was brought before the court to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, considering the offender's age and background. The appeal focused on whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the principles outlined in Verdins, which require special consideration be given to the unique circumstances of young Aboriginal offenders.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, and the rehabilitation of the offender, in accordance with Verdins. The court was required to assess whether the sentence imposed was unjust or inappropriate in light of the offender's age, background, and the need for rehabilitation. The appeal further sought to determine if the sentencing judge had erred in not granting sufficient weight to the offender's prospects for rehabilitation and the potential for a lesser sentence to achieve the aims of justice.

The court, in delivering its judgment, examined the sentencing principles as outlined in Verdins and considered the offender's age, background, and prospects for rehabilitation. It found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the principles of general and specific deterrence with the need for rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence imposed was neither unjust nor inappropriate, as it adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence and provided an opportunity for the offender to rehabilitate. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering the unique circumstances of young Aboriginal offenders, while also ensuring that the sentence reflects the gravity of the crime committed.

Orders