R v Tamuryani - [2010] VSC 318

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0059 of 2010

THE QUEEN
v
BILAL TAMURYANI	Accused

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 June 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 July 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Tamuryani
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 318

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Common Law Assault – Causing Serious Injury Intentionally – Drug and alcohol abuse – Diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia – Possible drug induced psychosis – Principles of general and specific deterrence – Family support – Prospects of rehabilitation – Youthful offender - R v Verdins, Buckley & Vo (2007) 16 VR 269 - R v Sebalj [2006] VSCA 106.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Hevey	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms S. Gardner	Galbally & O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Bilal Tamuryani, on 18 June 2010 you pleaded guilty before me to one count of common law assault on David Marsh and one count of causing serious injury intentionally to Stuart Burley. The events giving rise to the counts occurred on 1 September and 2 September 2009.

Count 1

On 1 September 2009, at Dandenong Shopping Plaza, you approached a group of young persons including David Marsh. You punched him to the face and head more than once and kneed him to the right side of his jaw. He recognised you. He suffered bruising, swelling and some chipped teeth on the right side of his mouth.

In the past you had been friends, but you believed that he had been responsible for some racial abuse towards you. Mr Marsh told the police that some unknown person had been sending out messages in his name without his authority and some of those messages had been offensive. You were not the only recipient, but for reasons I will address later, they were perhaps more significant from your perspective.

There was another incident the following day at the Parkmore Shopping Centre where Marsh says that you approached him carrying a knife. He left the area and nothing came of that incident. That matter was not opened before me on the plea and I draw no adverse conclusions toward you for the purposes of this sentence.

Count 2

At some time after 8pm on 2 September 2009, Stuart Burley was in his car outside Marsh’s home with two other young men. Marsh was talking to Burley. You had driven past the area and phoned Marsh and, shortly afterwards, drove up to where the other young men were. You started talking to the group, but then noticed Mr Burley and almost immediately, you punched him twice to the right cheek with your left fist through the open window of his car. Burley attempted to arm himself with the handle of a hydraulic jack to defend himself. You continued to punch him. As he attempted to get out of the car, he noticed that you had a knife in your right hand. You…

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 Tamuryani

Details

AGLC: R v Tamuryani [2010] VSC 318
Case: [2010] VSC 318
Decision Date: 9 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tamuryani involved the defendant, Tamuryani, who was charged with common law assault causing serious injury. The incident occurred while Tamuryani was under the influence of drugs and alcohol and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, possibly exacerbated by drug-induced psychosis. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues the court had to address were the principles of general and specific deterrence in sentencing, the role of family support, the prospects of rehabilitation, and whether Tamuryani’s status as a youthful offender should be considered.

The court examined the principles of general and specific deterrence, weighing the need to protect society against similar offences and the potential to reform Tamuryani. Additionally, the court considered the extent of family support available to Tamuryani, as well as his prospects for rehabilitation. The court also took into account that Tamuryani was a youthful offender, a factor that could influence the sentence's severity. The case law references, R v Verdins, Buckley & Vo and R v Sebalj, provided guidance on how to balance these considerations.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the principles of general and specific deterrence, coupled with the evidence of family support and rehabilitation prospects, favoured a sentence that included both punishment and rehabilitation. Considering Tamuryani’s young age and mental health issues, the court opted for a sentence that aimed to address his underlying issues while ensuring public safety. The final orders included a custodial sentence with provisions for mental health treatment and support services to facilitate Tamuryani’s rehabilitation.

Orders