R v Kuzucu, Arslan & Hanson - [2000] VSCA 110

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 122 of 1999

THE QUEEN

SUREYA KUZUCU, UGUR ARSLAN and
NIGEL HANSON

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BATT and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 May 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 June 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 110

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Obtaining property by deception – Applications and appeals allowed – Sentencing judge in error in not announcing he was imposing a lesser sentence by reason of undertakings given on oath to assist law enforcement authorities – Mitigatory factors leading to lesser sentence being imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr. C.J. Ryan

P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Applicant

Kuzucu

For the Applicant
Arslan

For the Applicant
Hanson

Mr. G. Lyon

Mr. S. Cash

Mr. S. Gardner

C.P.H. Lawyers

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Buchanan, J.A. to give the first judgment in this application.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

Each of the applicants pleaded guilty upon arraignment in the County Court to a charge of obtaining property by deception and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. They have appealed to this Court against the sentences.

The offences arose from a scheme devised and orchestrated by one Sedat Ceylan. Ceylan recruited persons to apply to finance companies for credit to purchase motor cars. Documents were created by Ceylan to enable those persons to present themselves as credit worthy. The motor cars were purchased at auction by a car dealer associated with Ceylan. The loans sought from the finance companies were for substantially larger sums than the prices at auction. Equipped with the false documents the borrowers obtained cheques from the finance companies made out to the motor car dealer. The dealer in turn paid the money to Ceylan, retaining a small commission. The borrowers were persons who for one reason or another could not obtain credit. They benefited from the scheme by obtaining possession of the motor cars encumbered by the loan agreements.

Each of the applicants obtained loans from finance companies using the personas and documents supplied by Ceylan. The offences were committed in March and May 1997.

On 31 March 1999 the applicants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, parts of which were suspended. Kuzucu was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment, eight months of which was suspended. A sentence of ten months' imprisonment was imposed upon Arslan. Four months of that term was suspended. Hanson was sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment of which two months was suspended.

Although the applicants shared the common characteristic of furthering Ceylan's scheme by posing as reputable borrowers, the circumstances attending their crimes and their personal histories were significantly different.

Kuzucu is now 30 years old. He has no prior convictions. He had been a friend of Ceylan for some six years. The applicant applied for a loan to purchase a BMW sedan at a price of $44,974.23 using false documents supplied by Ceylan. He agreed to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Kuzucu, Arslan & Hanson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] VSCA 110
Decision Date: 2 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kuzucu, Arslan & Hanson involved three defendants charged with obtaining property by deception. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, with the defendants appealing against their sentences. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred by not acknowledging that a lesser sentence was imposed due to the defendants' undertakings to assist law enforcement authorities. This omission, if present, could have implications for the defendants' eligibility for parole and the overall fairness of the sentencing process.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge should have explicitly stated that the sentences were reduced due to the defendants' promises to cooperate with law enforcement. The court held that the failure to make such a statement constituted an error, as it did not align with the legal requirements for transparency in sentencing. The court found that the defendants' undertakings were a significant mitigating factor that warranted a reduced sentence, and this should have been clearly articulated by the sentencing judge. The court's reasoning was grounded in the necessity for judicial transparency and the importance of ensuring that all mitigating factors are properly considered and disclosed.

Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the sentences were modified to reflect the proper acknowledgment of the mitigating factors. The court ordered that the sentencing judge's remarks be amended to explicitly state that the sentences were reduced due to the defendants' commitments to assist law enforcement. This correction was essential to uphold the integrity of the sentencing process and to ensure that all parties, including the defendants and the public, are fully informed about the reasons for the sentences imposed.

Orders