R v Oznek - [2007] VSC 192

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1497 of 2006

THE QUEEN

YASIN OZNEK

---

JUDGE:	CAVANOUGH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 April 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 June 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Oznek
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 192

---

Criminal Law - Sentencing – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Stabbing in the course of a fight relating to drug proceeds - Imprisonment for 7 years - Non-parole period of 5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Williams	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr I Freckelton	Galbally & O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Yasin Oznek, you were originally charged with one count of murder. You were committed for trial on that charge. In about March of this year the Crown indicated that a plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis of an unlawful and dangerous act would be accepted. You have now pleaded guilty to that charge.

On 4 October 2005, you fatally stabbed Adam Roks in the course of a physical fight between the two of you. At that time, you and Adam Roks had known each other for about nine years. Until about two years before the incident, the two of you were close friends. You had regularly visited Adam Roks, and his partner, Sophie Iliopoulos, and their three children.

Regrettably, Adam Roks and you had developed an interest in marijuana. In 2003, the two of you set up two rooms in a suburban rented home to cultivate cannabis. The hydroponic equipment was supplied by an associate of Adam Roks who owned a hydroponic supply business. The associate may also have been involved in the venture generally. A crop of cannabis was cultivated over about three months. You received about 450 grams of cannabis from the venture. Over a period you consumed that cannabis yourself. From the outset you believed that you were owed in addition some money from the sale of the remaining cannabis. You believed that you had been cheated by Adam Roks and his associate. That aggrieved you. You had very little contact with Adam Roks and his family for about two years. Then, in late September 2005, you contacted Adam Roks and told him that you wanted to get in touch with the associate, as to the money. Principally, the focus of your anger was the associate rather than Adam Roks. However, Adam Roks alone knew how to make contact with the associate, and he chose not to tell you.

There were then a number of abusive and threatening text messages and phone calls from you to Adam Roks. You purported to give him a deadline of 7 days to supply the information that you wanted. On 4 October 2005, the text messages were particularly nasty, abusive and calculated to antagonise. In one message, you referred to his children, said that they would not save him and that they were better off…

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 Oznek

Details

AGLC: R v Oznek [2007] VSC 192
Case: [2007] VSC 192
Decision Date: 8 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Oznek, stood trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland for manslaughter following a stabbing incident during an altercation related to drug proceeds. Oznek entered a guilty plea, and the court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence. The incident occurred when Oznek stabbed another individual during a fight, leading to the victim's death. The defence argued that the stabbing was an impulsive act committed in the heat of the moment, rather than a premeditated act of violence. The prosecution, however, highlighted the seriousness of the offence and the need for a substantial sentence to reflect the gravity of the crime.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, the circumstances surrounding the offence, and the impact of the plea of guilty. Specifically, the court had to balance the culpability of the defendant against the mitigating factors presented, such as the lack of premeditation and the defendant's guilty plea. The court also needed to determine an appropriate non-parole period to ensure public safety and deterrence.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged the mitigating factors but emphasised the serious nature of the offence. The court found that the circumstances of the case warranted a substantial custodial sentence, given the lethal outcome and the involvement of drug-related activities. The court ultimately sentenced Oznek to imprisonment for a total of seven years, with a non-parole period of five years. This sentence reflected the court's view that while the defendant's plea of guilty was a mitigating factor, the seriousness of the crime required a significant penalty to address the community's need for justice and deterrence.

Orders