R v Yavuz - [2015] ACTSC 329

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Yavuz
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 329
Hearing Date(s):	14 May, 15 June, 6 August 2015
DecisionDate:	15 October 2015
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [24] – [47]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offences – drug offences – importing a marketable quantity of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine – importing a marketable quantity of amphetamine – importing a marketable quantity of cocaine.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 302.7
Cases Cited:	R v Karan [2013] NSWCCA 53
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Emin Yavuz (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Shepherd (Crown) Mr J Stratten SC (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 161 of 2014

BURNS J:

Emin Yavuz, on 14 May this year, you entered pleas of guilty to 21 counts of importing marketable quantities of border controlled drugs contrary to s307.2 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years' imprisonment, a fine of $850,000.00 or both. On the same day, you entered pleas of guilty to two counts of importing a border controlled drug, namely 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) contrary to s 307.3 of the Criminal Code. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $340,000.00 or both.

Finally, you have asked that, in sentencing you on the first count of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, I take into account three offences of dealing with identification information, namely a false New South Wales driver’s licence in the name of Stephen Angello, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth. You also asked that I take into account two offences of a similar nature relating to a false New South Wales drivers licence in the name of Joseph Bolovski when I sentence you on the second count of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug. The maximum penalty for these offences to be taken into account is five years' imprisonment, a fine of $21,250.00 or both.

Guilty pleas

Your guilty pleas were not entered at an early time. You initially pleaded not guilty to these charges and, on 17 July 2014, you were committed for trial to this Court. Your trial was listed to commence on 8 June this year and four weeks of court time was allocated. On 20 April this year, your lawyer indicated that the matter would resolve without a trial but it was not until 14 May that you were arraigned on a fresh indictment and you entered your present pleas.

The prosecution case against you is very strong but not so overwhelming that I should draw the inference that your pleas simply reflect your recognition of the inevitable, although I have no doubt that the strength of the Crown case was a significant consideration in your decision to change your pleas. I accept…

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 [2015] ACTSC 329
Case: [2015] ACTSC 329
Decision Date: 15 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Yavuz, the defendant was charged with drug importation offences. Yavuz was found to have imported a substantial quantity of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as MDMA, alongside other drugs including amphetamine and cocaine. The case was heard by the court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crimes.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate penalty for the defendant's drug importation activities. The court had to consider the severity of the crimes, the quantity of drugs involved, and the defendant's role in the importation scheme. Additionally, the court had to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors presented by both parties to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented. The court noted the significant quantity of drugs involved and the potential harm to the community. It was also noted that the defendant had no prior criminal history and had shown remorse. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and to deter future criminal activity. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the need for general deterrence.

The court's final orders were detailed from paragraph [24] to [47] of the judgment, outlining the specific sentence imposed on the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [24] – [47]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.