R v Solmaz - [2019] VSC 530

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0055

THE QUEEN
v
MEHMED SOLMAZ	Accused

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	10 April and 7 June 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Solmaz
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 530

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Victim former spouse with whom accused still resided – Unhappy relationship – Victim rendered unconscious by multiple blows with an implement and then strangled with an electrical cord – Admissions to police – Plea of guilty shortly before trial due to commence – Limited remorse – No relevant prior convictions – Disputed Verdins considerations – No application of limbs 1-4 or 6 of Verdins – Serious example of offence – High moral culpability – Just punishment – Denunciation – General deterrence – Sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 20 years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 25 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Dr G Boas	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mehmed Solmaz, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of your former wife, Fatma Solmaz (‘Fatma’) in Sunshine West on 23 May 2017, and admitted a single prior finding of guilt against you contained on a Criminal Record filed in this matter.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Background

Your murder of Fatma occurred in the context of an apparently unhappy relationship between the two of you which had subsisted for many years leading up to her death.

Fatma was born in Bulgaria in 1956, and was 61 years old at the time of her death. You were born in Bulgaria in 1957, and were 60 at the time of your crime and are now 62 years old.

You and Fatma entered into an arranged marriage when you were 18. You had two sons together in Bulgaria, Seyidali and Samed. In 1983, when you were in your mid-20s, you came out alone to Australia. You lived in Melbourne. In 1989, you returned to Bulgaria, and Fatma and the children accompanied you to Melbourne where the family settled. In about 1993 or 1994, you and Fatma separated after marital difficulties. After some time, you divorced. You continued, however, to cohabit in the family home in Sunshine West, the location in which you murdered her.

Fatma commenced working as a cleaner at the Village Cinema in Sunshine in 1996. She was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2014, but was in remission at the time of her death. You worked for some years in a textile factory. You ceased work in 2008 after sustaining a workplace injury. After that time, using money you had received in compensation for your injury, you travelled widely in Europe and Asia.

In the years leading up to your crime,…

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 Solmaz

Details

AGLC: R v Solmaz [2019] VSC 530
Case: [2019] VSC 530
Decision Date: 12 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Solmaz, was convicted of murdering his former spouse, with whom he continued to reside. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence in light of the brutal nature of the crime, the admissions made to police, and the plea of guilty entered just before the trial was set to begin. The court was also required to consider the degree of remorse displayed by the appellant and the absence of prior convictions. The Verdins principles were relevant to the sentencing process, though the court found that none of the listed considerations applied to this case.

The court considered the gravity of the crime, which involved the victim being rendered unconscious by multiple blows and then strangled with an electrical cord. Given the brutal and premeditated nature of the crime, the court found the moral culpability of the appellant to be high. The court also considered the appellant’s admissions to police, his guilty plea, and the limited remorse shown. While the plea of guilty resulted in a reduced sentence, the court was mindful that the crime warranted a substantial punishment. The court found the appropriate sentence to be 25 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. Without the plea of guilty, the sentence would have been 30 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.

The court emphasised the importance of denunciation and general deterrence in the sentencing process. The brutal nature of the crime and the high moral culpability of the appellant warranted a significant sentence to serve as a warning to others. The court also considered the need for just punishment and the protection of society. In light of these considerations, the court determined that a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years was appropriate. The court noted that had it not been for the appellant’s plea of guilty, the sentence would have been more severe.

Orders