R v Nurdag - [2011] VSC 254

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0133 of 2010
0130 of 2010
0131 of 2010
0132 of 2010

THE QUEEN

MEHMET NURDAG
JAYDEN PALL BISHOP
MATTHEW GROTHEER
DAVID SAM PUGLIA

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	13 and 14 April 2011 (Bishop, Grotheer, Puglia) and 17 May 2011 (Nurdag)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 June 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Nurdag & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 254

---

CATCHWORDS: Mehmet Nurdag – Guilty plea to manslaughter, trafficking and firearm charges and summary charge – Deceased involved in drug deal with two co-accused and owed money – Prisoner took loaded firearm to deceased’s home to pressure him in relation to money owed – Confrontation ensued and deceased was shot - Trafficking and firearm charges unrelated to manslaughter – Prior convictions – Genuine remorse - TES: Eleven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight and a half years.

Jayden Pall Bishop – Guilty plea to assist an offender – Assisted Mehmet Nurdag to flee the scene of the shooting – Youthfulness – Good prospects of rehabilitation – No prior convictions – Remorseful - TES: 2 years’ imprisonment partially suspended.

Matthew Grotheer – Guilty plea to assist an offender – Assisted Mehmet Nurdag to flee the scene of the shooting - Modest criminal history – Not involved in the drug deal – Remorseful – TES: 2 years’ imprisonment partially suspended.
David Sam Puglia – Guilty plea to assist an offender - Assisted Mehmet Nurdag to flee the scene of the shooting – No prior convictions – Suffering from ill-health – Shot by the deceased – Remorseful – TES: 2 years’ imprisonment partially suspended.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Kissane	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Mehmet Nurdag	Mr D Hallowes	Haines & Polites
For Jayden Pall Bishop	Mr M O’Connell SC	Galbally & O’Bryan
For Matthew Grotheer	Mr T Danos	Michael Gleeson and Associates
For David Sam Puglia	Mr N Papas SC	Wightons Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Mehmet Nurdag, you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter. Jayden Pall Bishop, Matthew Grotheer and David Sam Puglia, you have each pleaded guilty to one count of assisting an offender.

The deceased, Brock Nightingale, was 26 years old. He lived at 84 Cloverdale Drive, Corio. On Wednesday 21 October 2009, a drug deal had been arranged which was to involve the deceased and at least you, Bishop, and you, Puglia, purchasing an estimated $40,000 worth of ecstasy pills from an unknown supplier in Melbourne. Mr Nightingale planned to steal the cash by pretending that there was a raid during the drug deal. At 6.30pm on that day, Mr Nightingale was seen to cut magazines into the size of notes and prepare bundles using $100 notes on the outside of each bundle so it would appear to be a wad of cash. He then placed these bundles into cloth bags and cut holes in the bags…

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 Nurdag

Details

AGLC: R v Nurdag [2011] VSC 254
Case: [2011] VSC 254
Decision Date: 8 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mehmet Nurdag, Jayden Pall Bishop, Matthew Grotheer, and David Sam Puglia appeared before the court for their respective guilty pleas to various charges stemming from a drug-related confrontation that resulted in the death of an individual. Nurdag faced charges of manslaughter, firearm offences, and trafficking, while Bishop, Grotheer, and Puglia each pleaded guilty to assisting an offender. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the circumstances of the crime and the individuals' backgrounds.

The court examined several legal issues, including the severity of Nurdag's actions in relation to the manslaughter charge, the role each of the co-defendants played in assisting Nurdag, and the relevance of prior convictions and personal circumstances to the sentencing process. The court needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation, particularly in the cases of the younger offenders.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that Nurdag's actions in bringing a loaded firearm to the confrontation were particularly egregious, given the prior relationship between him and the deceased over a drug debt. Despite his genuine remorse and lack of prior convictions related to violence, the court imposed a significant sentence of eleven years, with a non-parole period of eight and a half years. For Bishop, Grotheer, and Puglia, the court recognised their remorse and potential for rehabilitation, and sentenced each to two years' imprisonment, partially suspended, acknowledging their limited criminal histories and lack of involvement in the drug deal.

The court's final orders reflect the balance struck between punishment and rehabilitation, recognising the severity of the crime while also considering the individual circumstances of each offender. Nurdag's sentence reflects the gravity of his actions, while the sentences for Bishop, Grotheer, and Puglia take into account their lesser roles and potential for rehabilitation.

Orders