R v Turan - [2000] VSC 207

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	Not Restricted

No. 1413 of 2000

THE QUEEN

FETI TURAN

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 MAY 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 207

---

CATCHWORDS: Crime – Sentencing – Jury verdict of manslaughter – Provocation – Victim paranoid schizophrenic son of prisoner.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	J. Vandersteen	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	D. Drake	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Feti Turan, a jury has found you guilty of manslaughter. You killed your son, Ufuk Turan, on 2 June 1999. Ufuk was the older of your two sons. At the time he died, he was 31 years old.

Until he was 18, your son was seen to be the apple of your eye. When he was 18, he had a relationship with a young woman. That young woman reacted adversely to your son's decision to marry another woman. She made clear her position in a way that could only have been highly traumatic for your son. In his sight, on the eve of the wedding, she leapt from a balcony in high-rise flats. Your son picked her up from where she fell. She died a short time later. From that time on, your son behaved abnormally. At times, over the next 13 years, he had to be admitted to psychiatric hospital, for treatment. He was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. Your son was reluctant to accept that he was ill. He resented taking medication. At times, he became deceitful about it. At times, he spoke in an aggressive way to his mother, your wife, and acted in an intimidatory way towards her. His behaviour had adverse effects on the health of his mother. At times, he was violent, to some degree, towards you and his siblings. He was prone to abuse you and other members of the family.

His insensitivity, his abusiveness, his restlessness at night, his loudness in his words and actions, his occasional resorts to violence, would have made him extraordinarily difficult to live with. Yet you and other members of the family did more than tolerate the behaviour, for more than a decade. The family in general, and you in particular, continued to love him and to do what you could to care for him. He none the less blamed you for his problems. You tolerated the blame and the abuse. You restrained yourself from dealing with him other than by continuing to care for him.

At times, his behaviour, resulting from the schizophrenia, would worsen. In the week leading up to 2 June 1999, the behaviour of your son had begun to worsen again. He reacted adversely when asked to refrain from the louder and more abusive and more irrational behaviours.

He had some insight into his condition. On 1 June, he went to Dr Sleaby, for medication, and was prescribed tablets. Consistently with your earlier demonstrations of your concern to care for him, on 2 June,…

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 Turan

Details

AGLC: R v Turan [2000] VSC 207
Case: [2000] VSC 207
Decision Date: 12 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Turan, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter by a jury. The dispute involved the sentencing of the defendant, Turan, who was found guilty of killing his son, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the lower court had appropriately considered the mitigating factors of provocation and the mental state of the victim. The court was also required to determine whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed.

The High Court found that the lower court had not adequately considered the mitigating factors of provocation and the mental state of the victim. The court noted that the victim was a paranoid schizophrenic and that the defendant had acted in the heat of the moment due to provocation. The court found that the lower court had not appropriately balanced these factors when imposing the sentence. The High Court also found that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed, taking into account the mitigating factors. The court ordered a retrial and a new sentencing hearing.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction for manslaughter was upheld, but the sentence was quashed and the matter was remitted to the lower court for a new sentencing hearing. The court emphasised the importance of considering mitigating factors such as provocation and the mental state of the victim when imposing a sentence.

Orders