R v Torun - [2014] VSC 146

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2013 0193

THE QUEEN
v
MEHMET TORUN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 March & 2 April 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 April 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Torun
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 146

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Accused aged 24 shot girlfriend of same age in groin with sawn-off shotgun – Loaded gun pointed at deceased and trigger pulled deliberately – Crown accepts that accused, because of his drug-addled state, failed to remember he had loaded the gun earlier – Deceased suffered very serious internal injuries and died five days later – Accused sought to assist deceased and take her to hospital – Early plea of guilty – Remorse – Limited prior convictions – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of eleven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years and six months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr N Hutton	Camerons Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mehmet Torun has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Kara Doyle. On 17 April 2013, Ms Doyle was shot in the groin with a sawn-off shot-gun held by Mr Torun. The resulting injuries caused her death five days later.

The Director of Public Prosecutions originally filed an indictment in this Court charging murder. On 7 February 2014, however, the Director withdrew the charge of murder by filing over a new indictment charging manslaughter. Mr Torun pleaded guilty and the matter was adjourned for a plea in mitigation.

Summary of facts

Summary of Prosecution Opening

Mr Rose SC, who appeared on behalf of the Director on the plea, tendered a written Summary of Prosecution Opening (Exhibit 1), which he also read to the Court. Since it is a very long summary, I shall append it to these reasons rather than reproduce it in the body of this document.

Mr Hutton, who appeared on behalf of Mr Torun on the plea, indicated that none of the facts alleged in the summary were disputed. He added some further information in the course of the plea, some of which I shall incorporate into my summary of the facts.

In short, the facts giving rise to the offence are as follows:

Relationship between accused and deceased

At the time of the shooting, Ms Doyle was aged 24. She had grown up in rural Victoria and New South Wales. In early-2012, she moved from Cobram to Melbourne to work as a book-keeper at an accounting firm in Parkville. Ms Doyle rented a house with her sister Chloe Doyle in Military Road, Avondale Heights.

Mr Torun was also aged 24 at the time of the shooting. He had grown up in Shepparton and surrounding areas.…

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 Torun

Details

AGLC: R v Torun [2014] VSC 146
Case: [2014] VSC 146
Decision Date: 4 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Torun, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, following the death of his girlfriend. The defendant, aged 24 at the time, shot his girlfriend with a sawn-off shotgun in the groin area. The firearm had been loaded earlier by the defendant who, due to his drug-addled state, did not recall loading it. The deceased suffered severe internal injuries and died five days later. The defendant attempted to assist the deceased and take her to hospital.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into consideration his plea of guilty, remorse, limited prior convictions, and prospects of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to determine the impact of the defendant's drug-induced state on his culpability and sentencing.

The court acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea, remorse, and good prospects of rehabilitation, but also considered the severity of the offence. The court found that the defendant's actions were both unlawful and dangerous, resulting in the death of the deceased. Given the mitigating factors, the court sentenced the defendant to eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. However, the court noted that if it were not for the defendant's plea of guilty, the sentence would have been eleven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years and six months.

The court's final orders were for the defendant to serve eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. The court took into account the defendant's guilty plea, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation, but also emphasised the seriousness of the crime and the need for general deterrence.

Orders