R v Yildirim
[2002] VSC 207
•30 May 2002
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1413 of 2002
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| ERGUL YILDIRIM |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 13 - 21 May 2002 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 30 May 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Ergul Yildirim | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 207 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentence – murder of estranged wife – not premeditated – not provoked – 18 years imprisonment – non-parole period of 14 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr W Morgan-Payler Q.C With Mr D Hallowes | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr I Hayden | Victorian Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Ergul Yildirim. You have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of your wife Mandy Yildirim.
You first met the deceased in 1995, when she was travelling in Turkey. Turkey is your homeland, as Australia was hers. She organised for you to come to Australia. The two of you were married in 1998. A daughter, Olivia was born in July 1999. After Olivia’s birth, there were periods of disharmony and trial separations. The three of you went to Turkey together in late 2000. You and the deceased were finally separated in December 2000 in acrimonious circumstances. The deceased still accepted the desirability of Olivia seeing you. Access arrangements were made so that that could be achieved.
In April 2001, you called at the home of the deceased, without warning. She was there watching television with a male friend, Alan Thompson. Without provocation, you assaulted Alan Thompson. The police were called. You were charged. The next day you were in court as respondent to an application by the deceased for an intervention order and as an applicant seeking bail. The deceased expressed her fear of what you might do to her. Bail was granted. An intervention order was made.
The intervention order required that you not visit the deceased. The deceased still felt it desirable that Olivia not be deprived of contact with you. Between May and early July, the deceased brought Olivia to see you. In early July, the deceased went to Canada with Olivia. She did not tell you of her intentions in advance. The deceased sent you a letter as she was leaving. She indicated that she was going away and that she would ring you on her return. You did not see the deceased or Olivia after 6 July until 18 August.
On Friday 17 August 2001, the deceased called you at work. She told you that she was back in Australia. You told her that you wanted to see Olivia that night. You and the deceased argued. You spoke of going to see a solicitor. She told you that you were aggressive and unstable, and that she was scared that you might hurt her. She was saying much the same things as she had said to the court in April. Despite her concerns, the deceased said she would bring Olivia to see you the next day. You had something to drink that night. It is not clear how much bourbon or ouzo or both that you had to drink. Nor is it clear when you stopped drinking. I have difficulty reconciling your different accounts as to both matters.
On the Saturday morning, the deceased came to your rented bungalow just before 10 a.m. Olivia was handed to you and you played with her. You then complained to the deceased about her going away without telling you. That led to you and her arguing. The deceased said to you that she could not trust or believe you, and that you were unstable. The deceased took Olivia and put her in the car.
I am unable to say with any degree of assurance what happened next. I do not accept much of your version of events as given to the police later. I would interpose that I accept some parts, but not others, of what you told the police later about events before the Saturday. For example, you told the police that you had told the deceased that you felt like killing her, and that you wished her dead. I accept that. You also told the police that before the Saturday the deceased had taken a knife in her hand and come at you. I do not accept that.
I turn back to your account of the events immediately prior to your stabbing the deceased. I believe that you have twisted your account to present your position in a favourable light. You told the police that the deceased tried to get out of your bungalow, and that she screamed because she thought that you were going to hurt her. I accept both of those statements. You gave to the police many explanations as to why you took off your clothes. I cannot find one credible explanation amongst the many.
You told the police that the deceased took up a knife in the kitchen. Not without reservations, I accept that she did so. I accept it because it is consistent with her being fearful of what you might do to her, and wanting to get away from you. The next step was that you were strong and agile enough to get, and you did get, the knife from the deceased. You were then in control of the situation. You then inflicted two kinds of injuries to her. You did not tell the police how several small wounds to the chest of the deceased were inflicted. To my mind, the only credible explanation is that you inflicted them with the tip of the knife when you were in control. You then savagely inflicted multiple stab wounds to various parts of the body of the deceased. Several were inflicted with such force as to fracture ribs.
You then went to the telephone, but not to ring for assistance for your wife. You rang your mother in Turkey. Only some 8 minutes later, did you telephone the police and ambulance.
I accept that the murdering of your wife was not premeditated. But you had contributed to the creation of a dangerous situation. Your wife had contributed too, but only out of her concern to do the right thing by Olivia. She feared what you would do in that kind of situation. You reacted as she feared that you would.
Too often, men come before this court, to be sentenced for murdering their wives or partners, usually with violence. Mr Hayden referred me to one recent case. I have looked up the sentences imposed on more than a dozen since that one. Denunciation and general deterrence must play a significant part in the sentence that I impose.
There have been four victim impact statements filed. They come from the mother, sister, brother and Alan Thompson. I have read them carefully. They are heart-wrenching. They reveal deep and enduring sadness and loss.
I turn to your personal circumstances. You are 27 years of age having been born in January 1975. You are the oldest of three sons of a family that remains in Turkey. You have been educated to a tertiary level. You have a reasonable work record in Turkey and Australia. You have few contacts in Australia. Your time in prison will be much the harder because of your lack of contacts. It will also be harder because you will have no contact with your daughter, Olivia. She will be a young woman by the time that you leave prison.
I have read the report of Dr Andrew Carroll, psychiatrist. I was troubled, but scarcely surprised, by one aspect of it. In too many respects it reflects your capacity to twist the truth to present yourself always or almost always as the victim of events. It is Dr Carroll’s assessment that you have no psychiatric illness. He notes that you have had some problems at times with anxiety and depression.
I accept that you have demonstrated a degree of remorse. That is reflected in part by how you acted after making contact with the ambulance. And in part by expressions of sorrow to police and others. And in part by your preparedness to plead guilty to manslaughter. The remorse is scarcely of full measure. There are indications of your having acted in part out of a concern for your own future.
I weigh in your favour that the prospects of your rehabilitation appear good. You are relatively young. You have done courses while on remand. You have shown a willingness to study further.
You have served to today, 30 May 2002, 286 days by way of pre-sentence detention. I direct that that figure be entered in the records of the court. I sentence you to 18 years in prison. I fix a non-parole period of 14 years.
0
0
0