Legal Research
Cases
R v Yavuz

R v Yavuz

Case [2018] SASCFC 24 13 April 2018

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v YAVUZ; R v SOYLER; R v BAYRAKTAR
[2018] SASCFC 24
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Blue and The Honourable Justice Hinton)
13 April 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS
Appeal against sentence.
Each of the appellants pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug contrary to s 32(1) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. In addition, Mr Yavuz pleaded guilty to one count of cultivating controlled plants for sale contrary to s 33B(3) of the same Act.
The offending was detected by police investigations using telephone intercepts indicating that the appellants, together with others, were involved in, or connected to, a cannabis trafficking enterprise.
On 31 July 2017, the following sentences were imposed:
•       Mr Yavuz - imprisonment for six years and six months (reduced from an implied starting point of nine years and six months) with a non-parole period of three years and six months.
•       Mr Soyler - imprisonment for six years and nine months (reduced from an implied starting point of eight years) with a non-parole period of three years.
•       Mr Bayraktar – imprisonment for seven years, two months and 12 days (reduced from an implied starting point of eight years) with a non-parole period of three years.
All three appellants were granted permission to appeal on the ground that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. Mr Soyler and Mr Bayraktar were also granted permission to appeal on the ground that the sentencing Judge failed to adequately take into account the principle of parity. In addition the question whether the sentencing Judge erred in declining to suspend Mr Yavuz’s and Mr Bayraktar’s sentences under s 38 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (Sentencing Act) and whether the sentencing Judge erred in declining to suspend each of the appellants’ sentences and order that they be served on home detention under to s 33BB of the same Act were referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Held by the Court (Kourakis CJ, Blue and Hinton JJ):
In relation to Mr Yavuz:
1.      Mr Yavuz intended to traffic in significant quantities of cannabis for no other reason than financial gain. He played a central role in the sourcing of cannabis in South Australia and its onward transportation to and sale in Western Australia. The offending for which he pleaded guilty occurred against a background of dealing in cannabis. He willingly involved himself in the offending, persisted even after the apprehension of one of his customers in Western Australia and was intending to traffic in large commercial quantities on an ongoing basis. In the circumstances a starting point of nine 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 Yavuz

Details

AGLC: R v Yavuz [2018] SASCFC 24
Case: [2018] SASCFC 24
Decision Date: 13 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the respondent, Mr. Yavuz, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery. The dispute arose from the applicant's contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly when compared to the sentences imposed on his co-offenders. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of four years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and six months, was demonstrably unjust or disproportionate, thereby warranting appellate intervention. This required the court to consider the principle of parity between co-offenders and to assess whether the sentencing judge had given adequate weight to the respondent's subjective circumstances and the objective seriousness of the offence.

The Full Court acknowledged that while parity is an important consideration, it is not an absolute rule. The court reasoned that differences in sentences between co-offenders can be justified by differences in their objective culpability, their subjective circumstances (such as prior convictions, remorse, or prospects of rehabilitation), and the timing of their pleas. In this instance, the court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered these factors and had not erred in principle. The respondent's lesser role in the commission of the offence, his earlier plea of guilty, and his comparatively better prospects of rehabilitation were all identified as relevant distinctions justifying a more lenient sentence than that imposed on a co-offender who had proceeded to trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders