R v Tepsut - [2015] VSC 399

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0100

THE QUEEN

TEPARAT TEPSUT

---

JUDGE:	BEALE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	3 August 2015
DATE OF REASONS:	7 August 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Tepsut
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 399

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Joint criminal enterprise – Serious example of murder – Evidence of remorse – Plea of guilty – Utilitarian discount – Discount for undertaking to give Crown evidence against co-accused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Tinney SC and Ms R Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Hannebery	McNamara’s Barristers & Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Teparat Tepsut, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Luke Mitchell. The maximum penalty for murder is life.

Circumstances of the Offence

In the early hours of 24 May 2009, you and your former friends, Thatiya Terdputham and Sarud Seehaverachart, cornered Mr Mitchell in the car park of a 7-Eleven on Sydney Rd, Brunswick. In plain view of many horrified witnesses, Mr Mitchell was then viciously attacked. He was punched and kicked and stabbed repeatedly, including three times to the chest and once to the abdomen, which proved to be the fatal stab wounds. It is unclear whether all three of you physically participated in that cowardly attack. Some witness saw only two men assault Mr Mitchell. Others saw three or four. Discrepancies such as these are not surprising, given the speed and shocking nature of the attack.

What is clear is that what was done to Mr Mitchell was done by agreement between the three of you. All three of you hunted him down. Why? Because he had the temerity a short time before to try and stop members of your group from assaulting another man named Craig Bartlett.

Mr Bartlett had upset your group because, as he was walking along Sydney Road, he saw Terdputham and Seehaverachart arguing with a woman and told them to leave her alone. He was punched and chased for his troubles. You joined in, throwing an abandoned pram at Mr Bartlett.

That’s when Mr Mitchell, a stranger, stepped in. Blows were exchanged. Terdputham and Seehaverachart were both injured. The fight ended and Mr Mitchell moved away.

But your group, which had been drinking whisky heavily throughout the evening, was not prepared to let matters rest there. You, Mr Tepsut, went and got knives and a meat cleaver from a nearby massage parlour that you owned. You say that you did that under instruction from Terdputham. You returned to the street and offered Terdputham and Seehaverachart weapons. Terdputham took some at that time, Seehaverachart did not.

All three of you went into the massage parlour for a short time, then got into the black Mercedes that Terdputham was driving that evening. It was his mother’s car. The three of you drove south on Sydney Road, looking for Mitchell. He, his…

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 Tepsut

Details

AGLC: R v Tepsut [2015] VSC 399
Case: [2015] VSC 399
Decision Date: 7 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tepsut involved the defendant, Tepsut, who was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute was centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Tepsut for his involvement in the commission of the murder as part of a joint criminal enterprise. The prosecution argued for a lengthy sentence, citing the heinous nature of the crime and the absence of any meaningful remorse from the defendant. Tepsut, on the other hand, sought a reduced sentence, highlighting his guilty plea and his willingness to assist the Crown in prosecuting his co-accused.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the appropriate discount for the defendant’s guilty plea, the extent to which his cooperation in providing evidence against his co-accused should be considered, and the application of the 'serious example' principle in the context of joint criminal enterprise cases. The court was required to balance these factors against the gravity of the crime and the need for general deterrence. It was also necessary to determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a significant discount for remorse or cooperation.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases, such as R v Vakauta, which emphasise the importance of individual culpability and the circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court of Victoria found that while the crime was indeed heinous and warranted a severe sentence, the defendant’s guilty plea and his undertaking to give evidence against his co-accused warranted a discount. However, the court was not persuaded that the evidence demonstrated sufficient remorse to warrant a further reduction in sentence. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need for general deterrence was appropriate, resulting in a lengthy custodial sentence for Tepsut.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period set to reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court also acknowledged the defendant’s guilty plea and his cooperation in giving evidence against his co-accused, which contributed to the overall sentence.

Orders