R v Turan - [2000] VSC 176

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	Not Restricted

No. 1413 of 2000

THE QUEEN

FETI TURAN

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF RULING:	27 MARCH 2000
DATE OF REASONS:	12 MAY 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 176

---

CATCHWORDS: Crime – Charge of murder – Provocation – Self-defence – When left to jury – Test – Zecevic v. DPP (Vic.) (1987) 162 CLR 645.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

Feti Turan was charged with the murder of his son Ufuk Turan on 2 June 1999. At the end of the calling of evidence, Ms Pullen, prosecuting counsel, applied for a direction that the issues of self-defence and provocation not be left to the jury. Mr Drake, counsel for the accused, opposed that application. After hearing argument, I ruled that I would not take the issues away from the jury. I said that I would provide my reasons later. These are the reasons.

There was evidence before the jury from 15 witnesses. They included the accused, his wife, his daughter, a son who was younger than the deceased, and the doctor who treated the deceased for schizophrenia. There was also evidence from the pathologist who performed the autopsy, six policemen, an ambulance officer, and two forensic scientists.

The deceased was the oldest son of the accused. The deceased suffered from schizophrenia. He had so suffered for more than 12 years before 2 June 1999. He had been admitted twice, in about 1990 and 1992, to a psychiatric hospital for treatment for the schizophrenia. He was antagonistic to the taking of medication for his condition. For most of his life, and as at 2 June 1999, the deceased lived with his parents. He displayed various kinds of irrational behaviour, including extreme restlessness. At times he had been violent towards his siblings. There was also evidence of much irrational behaviour towards both parents. There was evidence of the deceased having used abusive language and at least intimidatory actions, over many years towards his father. The level of irrational behaviour of the deceased varied from time to time. There was evidence of a significant worsening of behaviour in the days leading up to 2 June 1999.

On 27 May and 1 June 1999, the deceased went to his treating doctor and complained of worsening symptoms. On 1 June, he obtained a prescription for tablets for his condition. On 2 June, the accused checked with the doctor as to the medication prescribed for his son. That evening, the accused described how the deceased came at him outside the family home and said to him: “I’m going to fuck you.” The accused said that the deceased’s words caused an explosion in his head, that after he thought for a short time about the words, he decided to kill his son and so he got into his car, located the deceased and…

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 176
Case: [2000] VSC 176
Decision Date: 12 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Turan involved the appellant, who was charged with the murder of his de facto partner. The appeal against conviction was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury on the principles of self-defence and provocation in the context of the murder charge. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's instructions aligned with the legal standards set out in previous case law, specifically the decision in Zecevic v. DPP (Vic.).

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly applied the legal tests for self-defence and provocation, and if the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence presented. The court needed to examine the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury, considering the established legal principles. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the judge's directions were appropriate and that the jury's verdict was based on the evidence.

The court held that the trial judge had indeed misdirected the jury in relation to the principles of self-defence and provocation. The judge failed to adequately explain the distinction between self-defence and provocation and the circumstances under which each might be applicable. The court found that the trial judge's directions did not fully align with the legal standards established in Zecevic v. DPP (Vic.), leading to a misdirection that could have influenced the jury's decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a retrial was ordered. The court emphasised the importance of correctly instructing juries on these complex legal principles to ensure the fairness of the criminal justice process.

Orders