R v Tunja - [2011] VSC 491

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. S CR 2010 0161

THE QUEEN

TJAY TUNJA

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23-26, 29-31 August, 1-2, 5-6 & 27 September 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 October 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Tunja
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 491

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Murder – Victim’s throat slit – Serious violent offender – 24 years’ imprisonment with minimum term of 19 years - Sentencing Act 1991, ss 5, 6B and 6D.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B.F. Kissane	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Prisoner	Mr J.D. Singh with Mr J. Bisas	Melasecca Kelly & Zayler

HIS HONOUR:

Tjay Tunja, you have been convicted by a jury of the murder of Rowan Biram. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

On Saturday 21 November 2009, Mr Biram was at his home at 58 Alamein Road, West Heidelberg. At around 11.45pm in the evening, an argument broke out between a group of people at a neighbouring house, 57 Alamein Road. You were present at 57 Alamein Road, having arrived some time earlier with Dylan Lawrenz, Ricky Magee and Ashley Gallien.

The argument that broke out at number 57 spilt onto Alamein Road. It was loud and involved a large group of people screaming at each other.

After hearing the commotion, Mr Biram went to investigate the disturbance and yelled at the group with a view to having them cease and desist. Various males, including Gallien and Lawrenz, became involved in a fight with Mr Biram. The fight continued onto the road and across towards number 60 Alamein Road. At one stage, Mr Biram was on top of Lawrenz. Others were also observed to be removing fence palings from a nearby fence.

While Mr Biram was on top of Lawrenz, you slit the throat of Mr Biram. Mr Biram collapsed and you fled the scene. Mr Biram did not regain consciousness and died in the front yard of 60 Alamein Road.

The wound you inflicted on Mr Biram was over the right side of his neck, approximately 12 centimetres long, running over the area of the Adam’s apple and going slightly higher as it went to the right. The wound was described by the pathologist as “quite deep and extended through the muscle tissues at the side of the neck and also passed through some major blood vessels including the carotid artery … and the jugular vein”. The pathologist found that the wound was nine centimetres in depth at its maximum. Whilst a number of other injuries were inflicted on Mr Biram on the night in question, it was your slitting of Mr Biram’s throat that caused his death.

You were born on 20 January 1985. At the time you murdered Mr Biram, you were aged approximately 24 years and 10 months. You are now aged 26 years and eight months. Your mother is…

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 Tunja

Details

AGLC: R v Tunja [2011] VSC 491
Case: [2011] VSC 491
Decision Date: 4 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tunja, the respondent was convicted of murder for slitting the victim’s throat. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. The primary legal issue the court had to determine was the appropriate sentence for the respondent, given the gravity of the offence and the respondent’s history as a serious violent offender. The court had to balance the principles of general and specific deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation while considering statutory guidelines.

The court examined the statutory provisions under the Sentencing Act 1991, specifically sections 5, 6B, and 6D, which guide the determination of sentences for serious violent crimes. Section 5 mandates that the punishment should fit the crime and the offender, while sections 6B and 6D address the need to consider the gravity of the offence and the offender’s criminal history. The court found that the respondent’s history of violence and the brutal nature of the crime warranted a lengthy custodial sentence. Consequently, the court imposed a term of 24 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 19 years, reflecting the need to protect society and deter similar offences.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the sentence needed to reflect the heinous nature of the crime and the respondent’s propensity for violence. It was held that the prescribed minimum term was necessary to ensure the respondent could not be released until there was a significant likelihood that they would not pose a danger to the community. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances and the relevant statutory provisions. The final orders of the court were that the respondent be imprisoned for 24 years, with a non-parole period of 19 years.

Orders