R v Orman [2009] VSC 538 - [2009] VSC 538

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No 1439 of 2008

THE QUEEN

FARUK ORMAN

---

JUDGE:	WEINBERG J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 August to 29 September and 13 November 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE	25 November 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Orman [2009] VSC 538

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

MURDER – ‘Gangland’ related killing – Prisoner acted in concert with co-offender in commission of planned execution – Role that of procurer of stolen vehicle used in murder and driver of that vehicle – Sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Horgan SC with Mr A Grant	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Prisoner Faruk Orman	Mr R Richter QC with Mr C Boyce	Grigor Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Faruk Orman, after a trial lasting some six weeks, you were found guilty of the murder in May 2002, of Victor Peirce, at Port Melbourne. It is now my task to sentence you for that offence.

Peirce was shot and killed as he sat in his car, parked in Bay Street, Port Melbourne, at about 9:15 pm on Wednesday, 1 May 2002. The gunman was Andrew Veniamin, a passenger in a vehicle driven by you, which pulled up next to Peirce’s car. You watched Veniamin get out of the car, take a step or two towards Peirce’s vehicle and fire several shots at him through the window. Veniamin then got back into your vehicle, and you drove off. The case against you was that you knew, at all times, that the purpose of your having driven to Bay Street that night was so that Veniamin could kill Peirce.

You were presented jointly on this count of murder with Vincent Benvenuto. The evidence against him differed, in certain key respects, from that admissible against you. It is fair to say, and it seems to have been common ground, that the case against you was stronger than the case against Benvenuto. The jury must also have come to that conclusion because they acquitted Benvenuto, but convicted you.

The murder of Peirce was not a spur of the moment crime. It was a carefully planned execution. Although it was Veniamin who fired the fatal shots, you and he acted in concert. That was the basis upon which the case against you was left to the jury and, by their verdict, that must have been the basis upon which you were convicted.

I now turn to the evidence in a little more detail. On the night he was killed, Peirce was sitting in his car, which was parked outside a Telstra shop, close to the intersection of Bay Street and Liardet Street, Port Melbourne. Peirce’s vehicle was facing south, towards the water. It was clear that he had gone to Bay Street in order to meet Benvenuto, and purchase drugs from him. The case against Benvenuto was that he had lured Peirce…

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 Orman [2009] VSC 538 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: [2009] VSC 538
Decision Date: 25 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Orman involved the appellant, Orman, who was charged with the crime of murder in relation to a planned execution. Orman's role in the crime was that of the procurer of the stolen vehicle used in the commission of the murder and the driver of that vehicle. The crime was part of a series of events linked to a ‘gangland’ killing. Orman was ultimately sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant sought to appeal his conviction and sentence.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the appellant's role in the crime and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The court had to determine whether the trial judge adequately instructed the jury on the concepts of joint enterprise and concert, which are critical in determining the appellant's liability for the murder. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence was excessive or manifestly inadequate, taking into account the appellant's role and the severity of the crime.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in the directions given to the jury, as the directions were sufficient to ensure the jury considered the relevant principles of joint enterprise and concert. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate, taking into account the appellant's role as a participant in the crime, albeit not the primary actor. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the severity of the crime and the appellant's culpability.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond affirming the conviction and sentence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence remained unchanged.

Orders