Regina v Gunes - [1999] NSWSC 130

CITATION: Regina v Gunes [1999] NSWSC 130

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70010/98

HEARING DATE(S): 22 February 1999 and 26 February 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 February 1999

PARTIES :

Elvan Ricky Gunes (Accused)

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J

COUNSEL : T Hoyle SC (Crown)
P Bolton (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)
Legal Aid of New South Wales (Accused)

CATCHWORDS: Murder; Manslaughter plea; Diminished responsibility; Special circumstances

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act
Sentencing Act

DECISION: Plea of not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility

1 HIS HONOUR: Elvan Ricky Gunes is for sentence today having pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The prisoner was originally charged with the murder of his father, Mehmet Gunes, to which charge he pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown accepted that plea in full discharge of the indictment on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
2 For reasons which will become apparent during the course of these remarks on sentence I am of the view that the Crown’s acceptance of the plea was undoubtedly proper. The maximum sentence prescribed by the Crimes Act for the crime of manslaughter is twenty-five years penal servitude.
3 I turn then to the objective facts in the matter. The killing of Mehmet Gunes was a particularly horrific one. Mehmet Gunes was the father of the prisoner. Mehmet Gunes died as a result of severe burns he suffered when the prisoner, having rendered him either senseless or certainly immobile following a fight, poured petrol over him and set the petrol alight. This occurred somewhere between 7.30 pm and 7.55 pm on 3 December 1997 at the Gunes’ family residence at Mangerton.
4 The prisoner had obtained the petrol from beneath the house where it had been kept for the purpose of fuelling a lawn mower. The reason for the prisoner’s presence at the family home that night was the culmination of family disputation which extended back for a number of years. I shall go into the circumstances of that disputation in some little more detail when dealing with the subjective circumstances relating to the prisoner.
5 However, it is relevant to note when dealing with the objective circumstances that jewellery, consisting principally of gold objects had been originally given by the prisoner’s parents to his wife on the occasion of the prisoner’s marriage. Jewellery had been returned by the prisoner’s wife to her father-in-law as part of a family arrangement under which household goods would be passed to the prisoner following the return of the jewellery.
6 Earlier on 3 December 1997 Mehmet Gunes had reported to police that the prisoner had, on the evening before, attended the family residence at Mangerton and had obtained the subject jewellery after threatening his father with a knife as a consequence of which his father had handed the jewellery to him. Indeed, police, during the course of the morning, saw the prisoner at a pawn shop where he was raising money by pawning 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 Gunes

Details

AGLC: Regina v Gunes [1999] NSWSC 130
Case: [1999] NSWSC 130
Decision Date: 26 February 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Gunes was a criminal case heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Gunes, was convicted of murder for stabbing his partner to death. He had pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. The court was tasked with determining whether the plea of diminished responsibility was valid and if the trial judge had adequately considered the special circumstances in sentencing.

The legal issues before the court included the criteria for establishing diminished responsibility and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law in assessing the plea and in imposing the sentence. The court also considered whether the judge had given sufficient weight to the special circumstances, which included the appellant's history of mental health issues and the impact of the relationship dynamics on his actions.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in rejecting the plea of diminished responsibility. It was held that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence of a recognised psychiatric condition that impaired his mental responsibility. The judge had correctly considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. The court further held that while the special circumstances were relevant, they did not warrant a departure from the sentence of life imprisonment. The court emphasised the need for a balanced approach in sentencing, taking into account both the mitigating factors and the gravity of the offence.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the conviction and sentence, affirming that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in sentencing. The court did not order a retrial but did highlight the importance of clear guidelines for future cases involving diminished responsibility pleas and special circumstances.

Orders