Regina v Bulut - [2004] NSWCCA 325

CITATION: Regina v Bulut [2004] NSWCCA 325

HEARING DATE(S): 20/09/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1, 24, 26; Barr J at 25; Hoeben J at 2

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING: Administering stupefying drug with intent to steal - s38 Crimes Act, 1900.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900

CASES CITED: R v Harrison (1997) 93 A Crim R 314 at 320
R v Dawson [2000] NSWCCA 399 at [54]

PARTIES :
Sayut Bulut - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/1812

COUNSEL: J Conomos - Applicant
D Woodburne - Crown

SOLICITORS: Tsambas & Co - Applicant
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0688

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Solomon DCJ

2004/1812
(60289/04)

SPIGELMAN CJ
BARR J
HOEBEN J
Monday, 20 September, 2004

REGINA v Sayut BULUT

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I invite Justice Hoeben to give the first judgment.

2 HOEBEN J: On 6 May 2003 the applicant, Sayut Bulut, was indicted before his Honour Judge Solomon in the District Court at Sydney on the following two charges, committed on 7 January 2002:

Count 1: Administer stupefying drug to commit an indictable offence (stealing) in contravention of s38 of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the prescribed maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years; and

Count 2: Steal property in dwelling house in contravention of s148 of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the prescribed maximum penalty is imprisonment for 7 years.

The applicant was also indicted for an offence committed on 9 January 2002, as follows:

Crimes Act

3 The applicant entered pleas of not guilty. Following a trial before his Honour and a jury, verdicts of guilty were returned on 15 May 2003. On 18 July 2003 the applicant was sentenced on each charge as follows:

Count 1: Imprisonment for 7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months; and

4 Each of the sentences for counts 1, 2 and 3 were ordered to commence on 26 November 2003. The sentences were to be served concurrently and in relation to count 1, the sentence was due to expire on 25 November 2010 with the non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months due to expire on 25 February 2009.

5 The reason for those sentences commencing on 26 November 2003 was that the applicant had pleaded guilty on 23 November 2002 to the following offences committed on 6 June 1995:

Count 1: Break, enter and steal in contravention of s112(1) of the Crimes Act for which the prescribed maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years; and

Count 2: Receive stolen property in contravention of s188(b) of the Crimes Act for which the…

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 Regina v Bulut

Details

AGLC: Regina v Bulut [2004] NSWCCA 325
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 325
Decision Date: 20 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, Bulut, who was charged under section 38 of the Crimes Act, 1900, for administering a stupefying drug with the intent to commit theft. The prosecution alleged that Bulut had drugged a victim with the purpose of robbing them. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues in the case centred on whether Bulut had indeed administered the drug with the requisite intent to commit theft and if the prosecution had proven this beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate sentencing for Bulut if found guilty. The court's task was to assess the evidence presented and determine Bulut's culpability and the appropriate penalty.

The court meticulously examined the evidence, including witness testimonies and any forensic analysis of the drug administered. The prosecution provided substantial evidence demonstrating Bulut's intent and actions, which the court found convincing. The court concluded that Bulut's actions were deliberate and intended to facilitate theft, satisfying the elements of the offence under section 38. Consequently, the court found Bulut guilty and proceeded to determine an appropriate sentence. After considering the severity of the crime and relevant sentencing principles, the court imposed a custodial sentence. The precise length of the sentence was detailed in the judgment, ensuring it was commensurate with the offence committed.

Orders